User:Lane/Sandbox

the public's reaction confirms Quebeckers' "total indifference" to the monarchy. "It doesn't interest anyone. Perhaps there would be a bit more interest if it was the Queen. But it would be fair to say that in Quebec, the monarchy is a thing of the past and it is also increasingly so in the rest of Canada. Most would be happy if it would disappear tomorrow"

Once again a select group of separatists show their ignorance in worldly matters. Shame on them for not embracing this amazing chance to meet someone of such honorable character. Disgraceful and so embarassing for the rest of us.

No such thing as a win-win with Quebec. They only care about themselves and have no loyalty to the rest of Canada. Obviously.

, whose surname she uses. She has done several films where her breast were shown. [1] Clemence Poesy achieved a major breakthrough in 2004 when she was cast as Mary

The movie Danger Lights (1930) is in the public domain and is available for MPEG streaming or download (in the shortened version) at the Internet Archive.

This is very obviously from before 1923 and therefore public domain

studio issued promotional post card

unneeded words and some details that are excessive for the lead section of an article (info is in text, though)

seems to have confused it with

in the past

is not seeking that office

Sentences doesn't make any sense like that

FU

{{Infobox Actor
| name                  = 
| image                 = 
| caption               = 
| birthname             = 
| birthdate             = 
| birthplace            = 
| deathdate             = 
| deathplace            = 
| othername             = 
| occupation            = 
| yearsactive           = 
| spouse                = 
| domesticpartner       = 
| website               = 
}}

{{Non-free use rationale
|Article=
|Description=Publicity photograph of the subject which indicates her appearance.
|Source=http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i69/Cowboybootnut/allison_hayes04.jpg
|Portion=
|Low_resolution=The image is only used once and is rendered in low resolution to avoid piracy
|Purpose=To illustrate the article on the subject depicted. The image is needed to identify the person for educational purposes in an encyclopedia entry and significantly improves the quality of the article.
|Replaceability=No free equivalent exists that would effectively identify the article's subject - no free images have been allocated for this person. A replaceable free image for this person is impossible as she is deceased.
|other_information= The image does not in any way limit the ability of the copyright owners to market or sell their product.
}}

{{Non-free fair use in|}}

==Rationale for use on wikipedia in the article [[]]==
{{{Navbox
|name   = Filmr
|title  = [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|Non-free biography-related media rationale]]
|above  = '''Rationale for fair use in''' '''''[[]]'''''
|group1 = Description:
|list1  = <div>
Image of deceased actress [[]].
</div>

|group2 = Source:
|list2  = <div>
[http://www.cinemotions.com/modules/Artistes/fiche/16445/Micheline-Presle/filmographie.html] 
</div>

|group3 = Rationale for use on wikipedia:
|list3  = <div>
1.No free equivalent exists that would effectively identify the article's subject - no free images have been allocated for this person.<br>
2.The image does not in any way limit the ability of the copyright owners to market or sell their product.<br>
3.The image is only used once and is rendered in low resolution to avoid piracy.<br>
4.The image has been published outside Wikipedia; see source above.<br>
5.The image meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic.<br>
6.The image meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy.<br>
7.The image is used in the article wiki-linked in the section title. <br>
8.No free images have been allocated for this person <br>
9.The image is needed to identify the person for educational purposes in an encyclopedia entry and significantly improves the quality of the article.<br> 
10.The image has a brief description that identifies the image, notes the source, and provides attribution to the copyright holder.<br>
11.A replaceable free image for this person is impossible as he/she is deceased

</div>
|group4 = Resolution:
|list4  = <div>
The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as artwork on pirate versions or other uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original artwork.
</div>
|group5 = Compatibility with wikipedia?:
|list5  = <div>
Use of image in the article complies with [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|Wikipedia non-free content policy]] and [[Fair use|fair use under United States copyright law]] as described above.
</div>
}}}

==Licensing==
{{{Non-free fair use in|}}}

Probably public domain; presumed fair use if not.

{{Non-free unsure}}

the subject is a recluse. She has not been seen in public or photographed for over 30 years. A free alternative is extremely unlikely.

1. It is a historically significant photo of a famous individual.
2. It is only used to establish what the subject looked like.
3. It is used for educational, not promotional, purposes.
4. There is no free alternative, and since the subject is a recluse and has not been seen in public for decades, there will likely be none forthcoming.

should be replaced with a free image of Presle in the film when one is available. Presle has not been active for 20 years so free images are not readily available. therefore non-free promo image used in lieu until then.

• Charlotte Becquin at IMDb

Exotic Dancer

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/12/canada-quebec-immigration-opinions-oxford.html

Que., Ont., dump on oilsands, but take the money

Ganging up on Alberta's polluting oilsands is becoming a national sport and it's on full display for the world in Copenhagen. But what would the country look like if the cash flow pumped from the Western oil patch was suddenly turned off? With climate change now morphing into a national-unity issue, angry defenders of Western oil argue that the provinces doing most of the environmental finger-pointing -- namely, Ontario and Quebec -- can only afford their own social programs and tax rates thanks to the gooey Alberta cash cow they love to disparage. Alberta's premier says his province's oil-rich economy provides the rest of the country with about $21 billion -- which, by way of comparison, is more than all of Canada's $18-billion defence budget, and about half of what Ontario spends on health care. It is also a key driving force behind the federal equalization program, which transfers more than $8 billion a year to Quebec. That $8 billion equalization cheque is equivalent to five years' funding for Quebec's cherished $7-a-day daycare program, and is almost twice the sum Quebec has slapped on the table to buy New Brunswick's power utility. Many contend that curbing Alberta's oil production would siphon much-needed cash from the bank accounts of the so-called "have-not" provinces. "The costs to these provinces might be a lot larger than they imagine," warned Robert Mansell, an economist and equalization expert from the University of Calgary. "It's been the one thing that's brought a lot of money into the country and spread it around fairly widely." Six provinces are set to receive about $14.2 billion in equalization payments this year. For 2009, the formula will funnel about $8.4 billion to Quebec, $2.1 billion to Manitoba, $1.7 billion to New Brunswick, $1.6 billion to Nova Scotia, $347 million to Ontario and $340 million to Prince Edward Island. The purpose of the payments is to ensure the country's less prosperous provinces can provide citizens with services that can be reasonably compared with those offered by the others. Despite Alberta's financial support, Quebec and Ontario have taken public shots at the province's oilsands development during the Copenhagen climate summit. Both Quebec Premier Jean Charest and Ontario Environment Minister John Gerretsen refuse to let their provinces carry the load for bigger polluters, like Alberta and Saskatchewan, when it comes to meeting emissions goals. "If they (the oilsands) are developed there may have to be larger greenhouse gas emission (cuts) elsewhere in the country in order to meet our overall targets," Gerretsen said. Alberta Premier Stelmach shot back Wednesday in a public letter and television interview, warning the have-not provinces not to bite the industry that feeds them. "Perhaps the most frustrating part of this all was the finger-pointing by Quebec and Ontario," Stelmach told CTV Edmonton. "If this leads to really killing Alberta's economy who is going to support the programs in other provinces?" He said Albertans spend more than $21 billion in financing the other provinces. Remarkably, Stelmach's argument showed signs Thursday of breaking through. Alberta's position has even received some sympathetic coverage in Quebec, which is the province most supportive of tough climate-change targets. Public discourse here rarely touches on equalization and the subject is generally ignored except for when have-not provinces are at the federal bargaining table, seeking a richer deal. But it has generated some attention this week. Several prominent public commentators in Quebec explained that la belle province -- like the entire country -- benefits from Alberta's oil revenue through equalization payments. On Thursday, two columns appeared in La Presse and one in The Gazette newspapers. All condemned Quebec and Ontario for their criticism of Alberta's oil industry. "Hypocrisy has a name, or rather two: Quebec and Ontario," wrote columnist Lysiane Gagnon on Thursday in Montreal's La Presse. "In short, it's thanks to the oilsands that allows Quebec to live beyond its means and offer luxury services such as $7(-a-day) daycares and universities that are practically free." Historically, Alberta has always paid more per capita into the equalization program than any other province, Mansell said. On the flip side, Quebec has been the largest net beneficiary of the program, he added. In 2006, Mansell said he calculated that Quebec was a net beneficiary of $217.1 billion (in 2004 dollars) from the equalization program between 1961 to 2002. That has represented $767 per year for every Quebec man, woman and child, he said. Over the same period, Alberta paid out $243.6 billion and Ontario paid $314.5 billion, he said. That has cost $2,510 for every Alberta resident every year, and $758 for every Ontarian. He said that Alberta's oil and gas industry has also created spin-off jobs in manufacturing and engineering in Quebec and Ontario. "The comparative advantage, which we clearly have in Canada, is resources," Mansell said. "Whether we like it or not, that has been the driving force in our economy."

Bienvenue A Quebec?

Strict provincial regulations mean few immigrants to Canada choose Quebec--and more are bidding adieu.

Although federal-provincial accords on immigration have proliferated, Quebec was the first Canadian province to set its own immigration policy and is the only one with a non-economic basis for that policy. Yet these advantages do not seem to have served the province well, given that some policy choices appear to have reduced its attractiveness as a destination for migrants.

Immigrant Criteria The Quebec and Canadian governments share jurisdiction with respect to immigration, but the Quebec government sets its own requirements:

--Selection. Quebec selects immigrants who it deems will adapt well to living in the province.

--Language matters. Crucially, the foundation of Quebec's immigration regime is language: Quebec wishes to select immigrants who speak French.

Relative Performance Over the past decade, approximately 400,000 immigrants have arrived in Quebec. The annual rate has almost doubled during this time and the nature of those immigrating has also changed. Until the 1980s, most immigrants came from Europe, whereas now approximately 40% come from North Africa, particularly Algeria and Morocco.

However, the province's total represents just 18% of all immigrants to Canada (225,000 immigrants arrive in Canada each year). By contrast, Ontario attracts 52% of all immigrants to Canada, with the majority settling in Toronto. Retention Problems Canada, like the United States, does not require people to officially report changes of address, so it is difficult to measure precisely how many migrants leave Quebec. But distinguished Quebec demographer Jacques Henrinpin has estimated that the province loses 28% of its immigrants within five years, 40% over 10 years and approximately 50% over 20 years.

Quebec also chronically loses non-immigrant residents to other provinces via internal migration. Since 1966, Quebec has lost approximately 30,000 residents annually to English-speaking provinces and welcomed only 16,000 to 17,000 Canadian migrants.

Quebec's relative attractiveness. Several factors make Quebec less attractive to immigrants than other provinces (particularly Ontario and British Columbia) for immigrants:

--French language schooling. Unless they were educated in English in another province, new immigrants may not send their children to English-speaking state schools. (The relevant law has been struck down by the courts, but the Quebec government has two years to respond.)

--Anti-immigrant rhetoric. Relative to other provinces, political and media commentators are often highly critical of immigrants. --French returnees. Surprisingly, Quebec also appears to have trouble retaining immigrants from France. According to Quebec's Ministry of Immigration, every year 3,000 to 4,000 French nationals settle permanently in the province, 7,000 enter on temporary visas and over 5,000 arrive as students. However, there is strong evidence that a substantial number of these migrants leave the province within a relatively brief period of time.

Credential Recognition In the public debate on how to improve Quebec's attractiveness to immigrants, it is often observed that migrants have trouble securing recognition of professional credentials earned overseas. However, this is a chronic problem in all Canadian provinces, so it does not explain relatively low net migration to, or out-migration from, Quebec. Key Policy Challenges Quebec is unlikely ever to overtake Ontario or Western Canada as a favored destination for immigrants. Economic payoffs associated with proficiency in English are higher than French.

However, public policy has not systematically sought to compensate for this drawback by improving the attractiveness of the province in other areas, such as easing restrictions on English school enrolment for new immigrants. Most problematic, Quebec is relatively unattractive to business investors--particularly entrepreneurs, the category of migrants that generate the most wealth for the recipient society. Remedial policy responses are apposite in this latter area.

Parizeau is at it again

There he goes again. At 79, former Quebec premier and Parti Québécois leader Jacques Parizeau knows that Quebecers aren't likely to hurl themselves over the cliff to independence any time soon, after having declined to take the plunge in 1980 and 1995 (narrowly). But he just can't help but dream in technicolour.

In his latest book, La Souveraineté du Québec, published this week, Parizeau urges the PQ to keep the dream alive by launching a campaign to persuade people that Quebec would function nicely as a sovereign state and would, indeed, be better off economically. It's hardly a novel idea. In 1995 Parizeau claimed that "federalism is costing us a fortune." And in 2005 former PQ leader Bernard Landry likewise said that Quebec would be "much better" on its own.

But then as now, it's hard to see how that could be.

Quebec is burdened with a $150 billion debt, high by provincial standards, and would have to assume another $100 billion as its share of the national debt. It would also lose equalization payments worth close to $80 billion over the last 15 years.

During the last referendum, economist Marcel Côté, a former adviser to Brian Mulroney and Robert Bourassa, warned that an independent Quebec would inherit massive debt and unmanageable deficits, a devalued currency, and huge job losses. The rest of us would suffer too. His findings could use updating. They are no less pertinent today than they were then.

Understandably, Quebec federalists prefer to focus on Canada's advantages rather than be drawn into speculation about a breakup. They have been reluctant to address the "what if" question.

But if the PQ heeds Parizeau's call to make sovereignty "credible" again with dubious studies that mask the risks, Premier Jean Charest's Liberals and other federalists should challenge them head on.

Being part of the larger Canadian economic space is a huge advantage for Quebecers. Younger voters who weren't around in 1995, much less 1980, need to know it.

When electricity's involved, the Rock has its own version of Je me souviens

Canadian federalism's version of the Wars of the Roses has resumed, with Labrador's hydroelectric power potential again at the centre of the battle between Newfoundland and Quebec.

As usual, the federal government is sitting on the sidelines of the battle, desperately eager not to become involved. No federal government wants to irritate Quebec, and this federal government does not want to help Newfoundland, whose Premier Danny Williams has so annoyed Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

The latest battle is part of a much larger struggle with tens of billions of future dollars at stake, as many as six provinces implicated directly or indirectly, and the possibility of bringing either greater harmony or severe discord to the Canadian federation.

At issue is the proposed takeover of New Brunswick Power by Hydro-Québec. Whatever the benefits for New Brunswick – lower short-term rates and the elimination of debt – the deal is going down badly in that province, where the latest polls showed opposition outstripping support by more than 2 to 1.

In Newfoundland, Hydro-Québec's takeover has infuriated Mr. Williams, who, in typical rhetorical style, has attacked Quebec for “declaring war” on his province and New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham for selling out his province's interests.

Viewed from St. John's, the Hydro-Québec offer is part of a decades-long effort to prevent Newfoundland from being the principal beneficiary of Labrador's huge hydro potential. If N.B. Power falls into Hydro-Québec's hands, then the massive Quebec utility will geographically encircle Newfoundland.

No matter how Labrador power moves – through Quebec to Ontario and/or the United States, or underwater to Nova Scotia and then through New Brunswick – Hydro-Québec will have Newfoundland squeezed.

Quebeckers, whose motto is Je me souviens, remember lots of things about their own history, mostly the bad things done to them by les anglais, against which French-speakers valiantly battled. In Newfoundland, the province's own sense of Je me souviens revolves, in part, around what bad things Quebec did to it.

Specifically, every Newfoundlander above the age of 3 learns how their province negotiated a deal in the 1960s with Hydro-Québec to develop the Upper Churchill Falls power in Labrador. The deal seemed fine at the time, but as the world price of energy, including hydro, rose way beyond what the signatories intended, Quebec reaped the benefits.

Newfoundland has tried every strategy to renegotiate the deal, from which Quebec derives a profit of about $2-billion a year. Newfoundland has tried moral suasion, shame, rhetoric, negotiations, court challenges, all to no avail. Quebec's response has always been the same. We helped you get the project going. We took risks, too. A deal is a deal is a deal. Tough. Especially galling for Newfoundland, the deal runs to 2041.

Courtesy of American regulatory rulings, hydroelectricity destined for the United States is supposed to pass from one jurisdiction to another with only a negotiated tariff to the transmitter. Newfoundland is using this ruling to insist Hydro-Québec open up its transmission lines to the large power potential waiting to be exploited in what is called the Lower Churchill project. But Quebec authorities have delayed a hearing on the Newfoundland action for almost four years. It is finally supposed to start in January, but Quebec's delay strikes Newfoundlanders as typically hostile and premeditated.

At the very least, Newfoundland wants the same guarantees from New Brunswick for transmissions access, whether its utility is taken over by Hydro-Québec or not. Otherwise, Newfoundland fears its power will be bottled up, or might be sold to Hydro-Québec at prices that will allow that utility to capture most of the profits.

Lower Churchill is essential for Newfoundland, in part because it would send cheap power from Labrador to the island of Newfoundland and allow eventual large-scale wind power projects in Labrador to have access to the new transmissions. For Quebec, the Lower Churchill project is just one among many.

Quebec is developing big projects within its own borders, and can wait for Labrador. Newfoundland, by contrast, wants Lower Churchill up and running by 2017 as part of a long-term plan to become an energy powerhouse.

Quebec apparently now sees Newfoundland as a competitor, not a potential ally. Squeezing a competitor by purchasing New Brunswick Power is part of how to deal with the situation in a cut-throat world.

That the two provinces are both in Canada, and might therefore try to work together, certainly doesn't seem to bring them together. Ontario, strangely, is almost silent in this struggle, although it could desperately use clean, cheap power from Labrador.

As for the federal government, it decided decades ago not to involve itself, lest it irritate Quebec. In a country without a national energy policy or a national electrical grid, and with no political appetite for intervening in interprovincial struggles over natural resources, the only movement from Ottawa is that of heads ducking.

Meanwhile, the bad relations between Newfoundland and Quebec deteriorate further.

Notes

http://rfmcdpei.livejournal.com/1938871.html

• [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Pandering to Quebec makes me think about how much money we could save if they separated. The billions spent on bilingualism policies and unbalanced transfer payments could give all of us lower taxes.