Quebec Separation rekindled. Thanks to Liberals.

[Toronthab]

Doc_Holliday said:

Cranky,

You seem to despise Jean Chretien but, as him, you greatly underestimate the Nationalist movement in PQ. The last referendum got won by the NO by less than a 2% margin and that referendum didn't follow a series of slap in the face that Chretien's government delivered:

a) killed the notion of distinct society and replaced it with his own watered down, meaningless version.
b) Declared that he will not recognize a yes vote in Quebec unless his conditions are met.
c) Used the constitutional war to hijack millions of tax payers money into one of the biggest scam in Canadian history.

What Trudeau started

...Chretien has continued.

Je me souviens.

What is there to despise abut Jean Chretien? He was ust another one of our Quebecois national leaders. I am no fan of the economic drift to corporatism that much of the world embraces and am stronlgy opposed to a couple of liberal planks, but this guy loved his country. Of that I have no doubt. All of his country. Even western rednecks could see that.

I don't view Quebec separatism as essentially a bigotted movement. I have always, like Lord Selkirk found the English, my other cultural heritage, to be much more bigotted. When a canadian pictures a redneck, the tractor he sits on isn't in Quebec......well maybe Huntingdon.

a) All provinces are distinct. Distinction tends to be accomodated in our famework which is largely the work of our Quebecois national leaders.

b) Canadians cannot have their country stolen from them. This is too obvious.

c) the financing and sale of the 407 is a far more offensive outrage, but like many outrageous things, it is an accepted outrage. A broke, down and out party did what they could and a bit of what they couldn't legally to fight for Canada. A tempest in a teapot, the outrage du jour. The power of media attention and repetition continues to amaze me.
Canada, including Quebec, Ontario, BC and the other provinces , and the world , have vastly more important issues to confront.

If Jeanne D'Arc were walking down St. Catherine Street today, she'd be in civies, and her sword would be behind a couple of boxes and winter coats in an upstairs closet.

[franko]

Toronthab said:

a) All provinces are distinct.

Shades of . . .

;D

[Doc Holliday]

M. said:

Whereas, present and past Québec governemnts have not lobbied and negotiated for special/distinct status for Québec?

Yes. The past failiures to reform de Federation should be an indication that ROC is just not interested to bend out of shape to satisfy Quebec demands.

The ADQ's programm requires MORE than Meech Lake from the Federal like, for example, a total liberty of action to Quebec on the International front, to negotiate the economic alliance it wants without Canada's interventions or approval and they think they could get that by remaining a province... It's Utopia, it's like saying everyone before us failed to get a dollar but trust us that we'll get 20$. Their stand which they call Autonomist, is simply a way of appealing to Quebecker's duality that so far, as poll often showed, want independance but want to remain in Canada too. It's an unrealizable project that has, when you go through it, no substance at all and insults the intelligence of both Quebec and Canada people.

The PQ (Partie Quebecois) program on the other hand goes all the way to declaring a country out of Quebec and establishing a Europe like union with Canada. Allowing both country to devellop independently while maintaining strong social and economical ties that allows them to be stronger together. Nothing ambiguous. Nothing out of this world.

Really, at this point, people of Quebec should be brought up to chose between 2 distinct projects: Canada as you've know it or Quebec as you want to make it.

[HabbaDasher]

The PQ's ultimate goal is seperation.
Even when Federalism works to Quebec's advantage, they spin it as a failure for Quebec.
They've already made up their minds they'll settle for nothing less than an independant country.
This is a game, a power struggle, and they will play with Quebecers emotions, their minority status, Us vs Them, call referendum after referendum, con them with misleading questions to vote upon....until they win.
If it weren't for money and the ethnic vote, they'd have won the last one.

And it all boils down to language.
The more bi-lingual the country, the less wind in the speratists sails.
If Anglo Canadians want to keep Quebec, take french lessons and get a french Quebecer pen pal.
A unilingual Anglo-Canadian is not going to win the heart of a unilingual Franco-Quebecer.

The gulf or rift is language.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Doc_Holliday said:

Yes. The past failiures to reform de Federation should be an indication that ROC is just not interested to bend out of shape to satisfy Quebec demands.

That's just it, no-one should get bent out of shape.

The ADQ's programm requires MORE than Meech Lake from the Federal like, for example, a total liberty of action to Quebec on the International front, to negotiate the economic alliance it wants without Canada's interventions or approval and they think they could get that by remaining a province... It's Utopia, it's like saying everyone before us failed to get a dollar but trust us that we'll get 20$. Their stand which they call Autonomist, is simply a way of appealing to Quebecker's duality that so far, as poll often showed, want independance but want to remain in Canada too. It's an unrealizable project that has, when you go through it, no substance at all and insults the intelligence of both Quebec and Canada people.

Thanks for outlining their platform.

The PQ (Partie Quebecois) program on the other hand goes all the way to declaring a country out of Quebec and establishing a Europe like union with Canada. Allowing both country to devellop independently while maintaining strong social and economical ties that allows them to be stronger together. Nothing ambiguous. Nothing out of this world.

This should be understood by any Canadian who is neither extremely new to the country, or hasn't been asleep for the last 30 years.

Once independence is declared and achieved, a new relationship must be forged between Canada and Québec. Some of the methods of interaction can evolve from the past relationship, some must necessarily be hammered out more or less from scratch.

Of course the actual material cost of separation must be tallied and settlements agreed upon and enforced (this was my original interest in this thread, since I had ceded the eventuality of separation).

Really, at this point, people of Quebec should be brought up to chose between 2 distinct projects: Canada as you've know it or Quebec as you want to make it.

It will come to that soon enough.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

HabbaDasher said:

The PQ's ultimate goal is seperation.
Even when Federalism works to Quebec's advantage, they spin it as a failure for Quebec.
They've already made up their minds they'll settle for nothing less than an independant country.

Politics.

This is a game, a power struggle, and they will play with Quebecers emotions, their minority status, Us vs Them, call referendum after referendum, con them with misleading questions to vote upon....until they win.

Politics.

If it weren't for money and the ethnic vote, they'd have won the last one.

It's the damn diversity (of which every Québécois is proud) of the running-dog-lackey, cosmopolitan, and corrupt Island of Montreal, that denied the formation of an independent Québec. How dare they not vote correctly!

And it all boils down to language.
The more bi-lingual the country, the less wind in the speratists sails.

I can vouch for that. I have many bilingual friends here in Toronto; they speak English and a non-official language.

If Anglo Canadians want to keep Quebec, take french lessons and get a french Quebecer pen pal.

Don't think that would work. Make some Québécois friends anyway, just because it's easy to do, and one can never have too many friends.

A unilingual Anglo-Canadian is not going to win the heart of a unilingual Franco-Quebecer.

For a rabid staunch indépendentiste the fact that you are an Anglo is quite often enough, in and of itself, to make you despicable.

At least you'll be able to understand the expressed disgust, thanks to your newly acquired grasp of the French lanaguage.

The gulf or rift is language.

It's more than that. It goes back 250 years, at least.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

I spoke to my friend, the president and told him about the prospect of the separation of Quebec.

HFLA: Mr. President. Did you know that separatism is on the rise in Quebec?

Bush: No. Where is Quebec?

HFLA: It's a province in Canada.

Bush: A big one?

HFLA: Yes. And they want to separate from Canada.

Bush: Why?

HFLA: Good question. I'm not sure. Something about the French language, self determination, corruption in the federal government.

Bush: Do they have oil?

HFLA: No.

Bush: Then why are you telling me this? We already have more troops in Plattsburg than they have in all of Canada. I'll put it on the back burner after Iraq and Iran, the evil twins, and North Korea. The French don't fight, they just complain. Wait, is that where the Washington baseball team came from? Do they have any more teams?

HFLA: No sir.

Bush: Gotta go. It's hard work being President. Real hard.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Embassy, May 4th, 2005

By Richard Gwyn

Canadian Unity: Don't be scared, be creative

Although it really sticks in the craw to cite him as an authority, Alphonso Gagliano, the disgraced former Liberal cabinet minister, is probably correct when he says Quebec's separation is now "unstoppable." In politics, nothing is ever certain. Luck breaks every which way. But the probability is that Mr. Gagliano has blurted out the truth. The signs are indeed as bleak as they can get. Support for separation has jumped to 54 per cent in some Quebec polls. Federalism has been deeply smeared and dirtied by the sponsorship scandal.

The next federal government, probably a minority Conservative one as the only available alternative to the smeared and dirtied Liberals, will have no MPs from Quebec, while the pro-separatist Bloc Québécois, headed by the attractive Gilles Duceppe, will win more seats than ever before.

All of this is today's and tomorrow's bad news. The news from the days afterwards will be even worse.

The 2007 election in Quebec is very likely to be won by the pro-separatist Parti Québécois, headed by that same likeable Mr. Duceppe in place of the PQ's current leader, the unlikeable Bernard Landry. Thereafter, a referendum will follow as night does day.

Exhaustion, on both sides, will probably produce a separatist win, at last. Woe is us, therefore. Canada is doomed. We'll soon all become Americans, or, worse, have to beg them to take us in, which they don't in the least want to do.

Crises do compel everyone to concentrate their minds as they never have before. Why not start doing this before the crisis breaks, by concentrating on what actually would be happening?

The single most important fact about a vote for separation by Quebecers is, as it always has been, that right afterwards Quebec won't float off into mid-Atlantic. It will stay where it is. So, stay cool. The next most important fact is that separation is no longer the convulsive political deal that it used to be. The Soviet Union is no more. Czechoslovakia is no more. The old Yugoslavia is no more. East Timor has separated from Indonesia. Iraq may divide up into its Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish components.

To a considerable degree, we've already divided ourselves up. All the businesses that might leave a separated Quebec have already left. Anglo-Quebecers have either left or have accommodated themselves to being a minority within another nation.

This silent separation, as it could be called, leads to the third cardinal fact about our circumstances. This is that Quebec is already separate, except that we can't bring ourselves to admit it.

Some legal and symbolic interconnections do remain. But these really aren't that much different from Canada's interconnections with Britain (our Constitution technically remained British until 1982), which survived long after we had become wholly independent, in fact. To Quebecers today, the national government -- the one at Ottawa -- is essentially irrelevant, except as a kind of banker. In other words, they make almost all their own political choices, with the global economy as influential an outside force in framing these choices as the rest of Canada is.

A last vital fact: The solution long proposed by the separatists is not separation but sovereignty-association. No one knows what that means, including the separatists. But it may not mean that much of a difference. Quebec today is separate within Canada. Tomorrow, it could be separate within some kind of Canada-Quebec condominium.

This would preserve our sense of being a coast-to-coast community. It would be a pure illusion, of course. But no less of an illusion than our present one that Quebec is a province like the others. And in the famous phrase, most nation-states are "imagined communities." So get imaginative, rather than scared, or angry.

*

Richard Gwyn and I are not related, nor do we correspond with each other. In fact, we have never met.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

Shades of . . .

;D

Pullleeeaze!

Anybody but old squeaky. My point is that Quebec has particular needs and legitimate needs must be accomodated. All the provinces have quite particular characteristics and needs. It's an inclusive principle, not Reform party ignorance, prejudice and indifference.
What a goofball he was.

[franko]

Toronthab said:

Pullleeeaze!

Anybody but old squeaky. My point is that Quebec has particular needs and legitimate needs must be accomodated. All the provinces have quite particular characteristics and needs. It's an inclusive principle, not Reform party ignorance, prejudice and indifference.
What a goofball he was.

Don't let his voice fool you. He was articulate (though somewhat bland). His problem is that he wasn't a politician but an orator.

And he did recognize that Quebec was distinct. However, TROC saw him as weak because of it, and because he recognized that in a diverse country like ours -- a country that wants to remain diverse, contrary to the melting pot USofA -- everyone should be accepted as such.

Yes, he had some wacky ideas . . . and once he got into politics he had to reverse his field . . . but give him some credit. Sounds to me like the easterner in you can't see the good -- he's just one of those right wing wackos.

I remember reading an editorial when he was sharing his veesion of Canada re: Quebec separating. Something like: Quebec separates. The Atlantic Provinces form a union. Ontario goes it alone. MAnitoba and Saskatchewan flounder. Alberta (oil rich) holds its own. Pacifica (BC -- the other BC, BC ) does OK. But after 10-25 years there is pressure from the US and it looks like a take-over is coming -- especially pointed at Ontario (water), Alberta (oil), and perhaps Quebec (hydro-electric power). Slowly agreements are made between the province-states to support one another against teh encroaching baddies. The four western provinces band together. The Atlantic Provinces have already called out to Ontario for help. East and west unite for the common good. Quebec is invited so that there is a common front. The loosely tied province-states agree to some elementary principles, each retaining certain powers on thier own but ceding other powers to a central administration. This confederation of regions from west to east (or east to west) tells the US that there is no way that their culture will overrun our culture. All that is left is to find a name for the new administration to call itself when discussing international policy.

The best they can come up with: Canada.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Canada appears to be a collection of Balcan states that don't like eachother or at best don't trust eachother.
Instead of rejoicing as a nation on the nations accomplishments, the people decry the actions of the villians in the other provinces.
Instead of working to build a great Canada, they are striving to get as much for their province from the federal government while contributing as little as possible of their resources.
The above is not necessarily a criticism, but an observation.
Quebec wants to prove to the ROC that they are capable of making it on their own and would be better off alone. The assumption is those @#$%& Anglos in the ROC are trying to cheat us again. We'll show them.
Alberta wants to keep their oil out of the hands of Ottawa.
The maratimes can't fish so they want to drill oil offshore and keep it.
BC hates the US and clings to it's British heritage and independance including Hong Kong.
Ontario likes the status quo because it works for them. Toronto is booming (except for the Leafs).
Saskatchewan and Manitoba have more in common with North Dakota than Quebec.

Sure, in the US, California contributes $x to Washington and gets $y in federal spending, but be they a red state or a blue state, they are Americans first and foremost.

1. I really don't think the majority of Canadians want to see the country split up.
2. In a given year when corruption is especially rampant in the Liberal government that has been in power much too long, you can probably get a simple majority in Quebec to vote yes on a referendum for Soverignty association, whatever that is.
3. Quebec pretty much has a much larger measure of independance and freedom of action than any American state. It's not like they are really getting stiffed and subverted by Ottawa.
4. Instead of working together to fill the well, Canadians are fighting over how much each one gets to take out.
5. Canada's problems are small.
Iraq and Iran would love to have Canada's problems. Most of the world would love to live in a country like Canada, rich resources, good well educated people, a tradition of democracy and tolerance, cultural soverignty and mutual respect.
Is the glass half full or half empty?

In some respects it's like a marriage. When everything is going well and the families overall problems are small, you may see a younger prettier wealthier more intelligent potential opportunity come along. At that point you assess your initial commitment, happiness, risks and future potential. If neither spouse is being beaten, cheated or abused, it should take a great deal of dissatisfaction to create a situation where change is inevitable. Staying together takes working things out and the work is much less than the work required in separation. Unfortunately, I don't have a vote in this one. Good luck to all.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Here's today's editorial in the Ottawa Sun.

Fri, May 6, 2005

Separatist fantasies

We all know there's something about public office that seems to alter a person's judgment -- what else could explain such screwups as the sponsorship fiasco? -- but what the heck have separatist politicians in Quebec been smoking?

Yesterday Parti Quebecois Leader Bernard Landry claimed that an independent Quebec would be swimming in billions of dollars in extra cash.

Without the burden of having to share tax dollars with the feds, says Landry, the province would be awash in money.

His finance critic Francois Legault, who must have a master's degree in fantasizing, estimated that an independent Quebec would have $1.3 billion in extra money in 2005-06, and predicted that amount would grow steadily each year to reach $4.5 billion in 2010.

Over a five-year period, the total would be $13.8 billion.

"For most people, the decision to support sovereignty is a combination of the heart and reason," Landry told reporters after the plan was unveiled.

"Some people by nature have material worries. We are addressing those material worries. A sovereign Quebec would be in a much better situation than the province of Quebec."

What utter nonsense. Has he forgotten how much money flows from Ottawa to Quebec City each year in equalization? To pay for health care? To support immigration?

For more than a decade Quebec has received more money from the feds than they have sent in the other direction -- a fact we have often been reminded of in recent weeks by Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, who is looking for a better deal for his province.

Has Landry forgotten that an independent Quebec would be responsible for a large share of the national debt, given that the province forms 23% of the Canadian population? Does he not know that Quebec is already in debt to the tune of $120 billion?

Provincial Finance Minister Michel Audet, who has to do the math on a daily basis, says of the PQ number crunching: "It's Alice in Wonderland, pure optimism."

That's a little more polite than the term we'd use

[Doc Holliday]

That study was launched by the former Finance Minister after several months of work and was verified and validated by 6 economists: Charles A. Carrier, economist at the Laval Universit Laval, Alain Guay economist at UQAM, Nicolas Marceau economist at UQAM and member of the fiscal imbalance commitee, Stéphane Saintonge, economist at UQAM and member of the fiscal imbalance commitee and Marc Van Audenrode, economist at Laval University.

The actual Finance Minister can claim the exercise is not valid, it's actually quite reassuring that he does, given that he was recently told by le Vérificateur Général that his own number crunching lacked basic admin skills and that there was a 4bilion hole in his recent budget. The former Provincial Liberal Finance Minister got the boot after about 18 months in place. The Liberals are now breaking the Provincial anti-deficit law. Frankly I'll trust Legault over Audet any day of the week.

To answer the questions of the Ottawa Sun editorialist who it seems, unfortunately, took the time to criticize but not to actually read the report: Yes equalization is taken into consideration, service of the National debth as well and yes again to immigration, health care, National Defense and so on... Tossing it aside without even getting some degree of knowledge of it certainly doesn't do much for this editorialist.

Dis I have no doubt that the report is optimist but its been put together by a group of highly competent people and can at least be brought up as countermeasure to all the gloom and doom scenarios based on thin air that hard core Federalists keep launching. The plain reality have to be somewhere in the middle, be it that we'll do just fine.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

"The operation is not only pure fantasy, it misleads the population," Finance Minister Michel Audet said at a news conference yesterday. "It's Alice in Wonderland, pure fantasy."

Mr. Audet said sovereignty couldn't be achieved without a loss of jobs, investments and revenues. "If people accept to pay the price . . . they will pay and that's the point. I don't accept the fact that [the PQ] are presenting the situation as being positive in all its aspects."

"It is totally unreal, based on make-believe economics. It does not consider some of the inherent costs to sovereignty . . . and it is based on a best-case scenario," said Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Benoît Pelletier.

The study assumes a sovereign Quebec would inherit more assets than liabilities from its breakup with Canada and would quickly evolve from a have-not province to a rich country:

In the fiscal year 2005-2006, a sovereign Quebec would recover $41.2-billion in taxes it now pays to Ottawa. After subtracting the $9.6-billion it would no longer receive in federal transfer payments, this would leave Quebec with a "net recovery" of $31.6-billion.

The province would then have to pay out $30.3-billion for its share of expenses of old-age security, employment insurance, and share of interest in accumulated national debt in addition to the costs of an army, foreign embassies, responsibilities for Indian affairs and other services. That figure incorporates close to $900-million in savings from the elimination of overlapping services.

The study therefore concludes that a sovereign Quebec would gain $1.3-billion in its first year of existence. The benefits would gradually increase over a five-year period, reaching an accumulated total of $13.8-billion at the end of fiscal year 2009-2010.

- excerpted from this Grope and Flail article

[Doc Holliday]

...it should be pointed out that Legault invited Audet to a public debate on the report which, of course, Audet chickened out off preferring to send baseless partisan denials to the media than to actually appear in front the electors to back up his pretense.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Doc_Holliday said:

...it should be pointed out that Legault invited Audet to a public debate on the report which, of course, Audet chickened out off preferring to send baseless partisan denials to the media than to actually appear in front the electors to back up his pretense.

The plan presumes successful negotiations with Canada and uses simple calculations to establish Quebec's spending in areas currently run by the federal government.

- tinyurl.com/eykuf

Sure, if you can imagine it, you can have it. No problem. Sounds like "Nation Building for Dummies" to me. But hey, if it swings a few more votes—that is the name of the game.

[Doc Holliday]

...Sovereignists did the study and are ready to back it up in an open public debate. Federalist prefer to make noise and boo from the bleecher. Call it what you will.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Doc_Holliday said:

...Sovereignists did the study and are ready to back it up in an open public debate. Federalist prefer to make noise and boo from the bleecher. Call it what you will.

If, by backing it up, you mean assuring the audience that all negotiations with Canada will automatically go in Québec's favour, and the "simple calculations" are sufficent for such a sophisticated operation as launching a new nation, that should be dead easy for the politicians. Perhaps there is no debate because there is nothing to debate. Anyway, I am sure we will be hearing more about this in coming days.

BTW, do you have a link, or links, to a Québécois source, or sources, that provide/s a more in-depth examination of this plan?

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

I know this comment won't do anything to support Canadian nationalism in Quebec, but my comment is not that of a Canadian in the ROC. It comes from an American, formerly proud Canadian of Anglo descent who still owns property in Quebec, the province where he was born, loves Montreal and still cheers for the Canadiens and Team Canada.

Quebec is behaving like a spoiled child, always demanding and stretching the envelope.
Canada is behaving like an indulgent parent, accomodating, promising and seeking an end to the constant whining. Canada addresses the symptoms, but does nothing to address the problem.

Canada must stand up and act like a parent. It must accept responsibility and take control of the situation.
Quebec must be shown the limits and consequences.
Both must work together to make Canada and Quebec better. Quebec can not wait for the ROC of Canada to make the country better. They must participitate in the process of improving their country. Canada must assist Quebec in improving the province. (Editorial opinion is Canada has done more for Quebec than vice versa)

Quebec is a province. It has responsibilities to the family of provinces. It is not like all the other provinces, but it is more like Ontario than PEI is. All the provinces are very different.
New Brunswick is more like Maine than Saskatchewan. Manitoba is more like North Dakota.

If Canada fails to assert it's Dominion, it doesn't deserve to continue as a country. There is much more good in Canada than there are problems. It's time to develop the resources, stop tearing down and build the country in the way the citizens want it.

If Quebec nationalism defeats Canada, then the Canadians didn't do their job and fulfil their responsibility.

Prepare for the annual referendum. Eventually one of the referendums will win. Even a blind frog finds the occasional truffle.

Good luck. As a friend, I hope the country holds together. Good luck too if it splits apart.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Il n'y a pas que les libéraux qui ont vigoureusement critiqué l'étude présentée hier par le député de Roussillon, François Legault. Le chef de l'ADQ, Mario Dumont, affirmait hier que le Parti québécois faisait fausse route en préparant un tel document au lieu de s'occuper des «vraies affaires» comme la santé ou l'éducation.

- tinyurl.com/dptnm

It's not only the Liberals who vigorously criticized the study presented yesterday by François Legault, MNA for Roussillon. The head of the ADQ, Mario Dumont, affirmed yesterday that the Parti Québécois took a wrong turn by preparing such a document, instead of occupying itself with "real concerns" like health or education.

*

"It puts all assumptions on the side of optimism, whether on revenue or expenditure side. It does not make sense to present that as a realistic view of the future."

Audet said Quebecers have received more money from the federal government than they have sent to Ottawa for more than a decade.

But Audet said that doesn't mean the federal government shouldn't be giving all provinces more money from its huge surpluses to correct what Quebec calls a "fiscal imbalance."

He said the PQ plan ignores transitional costs and the financial shock that independence would cause.

After assuming its share of the massive Canadian debt, Quebec would be one of the most heavily indebted countries in the world, Audet said.

Quebec's own debt is close to $120 billion.

The PQ plan assumes Canada would agree to many of the optimistic assumptions.

"Nothing is going to be easy if Quebec breaks up Canada," said Quebec Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Benoit Pelletier.

"Maybe we could call it Legault in Dreamland."

The financial forecast uses simple calculations to establish Quebec's spending in areas currently run by the federal government. The PQ calculates that Quebec's share of the national debt would be 18 per cent even though the province forms 23 per cent of the Canadian population.

Mario Dumont, leader of the Action democratique du Quebec, said the PQ politicians appear to be seeing the future through rose-coloured glasses.

"If you take all the best scenarios, you end up with a gain," said Dumont, who was on the sovereigntist side in the 1995 referendum.

"But I think we all know life doesn't work that way."

The report says Quebec would retain all federal employees while somehow cutting billions in overlapping expenses.

- tinyurl.com/7tc6q

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Are Quebec students forced to attend English schools?
Must all signs in Quebec be in English?
Does Quebec have french radio stations, television, movies?
Are citizens forced to speak English in stores, restaurants or buses in Quebec?
Are politicians who favor separatism jailed?
Are French speaking citizens forced to wear armbands?
Are they sent to concentration camps in boxcars?

Don't Quebec citizens (the french speaking ones) have cultural freedom, political freedom, the ability to work in the language of their choice?

Where is the terrible opression?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Are Quebec students forced to attend English schools?
Must all signs in Quebec be in English?
Does Quebec have french radio stations, television, movies?
Are citizens forced to speak English in stores, restaurants or buses in Quebec?
Are politicians who favor separatism jailed?
Are French speaking citizens forced to wear armbands?
Are they sent to concentration camps in boxcars?

Don't Quebec citizens (the french speaking ones) have cultural freedom, political freedom, the ability to work in the language of their choice?

Where is the terrible opression?

At this juncture in time, it is not a question of oppression, but, to borrow an American phrase, a sense of "manifest destiny." For better or for worse.

[Cranky]

They cooked the books and didn't even ask me? I am fluent in cooking US greens in Can'oil........

Isn't universally known that If the Federalist show any numbers they are scare mongering?

[PTH]

Mr. said:

Isn't universally known that If the Federalist show any numbers they are scare mongering?

It all depends on what the numbers say. When they say (like many did last time) that Quebec would roughly have an economy such as Botwana's, they're scare-mongering. If they take a reasonable (yet obviously not as optimistic) approach as the PQ just did then I'll listen. But I doubt any federalists will do so, because it would prove that Quebec is a viable country, which really no one wants to be the first to claim on the federalist side.

But to me, that Quebec is a viable country stems from common sense. The question is, are we more like Sweden, Ireland, the Czech Republic, Finland, or what ?

Spontaneously, to me, Finland is the best bet. Fairly large, with a smallish population and no incredible natural ressources.

Anywhoo, between a Botswana-type study and the 17-billion surplus study, I'd think the second is closest to reality (ie, probably about 17 billion off, which is much less than for Botswana)

[Cranky]

But I doubt any federalists will do so, because it would prove that Quebec is a viable country, which really no one wants to be the first to claim on the federalist side.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Do you have a more detailed version of this "analysis"? I'll bite for whatever little it's worth. On the other hand, what makes me think I can make sense out of a politicaly motivated finincial analysis just because I can make sense of the balance sheets of multi-billion dollar corporations.

Last week I went to stats Canada and started to pull some members together but frankly, it's a LOOONG tedious process and I am sure that after all that work, I would get a yawn. My focus was on investment before and after referendums. It shows the confidence of investors to sink their money into Quebec. Needles to say, there was a substantial downturn before the referendums and a slow upswing after.

What struck me is that right now, you hear from ALL the politicians yap about how massive the investment is in "their" Province. They all make it sound that the world is ready to pour every Euro, dollar and cent into THEIR province. Do you want reality? Reality is that over 70% is REAL ESTATE investment because of the dirt cheap interest rates. Most of it is borrowed, borrowed, borrowed! Did I mentioned BORROWED? From memory, Quebec had something like 18 billion in residential housing, 5 billion in non residential out of 30 billion in provincial investment. The SAME ratio's applied to Ontario. To me, that is NOT what will make a province or country competitive or dynamic on the WORLD market. In fact, there are just so many houses that one can build and so many plaza's and commercial units. That type of investment creates internal economic upswing for just so long nad then fizzles. On top of that, it is an investment bubble where rising interest rates or increase unemployment can bust it open.

I rather see investment in muclear plants, hydro plants, smelters, car plants, production facilities and anything else that can bring wealth and TRADE to the provinces. So we borrow to have houses with more bathrooms, SO WHAT! One can only crap in ONE crapper at a time.

Anywho......my fear remains the same. We can easily cause our hardship and if we somehow are smart enough NOT to, our neighbors are likely too and IF by some miracle their money pumping ways don't crash everything, then the oil-blood drying will get us for sure!

"The sky is going to fall" said poor little Cranky, but nobody listened!

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

PTH said:

But to me, that Quebec is a viable country stems from common sense. The question is, are we more like Sweden, Ireland, the Czech Republic, Finland, or what ?

Spontaneously, to me, Finland is the best bet. Fairly large, with a smallish population and no incredible natural ressources.

But with an incredible number of obligations to attend to upon separation. And these must all be dealt with, to avoid the undesriable reputation of being a deal-breaker, bad credit or investment risk.

*

Landry proposes a nightmare

The Gazette

Saturday, May 07, 2005

The iron fist, and the destruction it would cause, peeked out from Bernard Landry's velvet glove on Thursday. The ultimate end game for Quebec separation, Landry confirmed, could be a unilateral declaration of independence, complete with orders from the new state to everyone in it: Don't send tax money to Ottawa any longer; send it to us.

Consider it: One way or another, separatists win a referendum. Talks on sovereignty-association break down. Landry or a successor will wait no longer. So the edict goes out: The glorious day has arrived! Quebec is free! Sales tax, income tax, all of it, must flow to Quebec City, not Ottawa!

Is your employer based outside Quebec? What would head office tell your Quebec branch's payroll people to do? Perhaps the payroll is handled outside Quebec, and head office would keep remitting to Ottawa. What would the Parti Quebecois government do then? What mechanism would be in place to integrate, and pay, federal public servants such as letter carriers or customs staff at Trudeau Airport? (That name wouldn't last long.) Would Ottawa respond by stopping federal cheques? Cancelling contracts with Quebec firms? Firing Quebecers from the federal civil service? Don't laugh; some people in rest-of-Canada would urgently demand that and more. Ugliness begets ugliness.

What a nightmare! At the end of this UDI road, lies - say it softly - civil war. Well short of that we would have business investment drying up, many anglophones and allophones leaving Quebec, the Canadian dollar collapsing, real-estate values imploding - can this really be Landry's idea of a platform to win votes?

Don't worry about it, some people tell us. Landry is just posturing, pandering to the PQ hard-liners in advance of a June vote on his leadership. Maybe so. But why would any voter want to entrust Quebec's future to a party dominated by a hard core of fanatics willing to consider almost any level of disorder to attain their utopia?

A unilateral declaration of independence, in denial of Canadian and international law and of common sense, has always been the final card in the separatists' hand. Jacques Parizeau was secretly prepared to play it within days, we are told, if he had won the 1995 referendum.

To forestall that happening next time, Ottawa passed the Clarity Act of 2000, which notes bluntly that there is no right to a UDI. Meanwhile the Supreme Court has indicated that if ever there were a clear Yes vote to a clear question about the separation of a province, Ottawa would be bound to negotiate separation in good faith.

But the ultimate split could come only by amendment to the constitution of Canada, which would first require long negotiations. If such talks broke down, the remedy would be in the Supreme Court, not in Landry's appearing on some floodlit balcony to make a declaration.

Perhaps federalists should thank Landry for invoking the UDI nightmare; the possibilities evoke serious alarm in almost everyone who considers them. Since another referendum could lead us in these directions, why in the world would anyone want to hold one?

*

No doubt we shall one day see what price the population is willing to pay, or is led into believing that they will pay, for independence. The tears, whether joyful or bitter, will flow from that decision. Interesting times indeed.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Mr. said:

"The sky is going to fall" said poor little Cranky, but nobody listened!

I'm listening.

[Montrealer]

pth said:

Doc_Holliday said:

Also, the 1995 referendum was keystone for another reason - well over half of francophones voted YES. Since then, it's perfectly normal to hear a joke about "how can you tell who's a moron? He voted NO." Or " how many Morons are there in Quebec? About 52%", etc, etc. Being a separatist is actually normal among francophones, it's almost a given for many or even most.

I love how you completely ignored the point of the article just to push this little "factoid".

[Cranky]

Montrealer,

I realize that sometimes it's aggravating to read what other people write but in the end, it's only words on a cyber page.

What you wrote would invariably cause more of a problem then it's really worth and for the peace of the board, it's better left unwritten. This is not an issue of sides or of right or wrong or of "rank", it's an issue of good order.

If you are aggravated by what I did, then send me a pm.

Let's move on.......

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Quebec separation rekindled??

It's more like a smouldering forest fire that never is really extinguished. You can contain it, control it, douse it, but there are always some embers waiting for tinder to flare up.