Quebec Separation

[Thanz]

In the ongoing thread about the Parliamentary shenanigans in the Canadian federal government, the issue of Quebec separation has come up once again. A frequent topic of political discourse in Canada, although it has been quiet as of late and may remain so after Charest got a majority government this week.

However, in the other thread I learned that Pardalis is actually a separatist and I thought that this might be an interesting place to discuss the issue.

In my perspective, Quebec separating would be quite detrimental economically. Further, the type of sovereignty-association that was being bandied about in the last referendum (with things like using the Canadian dollar) struck me as being less than an actual Quebec nation. In short, it seems less than fully rational.

So, why do some Quebecois want to separate? What are the reasons that have led to this point?

[Pardalis]

http://www.geocities.com/athens/forum/5462/why.html

This should give you a good idea. And if you read French, this is one possible way a sovereing Québec would look like: http://www.mef.qc.ca/projet_de_constitution.htm

Now let the French-bashing begin...

[D'rok]

Charest got a majority, but the PQ bounced back to official opposition status.

Let's do this thread the Canadian way...politely.

[D'rok]

This should give you a good idea. And if you read French, this is one possible way a sovereing Québec would look like: http://www.mef.qc.ca/projet_de_constitution.htm

Essential element and general principle number 1 is a complete non-starter. Would an independent Quebec seriously try to claim Labrador?

[drkitten]

http://www.geocities.com/athens/forum/5462/why.html

This should give you a good idea.

It does. It confirms me in my worst opinions of Quebecois separatists; they're being oh-so-oppressed by not being able to violate the fundamental rights of the anglophones.

A pity, because I was really hoping to see a well-reasoned argument in favor of Quebec separatism. But this isn't it.

[Pardalis]

It does. It confirms me in my worst opinions of Quebecois separatists; they're being oh-so-oppressed by not being able to violate the fundamental rights of the anglophones.

A pity, because I was really hoping to see a well-reasoned argument in favor of Quebec separatism. But this isn't it.

The only things about it are in French, that's the best I found in English.

[D'rok]

This should give you a good idea. And if you read French, this is one possible way a sovereing Québec would look like: http://www.mef.qc.ca/projet_de_constitution.htm

Principle number 6 rocks. Student loan debt is killing me.


ETA: The clause about keeping the Canadian dollar is wishful thinking.

[Pardalis]

Essential element and general principle number 1 is a complete non-starter. Would an independent Quebec seriously try to claim Labrador?

That has mostly to do with the fact that the Québec Native people also include Labrador. Surely this will be a source of contention, and will have to be settled in some way.

http://www.apnql-afnql.com/en/accueil/index.php

[Ziggurat]

Now let the French-bashing begin...

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know we were on a break. ;)

[D'rok]

That has mostly to do with the fact that the Québec Native people also include Labrador. Surely this will be a source of contention, and will have to be settled in some way.

http://www.apnql-afnql.com/en/accueil/index.php

If I'm reading this correctly (my comprehension is not great), that clause is also claiming a significant chunk of Ontario - "le territoire de l’ancienne province du même nom" would include what was split off into Upper Canada, yes?

That cannot be taken seriously.

[D'rok]

That has mostly to do with the fact that the Québec Native people also include Labrador. Surely this will be a source of contention, and will have to be settled in some way.

http://www.apnql-afnql.com/en/accueil/index.php

The proposed constitution says that Canadien (French) territorial sovereignty was never surrendered to the British Crown. That is the same argument made by First Nations. Why, then would their territory be part of an independent Quebec?

ETA: I may be misreading that bit. Is it saying British sovereignty was never recognized, or that it will no longer be recognized?

[Thanz]

Essential element and general principle number 1 is a complete non-starter. Would an independent Quebec seriously try to claim Labrador?
I would have to agree. Further, on what principle would Quebec prevent First Nations peoples (who control much of Northern Quebec) from staying as part of Canada if they so choose?

[Pardalis]

ETA: The clause about keeping the Canadian dollar is wishful thinking.
It will be gradual, maybe the first decade or so, to make the transition easier.

I would have to agree. Further, on what principle would Quebec prevent First Nations peoples (who control much of Northern Quebec) from staying as part of Canada if they so choose?

As I said, this is a source of contention, surely we will respect the Native's rights for autonomy, but we won't deny ours either.

[gtc]

Français, le Québec l’est de par son histoire et de par la volonté de son peuple. Le français est sa seule langue officielle. Aucune autre langue ne saurait y jouir d’un statut particulier ou officiel.


The French minority seems much better protected in Canada than the English minority would be in an independent Quebec.

[Pardalis]

The French minority seems much better protected in Canada than the English minority would be in an independent Quebec.

Cherry-picking are we?

The next paragraph:

Note : Des droits linguistiques sont reconnus aux anglophones en vertu de règlements ou de lois promulgués par le gouvernement du Québec. De tels droits pourront éventuellement être inscrits dans la Constitution, en réciprocité avec des droits similaires qui seraient reconnus aux Canadiens-Français dans la Constitution du Canada de même que dans la Constitution de chaque province canadienne.

[D'rok]

It will be gradual, maybe the first decade or so, to make the transition easier.

How would that be a unilateral decision of an independent Quebec?

[Pardalis]

ETA: I may be misreading that bit. Is it saying British sovereignty was never recognized, or that it will no longer be recognized?

No more GG, or LG. "The Sovereign" is the name of the GG, if you can imagine that.

[D'rok]

No more GG, or LG. "The Sovereign" is the name of the GG, if you can imagine that.

Ah, OK. That makes more sense.

[ZouPrime]

In my perspective, Quebec separating would be quite detrimental economically. Further, the type of sovereignty-association that was being bandied about in the last referendum (with things like using the Canadian dollar) struck me as being less than an actual Quebec nation. In short, it seems less than fully rational.


As an ex-separatist, I fully agree with this opinion.

But unfortunately, from the perspective of separatists, it misses the point, since the goal of sovereignty isn't to better Quebec economically but to help protect the national identity (in the cultural/ethnic sense) by creating a political entity around it. In other words, while all quebecers recognize their own cultural/ethnic existence, the separatists want to "enforce" this existence within a country, while the others are ok with the fact of being one "founding" ethnic group in a bigger country.

In this perspective, the economic drawbacks of secession are either said to be exaggerated, or simply a necessary evil to achieve what is believed to be the greater good. There are also some arguments on how Quebec would benefit from separation - generally, it's because the province wouldn't need to continue financing some government programs that don't concern us.

[ZouPrime]

This should give you a good idea. And if you read French, this is one possible way a sovereing Québec would look like: http://www.mef.qc.ca/projet_de_constitution.htm

I just want to point out that this link is marked as a "free opinion"; this is NOT the official program of the PQ, and shouldn't necessarily be considered as a "mainstream" opinion.

Claiming Labrador and part of Ontario, that's the first time I heard about such a concept.

[Pardalis]

while the others are ok with the fact of being one "founding" ethnic group in a bigger country.

That's the thing, everytime we want to enforce that right, as a founding nation, we get criticized to have too much influence and to be whiners.

Harper acknowledged our nation but didn't give us any power to go along with it. We can't change our constitution, we can't criticize, we can't form a coalition without being accused of conspiracy to break up the country, so what are we supposed to do?

[Pardalis]

I just want to point out that this link is marked as a "free opinion"; this is NOT the official program of the PQ, and shouldn't necessarily be considered as a "mainstream" opinion.

Claiming Labrador and part of Ontario, that's the first time I heard about such a concept.

Yes, that's why I said "one possible way", it's the part about the structure of the government that interests me most.

[Thanz]

It will be gradual, maybe the first decade or so, to make the transition easier.
You would have no control over your own currency for the first decade or so? How is that a good idea?

As I said, this is a source of contention, surely we will respect the Native's rights for autonomy, but we won't deny ours either.
What does this mean on a practical level? If the First Nations wish to form a province in the void left by a separating Quebec, who are the rest of Quebec to say no? The First Nations wouldn't be denying Quebec its autonomy - just not granting it over what they would claim as their land.

[gtc]

Cherry-picking are we?

The next paragraph:


There seems to be a lot of ifs in that paragraph. Assuming my translation is correct then it says that, eventually, if rump Canada constitutionally protects French and if each of the remaining Provinces does the same then Independent Quebec will add a clause to its constitution to protect the rights of the English speakers. But what good would that do if English has no official status?

[dudalb]

I understand a good percentage of public opinion in Western Canada would be "good riddence to bad garbage" if Quebec did seperate.
IMHO unless they want a endless minority problem, an independent Quebec would have to give official recogintion to English in some way.
At times I want to yell "Wolfe Beat Monclam at the Plains of Abraham 250 years ago. Get Over it".:duck:

[G-K-4]

It will be gradual, maybe the first decade or so, to make the transition easier.

Would a gradual secession keep things like housing markets stable?

If a breakup was sudden, and people wanted to leave Quebec to stay in Canada, I could imagine lots of homes and businesses suddenly up for sale. Sellers would probably have to take a loss, and some people might lose everything. And there might not be too many buyers if the new republic looked like a poor economic prospect. However, if a gradual transition to independence took ten years or more, people would have time to move and make their other arrangements at a more normal pace.

This is something I've wondered about for a long time. What are people in Canada saying about this sort of issue?

[Pardalis]

At times I want to yell "Wolfe Beat Monclam at the Plains of Abraham 250 years ago. Get Over it".:duck:

If the founding fathers had listened to the Quakers and had shut up and accepted things as they were, you wouldn't be talking right now. Whatever we do there will be consequences, but that's not a reason not to do it. Nothing would ever get done otherwise. We have a perfect opportunity to do this peacefully and without bloodshed (well, except maybe a few paper cuts, with all the paper work), so why not?

[Thunder]

Viva Nova Francia!!!

[Fitter]

<snip> so why not?

Because the two times that a provincial referendum has been held on the subject it was rejected.

[Madalch]

At times I want to yell "Wolfe Beat Montcalme at the Plains of Abraham 250 years ago. Get Over it".

The Plains of Abraham are a lot less relevant than people seem to think. Wolfe captured Quebec- not because Britian particularly wanted to keep it, but because they could take it and use it as a bargaining chip when time for peace talks came around.

It turned out that France didn't want to keep it as much as they wanted their more tropical colonies.

[Corsair 115]

In my perspective, Quebec separating would be quite detrimental economically.


Consider this simple economic fact: Quebec is the province which receives, by far, the most total dollars in equalization payments: for 2007-08 that amounted to $7.16 billion (second place belonged to Manitoba which received $1.543 billion).

If Quebec secedes, it seems rather unlikely it's going to keep getting that money from the federal government.

[Pardalis]

Because the two times that a provincial referendum has been held on the subject it was rejected.

Who says there's a limit to how many times it can be debated?

How many times was women suffrage, or gays in the military proposed in the courts before it finally got accepted?

First referendum we lost with 40%, the second with 49%, and the Bloc and the PQ are still around and have kept getting re-elected, so I see a trend here. There's definitely people who want it, you can't silence them.

[tomwaits]

Now let the French-bashing begin...


Since I just got back from a Blackhawks game in which Cristobal Huet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristobal_Huet) completely dominated the Senators, I'm going to say VIVE LA FRANCE!

[Corsair 115]

Who says there's a limit to how many times it can be debated?


It would have been nice had both prior referendums asked the short, simple, and true question to be debated, "Do you wish Quebec to become an independent nation?" instead of the long-winded and somewhat deceptive questions which were asked. And hopefully any future referendum will ask a similarly straightforward question and not try to muddy the waters with vague comments about sovereignty-association and whatnot.

That sepratists have thus far declined to pose the true question suggests to me they know in their hearts there is not enough support in Quebec for genuine independence.

[ZouPrime]

It would have been nice had both prior referendums asked the short, simple, and true question to be debated, "Do you wish Quebec to become an independent nation?" instead of the long-winded and somewhat deceptive questions which were asked. And hopefully any future referendum will ask a similarly straightforward question and not try to muddy the waters with vague comments about sovereignty-association and whatnot.

The reason why the questions were so open-ended is precisely because the issue is so open-opended. What does it even means for Quebec to separate? There are as many model for national sovereignty than there are countries in the world. It is a bit naive to believe that Quebec would become a completely independant country overnight. It's not in the interest of Quebec, and it's not in the interest of Canada. What would happen to the millitary? The canadian dollar? Federal investments in the province? The devil is in the details. That's why the referendum questions were more in-line with (I'm paraphrasing) "are you willing to give the provincial government the mandate to negociate secession with Canada". Not because it muddy the waters, but because it describes exactly what it is.


That sepratists have thus far declined to pose the true question suggests to me they know in their hearts there is not enough support in Quebec for genuine independence.
Obviously federalists would prefer the question to be a strawman. There's no nuance in "Do you want Quebec to separate from Canada?", and federalists would have jump on such a question to affirm that "Quebec wants to completely remove all ties with Canada forever", which is of course false.

[ZouPrime]

First referendum we lost with 40%, the second with 49%, and the Bloc and the PQ are still around and have kept getting re-elected, so I see a trend here. There's definitely people who want it, you can't silence them.
You see a trend with two data points separated by 15 years? And coming from completely two differents campaigns involving different actors and different issues? :-P

[D'rok]

This should give you a good idea. And if you read French, this is one possible way a sovereing Québec would look like: http://www.mef.qc.ca/projet_de_constitution.htm

Aside from the obvious (severed ties to the Crown), how is the President in this model different than the GG?

ETA: I like the Senate Electoral College idea. That's a good compromise between direct elections and un-democratic appointments. It is also a good way to make it really regionally accountable.

[Tricky]

Claiming Labrador and part of Ontario, that's the first time I heard about such a concept.
It probably falls under the category of "Ask for more than you expect, then cede the parts you didn't expect as 'comprimise'."

[drkitten]

The only things about it are in French, that's the best I found in English.

Your French citation -- my French is not as deep as a well, nor as wide as a church-door, but it is enough -- was no more convincing, I'm afraid.

Is this one of those "cultural" differences where I'm just not seeing that it's good to unjustly oppress Anglophones?

[Segnosaur]

Now let the French-bashing begin...

You DO realize that not all french people are separatists, don't you? Criticism of separatists does not constitute 'french bashing' any more than criticizing priests who abuse alterboys constitutes bashing all homosexuals.

Heck, not all Franco-Canadians even live in Quebec.

Any Quebec citizens who are against separation are not going to get 'bashed'.

I have heaped a lot of criticism against the separatist movement. But my arguments are not necessarily against the idea of separation. My criticism is specifically against specific claims made by separatists, claims that are misleading, wrong, or outright lies. If there were separatists who denied claims made by people such as Pardalis, yet still wanted to withdraw from confederation, I would actually respect their opinions.

[Segnosaur]

In my perspective, Quebec separating would be quite detrimental economically. Consider this simple economic fact: Quebec is the province which receives, by far, the most total dollars in equalization payments: for 2007-08 that amounted to $7.16 billion (second place belonged to Manitoba which received $1.543 billion).

If Quebec secedes, it seems rather unlikely it's going to keep getting that money from the federal government.

And if I remember correctly, Quebec also receives more than it pays back in some other government programs, such as EI.

Not to mention the fact that a significant number of people live in Quebec but work in Ontario. If Quebec were a separate country, I doubt that Canada would allow that to continue. After all, we have our own work force who needs employment, and it would be an economic detriment to see salaries paid by Ontario companies being spent primarily in another country.

[D'rok]

The Gatineau region would be devastated by separation. Most of the industries there have died. The primary employer is the Federal Government.

[Segnosaur]

ETA: The clause about keeping the Canadian dollar is wishful thinking.
It will be gradual, maybe the first decade or so, to make the transition easier.

You know, you seem to use that argument over and over again as some sort of panacea for every possible trouble that Quebec could have... "Oh, the transition will be gradual".

Trouble is, it just doesn't work.

Regardless of how long you make the 'transition' period, you will still at one point have to face the reality of being an independent country, and in this case it involves having a currency based on an economy encompassing only a fraction of the population of Canada. Whether it happens the day after a 'yes' vote, or it happens a decade after, you still have to eventually deal with that.


As I said, this is a source of contention, surely we will respect the Native's rights for autonomy, but we won't deny ours either.
You see, this is the exact reason why I don't respect the separatist movement.

You claim that 'surely' Native rights will be respected. Perhaps you yourself believe it. Yet during the last referendum, the leaders of the separatist movement claimed that Quebec was 'indivisible'. Two different viewpoints within the separatist movement; if someone were trying to decide to vote yes or no, who do they believe? Separatists seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.

[Segnosaur]

The Gatineau region would be devastated by separation.

You mean its not already?

But hey, the'll have all those wonderful government buildings such as Place du Portage, the archives and museums. Of course, those buildings won't hold any government workers. Maybe they can turn them all into casinos.

[drkitten]

You know, you seem to use that argument over and over again as some sort of panacea for every possible trouble that Quebec could have... "Oh, the transition will be gradual".

Trouble is, it just doesn't work.

Regardless of how long you make the 'transition' period, you will still at one point have to face the reality of being an independent country, and in this case it involves having a currency based on an economy encompassing only a fraction of the population of Canada. Whether it happens the day after a 'yes' vote, or it happens a decade after, you still have to eventually deal with that.


And, in fact, a "gradual separation" is likely to make economic matters substantially worse.

Let's assume, for a moment, that I'm a Russian businessman planning on building a large widget-manufacturing facility in Canada for the North American market. I can build it anywhere --- but I know that ten years from now, Quebec will be "independent" and have its own independently-run economy.

My understanding is that even most of the separatists expect the Quebec economy to go to hell in a handbasket, but are willing to pay that price for cultural autonomy. But I'm a businessman, and I don't give a damn about those silly Western European languages.

I'll build in Vancouver. Or Toronto. Or maybe the wilds of Manitoba. But I don't want to tie my factory to an economy I expect to fail ten years from now, so I'll build anywhere BUT Quebec.

So making independence "gradual" really just gives capital ten years to fly the hell away from Montreal and making the independent Quebec economy that much worse....

[ZouPrime]

Regardless of how long you make the 'transition' period, you will still at one point have to face the reality of being an independent country, and in this case it involves having a currency based on an economy encompassing only a fraction of the population of Canada. Whether it happens the day after a 'yes' vote, or it happens a decade after, you still have to eventually deal with that.

You are still working under the assumption that separation means complete separation with no possibility of keeping any relation whatsoever. Which is a strawman YOU ARE creating, not the separatists.

For example, why oh why would Quebec creates and manages its own currency? That's the worst case scenario. In practice, it doesn't benefit anyone. Quebec could continue using the Canadian dollar. Or switch to the US dollar. Or create its own money, but link it to the Canadian or US dollar, or a basket or both. Having a completely independant currency, with a central bank handling it, is awfully complicated, costly, and doesn't bring any benefit to anyone.

Do you think separatists want a country because they would like to have their own money? Do you think that's an important objective? Of course not. Then why assume they would make a move that goes against their own benefit (and Canada's benefit)? Just because they can?

[Segnosaur]

You are still working under the assumption that separation means complete separation with no possibility of keeping any relation whatsoever. Which is a strawman YOU ARE creating, not the separatists.

First of all, keep in mind that in the last referendum, the argument was (to paraphrase) "we will negotiate, but if no agreement is reached in a year we'll declare independence."

To me, that sounds rather, ahem, final.

And how exactly would such a situation work out? "Quebec will separate, but Canada will still send equalization payments"?

Of course, this goes back to the problem I mentioned earlier... we have a case where separatists want to argue both for a situation where Canada and Quebec are somehow linked, and a case where Quebec is a completely separate nation. Having their cake and eating it too.

And just what do you mean by 'no relation'? I'm sure there will be various treaties between the 2 countries on things like trade, the environment, etc. just as there are between Canada and the U.S.

For example, why oh why would Quebec creates and manages its own currency? That's the worst case scenario. In practice, it doesn't benefit anyone. Quebec could continue using the Canadian dollar. Or switch to the US dollar. Or create its own money, but link it to the Canadian or US dollar, or a basket or both.

Yes, setting up a free-floating currency is complex. And you are right in that Quebec could use the U.S. or Canadian dollar (or link the Quebec Peso to one of those currencies). I can think of a couple of reasons why they wouldn't:
- National pride. Personally, when I hear of a country that doesn't have its own currency, I think of some banana republic. A government in Quebec may want to avoid that stigma. (And given how separatists are complaining about such irrelevant events like the 'Plains of Abraham', they may not want to associate themselves with their former 'oppressors')
- Flexibility. If Quebec does not have its own currency it limits its ability to set its monetary policy. So, if it ever wants to (for example) lower the currency in order to encourage exports, it becomes difficult.

[Thanz]

For example, why oh why would Quebec creates and manages its own currency? That's the worst case scenario. In practice, it doesn't benefit anyone. Quebec could continue using the Canadian dollar. Or switch to the US dollar. Or create its own money, but link it to the Canadian or US dollar, or a basket or both. Having a completely independant currency, with a central bank handling it, is awfully complicated, costly, and doesn't bring any benefit to anyone.
I thought that separatists wanted to be "masters in their own house". How do you do that without assuming all of the responsibilities of it? Do you want to have control over stuff, but just as long as its not too hard? It doesn't work that way.

Do you think separatists want a country because they would like to have their own money? Do you think that's an important objective? Of course not. Then why assume they would make a move that goes against their own benefit (and Canada's benefit)? Just because they can?
I'm sure that having their own currency may not be a reason for separation - but it is one of the consequences of it. Similar to having your own army. I'm sure that separatists are not longing for a Quebec army - but it is one of the things that comes with being your own nation.

Some separatists need to learn that there are responsibilities that come with independence that they cannot avoid or expect the rest of Canada to just pick up. The "why would we have our own currency" crowd are like 30 year olds still living in their parents basement, but who want to do whatever they like, whenever they like it, eat their parents food, and not doing anything for the upkeep of the house or pay rent.

Or, as good ol' Uncle Ben says, with great power comes great responsibility. If you are not up for the responsibility, don't take the power.

[D'rok]

Last night I watched "Up the Yangztse" by the Montreal film-maker Yung Chang (great movie). There was a scene where the staff of the tour boat were instructed on how to talk to Canadians. There were 2 rules: 1. Don't compare Canada to the USA, and 2) Don't talk about Quebec independence.

Wise words. :)

[ZouPrime]

I have a hard time taking you guys seriously. It's "banana republic" to not have a national currency? I guess all these european countries are banana republics.

"Taking the responsabilities that come with independance"? Again, this assume one specific definition of independance, one that isn't even mainstream, and one that doesn't benefit Quebec nor Canada. Canada would certainly prefer we keep the same money and that we cooperate on the millitary level - since those points aren't contentious, why exactly would a sovereign Quebec go out of their way to complicate things?

"Not wanting a national currency being equal to a 30 years old staying with its parents"? Okaaay…

How I see the issue here, is that you've made your mind about the causes of Quebec separatism (an opinion certainly fuelled by the ROC media) and you've decide it's a black and white issue with no shades of grey. But now are completely confused when we tell you we wouldn't act like you expect us to, or that Quebec objectives aren't actually the objectives you believed we had.

It's like Republicans whining that Obama is a bad candidate because he's clearly a communist wanting to implement a centralized economy, and after he's elected, being all surprised because he isn't implementing the centralized economy like he wanted to during the election.

But in the end, you are responsible for believing your own hype. We're not going to shoot yourself in the foot just because you've convinced yourself that all we want is shoot ourself in the foot.

[Segnosaur]

There were 2 rules: 1. Don't compare Canada to the USA, and 2) Don't talk about Quebec independence.



Rule 3: don't talk about fight club.

[drkitten]

I thought that separatists wanted to be "masters in their own house". How do you do that without assuming all of the responsibilities of it? Do you want to have control over stuff, but just as long as its not too hard? It doesn't work that way.

I'm sure that having their own currency may not be a reason for separation - but it is one of the consequences of it. Similar to having your own army. I'm sure that separatists are not longing for a Quebec army - but it is one of the things that comes with being your own nation.

In particular --- I think that (British) Canada would be a better investment environment than Quebec, at least initially. Better infrastructure, more resources, et cetera. (There's a reason that Quebec gets the payments from the Canadian government, and it's not a good one.) A free Quebec with a freefloating Peso Quebecois would be able to address this by setting monetary policy, interest rates, and so forth appropriately. A semi-free Quebec still using the loony would be at Ottawa's mercy, and in fact, there would be every reason for Ottawa to set monetary policy to actively favor Vancouver and Toronto over an independent Montreal.

I think a separate currency would be an economic necessity, complex or not.

I also think it would be a political necessity ("masters of your own house").

And I think it would be a Bad Idea [tm].

[ZouPrime]

It's like when a couple decide they can't live together anymore. Maybe the woman needs some space and wants to move in a new appartment. She doesn't have any issue with the man per see, it's just that she needs some space. These things happen. But then the man gets all grumpy and say "Well, ok, but then you'll have to make your own kids - you can't have shared custody of those we currently have. And you'll buy your own set of clothes, you can't bring yours home. If you want to quit me you must quit me at 100%, no exception! And the house? Find your own house!" Except that the man doesn't really want to have sole custody of his kids - it benefits him for his ex to have them every other weekends. And he doesn't really want to keep his ex clothes either - he has no use for them. Why not negociate with his ex for her to buy them back (assuming the men bought them first)? And he can't pay the house by himself anyway, so why not again make a deal with her? Brakeup don't HAVE to be messy.

But of course, the man can't starts with the assumption that what the woman actually wants is a mess (instead of just some space and solitude).

[D'rok]

I actually quite like a lot of the governance suggestions on the constitution proposal that Pardalis posted. It's too bad our amendment process is so volatile that we can't do some of those things in Canada.

[D'rok]

It's like when a couple decide they can't live together anymore. Maybe the woman needs some space and wants to move in a new appartment. She doesn't have any issue with the man per see, it's just that she needs some space. These things happen. But then the man gets all grumpy and say "Well, ok, but then you'll have to make your own kids - you can't have shared custody of those we currently have. And you'll buy your own set of clothes, you can't bring yours home. If you want to quit me you must quit me at 100%, no exception! And the house? Find your own house!" Except that the man doesn't really want to have sole custody of his kids - it benefits him for his ex to have them every other weekends. And he doesn't really want to keep his ex clothes either - he has no use for them. Why not negociate with his ex for her to buy them back (assuming the men bought them first)? And he can't pay the house by himself anyway, so why not again make a deal with her? Brakeup don't HAVE to be messy.

But of course, the man can't starts with the assumption that what the woman actually wants is a mess (instead of just some space and solitude).

Most of us in the ROC identify ourselves primarily as Canadian and secondarily as Manitoban, Ontarian, etc. It's as much an emotional issue for us to think about our country being dismembered as it is for Quebecers to think about having their own country. Rational discussion is really, really hard.

[Segnosaur]

I have a hard time taking you guys seriously. It's "banana republic" to not have a national currency? I guess all these european countries are banana republics.

Those european countries (I'm assuming you mean those of the EU) that are using the Euro actually have a say in monetary policy. Not sure of all the details of how the EU works, but if (for example) Belgium has issues, they can address those issues through the European Central bank (of which I assume they would have membership on).

Simply adopting the Canadian or U.S. dollar would not necessarily give Quebec any say at all in how the Dollar is handled. If they used the US dollar, the U.S. wouldn't bother giving Quebec any say in it simply because their economy is too small. And Canada probably wouldn't want Quebec to have any influence because the basis of our economies would be different.

"Taking the responsabilities that come with independance"? Again, this assume one specific definition of independance, one that isn't even mainstream,...

Ummm... the last referendum actually said they might eventually unilaterally declare indendance. If the referendum question itself made such a bold claim, how can you say that its 'not mainstream'?

... and one that doesn't benefit Quebec nor Canada. Canada would certainly prefer we keep the same money...

Why are you speaking for Canada?

I would consider it irrelevant. If an independant Quebec wanted to use our Dollar fine, but because of the different state of our economies I would not give Quebec any say in how our dollar were actually managed.

... and that we cooperate on the millitary level.

How do you define 'cooperate on the military level'? Yeah, we might enter into agreements (like NATO or NORAD) with an independant Quebec, but Quebec would still have to have its own military.

How I see the issue here, is that you've made your mind about the causes of Quebec separatism (an opinion certainly fuelled by the ROC media) and you've decide it's a black and white issue with no shades of grey.

Hey, I've always stated that there are 'shades of grey'. And that's always been the problem... you get one group of people saying "we can vote yes and not be fully separate", and another group saying "We'll be our own country". The problem is, separatists don't seem to want to clarify things.

And if someone votes 'yes' without actually wanting independence, then what exactly was meant in the last referendum when they talked about the 'unilateral declaration of independence'?

[ZouPrime]

Most of us in the ROC identify ourselves primarily as Canadian and secondarily as Manitoban, Ontarian, etc. It's as much an emotional issue for us to think about our country being dismembered as it is for Quebecers to think about having their own country. Rational discussion is really, really hard.

Oh, I know that, trust me. And I'm not saying that separatists aren't emotional either, and that many would have problems with keeping links with Canada just on principle.

But on the other hand, I would tell you that many if not most separatists don't understand why it bothers so much the ROC that Quebec separates. In the typical nationalist perspective, the ROC don't really appreciate us very much anyway. They would prefer to have an all-english country. So why are they hell-bent in stoping Quebec from achieving sovereignty?

In the end... it's a complex issue. For all the actors.

[ZouPrime]

Those european countries (I'm assuming you mean those of the EU) that are using the Euro actually have a say in monetary policy. Not sure of all the details of how the EU works, but if (for example) Belgium has issues, they can address those issues through the European Central bank (of which I assume they would have membership on).

Simply adopting the Canadian or U.S. dollar would not necessarily give Quebec any say at all in how the Dollar is handled. If they used the US dollar, the U.S. wouldn't bother giving Quebec any say in it simply because their economy is too small. And Canada probably wouldn't want Quebec to have any influence because the basis of our economies would be different.

Why do you assume that the default position would be for Quebec to not have any say over the economic policy of the dollar? We are Canadians. We also partially "own" the dollar, just like we partially "own" the millitary. It's a two way street.

Ummm... the last referendum actually said they might eventually unilaterally declare indendance. If the referendum question itself made such a bold claim, how can you say that its 'not mainstream'?

It's all in the definition of "independance".

Why are you speaking for Canada?

Because I'm a Canadian?


How do you define 'cooperate on the military level'? Yeah, we might enter into agreements (like NATO or NORAD) with an independant Quebec, but Quebec would still have to have its own military.

There are millitary bases in Quebec that Canada would like access to. Same thing with all the millitary assets based in Quebec.


Hey, I've always stated that there are 'shades of grey'. And that's always been the problem... you get one group of people saying "we can vote yes and not be fully separate", and another group saying "We'll be our own country". The problem is, separatists don't seem to want to clarify things.

"Separatists" isn't a cohesive group. That's why you don't have a clear answer.


And if someone votes 'yes' without actually wanting independence, then what exactly was meant in the last referendum when they talked about the 'unilateral declaration of independence'?

Here's the actual text of the 1995 question. The bold is mine:

"Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"

As I said, it all depends on the definition of independance. For some reason, you assume that independance exclude dealing with Canada for economic and political partnership.

I have to get back to work, so I won't be around for a while.

[Segnosaur]

But on the other hand, I would tell you that many if not most separatists don't understand why it bothers so much the ROC that Quebec separates. In the typical nationalist perspective, the ROC don't really appreciate us very much anyway. They would prefer to have an all-english country. So why are they hell-bent in stoping Quebec from achieving sovereignty?


The ROC does benefit in several ways from the inclusion of Quebec within confederation. For example:
- Any trade between western and an eastern Canada becomes more complex if there were an independent Quebec in the middle, with perhaps its own customs/border control. (and yes, I am assuming that it would be an 'independent Quebec')
- Having a country with more than 30 million provides more weight in global affairs than a country with approximately 25% fewer people
- The whole act of separation would lead to instability and uncertainty. Even though it would only be temporary, we don't want to see our society and economy suffer while we negotiated terms of separation. (Not to mention all the problems that would occur if we were unable to reach any sort of negotiated settlement)

Oh, and I don't really think the majority of the ROC prefers to have an 'all English Canada'. There may be some resentment at French being 'forced' on people in areas of the country where they make up a very small minority of the population, but that doesn't mean we want to force any french from the country.

[Segnosaur]

Why do you assume that the default position would be for Quebec to not have any say over the economic policy of the dollar?

Ummm... I've already explained why Canada would not necessarily want Quebec to have influence on monetary policy... because the economies of Quebec and Canada would have significant differences and actions which benefit Quebec may not benefit Canada as a whole.

We are Canadians. We also partially "own" the dollar, just like we partially "own" the millitary. It's a two way street.

Yes, at the present time you are Canadians... I'm referring to some time in the future if/when Quebec becomes an independent state. At that time, Quebec's claims of partial ownership would be negated by several factors:
- It is Quebec which is attempting to separate, not the ROC, and the government of Quebec would be significantly different than that of the ROC. Since Quebec is the one taking the action to leave, they must be the ones taking responsibility (including the possibility of giving up some of the perks of being Canadian)
- Quebec makes up only about 1/4 of Canada's population.

Ummm... the last referendum actually said they might eventually unilaterally declare indendance. If the referendum question itself made such a bold claim, how can you say that its 'not mainstream'?

It's all in the definition of "independance".

Well, when our largest neighbour claimed 'independence' they did not maintain some sort of political connection with England. Frankly, I think the concept of a country declaring 'independence' is a pretty well defined concept. I can't think of any situations off the top of my head where independence didn't mean "setting up a fully separate country".

Can you point to any situation where a country declared 'independence', yet still remained a part of the original country? (Not just with a few treaties, but with actual government links.)

Why are you speaking for Canada?
Because I'm a Canadian?

You're right... I should have qualified that... I should have said "Why are you speaking for what the rest of Canada would want in a post-separation environment"?


There are millitary bases in Quebec that Canada would like access to. Same thing with all the millitary assets based in Quebec.

The distribution of military assets post-independence is only a minor issue. Quebec would still need its own military.

Post separation, I doubt Canada would require access to military bases in Quebec; I suspect that all equipment would be relocated to the ROC.


Here's the actual text of the 1995 question. The bold is mine:

"Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"

As I said, it all depends on the definition of independance. For some reason, you assume that independance exclude dealing with Canada for economic and political partnership.


Perhaps you should have bolded a slightly different word... the word 'sovereign'. The dictionary definition of the word 'sovereign' includes the words 'autonomous' and 'independent, self-governing'. I'm really not sure how you can have a country which is both independent and is linked to another country politically.

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/sovereign

It seems your redefining the words and concepts for 'sovereign' and 'independent', away from their dictionary and/or common usage into something that makes voting 'yes' a little easier to swallow.

[drkitten]

It's like when a couple decide they can't live together anymore. Maybe the woman needs some space and wants to move in a new appartment. She doesn't have any issue with the man per see, it's just that she needs some space. These things happen. But then the man gets all grumpy and say "Well, ok, but then you'll have to make your own kids - you can't have shared custody of those we currently have. And you'll buy your own set of clothes, you can't bring yours home. If you want to quit me you must quit me at 100%, no exception! And the house? Find your own house!" Except that the man doesn't really want to have sole custody of his kids - it benefits him for his ex to have them every other weekends. And he doesn't really want to keep his ex clothes either - he has no use for them. Why not negociate with his ex for her to buy them back (assuming the men bought them first)? And he can't pay the house by himself anyway, so why not again make a deal with her? Brakeup don't HAVE to be messy.

I've always been suspicious of political argument by domestic analogy. This post is a good illustration of why.

Basically, because the analogy fails. But even within the analogy, the real problem that "she" will need to face is being glossed over. Who pays for the apartment? (which has one p in English, btw) Apartments aren't free, and "the couple" are already on a fairly tight budget.

It gets worse when you factor in the way that the analogy fails. Because in weltpolitik, there's no such thing as an apartment that you rent. It's all homeownership, and the houses are all not only rather expensive, but also badly in need of maintenance. So for her to get a place of her own and some space of her own, she's going to have to invest in some long-term financial committments, and develop quite a bit of skill at home repair that her husband has been doing for her in the house that they share. Quebec has never had to run her own currency, organize her own military, conduct her own diplomacy, and so forth; Ottawa has always done it for her.

Similarly, Quebec has never managed to bring in enough money to cover "her share" of the household expenses, which is why Ottawa has provided a relatively generous allowance of Federal money. (That's part of what I mean by "apartments aren't free.") An "independent" Quebec will either need to live within her own personal income (which is substantially less than what she's been getting in an allowance from Ottawa), or else find a new source of personal income outside of the relationship. Maybe moving into the new house will open up new business opportunities for her (she's closer to her clients?), but that's certainly not a given.

The other problem is that international law simply doesn't allow for "shared" assets or joint custody or whatever. Most countries, states, and provinces recognize "marital property" which is shared by two people; I own my house and my car jointly with my sweetie, and we share our mortgage debt equally. But countries can't do that. It's not "the man" that's telling her that they can't share custody of the kids; it's international law, which in turn fairly closely reflects reality. (Part of the reason is that in "shared custody" we can at least both appeal to a neutral court as an adjudicator if we disagree about the kids. But there's no international court to whom countries can appeal; they have to work it out between themselves by treaty).

Your analogy really does make Quebec independence sound like a bad deal. Either Quebec becomes a sovereign country in the traditional sense of the word, in which case she's assuming a load of responsibility for which she's woefully underprepared, or she is asking for a whole bunch of expensive freedoms that she wants the rest of Canada to pay for without recompense. "I want my own house, but I want you to fix the roof when it leaks and mow the lawn." "I want my own clothes, but I need to be able to come over and use your washer for free." "I want to see the kids on weekends, but I need you to drive them over and pick them up afterwards."

[drkitten]

Oh, and I don't really think the majority of the ROC prefers to have an 'all English Canada'. There may be some resentment at French being 'forced' on people in areas of the country where they make up a very small minority of the population, but that doesn't mean we want to force any french from the country.

Which, as far as I can see, is quite reasonable. In Vancouver, as far as I can tell, you can do your business in Chinese only and no one will stop you. You can do your business in Salish only and the only thing that will stop you is the relative paucity of Salish speakers.

About the only language you can't do your business exclusively in, in fact, seems to be English. Because some busybody insists you use French as well.....

[Darth Rotor]

For example, why oh why would Quebec creates and manages its own currency? That's the worst case scenario. In practice, it doesn't benefit anyone. Quebec could continue using the Canadian dollar. Or switch to the US dollar.
Thanks for the laugh. That was funny. Federal Reserve Note doesn't get printed in French on the banknotes, ya see ... ;) Maybe Viva la Reveucion will, in a few years. Would that that please the Latinate linguiphiles of Quebec, or is Spanish the wrong corruption of Latin for those folk?

This is so rich with potential humor I cannot use it all. Thanks for the set up. :D

As to European banana republics, there was a time that I thought of the Euro as creating a series of dependencies* upon the Bundesbank, given how many national currencies before the Euro were already indexed to the Deutschmark.

* = banana republics of a curious variety, blue skinned or something?

I admit I have not paid enough attention to the internal details of the eurozone to assess if it has played out as such.

DR

[D'rok]

The issue of Federal transfer payments is often overstated. All of the tax revenue currently flowing from Quebec to the Federal government would flow to the Quebec government post-independence. That may be less than Quebec receives currently in transfer payments, but the Quebec government would be free to set whatever taxation levels it wanted to.

[drkitten]

The issue of Federal transfer payments is often overstated. All of the tax revenue currently flowing from Quebec to the Federal government would flow to the Quebec government post-independence. That may be less than Quebec receives currently in transfer payments, but the Quebec government would be free to set whatever taxation levels it wanted to.

Which, in turn, means that either the Quebecois will be forced to accept substantially lower levels of government services, or to raise taxes substantially (which will make Quebec even less competitive, economically, with the ROC).

Made more so by the almost certain increase in the costs of government services, simply because Quebec will have to do so many new things for herself (and on a smaller scale).

Regardless of how you phrase it, it's very hard to wean oneself off the habit of spending other people's money, which is what Quebec has been doing for years.

[D'rok]

I think the most pressing question about currency is...

...will Quebec adopt the Amero?

[Madalch]

In the typical nationalist perspective, the ROC don't really appreciate us very much anyway. They would prefer to have an all-english country.

That's completely untrue.

I have no problems with French, apart from my inability to speak it. It doesn't hurt me to see half the cereal box written in French, although I have been somewhat annoyed at times when the only good show on TV was on the French channel. My children are all in French immersion school (as are many kids in this town, despite the fact that we're a long, long way from any areas that were settled by francophones).

If Quebec were to separate, I wouldn't pull my kids out of French immersion- I sincerely want them to be multilingual, and French is one of the founding languages of Canada, even if part of it leaves.

Now, if Quebec leaves and decides it wants to continue using the Canadian dollar, I can see us changing to English-only banknotes simply out of spite....

[lomiller]

How I see the issue here, is that you've made your mind about the causes of Quebec separatism (an opinion certainly fuelled by the ROC media) and you've decide it's a black and white issue with no shades of grey. But now are completely confused when we tell you we wouldn't act like you expect us to, or that Quebec objectives aren't actually the objectives you believed we had.

You seem confused about where the expectations are coming from. In most cases there is zero interest in the rest of Canada to have these relations in place with an independent Quebec unless there happens to be some direct personal benefit. Given Quebec’s status as the largest beneficiary province it’s not likely there will be many cases where the relationships will have any benefit to the rest of Canada.

[D'rok]

Which, in turn, means that either the Quebecois will be forced to accept substantially lower levels of government services, or to raise taxes substantially (which will make Quebec even less competitive, economically, with the ROC).

Made more so by the almost certain increase in the costs of government services, simply because Quebec will have to do so many new things for herself (and on a smaller scale).

Regardless of how you phrase it, it's very hard to wean oneself off the habit of spending other people's money, which is what Quebec has been doing for years.

Personally, I don't think any of the problems Quebec might face after separation are deal-breakers. In fact, most, if not all of the provinces could conceivably become reasonably successful nation-states. The only really dependent parts of the country are the northern territories (although PEI would likely need to join up with some other province(s)).

The real question is why? Pardalis says "why not?", but that's not really a good enough reason to break up one of the most successful and prosperous countries in the world. Canada is a hell of nice place to live. There's a pithy phrase about Canada - it's a country that works in practice but not in principle. It's not like we're Belgium or something.

We're the most de-centralized federation in the world. All of the provinces have a great deal of power to order their own affairs. Obviously, this isn't enough for many Quebeckers....but the provinces have real power.

Quebec city just had its 400th anniversary. It is still French. It will always be French. All of Canada wants it to always be French. Most of us want it to also be Canadian, even if only as a secondary identity.

I want to live in a country where two founding cultures can build something together.

[D'rok]

I think a lot of Quebeckers would be surprised to see just how much French really exists outside of Quebec.

Anecdotally: I'm from Edmonton. The U of A has a francophone campus...
http://www.csj.ualberta.ca/Home/tabid/36/language/fr-CA/Default.aspx
...and there are many francophone towns scattered around the Edmonton area and in Northern Alberta. My home town (one of Edmonton's suburbs) is very anglo, but was originally a French settlement and still has ties to those roots - it is possible to go from kindergarten all the way through high school in French immersion. I wish my parents had had the foresight to send me to those schools. It would have made my life in Ottawa about 1000X easier.

[drkitten]

Personally, I don't think any of the problems Quebec might face after separation are deal-breakers.

Deal breakers? Probably not. But they're significant enough problems that I think it makes separation a bad decision.

In fact, most, if not all of the provinces could conceivably become reasonably successful nation-states.


The real question is why? Pardalis says "why not?", but that's not really a good enough reason to break up one of the most successful and prosperous countries in the world. Canada is a hell of nice place to live. There's a pithy phrase about Canada - it's a country that works in practice but not in principle. It's not like we're Belgium or something.

I agree. I also think Canada is more than the sum of its parts, and that I think Canada as a whole is more than just the "reasonably successful" that the provinces could aspire to as individuals.

What this really reminds me of, as much as anything, is when the lead guitarist of a really good band has a snit fit and threatens to start a solo career if you don't agree with his "artistic vision." Sure, any and all of the musicians are pretty good by themselves and can support themselves off the residuals and with studio work. But usually the band is better than the members, and usually the soloist isn't as good or as popular as he thought he would be. (Esp. when one of the strengths of the band is a really good manager.)

How often have we seen that situation?

What we have here is the world-famous band Frog and the Maple Moose, and I just don't see it being in Frog's best interest to go it alone.

[lomiller]

The ROC does benefit in several ways from the inclusion of Quebec within confederation. For example:
- Any trade between western and an eastern Canada becomes more complex if there were an independent Quebec in the middle, with perhaps its own customs/border control. (and yes, I am assuming that it would be an 'independent Quebec')


Not true. International trade is covered by GATT other trade agreements. Current interprovincial trade barriers are significantly greater then those that exist with Canada’s main international trading partners. If anything, the new requirement to conform to GATT would make trade with Quebec easier, not harder.

- Having a country with more than 30 million provides more weight in global affairs than a country with approximately 25% fewer people


If Quebec separates Canada is no longer a country of 33 million.

[D'rok]

What we have here is the world-famous band Frog and the Maple Moose, and I just don't see it being in Frog's best interest to go it alone.

And Maple Moose just isn't the same band without one of its founding members.

[drkitten]

Not true. International trade is covered by GATT other trade agreements. Current interprovincial trade barriers are significantly greater then those that exist with Canada’s main international trading partners. If anything, the new requirement to conform to GATT would make trade with Quebec easier, not harder.

I think you misunderstood. Trade between BC and PEI would get harder if if there were a foreign country literally in the way.

[Madalch]

My home town (one of Edmonton's suburbs) is very anglo, but was originally a French settlement and still has ties to those roots - it is possible to go from kindergarten all the way through high school in French immersion.

St. Albert?

I'd go on with guesses like Legal, Beaumont, Morinville, etc., but none of those towns could possibly be considered "very anglo". I lived in Legal as a preschooler, and apparently learned a lot of French, but I didn't retain it. Despite my teachers' best efforts, the only French I retained was from Sesame Street.

You want to advance the cause of French outside of Quebec? Pressure the CBC to bring back Sesame Street!

[Segnosaur]

- Any trade between western and an eastern Canada becomes more complex if there were an independent Quebec in the middle, with perhaps its own customs/border control. (and yes, I am assuming that it would be an 'independent Quebec')Not true. International trade is covered by GATT other trade agreements. Current interprovincial trade barriers are significantly greater then those that exist with Canada’s main international trading partners. If anything, the new requirement to conform to GATT would make trade with Quebec easier, not harder.

Actually, that wasn't the point I was trying to make.

I wasn't referring to the trade between Quebec and the rest of Canada, I was referring to the trade of goods from one province that would remain in Canada, and another province that would remain in Canada.

Right now, if someone in Newfoundland wants to send a shipment of canned squid parts (or whatever product they want to sell) to Ontario, its no problem... the trucks can roll right on through. If Quebec were to separate, and like any good country sets up its own border and customs controls, it might cause problems for those trucks carrying those squid parts to their Ontario buyers. Truckers would have to deal with two border crossings (one at the Labrador/Quebec border, one at the Ontario/Quebec border. Not only that, there may also be added documentation requirements (to ensure materials passing through Quebec are not actually sold in Quebec, avoiding any import taxes.)

- Having a country with more than 30 million provides more weight in global affairs than a country with approximately 25% fewer people
If Quebec separates Canada is no longer a country of 33 million.
That was my point.

We don't get many people listening to us now, with a population of only 33 million. If Quebec separates, we'll have an even harder time getting people to listen to us with a population of only 26 million.

[D'rok]

St. Albert?

Yup.

I'd go on with guesses like Legal, Beaumont, Morinville, etc., but none of those towns could possibly be considered "very anglo". I lived in Legal as a preschooler, and apparently learned a lot of French, but I didn't retain it. Despite my teachers' best efforts, the only French I retained was from Sesame Street.Those are a few of the communities that are still very francophone at their core. St. Paul is another obvious one. There's a few up by Peace River too.

[lomiller]

I think you misunderstood. Trade between BC and PEI would get harder if if there were a foreign country literally in the way.

I expect the US would have a great deal to say if Quebec tried to shut off Great lakes access to the Atlantic and Canadian trucking companies already have free access to travel through the US should Quebec choose not to participate in NAFTA.

Also, given the near 100% opposition First Nations have to being a part an independent Quebec I find it very unlikely Quebec an independent Quebec would actually cut off land access to the Maritimes.

[geni]

Quebec city just had its 400th anniversary. It is still French. It will always be French. All of Canada wants it to always be French. Most of us want it to also be Canadian, even if only as a secondary identity.


How many scientific papers were published in french last year? What percentage of major computer programs have their sourcecode anotated in french?

English is the language of science and technology and over time the cost of translation will become less acceptable.

[Almo]

A lot of talented anglophones I know will leave Québec if it seperates. I'd certainly consider leaving.

[Segnosaur]

Now, if Quebec leaves and decides it wants to continue using the Canadian dollar, I can see us changing to English-only banknotes simply out of spite....

I'd go further and start adding the portrait of Don Cheery to our bills, and the Toronto Maple Leaf logo on our coins.

(Not that I'm a fan of the Leafs, but I figure that would annoy Quebecers more than anything else.)

[D'rok]

I'd go further and start adding the portrait of Don Cheery to our bills, and the Toronto Maple Leaf logo on our coins.

(Not that I'm a fan of the Leafs, but I figure that would annoy Quebecers more than anything else.)

That would annoy everyone outside of the GTA more than anything else.

[drkitten]

Canadian trucking companies already have free access to travel through the US should Quebec choose not to participate in NAFTA.

Really? So if I want to ship canned grapefruit from Vancouver to Quebec via Detroit, US customs isn't going to even look at the truck to see whether or not I'm hauling cocaine or cases with Saudi terrorists inside?

Trusting souls, US customs.

[lomiller]

Really? So if I want to ship canned grapefruit from Vancouver to Quebec via Detroit, US customs isn't going to even look at the truck to see whether or not I'm hauling cocaine or cases with Saudi terrorists inside?

Trusting souls, US customs.

They may inspect it but the amount of time lost isn’t that great. Even now it’s not uncommon for Canadian trucks heading from western Canada to southern Ontario to take the southern route through the US.

[D'rok]

How many scientific papers were published in french last year? What percentage of major computer programs have their sourcecode anotated in french?

English is the language of science and technology and over time the cost of translation will become less acceptable.

Section 16(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

16. (1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.

The Canadian government is constitutionally bound to bear the costs of translation. Any publicly funded science and research can be done in French.

[Segnosaur]

I expect the US would have a great deal to say if Quebec tried to shut off Great lakes access to the Atlantic and Canadian trucking companies already have free access to travel through the US should Quebec choose not to participate in NAFTA.

Nobody is suggesting that Quebec would totally shut off access (either by the St. Laurence Seaway, or by land.) But, any border control can cause delays and/or added expenses. Even if Canadian companies decide to ship their products through the U.S. rather than Quebec, they still have to contend with 2 border crossings.

Also, given the near 100% opposition First Nations have to being a part an independent Quebec I find it very unlikely Quebec an independent Quebec would actually cut off land access to the Maritimes.

Actually, the status of natives in Quebec is, to me, probably going to be the messiest part of any separation. Yes, first nations have strongly opposed Quebec independence. But many of the leaders of the separatist movement have claimed that Quebec is 'indivisible'. Furthermore, the natives could claim very very large areas of northern Quebec, and I doubt Quebec would be willing to give up the hydro-electric potential of the area.

Frankly, I have no idea how it will be resolved. Unlike (for example) negotiations on the debt or public assets, its not as easy for 2 parties to really meet in the middle.

[geni]

Section 16(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

16. (1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.

The Canadian government is constitutionally bound to bear the costs of translation. Any publicly funded science and research can be done in French.

Not meaningfuly. The papers you work from will be in english as will your other documentation. If you want your paper to be read you will publish it in english. If you want to discuss you work with people outside you imediate team you will again tend to use english.

Constitutions can be changed and with ever increaseing bulks of goverment documents costs increaseingly become prohibative.

[Segnosaur]

They may inspect it but the amount of time lost isn’t that great.

It all depends on the time of day...

There are web sites available where you can look up the expected border delays at any point in time. Right now (around 4pm on a Thursday), many border crossings have no delay, but some have delays anywhere from 15 minutes to almost an hour. (And that's just the delay from the time you arrive until the time you reach the front of the queue... doesn't count the time actually spent doing inspections, etc.)

http://apps.cbp.gov/bwt/

Not sure what would happen in the case of an independent Quebec, but a lot of our trade would likely flow along the 401 corridor, so it might end up being a 'choke point' for goods traveling between the Maritimes and Ontario.

[D'rok]

Not meaningfuly. The papers you work from will be in english as will your other documentation. If you want your paper to be read you will publish it in english. If you want to discuss you work with people outside you imediate team you will again tend to use english.

Constitutions can be changed and with ever increaseing bulks of goverment documents costs increaseingly become prohibative.

Sorry, but you are not grasping the Canadian context. For one thing, the only way the constitution will change in that respect (and in any respect, actually), is if Quebec leaves. The translation costs will never, and I mean never, rise to the extent the Canadian government would consider doing away with official bilingualism (which, tautologically, means that our constitution would have to be amended, which cannot happen, etc...)

[Segnosaur]

Section 16(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

16. (1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.


I have to admit, if Quebec were to separate, I can see Canada eliminating french as an official language. Some might want to do it out of spite, while others may want to do so for more logical reasons (e.g. if Quebec separates, Francophones will make up an exceptionally small part of our demographics.) Note that this is not the same as actively surpressing the French language... I'm sure private citizens would be allowed to use French as they see fit.


The Canadian government is constitutionally bound to bear the costs of translation. Any publicly funded science and research can be done in French.
Not sure if that's true or not...

Yes, government documents must be translated, but there is still a lot of work done in english only. (I'm a computer programmer, and I've done work for the government before... all of our documentation and programming comments were in English.)

I rather suspect that research done by colleges, etc. likewise may not need to be translated.

[D'rok]

Not sure if that's true or not...

Yes, government documents must be translated, but there is still a lot of work done in english only. (I'm a computer programmer, and I've done work for the government before... all of our documentation and programming comments were in English.)

I rather suspect that research done by colleges, etc. likewise may not need to be translated.

I said can be done in French, not must be.

The reality of English as the international language of business has to be faced by Quebec whether they stay in Canada or leave. There is an institutional structure in the Federal government to support the use of French. Try to get a permanent CS position if you don't believe me.

[Segnosaur]

They may inspect it but the amount of time lost isn’t that great.
It all depends on the time of day...

There are web sites available where you can look up the expected border delays at any point in time. Right now (around 4pm on a Thursday), many border crossings have no delay, but some have delays anywhere from 15 minutes to almost an hour. (And that's just the delay from the time you arrive until the time you reach the front of the queue... doesn't count the time actually spent doing inspections, etc.)


Just one more little note on this issue... (sorry for responding to my own post...)

In 2001, a survey found that the average delay at U.S. border crossings was 27 minutes for traffic into the U.S., and 14 minutes for traffic going out of the U.S., although 5% of the traffic waited over an hour.

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/documents/travel_time_delay.pdf

So, is it a big deal to have your trucking staff sitting around for an hour (combined) waiting to go through Customs? I suspect most trucking companies would rather not have to deal with that particular irritation.

[lomiller]

I suspect most trucking companies would rather not have to deal with that particular irritation.

Why deal with suspicions when we can simply look at the fact trucking companies already do it by choice?

[Segnosaur]

Why deal with suspicions when we can simply look at the fact trucking companies already do it by choice?
Yes, some companies do it by choice, but part of that reason could be that its actually a faster route to go south through the U.S. than to go around the great lakes (for example, when going from Toronto to Vancouver). And given the speed limits and quality of roads, a trucker can make up any time lost by going through customs. (If you use google maps, a route from Toronto to Vancouver takes 1 day 16 hours if you go through the U.S., but if you stick to Canadian roads your travel time increases to over 2 days.)

A trip between (lets say) Halifax and Toronto is different. The fastest route actually sticks to Canada. According to Google maps, the most direct route goes through Quebec and takes 18 hours. If a trucker wanted to avoid Quebec, it would increase the travel time to over 19 hours.

[gtc]

This is quite a long post on monetary policy. I can't suggest what Canada or Quebec would or should do but I can list the options.

From the ECB's website:

The ECB is the central bank for Europe's single currency, the euro. The ECB’s main task is to maintain the euro's purchasing power and thus price stability in the euro area. The euro area comprises the 15 European Union countries that have introduced the euro since 1999.


The ECB is a joint operation between the 15 EU nations that use the Euro and sets its monetary policy taking into account the interests of those nations. Things like inflation are calculated across the entire 15 nations. Other countries use the Euro but aren't necessarily included in the statistics that are used to determine monetary policy.

If Quebec obtained independence then three things could happen.

1) Canada could set monetary policy taking into account only the interests of Canada. Independent Quebec could issue its own currency and set its own monetary policy according to its needs.

2) Canada could set monetary policy according to its own needs. Independent Quebec could use the Canadian dollar but wouldn't have any say in Canadian monetary policy. If Canada sets interest rates higher than Quebec would like then Quebec's economy suffers. If Canada sets interest rates lower then Quebec risks an overheating economy and excess inflation.

3) The current situation could continue. Interest rates are set taking into account the interests of both Canada and Quebec - the two countries would be treated as one big economy. Occassionally interest rates would be out of sync with Quebec (just as they could be today) but less so than if Quebec was excluded from the economic statistics. Conversely, Canada would have to accept that sometimes monetary policy would be 'wrong' for Canada.

A Quebec currency tied to a basket of the US, Canadian (and maybe Euro) currencies is similar to option 2 but Quebec gets some of the flexibility of option 1 by being able to adjust the basket.

Would Canada accept the loss of soveriegnty that sharing monetary policy with Quebec would entail? Would the Canadian people want to suffer unnecesarily high interest rates or unnecesarily high inflation?

This issue has come up between New Zealand and Australia. Australia would let New Zealand use the Australian dollar but isn't prepared to let New Zealand have a say in monetary policy. New Zealand would consider adopting the Australian dollar but only if it gets a say.

[jaydeehess]

there are Federal buildings such as Post Offices and the offices of Federal gov't agencies, in Quebec. I wonder who they would belong to if Quebec were to separate? Would a separate Quebec be expected to but them? Would they be sold by the Fed on the open market. What would the market for office structures be, pretty poor I expect.

[Pardalis]

Boy this thread has grown in a day, but I'm happy the conversation took a constructive turn

Aside from the obvious (severed ties to the Crown), how is the President in this model different than the GG?

Well the President would be the one elected, for one thing, everything would be turned around topsy-turvy. Instead of having an appointed "symbolic" head of state, we would have a fully-fledged elected head of state, and everything that it entails. Also, it's a matter of principle, why on earth we still have to listen to an appointed dummy queen from another country and another era completely escapes me.

ETA: I like the Senate Electoral College idea. That's a good compromise between direct elections and un-democratic appointments. It is also a good way to make it really regionally accountable.It would be a good compromise, if we're destined to remain in Canada.

A lot of talented anglophones I know will leave Québec if it seperates. I'd certainly consider leaving.

But the smart ones will stay. :p

Actually, the status of natives in Quebec is, to me, probably going to be the messiest part of any separation.

I agree, nobody is pretending this will be a walk in the park, it will surely be a cause for many headaches, but I don't see this as a sufficient reason not to try.

[D'rok]

Well the President would be the one elected, for one thing, everything would be turned around topsy-turvy. Instead of having an appointed "symbolic" head of state, we would have a fully-fledged elected head of state, and everything that it entails. Also, it's a matter of principle, why on earth we still have to listen to an appointed dummy queen from another country and another era completely escapes me.

I meant the powers of the office. Will it still have all of the reserve powers that the GG does? The GG and the LGs are very conscious of their perceived lack of legitimacy. If you have an elected head of state, you confer democratic legitmacy on that office. If that office has all of the reserve powers of the GG, it will be empowered by its legitimacy to use them. Is that really what people want?

The same is true of the Senate, BTW. The Senate has all the powers of the HoC. It doesn't use them very much because it is aware of its legitimacy problems. Make it democractically legitimate, and you have a Senate empowered to be a second legislative body in competition with the HoC. Instead of a chamber of sober second thought, you may get a second squabbling, Machievellian mess. And all that without the checks and balances of American style separation of powers.

[Segnosaur]

there are Federal buildings such as Post Offices and the offices of Federal gov't agencies, in Quebec.

Not only that, we also have a substantial portion of our military equipment stationed in Quebec.

I wonder who they would belong to if Quebec were to separate? Would a separate Quebec be expected to but them? Would they be sold by the Fed on the open market.

Well, I guess it depends on who you talk to.

The most likely or reasonable situation would be that ownership would be transferred to the Quebec government (in exchange for the Quebec government taking a share of the national debt).

Of course, there are also all the separatist fantasies we have to deal with, such as:
- They'll still be used by the Canadian government
- They'll be transferred to Quebec, but Quebec won't accept any part of the debt (after all, why should QUEBEC accept CANADIAN debt)


What would the market for office structures be, pretty poor I expect.
Yes, it would be.

The Gatineau region is already struggling... it was once labeled (by someone in the BQ if I remember correctly) as being the 'ugliest city' in Canada. Not only would the Canadian government not need those buildings, but since so many people live in Quebec and work in Ontario (a situation that's not likely to continue post-separation) you'd probably get a lot of people moving out of Gatineau in order to save their jobs, making it even harder to keep the business community thriving and keep offices filled.

[drkitten]

If Quebec obtained independence then three things could happen.

1) Canada could set monetary policy taking into account only the interests of Canada. Independent Quebec could issue its own currency and set its own monetary policy according to its needs.

2) Canada could set monetary policy according to its own needs. Independent Quebec could use the Canadian dollar but wouldn't have any say in Canadian monetary policy. If Canada sets interest rates higher than Quebec would like then Quebec's economy suffers. If Canada sets interest rates lower then Quebec risks an overheating economy and excess inflation.

3) The current situation could continue. Interest rates are set taking into account the interests of both Canada and Quebec - the two countries would be treated as one big economy. Occassionally interest rates would be out of sync with Quebec (just as they could be today) but less so than if Quebec was excluded from the economic statistics. Conversely, Canada would have to accept that sometimes monetary policy would be 'wrong' for Canada.


Well put.

And as far as I can tell, #3 is a complete non-starter with an "independent" Quebec.


Would Canada accept the loss of soveriegnty that sharing monetary policy with Quebec would entail? Would the Canadian people want to suffer unnecesarily high interest rates or unnecesarily high inflation?

Almost certainly not. And, in fact, as soon as there were actually any measurable "suffering," then electorate would almost certainly demand that Canada repudiate the shared monetary policy treaty and go it alone. And if Canada did so, there's literally no force on earth that could prevent them (absence of an international court and all that).


This issue has come up between New Zealand and Australia. Australia would let New Zealand use the Australian dollar but isn't prepared to let New Zealand have a say in monetary policy. New Zealand would consider adopting the Australian dollar but only if it gets a say.

... and I think both countries are absolutely correct. They'd be fools to compromise their legitimate national self-interest in that way.

Which is why it's not going to happen.

[drkitten]

Yes, some companies do it by choice, but part of that reason could be that its actually a faster route to go south through the U.S. than to go around the great lakes (for example, when going from Toronto to Vancouver). And given the speed limits and quality of roads, a trucker can make up any time lost by going through customs. (If you use google maps, a route from Toronto to Vancouver takes 1 day 16 hours if you go through the U.S., but if you stick to Canadian roads your travel time increases to over 2 days.)

A trip between (lets say) Halifax and Toronto is different. The fastest route actually sticks to Canada. According to Google maps, the most direct route goes through Quebec and takes 18 hours. If a trucker wanted to avoid Quebec, it would increase the travel time to over 19 hours.

Gas prices are another factor, of course, being (IIRC) substantially cheaper in most of the US, although that can change with the whim of the taxing authority.

But the central point is that no matter how much the customs delay (and cost of filling out the relevant transshipment forms) are, there's no way they can be reduced below the current delay and cost of ZERO.

[lomiller]

there's no way they can be reduced below the current delay and cost of ZERO.

Which is a strawman. Just because something doesn’t drop to zero doesn’t mean it’s a major issue.

[drkitten]

Which is a strawman. Just because something doesn’t drop to zero doesn’t mean it’s a major issue.

But it's yet another way in which Quebec independence could be a major problem.... and is literally impossible to be an improvement on the current state.

Or to put it another way, in the best of all possible worlds, an independent Quebec would cause no problems and solve none.

[Molinaro]

Have any of the pro-seperatists ever addressed their willingness to take on 24% of the federal debt as their fair share?

[dudalb]

The Plains of Abraham are a lot less relevant than people seem to think. Wolfe captured Quebec- not because Britian particularly wanted to keep it, but because they could take it and use it as a bargaining chip when time for peace talks came around.

It turned out that France didn't want to keep it as much as they wanted their more tropical colonies.

I am aware of that, but, let's face it, Plains of Abraham is the Only battle in the French and Indian War that most people have heard of.
And The Brits could have just cut off Quebec and Starved it out.
It is interesting that France sold out the Quebecois for a few islands in the Caribbean.
Voltaire's comments about two great Nations going to war over a few acres of snow comes to mind.
All this makes me glad that the attempt to take Quebec during the American Revolution failed.

BTW I was trying to make a joke with my last post.

[stilicho]

You DO realize that not all french people are separatists, don't you? Criticism of separatists does not constitute 'french bashing' any more than criticizing priests who abuse alterboys constitutes bashing all homosexuals.

Heck, not all Franco-Canadians even live in Quebec

I'm glad someone brought this up even though it took almost a whole page to do so. We forget that a lot of what makes Canada unique was the resolution of issues such as the Manitoba Schools question. Francophones outside of Quebec often look with dismay at the separatists.

There is little question that separatism is primarily a political movement and all cultural or economic considerations are far down the list.

[stilicho]

Not to mention the fact that a significant number of people live in Quebec but work in Ontario. If Quebec were a separate country, I doubt that Canada would allow that to continue. After all, we have our own work force who needs employment, and it would be an economic detriment to see salaries paid by Ontario companies being spent primarily in another country.

An independent Quebec would likely develop its own currency and probably keep it below the CAD to encourage foreign investment and to probably try and tip the scales the other way. It might wind up that unemployed Ontarioans would be crossing the border the other way to find work.

This might have the consequence of creating an even less "francophone" Quebec than its founders intended. Most of these issues aren't well conceived in any documents I've seen from the major separatist parties.

[Segnosaur]

(on the potential costs/problems of transporting items through customs with an independent quebec)
there's no way they can be reduced below the current delay and cost of ZERO.
Which is a strawman. Just because something doesn’t drop to zero doesn’t mean it’s a major issue.
Ummmm... don't think that quite fits the definition of 'straw man'.

It may not be a huge issue (for example, not something that alone would be worth using military force to keep Quebec in confederation), but it still is an issue, something that would negatively affect the rest of Canada were Quebec to separate. (And it is only one out of several issues I mentioned.)

[Segnosaur]

An independent Quebec would likely develop its own currency...

Possibly. But in the last referendum, Parizeau did seem to indicate that they'd continue using the Canadian dollar. (Of course, things might change in a decade or 2 following Quebec independance.)

... and probably keep it below the CAD to encourage foreign investment and to probably try and tip the scales the other way.

Keep in mind that while having a currency value does encourage exports and foreign investment, it also increases the cost of imports (increasing the cost of living).

It might wind up that unemployed Ontarioans would be crossing the border the other way to find work.

This might have the consequence of creating an even less "francophone" Quebec than its founders intended. Most of these issues aren't well conceived in any documents I've seen from the major separatist parties.
Interesting concept.

[stilicho]

Possibly. But in the last referendum, Parizeau did seem to indicate that they'd continue using the Canadian dollar. (Of course, things might change in a decade or 2 following Quebec independance.)

Keep in mind that while having a currency value does encourage exports and foreign investment, it also increases the cost of imports (increasing the cost of living).

Parizeau was being coy. One sovereign state does not ordinarily allow another sovereign state to issue its currency. Imagine trying to draft a constitution for your new country and having to specify that the right to issue currency resided in the Parliament of a foreign country. It's possible to do that but hardly inspiring for what's supposed to be a strong political movement.

I know your second point means a lowering of the standard of living. That's partly why I've argued that separatism is not really concerned so much about cultural identity or economics but really is about political will.

I don't view Quebec separatism or the BQ as the menace some of my alarmist friends do. The further the BQ becomes embroiled on the federal scene, the harder it is to maintain its ideology. It may be a permanent fixture or it may just be another United Farmers of Alberta.

[KoihimeNakamura]

BQ?

ETA: Nevermind, I know now.

[stilicho]

BQ?

ETA: Nevermind, I know now.

Sorry, I ought to have spelled it out as "Bloc Quebecois". I often forget that Canada-specific topics are sometimes read by foreigners.

[stilicho]

Well the President would be the one elected, for one thing, everything would be turned around topsy-turvy. Instead of having an appointed "symbolic" head of state, we would have a fully-fledged elected head of state, and everything that it entails. Also, it's a matter of principle, why on earth we still have to listen to an appointed dummy queen from another country and another era completely escapes me.

I actually just noticed this. People in Quebec might not fully comprehend the issues associated with a republican form of government. How would it work if an Anglophone was elected to the office of president? Consider the checks and balances involved with the republican model.

This isn't like the creation of Ireland about 100 years ago, where it was not primarily a linguistic issue. There was no likelihood there that an Englishman or a Welshman would gain the presidency. But there is a really good chance that someone who speaks English primarily could be elected as president of an independent Quebec.

It's certainly telling that the first round of the separatist volley came from teachers and professors rather than what we call "ordinary people". Once you unleash the power of the voters to choose their head of state directly, how can you know it's going to follow that their choice is also in the best interests of the intellectuals who've crafted this republic?

I am simply offering a worst-case scenario but it's critical to take such an issue into account. As such, I'd recommend to the framers of the Quebec Constitution to have a "head of state" but to emasculate the position to the point of meaninglessness.

Kind of like what we have in Canada anyways.

[drkitten]

I actually just noticed this. People in Quebec might not fully comprehend the issues associated with a republican form of government. How would it work if an Anglophone was elected to the office of president? Consider the checks and balances involved with the republican model.

This isn't like the creation of Ireland about 100 years ago, where it was not primarily a linguistic issue. There was no likelihood there that an Englishman or a Welshman would gain the presidency. But there is a really good chance that someone who speaks English primarily could be elected as president of an independent Quebec.

I doubt this is that big an issue, simply because an Anglophone could only be elected President of Quebec if s/he were very sensitive and responsive to the needs of the Francophones.

Rather like Barack Obama in that regard -- the only reason a black man was elected President is by being whiter-than-white in cultural terms.

[stilicho]

I doubt this is that big an issue, simply because an Anglophone could only be elected President of Quebec if s/he were very sensitive and responsive to the needs of the Francophones.

Rather like Barack Obama in that regard -- the only reason a black man was elected President is by being whiter-than-white in cultural terms.

That's under the assumptions that the Republic of Quebec (a) remains linguistically French and (b) the preservation of the French language is the primary goal of the electors.

It would be difficult to argue that the barriers to an anglophone in an independent Quebec would be as tough as those faced by blacks in the US.

[drkitten]

That's under the assumptions that the Republic of Quebec (a) remains linguistically French and (b) the preservation of the French language is the primary goal of the electors.

Not quite. It's under the assumptions that the Republic of Quebec (a) remains culturally Quebecois and (b) the preservation of the Quebecois culture is the primary goal of the electors.

Given that separation is being presented almost purely as a cultural issue, I think that assumption (b) speaks for itself in the event of a successful separation. Quebec can separate only if (b) is true.

My point, such as it is, is that merely "speaking French (as a first language)" is not the same as "being Quebecois." This is obvious if you imagine how well a French-speaking Algerian carpetbagger would do in the local elections. While one of the needs and wants of the French-speaking Quebec electorate is preservation of the language, it's only one among many -- and it wouldn't be particularly threatened by a damn-nearly bilingual cultural historian from Gatineau with a degree from UQAM.

[stilicho]

Not quite. It's under the assumptions that the Republic of Quebec (a) remains culturally Quebecois and (b) the preservation of the Quebecois culture is the primary goal of the electors.

Given that separation is being presented almost purely as a cultural issue, I think that assumption (b) speaks for itself in the event of a successful separation. Quebec can separate only if (b) is true.

My point, such as it is, is that merely "speaking French (as a first language)" is not the same as "being Quebecois." This is obvious if you imagine how well a French-speaking Algerian carpetbagger would do in the local elections. While one of the needs and wants of the French-speaking Quebec electorate is preservation of the language, it's only one among many -- and it wouldn't be particularly threatened by a damn-nearly bilingual cultural historian from Gatineau with a degree from UQAM.

In the independent Republic of Quebec, then, a unilingual anglophone would consider themselves to be culturally a Quebecker and be accepted as such?

[drkitten]

In the independent Republic of Quebec, then, a unilingual anglophone would consider themselves to be culturally a Quebecker and be accepted as such?

In the independent Republic of Quebec, a unilingual anglophone would have to consider themselves to be culturally a Quebecker and be accepted as such in order to be elected to high national office.

[Pardalis]

In the independent Republic of Quebec, a unilingual anglophone would have to consider themselves to be culturally a Quebecker and be accepted as such in order to be elected to high national office.

No, he/she just needs to be resident of Québec to be able to be elected. How one views oneself culturally is not a factor, there's not "test" to find out what people think of themselves.

Although it would play against him in the public's eye, there wouldn't be any legal reason for him or her not to present himself as a candidate.

Could a person who only speaks Spanish and who doesn't consider himself an American run for office in America? Yes.

Could he win? Very unlikely.

[drkitten]

No, he/she just needs to be resident of Québec to be able to be elected.

You're proving my point for me. While he could easily present himself as a candidate, he could almost certainly not get elected unless he's culturally Quebecois.



Could a person who only speaks Spanish and who doesn't consider himself an American run for office in America? Yes.

Could he win? Very unlikely.

Exactly. I wasn't suggesting that he couldn't file the paperwork for candidacy.

I suggested, and I quote, "a unilingual anglophone would have to consider themselves to be culturally a Quebecker and be accepted as such in order to be elected to high national office."

[Pardalis]

You're proving my point for me. While he could easily present himself as a candidate, he could almost certainly not get elected unless he's culturally Quebecois.

While you're trying to paint Quebecers as intolerant, I should point out that the same thing can be said of any country, it would be odd for any candidate to think of themselves not part of the country and hope at the same time to be elected by that country's population, well except maybe Peru.

BTW, alot of anglos consider themselves Quebecers, and are accepted as such. I don't see what your point is, except a lame attempt at making us look intolerant.

[drkitten]

While you're trying to paint Quebecers as intolerant,

Am I? I thought I was pointing out that it wouldn't be a problem if an anglophone were elected president of an independent Quebec, because anyone whom the electorate would go for would be sufficiently Quebecois that he'd still value the Quebec culture and act to protect it, even if he himself spoke English as a first language.

I thought that was actually a MORE tolerant view than the one that says that Quebecois would never vote for an anglophone under any circumstances and that independence would be a disaster because carpetbaggers might end up electing an anglophone against the wishes of the electorate.

[Pardalis]

Then I misunderstood you. Of course someone who doesn't want to protect the fundamental values of the country for which they are running for public office would have very little chance to be looked at favorably by the electorate. If that's what you're trying to say, then it seems like an obvious point.

It doesn't matter what this person thinks of themselves as long as they agree to protect the country's laws and identity.

[stilicho]

Then I misunderstood you. Of course someone who doesn't want to protect the fundamental values of the country for which they are running for public office would have very little chance to be looked at favorably by the electorate. If that's what you're trying to say, then it seems like an obvious point.

It doesn't matter what this person thinks of themselves as long as they agree to protect the country's laws and identity.

I was briefly involved with some of the Confederation of Regions people in Alberta when that appeared to be a viable concept. The issue I had was that the people framing the idea spent a lot of time arguing about how they could conceal their intolerance. The same thing happened when I saw the Reform Party's blue book from its early years.

Since the early Eighties and probably a little before, it's been no surprise that the provincial administrations in Alberta have usually sided with Quebec on issues of regional rights.

There would be a good master's thesis in Political Science to be earned by explaining the PQ/BQ and the Alberta provincial Conservative party as political equivalents. There might have already been one written and if anyone knows of one on-line I'd be interested in reading it.

Politically, the likes of Preston Manning, Ralph Klein, and Peter Lougheed have more in common with Rene Levesque, Gilles Duceppe, and Jacques Parizeau than is ordinarily admitted. Typically, Conservative governments in Ottawa have been weaker federalists than the Liberals have been. I can't see that pattern changing.

[Pardalis]

There would be a good master's thesis in Political Science to be earned by explaining the PQ/BQ and the Alberta provincial Conservative party as political equivalents. There might have already been one written and if anyone knows of one on-line I'd be interested in reading it.

Politically, the likes of Preston Manning, Ralph Klein, and Peter Lougheed have more in common with Rene Levesque, Gilles Duceppe, and Jacques Parizeau than is ordinarily admitted. Typically, Conservative governments in Ottawa have been weaker federalists than the Liberals have been. I can't see that pattern changing.

The only thing that is similar between the two is that both want more autonomy, and less federalism.

But to compare the two (Conservatives and Social-Democrats) in any other way is absolutely grotesque.

[gtc]

To be fair to him, that was the way in which he was comparing them.

[D'rok]

I was briefly involved with some of the Confederation of Regions people in Alberta when that appeared to be a viable concept. The issue I had was that the people framing the idea spent a lot of time arguing about how they could conceal their intolerance. The same thing happened when I saw the Reform Party's blue book from its early years.

Since the early Eighties and probably a little before, it's been no surprise that the provincial administrations in Alberta have usually sided with Quebec on issues of regional rights.

There would be a good master's thesis in Political Science to be earned by explaining the PQ/BQ and the Alberta provincial Conservative party as political equivalents. There might have already been one written and if anyone knows of one on-line I'd be interested in reading it.

Politically, the likes of Preston Manning, Ralph Klein, and Peter Lougheed have more in common with Rene Levesque, Gilles Duceppe, and Jacques Parizeau than is ordinarily admitted. Typically, Conservative governments in Ottawa have been weaker federalists than the Liberals have been. I can't see that pattern changing.

Preston was never a part of the Provincial Progressive Conservatives - or the Federal Tories, for that matter. Neither King Ralph nor Lougheed (nor Preston) were ever interested in breaking up the country. (Although they were three breeds of political scum). There is no comparison between any of them, the parties they lead, and the BQ.

[D'rok]

The only thing that is similar between the two is that both want more autonomy, and less federalism.


Just to pick a nit. What the Alberta populists want is more federalism and less centralization of power. Federalism means division of power. The BQ wants independence, but they'll settle for more federalism in the mean time.

[drkitten]

Preston was never a part of the Provincial Progressive Conservatives - or the Federal Tories, for that matter. Neither King Ralph nor Lougheed (nor Preston) were ever interested in breaking up the country. (Although they were three breeds of political scum). There is no comparison between any of them, the parties they lead, and the BQ.


That sounds a lot to me like a politically-driven conclusion in advance of the evidence. I'm sure that a detailed study of ANY two political groups would come up with literally dozens of similarities and equally dozens of differences. To state that there is "no comparison" is silly.

[D'rok]

That sounds a lot to me like a politically-driven conclusion in advance of the evidence. I'm sure that a detailed study of ANY two political groups would come up with literally dozens of similarities and equally dozens of differences. To state that there is "no comparison" is silly.

Technically, you're correct. They're all members of the species homo sapiens.

Although I can't be too sure about Preston Manning. He did spawn the career of Harper, after all.