Vineon

Yeah. Our last elections were a perfect example of this. Remember how francophone Jack Layton ousted anglo Gilles Duceppe out of parliament.

I was under the impression secessionist leaders never believed Canada would use it's military force (against one that doesn't exist save the off chance of a quebec militaries defection???). If Chrétien took some planes and other military assets out of Québec, it wasn't out of fear of them using them to counterstrike, it was out of fear of them being using as leverage for asset transfer during negociations, as in "we think we should get 25% of all federal assets, we'll keep the planes until we come up with a deal".

Hah. As much as I'm sure an 'Army Guy' such as yourself is excited about "spilling blood" and using "direct force" to open up a land route, it is a problem easily solved with a simple free trade agreement. Go lock away your gun, military.

It will carry a similar value. What do you see Québec as? A terrorist hot spot dictatorship led by a tyrant? There would be no reason for countries to look down on a Québec passport whatsoever. Just like countries of similar or inferior size manage, Québec would. Yes, as these taxes already do. I also believe Québec does not proportionally need as much defense nor spending overseas which would save us money rather than cost us more money. There is no chance in hell we'd be putting 30+ and some billions for fighter jets, for instance. Businesses will not flee as long as it makes sense for them to be in Québec. In the end, money talks. I do not believe they will do it out of spite because Québec has just become a country. What makes Québec advantageous for them today will make it just as advantageous tomorrow. Québec's budget is 70 millions WITHOUT money sent to Ottawa. In short, that's pretty much half the budget an independent Québec would have. Something else, you do not seem to much understand how equalization works as Québec does not receive a net 7.4 millions from it. It just so happens that Québec also pays for the equalization program, as do all provinces. At least 3.5 millions of these 7.5 millions come from Québec, which makes it an actual redistribution of 4 mils. Equalization is only a small part of all transfer payments directly transfered from Ottawa to the provinces. Here lays the real numbers you should be looking at. When Ottawa transfers 5 bils to the Ontario auto industry, it isn't something you'll see laid down in the equalization columns. It would help if what is shown and labeled "facts" were actually facts. It is commonly known that Slovakia has done much better since the split and is one of the fastest growing european country largely because of it. Independence has helped them grow, it has not sunk them. They are not reduced to survive on national pride.

I didn't reply to your ridiculous long post following mine understanding the futility of it but I will to this much shorter one. I do not see how a Québec passport would be hindrance to anyone that wishes to travel. It is completely senseless to claim a Canadian one would carry much added value. Whatever duties taken over by Québec aren't extra expense as we already pay for them through our federal taxes. Whatever decrease income you talk about needs to be explained and put in numbers. You said 10% in your earlier post and Québec does nothing close from receiving 10% of its revenue from federal transfers.

Actually, no. I would like to live in a place still called Québec (albeit a republic), that would still be in North America but would have little to do with Lebanon. But Lebanon2 strikes you as a more plausible scenario, right?

As a separatist myself, this is a "gamble" I dream Canada would take.

Is Montréal all there is in Québec? Is "Greater Montréal" actually not interested?

Haven't yet heard of a single Québec souvereignist clamouring to maintain transfert payments after secession. edit : I apologize for bumping a 6 years old thread for this little. Believe it or not, I was linked to it on FaceBook just now and did not realize it was this old.

Say I have a problem with Québec's daycare program being symbolised in an analogy by a man's luxury spendings on drugs and escorts, it is simply that I do not understand sarcasm? You don't understand what is wrong about this, do you? How frankly pitiful. It would never cross your mind that the man could have spent this extra money on something that carries a bit less negative connotation than "escorts and drugs"? That this negative connotation comparison stands a purpose in this text? Of course not... because you're not even interested in trying. You might also want to wait until you actually know people before quickly labeling them.

If you had Martineau's analogy in mind and all you saw was irony and sarcasm and not an attempt to condition imbeciles against any form of extra social spendings, because we receive equalization, using wonderful images such as 'escorts' and 'drugs' to compare them with, I realize you simply do not understand his actual intentions. The "cigarettes and chips" one I didn't appreciate either but it wasn't as sensational. Oh the guy can be ironic without launching a few blows at the programs offered by making such crass comparisons. I could rewrite the whole analogy and only change a few disparaging terms meant to symbolize our social programs and keep all the irony... all the sarcasm. Do you understand this?

He's a crass demagogue and moreso in this particular article than in his usual crap. His analogy is especially painful: Québec's extra social spendings are compared to a man on the party abusing drugs and escorts. Apparently, that is "a bit what is happening". Surpassing himself here in a frankly disgusting way. It'd be nice if he also stopped comparing receiving equalization payments to receiving a welfare check. Should we also say of working citizens that get tax returns through wealth equalization that they are on welfare? Dutch disease now? You are completely all over the place. What is the thread even about? Are you suggesting we should have multiple currencies? What does it have to do with Martineau's article?

I'm wondering if you actually believe that. How insanely dillusional. What costs exactly. At best I understand there is a price to pay regarding maintaining Canada's "standing in the world", if at least in organization like the G8, with a membership perhaps a bit more difficult to maintain being a smaller country... but government costs? Long term economical costs? Cultural costs? And there wouldn't be a "huge hole in the middle", there would still be Québec.

Without segregating or 'kicking anyone out', it should be possible to question some of our immigration policies without immediately being labeled a 'racist'.

I wish you were trolling but you are probably simply clueless. That a culture is intrinsically tied to it's language doesn't mean that the language is the sole difference but that the language is the root of the differences. A different language means a whole different set of cultural references. The best example of this would be Québec's own star system which spawns music, tv shows, comedians and movies that are it's own. In large, there is no comparison to make between the interest the Québécois have their home grown cultural products versus the interest Canada has for it's own. Québécois care, Canadians do not. Québécois watch their shows and they watch their movies while Canadians have no interest in their own. It does not mean that Canadians cannot appreciate their local talents, it simply means they will not appreciate them simply because they are Canadians. The reason for that is fairly simple : Canadians and Americans are culturally interchangeable and nobody manages to notice a difference. A Canadian cultural product has therefore no added value to Canadians.

"on the dime" I'm too French for this one; not even urban dictionary could help me there. I'm guessing it either meant "at the detriment of other cultures" or "paid by other cultures". Assuming the first, I would disagree that French Québec endangers the cultural hegemony that is American/Canadian English (and who would even claim that), the culture to which it is in direct competition in Québec... unless someone can convince me that English Québec should be thought of as a distinct people. They don't show any sign that they believe so themselves. If you really "have nothing against cultures or languages surviving", then you must understand that they do necessarily by resisting being annexed to another one competing with it. In the end, always "on the dime" of another culture/language. So do you still have nothing against cultures and languages surviving? I don't buy it.

So a culture intrinsically linked to it's language is simply not one you deem "worthy to survive". I get it. Is that the reaction of a bitter jealous English Canadian that sees little difference between himself and his neighbours down south save a few regionalist dinstinctions such a tuques, aboot and hockey? Oh, how dare I mention 'aboot', you'll defend to the death that it is not something Canadians actually say (implied: "No, I swear! We talk like Americans!"). Let's roll the Molson I AM CANADIAN joke of a commercial again or watch the opening Vancouver Olympic ceremonies once more and bask in a fake Canadian sense of pride and identity that nobody really manages to define. Beavers on skates! Oh yeah, that is Canada right there. Understand this rest of the world : we have beavers and we play hockey! What is being Canadian again? It must be being an American except with publicly funded health care benefits.... and with the Queen of another country on our dollar notes?

I'll accept that there is something "natural" about English imposing itself on minority language groups if people accept it is just as "natural" for Québécois to impose certain protectionnist measures while they still are a majority in the piece of land they half govern. Fuck that frustrating automatic 'edit' tag.

Mulcair's got a pretty noticeable English accent when speaking French; it amuses me to see so many folks here brand him a "Frenchman". I suppose some of them must be looking for an additional reason to doubt his integrity, the "French" and "Quebec" labels making him automaticly suspect.

I seem to recall Canada granting the Kosovars it's full support in their bid for independence. Did that also include the northern Serbian region of it that would have prefered staying with Serbia? http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/99-74-kosovo-serbs-say-no-to-pristina Overlooking that trade between Québec and a couple of those provinces is relatively small, I fail to see why a Canadian government would take measures that would only spawn negative impacts on both sides. Interesting measure proposals from a country that has been one of the biggest proponent of free trade in recent years.

Pierre Laporte wasn't a "British consular person". James Cross was. He is still very much alive.

What in hell is this? "You thought"... of course. If you were actually any interested in this issue, you would have at some point made an half-assed effort to diversify your sources so that it includes a few of them from both sides. You have certainly never cared enough to do so. Taking anything whatsover said about Québec in these forums to the bank is a huge mistake to make. Why in hell is their deal with Canada "better than what they could ever expect from the government of an independent Québec". Where does that come from? Would you care to attempt an explanation?? The Cree, and they were brought up by other people in this thread, have signed la Paix des Braves with the Québec government. It is a deal seen as groundbreaking throughout the country and a similar one was recently signed with the Inuits. Nowadays, it is a deal now considered a reference point and is often brought up as an example by other First Nation tribes all accross the country. It was a PQ initiative under Bernard Landry (secesionist party/leader) and after the signing, Ted Moses, then leader of the Cree, endorsed the secessionists in the provincial elections. Alexis Wawanoloath is an Abenaki that was elected under the Parti Québécois, being only the 2nd First Nation member elected at the National Assembly. Within Canada, Québec pays its demographical share of money spent for the ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. In short, they must pay something that resembles between 20%-25% of it when they actually only "own" 10% of the Canadian Aboriginal population. What this means, is than an independent Québec could spend a lot less and yet still offer more services. It is within Québec that First Nation tribes have best managed to keep alive their ancestral languages and our prisons are certainly not crowded with them, as opposed to what you'd see in some of the western provinces. Canada is one of TWO countries on the entire globe to not have signed the UN's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Québec is actually much better equipped to make a bid for it should a bid be required. I can only imagine the huge can of worms Canada would need opening simply to manage to match.

Québec is probably the province with the least randomly drawn borders, actually. People largely speak French east of the Ottawa river and English west of it. Now, borders between the prairie provinces, those certainly do not mean anything. The proportionate share of the Canadian debt comes with a proportionate share of all Canadian assets, which easily means all federal infrastructures within Québec. 150 years ago. A more recent example could be Bosnia and the last person to attempt partition : Slobodan Milosevic. That turned out great in the end, didn't it. Well that's bullshit. By definition a majority IS 50%+1. There is nothing arbitrary about it, it is what a majority happens to be. A "supermajority" now, is something completely arbitrary. It does not mean anything. Versus a Québec that stopped redistributing taxes to Ottawa. Something like 60 billions a year as we speak? A lot of harm done for everybody considering this all could be avoided. I frankly don't believe Québec would bar passage through the St-Lawrence anyway. I'd like to stress first that 85% of Québec's exports are to the United States. Not so "HUGE" an amount. Secondly, Québec currently has a trade deficit with Ontario, which means Ontario sells more to Québec than it buys from it. Nobody is benefiting from such careless politics made purely out of resentment. You don't put money and jobs on the line out of pure resentment. Thats interesting considering Québec currently creates an excess of electricity and sells its leftovers to the neighbouring provinces. If anyone is dependant on energy, it isn't Québec. Of course, no matter what, Québec wouldn't send troops. Canadian pensions are a Canadian asset that belongs as much to Québec than it does to other Canadians : the Québécois have paid for their pensions by paying Canadian taxes. She should not worry about her pension. Of course, if for some reason our access to our share of all Canadian assets is blocked by Ottawa, we could simply allow them to keep the debt as well. I'd take that deal any day.

What is "Western Québec"? Nothing. Simply a term you made up. It has no government, it has no claim of nationhood, no claim of belonging to a people that is their own, it has no clear territorial borders. Moreover, that the Outaouais region is mostly federalist hardly entails it would rather be partitionned from Québec should Québec actually secede. I very much doubt they would prefer this avenue, which would be marginalizing themselves within an English Canada without French Québec, over sticking with the rest. As for Montreal, do you count the Greater Montreal, the 3.5 millions that make it? The South and North Shore people that work there everyday and just happen to be French and likely would have voted for the secession, if they ever get 50%+1? I live in Longueuil, a bridge crossing from the metropolis and tell everyone overseas that I live in Montréal. Do I count? Would Montreal actually (if at least the French within it), like the Outaouais people, prefer staying in Canada over seceding with Québec, should it become unavoidable? You believe being a federalist means being a partitionist? Hardly. You make the just as ignorant assumption that the First Nations are sold against the idea of Québec sovereignty and naturally prefer sticking with Canada. They only owe allegiance to their own, not to Québec, neither Canada. Should they believe Québec sovereignty is going to have a positive impact on their communities, I don't see why they wouldn't back it up. Besides, I'm fairly sure partition of a seceding state is illegal under international laws. A panel of international experts made that fairly clear in 1992 during the Bélanger-Campeau Commission. Since their conclusions are on wiki, I'll allow myself to paste them as reference:

That is exactly why this simply doesn't work: it should not be debatable. Any figure chosen beyond 50%+1 would be completely arbitrary. It is also a figure that would be imposed by the federalist side, which means it necessarily would conveniently be placed out of reach. The only figure that represents a majority that isn't arbitrary, is 50%+1. Any other figure is redefining what a majority is. A "clear majority" doesn't mean anything. Besides, I'm fairly sure most Québécois, including many federalists believe 50%+1 to be a valid majority. I've certainly never heard the Québec Liberals pretend otherwise.