Vineon

Are you giving it your best to not understand what I mean by negotiations tied to a secession? Think of it as a divorce, you get to "negotiate" who keeps the kids, who keeps the house and who keeps the car. There is plenty to negotiate. You would say we live in the same era we did in the 19th century? The Québec secessionists believe in achieving independance through the sole tools of democracy, which evolved quite a lot in 150 years, believe it or not. They are not armed, they don't plan to arm themselves and the only people that manage to foresee a civil war turnout are deranged enthousiasts like you that would love nothing more than tanks rolling on "traitors".

Considering nearly 95% of the populace cast their vote during the last referendum, you might want to stick to the completely arbitrary figure that is 60%. I do not put any credence in a "possibility" of something resembling a large civil conflict or a gvt-overthrowing Canadian military intervention in Québec. No, I do not remember the American Civil War and I very much doubt you were there to remember it. We live in a different era and there is no armed seceding rebel fraction to war against. Which is why in the end secession and the negotiations (without bracket marks) necessarily surrounding it are a foregone conclusion.

Apparently there is an international standard. What is it.

And you're saying the Albertans understand this (the same Albertans that would reject the notion of Québec being a nation on the ground that exists only the Canadian nation?) and the Quebec sovereignists do not? Rare I've seen Canadians make a difference between 'nation' and 'country' and that goes double for Albertans. The Québécois though, starting with the 'seperatists', will remind you that they do not believe them to be the same thing in everything they do.

I don't think there are many Québec sovereignists concerned about the Clarity Act. It wasn't required for Canada not to validate the results of a provincially-run referendum and Chrétien in 95 was simply going to 'not recognize' a close win by the secessionists. It is a useless piece of legislation that only deserves mockery. If Chrétien actually considers that to be his great achievement, then his contribution to Canada is pretty much void. Frankly, I believe the process towards a secession becomes unstoppable the minute the 50%+1 mark is reached after a vote. Any non-recognition will simply fuel the sovereignty movement to unseen highs as I assume many of the Québec borderline federalists will not react favourably to having Ottawa impose its veto on the matter. In the end, Canada would actually rather negociate a secession than use force against a rebelling gvt with a population largely behind it.

It is. The variant 'septante' for 'soixante-dix', for example, is mostly used in Switzerland and Belgium. I'd like to also remind the TS that the French in Canada make up a substancially larger portion of Canadians than Swedish speaking Fins. But you came here in an English forum made of people mostly much bitter towards the French in their own country to validate your opinion against bilingualism - even though the comparisons between Canada and Finland hardly stand - and you found yourself a few wazoos to tell you exactly what you wanted to hear. Congratulations.

What is weak is arbitrarely redefining what a (good enough??) majority is. A majority is 50%+1. The Clarity Act must be the piece of legislation that least deserves it's given name. Has it made clear what a 'clear majority' is? What a 'clear question' is? Is it simply not defining those terms clearly so that whatever the majority obtained and the question asked be afterwards dismissed as 'not clear enough'?

Is nobody even going to mention that Québec has higher provincial taxes?

Transfer payments and equalization payments are two things. What I assume we were talking about weren't equalization payments but all transfer payments from Ottawa to the provinces (which equalization is a part of). This is the only number that amounts to the 'tens of billions' that Argus thought significant. Now if equalization is taken separately, Québec is a receiver but not a net one of over 7 bils. It would only be if it didn't pay taxes. It does. To know how much exactly Québec is a net recipient of, you must substract Québec's taxing contribution to money spent into the equalization program. If 20% of Canada's revenue comes from Québec, using a fairly conservative %, that means 20% of equalization payments to all the receiving provinces comes from Québec. In this case, 20% of 14.4 billions, nearly 3 billions, the number you must substract from the 7 billions that Québec receives in equalization to know how much exactly it is a net recipient of. This 14.4 billions number isn't a direct transfer from the 4 provinces that don't receive any to the 6 that do. It is a transfer from the 10 provinces to only 6. But that is only taking equalization into account. I believe that when all transfer payments are taken into consideration, Québec may be a net recipient of even less than that.

Since you appear to be a specialist. What exactly might be the difference between the amount in transfer payments that Québec receives once we substract the amount in transfer payments to all provinces that Québec taxes contribute to? I would assume it is only a very tiny fraction of the 18+ bils Québec receives in transfers. Once we have that number, perhaps we'll be able to relativize this 'dependency'. Certainly not... or you just have no understanding of federal transfer payments at all.

The study is based on a wrong premise. Equalization amounts aren't calculated based on the amount of services offered but based on the ability to tax for services. Québec is free to pay itself additional services with it's own provincial taxes, which it does and which explains why it has more services and still gets this much in equalization payments. Should Québec suddenly decide to cut in half or double spendings in their social programs, it wouldn't technically affect the amount it receives from equalization. I dont know. I sort of dislike calling something a transfer that I don't feel is one. Equalization 'payment' is right. The 'transfer' in all 'transfer payments' is one from Ottawa to the provinces. Should people insist on calling equalization a transfer, that would be fine, but they should thus stop insinuating the 15 bils number still holds true and start substracting what the 'have-not' provinces contribute for. If we call it a 'transfer', Alberta's contribution to the entire equalization pot would be no more than about 1.9 billion for the last year. That would be about what it pays in taxes spent by Ottawa for equalization while receiving no equalization payment in return. Unless I'm wrong, that's quite a long shot from the hundreds of billions going directly from Germany to Greece even when looked into per capita.

I'm amused they call themselves 'Conservatives'.

There are interesting things in there to answer to. First off, I don't believe online translators have gotten any better since the first one was released online. In fact, I believe what we use today (the babelfish translator) is the same thing we used 10 years ago and it is still pretty awful. If there is a better one available, I'd like to be directed to it. Anything to make my faulty English a bit better would be appreciated. Cultural globalisation (read here americanisation) is all the more a reality with the internet now, as you point out. That is an additional reason for cultural protectionnism to exist, it doesnt make it a primitive idea but more than ever a very contemporary one. I share a lot with Canadians and Americans, I also know what Seinfeld, Friends or Star Trek are (although watched none.. but there are American shows I watched extensively, the Fresh Prince of Bel Air for one). When living in Pointe-Claire (which is as much English as Québec can be), you realised you share certain common grounds with the Québécois, certain common grounds you likely also have with the rest of the Occident (those shows have aired over the entire planet) not mentionning sharing more common grounds very distinctive to all Canadians (say hockey). You named a few tv American shows but did you also have any Québécois shows in common with them? I'm sure they all had La Petite Vie in common between them, did you? For most in Québec it would not seem very plausible not to know who Claude Meunier is, for instance. Do you know who that is? I also grew up watching a very popular children show named Passe-Partout that ran for years, as did everyone from Québec from my generation. I also know that every other Canadian from other provinces did not watch this show for years as a kid, that they watched something else, whatever that was. These are the things that add up and make of a society one with a certain amount of distinctive cultural references. English Canada has a lot of its own, but I think its easy to argue that this is more clearly observed in Québec if at least when we compare one province to another. It is a mistake to say that all that seperates us is language because that is toning down how far-reaching this difference actually is and what it impacts ; it is a major difference. The Québécois acknowledge that, hence their efforts to make sure it is preserved, which isn't a simple task considering the demographics of this continent. An English Canadian could potentially list this for a top 100 of Canadian albums : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Top_100_Canadian_Albums Just a quick look allows me to notice only 3 french albums in there (2 by Harmonium and Jaune by JP Ferland). If any Québécois was asked to make a top 100 of Canadian albums, just how similar to this one do you think it might end up looking? An easy guess is 'nothing like it'. What I'm saying is because we share a lot when it comes to culture, it shouldn't lead us to downplay the differences, they remain quite important to anyone half observant. And no need to tell me there are differences between English Canadian provinces as well, I know that. Language however, is an added element that is just all the more important, it's no trivial difference. Cheers

I don't see a problem with adding more seats over time. Those that imply it costs more to the system simply aren't right. The number of seats simply grows with the population. As it grows, let's continue giving them to where it most grows. It makes less sense to me to have a set in stone number of seats than a set in stone number of citizens represented by 1 MP.

It was brought up in that post I was replying to that French was mandatory in English schools. Yet what is clear is that it doesn't contribute to more bilingual Canadians. Having positions such as this one requiring bilingualism sends the message that learning French does have a use in this country. Doing the opposite simply contributes to the fact that it isn't important. I want to believe that the few actually qualified for a position of Supreme Court Judge are highly educated people, people I most expect would have given learning a second language a shot. Not so hard to plan ahead when you have ambitions, politicians aspiring to the higher position in the country do it. Certainly, the best jurists could. You realize the same rhetoric you used could be for the position of Prime Minister as well right? Would it be alright to have a unilingual PM representing all Canadians?

You do not allocate seats based on demographical predictions. You allocate them based on their actual representation, that's the idea. Should they have to be revised again later, they will. Frankly I don't see the problem with adding seats. It isn't an additional cost to society because the population grows accordingly.

I'm going by what I personally find not what "the Péquistes" keep in a vault (and I don't believe they need one), being a bit active around political forums and websites. That said, yes I am more likely to react and remember negative perceptions. Are they completely representative? I assume not but they are certainly not all that marginal either. Whenever an article is posted that regards Québec on the internet that allows people to comment on, like dailies do, what I read there never fails to rile me up. Just in this forum are many that do grin whenever Québec is "put to its place". How else would you explain a thread with a title like this? I do understand what those perceptions stem from and do not necessarily disagree with all of them but it is important to acknowledge that it leads to a much unhealthy resentment by many. Canada has not bent over much regarding bilingualism when considering the results ; it has not made Canadians themselves bilingual. Obviously a reason for that is that French quite frankly isn't needed as English would be in Québec but we at least do make a real attempt to teach it, that is having the language mandatory from grade 1 to college. In the meanwhile, Canadians reject that it is important for Supreme Court judges (12 in the country) to be bilingual. When will it stop being important for Prime Ministers to be? I listened to a debate on the CPAC the other day in which a debatter thought that it wouldnt be a requirement in 2025. Switzerland is a real bilingual (often trilingual) country, as portrayed by its citizens, Canada isn't. Then again, my view as a secessionist is that French shouldn't be imposed at all elsewhere in the country... but thats a view I have that is changing as it becomes clearer seperation is becoming impossible. I don't believe Ontarians see themselves as Anglo-Canadians but I certainly believe they would call themselves Canadians much before they call themselves Ontarians. The same applies to all other provinces except Québec so yes I would say there is a much stronger sense of belonging to the province here than elsewhere, the reason being that the Québécois don't see Québec as a province, but as a nation. I've yet to see a similar claim made by Manitobans or British Columbians. A very good showing of that we just had is the ridiculously small amount of people that went to vote in Ontario for the provincial legislature, less than 45%. I don't buy and Québec in large will never buy that Canada is a confederation of 10 equal provinces. First of all, Canada is a federation but leaving that aside, it is entirely ridiculous that PEI has equal representation with the one province with a french majority. Arbitrary borders have made it so Québec is only one out of 10, they just as well could have made it so Québec would have been divided in 4 provinces and be 4 out of 10. Reducing a clear distinct society with a different ethnic background thats nearly 1/4 of the country to 1/10 of it is ridiculous. Most Canadian provinces are simply geographical constructs, Québec is the one that can best argue it isn't. Sure someone drew the lines on the map but they were drawn for a reason much more clear than were the line between Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I've yet to see Québécois refer to their ideologial position as tribalism, that is another word used by the ROC, along with racism. Every little small occasion is good to call Québec a racist society because a certain protectionnism is used (and is necessary) to maintain its distinction afloats. Canada doesn't have the same problem and thus fails to understand it. 'Pur laine', once again (as is tribalism), is a term much more used outside Québec than it is within. If I remember right, it was one made popular by the English media following its use in Mordecai Richler's books. You've listed a plethora of negative perceptions the ROC has of Québec and explained/relativised them after saying the ROC doesn't think much of it. Does it ever see Québec in a good light? As in a province with a very small criminality rate? Where actual racism as recorded in statistics is much lower than seen more west? Where aboriginals have more than elsewhere kept their ancestral languages and don't massively crowd our jails? Where people have most accepted homosexuality? Where social progressive values hit the peak in this country? Where green energy is most valued? I agree with your conclusion in that ignorance resides in both sides of the fence.

The real question is, is there more to being Canadian than just hockey?

Is this why they massively voted for Jack Layton as well? Don't give me that crap that he's from Montreal.

Takes quite a little country to prefer having no national broadcaster. Nothing surprising coming from Canadians however who would axe what little they have that actually makes a somewhat effort to encourage Canadian cultural products. No problem there for a population that cannot tell itself apart from Americans beyond naming hockey, tuques and 'stronger beer' (see that abomination that is the 'I Am Canadian' Molson commercial). Most countries spit on the idea that the market should alone dictate culture, especially in a globalised world ; that is why culture is usually left out of Free Trade agreements. Should you count on CTV and the private sector to take over, I'm afraid all that'll be left of Canadian content will be the News... and perhaps Hockey Night in Canada now on TSN. What's alarming, is how little some people seem to care.

Does anyone care that adding 30 seats makes of Québec a slightly underrepresented province? Of course not. I'm asking considering there seems to be a big deal made about Québec being a slightly overrepresented province. The key word is 'slightly' here ; look elsewhere for actual overrepresented provinces, Québec isn't one. The thing is, when considering the number of seats every province has, Québec is currently the one province most rightfully represented. When demands by Québec are made so that a few seats be added to the province as well, it is no more than 3 or 4 (as I believe is proposed by the NDP), which would be enough to guarantee it rightful population representation which I thought was what everybody wanted here. But no, in reality what people here most desire, is for Québec to eat dirt.

Can the rest of Canada get the 2 billions federal subsidy back that BC got for harmonizing their sales taxes now?

Would the 'small' provinces also include Manitoba and Saskatchewan whose overrepresentation is much, much higher than Québec's? Where do you draw the line? I'm amused that the attention is all on Québec, the one province closest to proper mathematical representation. I read in these forums that whining is a national sport in Québec... I'd say that in return, whining about Québec probably is Canada's.

Free Trade. Nothing else has ever made sense for neither Canada nor an independent Québec.

Québec with 24% of the seats for 23% of the population is probably the province closest to be rightfully represented. It is probably not the greatest of reaction to clamour left and right that it is overrepresented when the proposed idea to add 30 seats without handing Québec any will reverse the situation and give it 22% of the seats for 23% of the population. It's probably also worth noting that Québec has about 25% of the voting-age population and that using that criteria, one could claim it is already currently underrepresented.