frankbaker

I'm an anglo Quebecer and if Quebec separates, I propose that Canada's capital is moved from Ottawa to Victoria BC. Other good options would be Vancouver or Calgary. This would reflect the country's new balance. The capital has moved before, before Ottawa there were other cities. True the costs would be significant but it would be worth it. A commission could be set up to oversee the move. Significant buildings that have special heritage value, like the Parliament building and the Supreme court building would benefit from a special relocation fund. They would basically be carefully de-constructed, transported and rebuilt faithfully as they were (like the Abu Simbel temple in Egypt was moved). Of course it would be cheaper to build new buildings for these institutions but keeping these could be worth it, it would work to unite the country in a collective project and give it a sense of continuity. Other less significant buildings, like the PM's house or the Canada Post building would simply be put to sale. New buildings would be built or bought in Victoria. Costs for relocating foreign embassies would be at each country's expenses. As for civil workers and private businesses catering to them (hotels, real estate groups, etc.) any opportunity lost here would pop up in Victoria. Basically there would be a drop in the market for the Ottawa region and local city pressure groups would scream injustice but for the long-term sake of the country these should ignored, or compensated symbolically. Of course there are capital cities in other countries that are at a rock's throw from their neighbors, but it wouldn't be healthy here. Ottawa is too QC-oriented. The new Canada's balance of power wouldn't be there anymore. The two founding nations myth would have to be recast, the new emphasis would be rebalanced on Canada's British heritage, just like Australia, it would be turned towards the future, the West, the Pacific and its rising Asian partners.

As a Quebecker of Scottish ancestry, I would like to see the Maritimes join Quebec following independence. I understand this is highly improbable but I believe this option should be considered just as seriously. Both share a common Celtic heritage that is more and more foreign to the rest of Canada. Quebec has the merit of fighting for its heritage, while Canada is slowly drowning its own heritage in blind multiculturalism. No offence but statistics show that pretty soon being Canadian will mean being Pakistani or Chinese, indifferent to when or how this land was first setlled, by pioneering French, Irish and Scots. There are things that bond people stronger than language, common traditions, relation to the land, music, shared hardship, etc. An english-speaking New Brunswicker of Irish ancestry has a hundred times more in common with a french-speaking Quebecker than with another english-speaking Canadian from BC of Chinese or Indu descent. These things matter more than than people will admit to themselves, they're the glue that gives a country a common identity. People of Irish, Scottish or French descent (most of which came from Brittany) are Celtic brothers that can work together to defend what they hold in common. Maybe one day folks in the Maritimes will realize their heritage had more chance of lasting by staying with Quebec than staying with Canada.

The collective psyche of Quebeckers goes a long way in explaining why Canada is where it is now, and explaining the so called "Enigma of Quebec City". Here's how it was brought to be. Notice the recurring pattern. The British came and militarily conquered and subjugated the people living here. The French king abandoned them to their fate, most of the higher classes and administrators fled, leaving the Church as sole local administrative body over the people. Some of us wanted to fight the British, but most were kept in obedience by the priests, who collaborated with the British in exchange for maintaining their status. They were too many of us for them to deport us like they deported the Acadians. Outnumbered in a remote, hard to access land, the British army played it safe. It toned down any unnecessary oppression, bringing in fresh administrators. Then 20 years later the American revolution came. Having thrown the British out of the 13 colonies, the Americans sent expeditions north to finish the job in the last remaining english-controlled land, the "Province of Quebec". Some Quebeckers (called "Canadians" at that time) saw the Americans as liberators and joined ranks with them to throw the British out of their land. Others were told to fight with the British by their priests who were afraid that American republican values were contrary to the Church and traditions of the Monarchy, they were told that their language and faith was protected by the British, that it wasn't a liberation but an invasion. In exchange, the British gave privileges to collaborators, and killed off as traitors those fighting for their freedom with the Americans. Those Quebeckers who collaborated helped fight off the Americans and in a way saved this land for the British, not knowing that they would soon pay the price for it. The war ended and throves of loyalists, Americans who fought on the wrong side of the revolution and lost (traitors to the Revolution and its values), move into Quebec to stay British. These were the original English-Canadians, cowards and traitors back home technically. Then began the slow and steady process by which the original Quebeckers went from being the majority to being the minority, gradually drowned in British immigration. About a third of the way through, the Rebellions of the 1830s came, again plotting collaborating loyalists against freedom-seekers. Again, one camp was punished while the other was thanked for loyalty. The ordinary Quebecker was then pushed back in obscurity as a 2nd class citizen for generations. The trouble started again when the Church got out of the picture. The fight for civil and collective rights brought back ideas of self-determination, which brought back fear of dissent and fresh threats and gifts to insure loyalty and collaboration. The same old pattern... The underlying theme to this saga is fear, real and induced (for collaborative purposes). This fear lead to a watering down of key values (self-respect, pride, self-determination, solidarity) common in any society. The sweet and sour treatment a group of people receives over the years, brought by a pattern of gift/punishment responses to behavior (some of which contrary to human nature) has lead to a schizophrenic social mindset among modern-day Quebeckers. This is what explains the "Enigma of Quebec City". Quebec City was the seat of power for a long time to the British, people there have had the "gifts" reflex deeply imprinted in them. No surprises people there today are more collaborative to the Feds. Not to mention Quebec City people are known for being real princesses. This is why to this day, there are two types of Quebeckers, the collaborator and the rebel (freedom-seeker). The collaborator pursues the same sick tradition (first set by the priests) of being bought for staying faithful, like prostitutes, they are given money, investments, high-ranking government jobs (Prime Ministers...), apparent rights (even though rights are to be taken, not given). etc. in exchange for continued loyalty. The other Quebecker, the freedom-seeker, wants to break away from from this model, stop the cycle, stop acting like a prostitute or a primadona, go out on its own, do what the Americans did. [There's also a 3rd type that recently appeared, a kind of hybrid, these are in fact collaborators that pretend to be freedom-seekers as a tool to getting the "goods" from Ottawa.] Only the 2nd type of citizen is mature and healthy for the sake of Canada's and Quebec's future. It is highly unhealthy for Canada to pursue the model of buying Quebec loyalty, it's demeaning for both. Canada is no longer a British territory needing collaboration to fight off the US. This obsession against US independence has been transferred to one against Quebec independence. Canadians (and their Quebec collaborators) are loyalists at heart, they feel that they "have" to fight "rebellion", without thinking, even when divorce appears to be the only healthy and mature thing to do.

As a Quebecker of Scottish ancestry, I would like to see the Maritimes join Quebec following independence. I understand this is highly improbable but I believe this option should be considered just as seriously. Both share a common Celtic heritage that is more and more foreign to the rest of Canada. Quebec has the merit of fighting for its heritage, while Canada is slowly drowning its own heritage in blind multiculturalism. No offence but statistics show that pretty soon being Canadian will mean being Pakistani or Chinese, indifferent to when or how this land was first setlled, by pioneering French, Irish and Scots. There are things that bond people stronger than language, common traditions, relation to the land, music, shared hardship, etc. An english-speaking New Brunswicker of Irish ancestry has a hundred times more in common with a french-speaking Quebecker than with another english-speaking Canadian from BC of Chinese or Indu descent. These things matter more than than people will admit to themselves, they're the glue that gives a country a common identity. People of Irish, Scottish or French descent (most of which came from Brittany) are Celtic brothers that can work together to defend what they hold in common. Maybe one day folks in the Maritimes will realize their heritage had more chance of lasting by staying with Quebec than staying with Canada.

I'm an anglo Quebecer and if Quebec separates, I propose that Canada's capital is moved from Ottawa to Victoria BC. Other good options would be Vancouver or Calgary. This would reflect the country's new balance. The capital has moved before, before Ottawa there were other cities. True the costs would be significant but it would be worth it. A commission could be set up to oversee the move. Significant buildings that have special heritage value, like the Parliament building and the Supreme court building would benefit from a special relocation fund. They would basically be carefully de-constructed, transported and rebuilt faithfully as they were (like the Abu Simbel temple in Egypt was moved). Of course it would be cheaper to build new buildings for these institutions but keeping these could be worth it, it would work to unite the country in a collective project and give it a sense of continuity. Other less significant buildings, like the PM's house or the Canada Post building would simply be put to sale. New buildings would be built or bought in Victoria. Costs for relocating foreign embassies would be at each country's expenses. As for civil workers and private businesses catering to them (hotels, real estate groups, etc.) any opportunity lost here would pop up in Victoria. Basically there would be a drop in the market for the Ottawa region and local city pressure groups would scream injustice but for the long-term sake of the country these should ignored, or compensated symbolically. Of course there are capital cities in other countries that are at a rock's throw from their neighbors, but it wouldn't be healthy here. Ottawa is too QC-oriented. The new Canada's balance of power wouldn't be there anymore. The two founding nations myth would have to be recast, the new emphasis would be rebalanced on Canada's British heritage, just like Australia, it would be turned towards the future, the West, the Pacific and its rising Asian partners.