Would you like a trial separation

[Topaz]

I would suggest that any attempt by any Province to separate from Canada is reasonable grounds for just war.

What about the Canadian and US government trying to join together as in the NAU? I know the Americans don't want it and I bet most Canadians don't either.

[Argus]

I'd rather see conservatives go somewhere else so they can live according to their own peculiar customs and rules.

I think you'd find that would pretty much eliminate about 75% of the tax base.

You see, what generally turns people into conservatives is when they get succesful and start seeing all their money whittled away by government to give to people who are lazy or stupid or simply like to spend other people's money (ie, NDP types).

[Argus]

It serves the purpose of allowing Argus to tell Quebec to piss off

And to see how many others would like to tell Quebec to piss off - without going through the complications of "what about this" and "what about that". Just.... how many would like to see them just.. go... away.

Edited October 18, 2008 by Argus

[marksman]

And to see how many others would like to tell Quebec to piss off - without going through the complications of "what about this" and "what about that". Just.... how many would like to see them just.. go... away.

If that's what you wanted then why not just ask who hates Quebec? But that sounds like bigotry so let's pretend we're talking about a trial separation.

[whowhere]

Dear Quebec,

We have decided to allow you to be your own political nation, separate from a united Canada;

however, in exchange for your independence we choose to annex Montreal and all lands south of the St. Lawrence River.

Yeah, Considering Montreal was apart of the Original Canada? Makes alot of sense idiot. Sorry, buddy the Queen via a proclamation made it so the provincial boundaries are fixed they cannot be changed. If you want to alter Quebec's boundaries than they need to reflect original Canada which is essentially Ontario, Quebec and Labrador.

The passage through Mount Royal towards the maritimes is necessary for the economic viability of our nation of Canada.

Have you been on the 407etr?? I am sure a toll road could be built. Hell, what is stopping Quebec from doing that now

Any attempt to block this annexation will be seen as an act of war against Canada and we will not hesitate to involve the UN and NATO.

Involving Nato and the UN? You are a joke and a dumbass. Nato is essentially the US, the Quebec Canadians fought with the United States to secure their Independence. If Quebec were to declare sovereignty and modern Canada became hostile the UN would send in a peace keeping force to do what?, keep the peace until the matter is resolved on the International Stage. Given the fact Quebec/Canada is an occupied nation with binding History to the United States and Europe what leg will parasite Canada have to stand on with this aggression and oppressive move?

We feel this trade is more than fair considering your defeat on the Plains of Abraham and the resulting Royal Proclamation of 1763. At that time your national identity could have been assimilated into British North America; however, we allowed you to preserve your culture, language and heritage.

Queen Elizabeth is that you??? Your heiness, how good of you to render your views on mapleleafweb. Yes, the British Monarchy allowed Quebec/Canada is preserve its culture, language, heritage, and it's modern provincial broundries. Are you speaking on behalf of the Queen or the Governor General of Canada?? Or are you just some deluded ignorant jackass? Obviously a dumbass.

Canada was a possession of France. Canada was not defeated and was lost and fell under British Occupation. France financed the American revolution and embroiled Europe in a 30 year civil war at the hands of Napoleon. Part of France's support was to get Canada back. Argue against it but there is documented records of the confederate congress to support this fact. This can all be found online through the library of congress.

Accordingly, allowing us the annexation of all lands south of the St. Lawrence and the city of Mount Royal will be seen as a token of your appreciate for all that Canada has done for you.

Sincerely,

Canada

Yes Quebec you should feel grateful for the occupation and the abuse inflicted on you for hundreds of years. To show your gratitude you should willingly give up one of Quebec's/ North Americas oldest Cities (about 400 years). In a show Quebec's gratitude they extend the one finger salute.

[whowhere]

I'm quite certain the major parties feel exactly the same way as you about this. Problem is, neither would ever want to be the one to say it or do anything about it. They are both fully aware that whichever party takes the tough love approach, the other will go sucking up to Quebec to make serious political hay for the following election.

The only way it could work is if significantly more seats were added outside Quebec at the same time, making their 75 seats less of a threat.

Quebec has 8 million people representing 25 % of Canada's population. They are growing their population in a controlled and socially responsible way. So, this population weighting will likely continue. The federal politicians can try to screw with Quebec but their is a clause in the 1982 constitution known as the notwithstanding clause. That pretty much trumps any federal intrusion on Quebec. So really, there is crap anyone can do about anything. Create all the extra seats you want but it only it show the lengths and depths you will go to not treat Quebec as an equal.

[Argus]

If that's what you wanted then why not just ask who hates Quebec? But that sounds like bigotry so let's pretend we're talking about a trial separation.

Bigotry? You know what, I'm not going to say that some of my best friends are French. I'm going to say that, with one exception, ALL of my best friends are French.

And guess what? With the exception of a couple of Quebecers, they're fed up with Quebec as well.

[cybercoma]

Yeah, Considering Montreal was apart of the Original Canada? Makes alot of sense idiot. Sorry, buddy the Queen via a proclamation made it so the provincial boundaries are fixed they cannot be changed. If you want to alter Quebec's boundaries than they need to reflect original Canada which is essentially Ontario, Quebec and Labrador.

Have you been on the 407etr?? I am sure a toll road could be built. Hell, what is stopping Quebec from doing that now

Involving Nato and the UN? You are a joke and a dumbass. Nato is essentially the US, the Quebec Canadians fought with the United States to secure their Independence. If Quebec were to declare sovereignty and modern Canada became hostile the UN would send in a peace keeping force to do what?, keep the peace until the matter is resolved on the International Stage. Given the fact Quebec/Canada is an occupied nation with binding History to the United States and Europe what leg will parasite Canada have to stand on with this aggression and oppressive move?

Queen Elizabeth is that you??? Your heiness, how good of you to render your views on mapleleafweb. Yes, the British Monarchy allowed Quebec/Canada is preserve its culture, language, heritage, and it's modern provincial broundries. Are you speaking on behalf of the Queen or the Governor General of Canada?? Or are you just some deluded ignorant jackass? Obviously a dumbass.

Canada was a possession of France. Canada was not defeated and was lost and fell under British Occupation. France financed the American revolution and embroiled Europe in a 30 year civil war at the hands of Napoleon. Part of France's support was to get Canada back. Argue against it but there is documented records of the confederate congress to support this fact. This can all be found online through the library of congress.

Yes Quebec you should feel grateful for the occupation and the abuse inflicted on you for hundreds of years. To show your gratitude you should willingly give up one of Quebec's/ North Americas oldest Cities (about 400 years). In a show Quebec's gratitude they extend the one finger salute.

You're very astute at detecting facetious posts. You should have noticed that I was replying to someone else's claim that we should drive a corridor through Quebec to the maritimes. And, I thought the sarcasm of putting that poster's idea in a letter to Quebec would've been obvious. I guess you have to really spell things out when people as intelligent as you are posting here.

Edited October 18, 2008 by cybercoma

[marksman]

You're very astute at detecting facetious posts. You should have noticed that I was replying to someone else's claim that we should drive a corridor through Quebec to the maritimes. And, I thought the sarcasm of putting that poster's idea in a letter to Quebec would've been obvious. I guess you have to really spell things out when people as intelligent as you are posting here.

Sarcasm generally goes undetected around here. In fact I think you called me "1 of those" when I used it earlier.

People on here like to assume the worst I guess.

For the record I'm teasing you a bit there not trying to insult or attack you.

[cybercoma]

Sarcasm generally goes undetected around here. In fact I think you called me "1 of those" when I used it earlier.

People on here like to assume the worst I guess.

For the record I'm teasing you a bit there not trying to insult or attack you.

A letter to Quebec, though? I mean, seriously... it couldn't have been more obvious; calling upon NATO to support Canada against any Quebecois attempts to retake Montreal; calling Montreal by its english name, "Mount Royal"; talking about economic viability in the same sentence as the maritimes.... was it really that obscure?

[marksman]

Bigotry? You know what, I'm not going to say that some of my best friends are French. I'm going to say that, with one exception, ALL of my best friends are French.

And guess what? With the exception of a couple of Quebecers, they're fed up with Quebec as well.

You're asking who wants to kick "insert group name here" out of Canada. That sounds like bigotry.

Congratulations on having French friends. But you're asking about kicking Quebecers out of Canada not French people. Even if all of your French friends were Quebecers that still doesn't change how your question sounds.

[marksman]

A letter to Quebec, though? I mean, seriously... it couldn't have been more obvious; calling upon NATO to support Canada against any Quebecois attempts to retake Montreal; calling Montreal by its english name, "Mount Royal"; talking about economic viability in the same sentence as the maritimes.... was it really that obscure?

No don't get me wrong! My sarcasm was much easier to interpret as some of the idiotic personal attacks that get put up here by some people. Yours was much easier to identify as sarcasm. Although I'll admit that for a brief second I thought you were serious. I decided that it was more likely you were mocking the idea of that corridor.

Also the post right after yours was the perfect response.

[Argus]

You're asking who wants to kick "insert group name here" out of Canada. That sounds like bigotry.

Maybe you should get your ears checked. My dislike of Quebec has everything to do with their politics and nothing to do with their language, except insofar as their language appears to guide their politics.

Jeffrey Simpson alluded to this question in his column yesterday. He didn't come right out and suggest it was time to consider removing Quebec, but the conclusions the reader draws are clear.

Curiously, the Globe changed the headline - which appeared as "Nothing is Ever Enough" to "Quebecers' Mental Bloc"

After each of the six elections since 1993, a chorus of Quebec commentators explained why the Bloc Québécois, once again, had won the largest number of seats in the province. It's always been something: reaction against the defeat of the Meech Lake accord, the Liberal Party's sponsorship scandal and, this time, Conservative cuts to two little cultural programs and one announcement on juvenile sentencing.

Undoubtedly these somethings contributed to the Bloc's successes. Federal parties did things and adopted policy positions that were difficult to swallow, but then the same reaction occurs elsewhere without people running to parties that defend only the interests of their region or group.

Explanations after each election missed more fundamental interpretations that, outside Quebec, are worth pondering. They could lead to a reassessment of how to deal with the province. By voting Bloc for six consecutive elections, the largest number of francophones in Quebec turned their backs on Canada, while not expecting that the rest of Canada would ever turn its back on Quebec.

Nothing is Ever Enough

[cybercoma]

Argus, in response to your original post, I don't think we should kick Quebec out, but I think there needs to be a serious re-evaluation of the way the federal government does business with the provinces. Not only should Quebec be allowed to do what it wants with its provincial jurisdiction, all provinces should be given the same autonomy. Regardless, transfer payments will still be necessary to ensure that Canadians everywhere are able to receive the same level of service between provinces. If an Albertan visits PEI, they should be able to get the same level of care at a hospital on the island that they would at a hospital in Calgary. Transfer payments may be necessary to achieve this; however, outside this the government should be deaf to provincial demands. Quebec should be cut-off from the federal teet and allowed to go her own way provincially, but not as a nation seperate from Canada.

[Argus]

Argus, in response to your original post, I don't think we should kick Quebec out, but I think there needs to be a serious re-evaluation of the way the federal government does business with the provinces. Not only should Quebec be allowed to do what it wants with its provincial jurisdiction, all provinces should be given the same autonomy. Regardless, transfer payments will still be necessary to ensure that Canadians everywhere are able to receive the same level of service between provinces.

Therein lies the problem, though. If you give the federal government the responsibility of collecting and distributing taxes then they almost have to have an oversight function for how the provinces spend that money. Further - it does nothing to address the issue - or as Jeffrey Simpson says - nothing is ever enough for Quebec. They will always insist on more power, and they will always insist on more money. I live in Ottawa. I talk politics with Quebecers. Most people who don't will find it incredible, but virtually all Quebecers seem to believe that, despite their decades as a "have not" province, they pay more money to the federal government than they get back. There's not a shred of gratitude for the billions which are transferred there from Ontario and Alberta taxpayers in order for them to maintain their services. On the contrary, they feel they're getting ripped off. And you can't convince them otherwise.

Furthermore, the way they vote guarantees the three federalist parties will continue to promise them more and more in order to try and win votes. Why are the feds paying for a football stadium in Quebec city? To win votes. Why are we rebuilding their ports? To win votes? Why are we paying for roads in Quebec? To win votes. It doesn't matter if the Tories are in power or the Liberals, and it wouldn't matter if the NDP got in either.

Edited October 19, 2008 by Argus

[cybercoma]

You can say that about any province though. Why did Chretien give NB money for roads? To win votes. Why did ______ get money for _________ ? To win votes. Maybe you're right. Perhaps Quebec should be cut off entirely from the rest of Canadian taxpayers. Maybe complete economic independence is the only way to fairly resolve the issue in Quebec. Canada keeps its tax dollars, Quebec pays nothing to the federal government and keeps theirs, but if you concede that to them, what makes them a part of Canada? Other than geography, Quebec will be wholly separate. But maybe that's the point you and Simpson are making... maybe Quebec doesn't really want to be separate from Canada. Quebec's motive might be to suck Ottawa dry and have proven to be very successful at it.

[White Doors]

Quebec has 8 million people representing 25 % of Canada's population. They are growing their population in a controlled and socially responsible way. So, this population weighting will likely continue. The federal politicians can try to screw with Quebec but their is a clause in the 1982 constitution known as the notwithstanding clause. That pretty much trumps any federal intrusion on Quebec. So really, there is crap anyone can do about anything. Create all the extra seats you want but it only it show the lengths and depths you will go to not treat Quebec as an equal.

Quebec didn't sign the 1982 constitution..

[White Doors]

You're asking who wants to kick "insert group name here" out of Canada. That sounds like bigotry.

Congratulations on having French friends. But you're asking about kicking Quebecers out of Canada not French people. Even if all of your French friends were Quebecers that still doesn't change how your question sounds.

Curious, so were the seperatists in 1995 all bigots too?

[White Doors]

Also, isn't the current relationship, in effect,, already a trial seperation?

Think, Bill 101; Quebec Pension plan, code law, did not sign the charter.. etc etc.

They pretty much already have their own country. Certainly, they have more economic latitude than do many countries in the EU.

Why they would want to leave the sweet deal they have already??? Just goes to show that their 'argument' for seperation is based on emotion alone, not logic. They already have the best of both worlds from their perspective, although they don't seem to recognize it.

[marksman]

Maybe you should get your ears checked. My dislike of Quebec has everything to do with their politics and nothing to do with their language, except insofar as their language appears to guide their politics.

My ears are good thanks but maybe you should take your own advice. I didn't say you disliked anyone because of language. I said that you're asking who wants to kick Quebecers out of Canada and that question sounds like bigotry. Your response where you talked about all those French friends of yours doesn't change that. You admit you just don't like Quebec. That's great but we don't remove people from this country because you don't like them.

If you're really interested in helping Canada then kicking any group out of the country isn't the solution.

[marksman]

Curious, so were the seperatists in 1995 all bigots too?

There's a difference between saying I want to leave and saying I want to kick that group out. Especially when someone's saying I want to kick that group out because I don't like them or their democratic choices.

If people actually cared about this country they'd want to discuss real solutions. But their dislike for people seems to outweigh everything else.

[wulf42]

I say if people in Quebec want to separate.. then let them populate Newfoundland and the Newfoundlanders can take Quebec they can swap provinces.............then there you have it! they are separated from Canada by about 100 miles of Ocean.......everybody is happy

Edited October 20, 2008 by wulf42

[Brunopolis]

There's a difference between saying I want to leave and saying I want to kick that group out. Especially when someone's saying I want to kick that group out because I don't like them or their democratic choices.

If people actually cared about this country they'd want to discuss real solutions. But their dislike for people seems to outweigh everything else.

Unfortunately, their democratic choices are taking more money than their fair share from the government pot. In addition, anything that is in the federal culture and arts budget tends to disproportionately go to Quebec.

Sure it benefits them but it creates discontent among the rest of Canada. Particularly the two money makers(Ontario and Alberta).

A real solution would be either reducing equalization payments to zero over a period of a few years or at least make sure the money we are sending to them isn't going to services above and beyond our own. This way Quebec can claim self-sufficiency and people won't have a reason to dislike them.

[normanchateau]

Alternatively, perhaps Canada and Alberta should consider a trial separation.

It would be costly for Canada but at least we'd be rid of that social conservative Harper once and for all. Harper could then gracefully exit Canada and become the undisputed leader of Alberta, finally achieving the majority that he so hungrily craves like a vampire craves blood.

Meanwhile the rest of Canada could elect a fiscally conservative but socially liberal Prime Minister whose values are in tune with the majority of Canadians.

[normanchateau]

Alternatively, perhaps Canada and Alberta should consider a trial separation.

It would be costly for Canada but at least we'd be rid of that social conservative Harper once and for all. Harper could then gracefully exit Canada and become the undisputed leader of Alberta, finally achieving the majority that he so hungrily craves like a vampire craves blood.

Meanwhile the rest of Canada could elect a fiscally conservative but socially liberal Prime Minister whose values are in tune with the majority of Canadians.