NDP shows their true colours,and how they hate Canada.

[-TSS-]

I thought that the first nations people living in Quebec are against the idea of an independent Quebec as they have a good deal with the federal government, or perhaps not as good as they would like to, but at least better than they could ever expect from the government of an independent Quebec.

Is this the case or am I completely mistaken?

[g_bambino]

The First Nations land in Quebec (as it is all across the country) is under the federal Crown. If Quebec separated, it could not take that land, since it isn't currently within the jurisdiction of the Quebec Crown (government of Quebec).

[Vineon]

What is Quebec? Just a territorial jurisdiction with randomly drawn borders that can be re-drawn.

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.

repaying Canada for infrastructure and a proportionate share of Canada's debt?

The proportionate share of the Canadian debt comes with a proportionate share of all Canadian assets, which easily means all federal infrastructures within Québec.

Ask West Virginia that question.

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.

I am sure there are more. My point is that 50% + 1 is as arbitrary as any supermajority provision.

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.

Well, there's a LOT of room before armed intervention!

How about money? Ottawa could and likely would immediately stop all financial transfers to Quebec. A sovereign Quebec government would immediately have to cover all pensions, EI and the rest. That's a LOT of money!

Versus a Québec that stopped redistributing taxes to Ottawa. Something like 60 billions a year as we speak?

Quebec could talk about closing the St. Lawrence Seaway but we could talk about denying commercial aircraft the right to fly to Quebec over Canada's airspace!

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.

There is a HUGE amount of 2-way trade with Quebec from Ontario and the Maritimes! What if we applied tariffs? What if we decided to seek other sources and not buy from Quebec?

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.

How about that Churchill Falls deal? Would Quebec send in troops if some Danny Williams clone turned the switch delivering all that electricity to Quebec to the "off" position?

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.

Perhaps if I was a Quebecer as well off as he I might have agreed with him. A little old lady on an old age pension might have felt differently. This is the reason the PQ and BQ have always downplayed any talk about such problems with separating.

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.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Vineon

[Vineon]

I thought that the first nations people living in Quebec are against the idea of an independent Quebec as they have a good deal with the federal government, or perhaps not as good as they would like to, but at least better than they could ever expect from the government of an independent Quebec.

Is this the case or am I completely mistaken?

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.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Vineon

[RNG]

There, fixed it for you.

Yes, and murdering British consular persons is all totally OK and the guys who do it get a total walk. Right on. Vivalla the Revolutions, and all that bullshit.

[Vineon]

Yes, and murdering British consular persons is all totally OK and the guys who do it get a total walk. Right on. Vivalla the Revolutions, and all that bullshit.

Pierre Laporte wasn't a "British consular person".

James Cross was. He is still very much alive.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Vineon

[Evening Star]

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.

His point is that it's just as arbitrary to require a simple majority as to require 60% or 2/3 or 50%+1 of all eligible voters, especially when many democratic jurisdictions do require more than a simple majority for fundamental changes, examples of which he has given. (Why require a referendum at all? Why should a QC provincial government not be able to simply unilaterally declare independence if they desire to? Seems arbitrary.)

Edited March 23, 2012 by Evening Star

[jbg]

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.

Doesn't that make a great new boundary for a Royal Dominion of Canada on one hand, and a Royal Dominion of Quebec on the other?

This is a good deal since Quebec has received a disproportionate share of equalization and transfer payments.

The proportionate share of the Canadian debt comes with a proportionate share of all Canadian assets, which easily means all federal infrastructures within Québec.

But the debt doesn't ride neatly with the assets, and much of the debt was wracked up paying Quebec for its "cultural uniqueness" or "linguistic integrity".

Ask West Virginia that question.

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.

How is that a relevant factor?

Supermajority provisions are common when fundamental changes are sought, in governmental and corporate law. For example, in order to amend Canada's "constitution", from Wikipedia my understanding is that there is a supermajority provision."Most kinds of amendment can be passed only if identical resolutions are adopted by the House of Commons, the Senate, and a two-thirds majority of the provincial legislative assemblies representing at least 50% of the national population" (link).

I know Canada is not the U.S. That being said, here are some supermajority provisions in the U.S. Constitution:

1. It takes 2/3 of both Houses of Congress to override a Presidential veto;
   
2. It takes 2/3 of both Houses of Congress to propose a Constitutional amendment and same must be ratified by three quarters of the states; and
   
3. In the Senate, it takes 60 votes our of 100 to terminate debate.
   

I am sure there are more. My point is that 50% + 1 is as arbitrary as any supermajority provision.

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.

You very selectively edited the part of that post to which you responded. However, I restored it for context purposes. I have nothing against eliminating unnecessary portions of quotes but what you did was not fair.

With regard to supermajorities, what about the issue of how profound the change is? Supermajorities are almost a universal requirement in state and, I assume provincial corporate law so that if a corporation, say, wants to dispose of all of its assets a supermajority of shareholders is required, rather than a simple majority. As I pointed out, both the U.S. and Canadian constitutions require some form of supermajority to amend the respective constitutions, and in the U.S. to force an end to debate on most matters in the Senate. Since the days when the U.S. Constitution was framed, organizers of society have often worried about a "tyranny of the majority".

I can't imagine anything more fundamental than forcing the citizens of a geographical area to lose one set of rights, guaranteed by Canada and gaining perhaps another set of rights from Quebec. As mentioned before, for example, the English-speaking population is likely to have their linguistic rights materially abridged.

Edited March 23, 2012 by jbg

[-TSS-]

Referendums on very fundamental issues like independence or joining an international organisation can be very divisive on the electorate. In Norway the 70's referendum on joining the EC, the then predecessor of the current EU, was said to be so divisive that even members of the same families or people who used to be good friends but were on the different sides of the argument, have never spoken to each other ever since.

I wonder has the 1995 referendum had similar impacts on the people of Quebec.

[segnosaur]

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.

While you are right in that the term "Western Quebec" is a vague term that doesn't hold any exact political or territorial meaning, there are individual municipalities in the region who may not favor independence. And those areas do have defined (municipal) boarders and a government.

And the fact that they are not "a people" is irrelevant, as the term "people" is a pretty vague term in itself. The majority of individuals may or may not prefer to be associated with Canada rather than an independent Quebec; it doesn't matter if they have a unique ethnic or cultural background.

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.

I doubt whether any Federalists are claiming that citizens of (for example) Gatineau should be forced to stay in Canada at gunpoint post-separation. However, the issue is whether there should be a mechanism in place to ensure the wishes of people in those areas is met (perhaps as a post-referendum referendum).

As for your suggestion that people in Western Quebec would prefer not to be "marginalized" in a post-separation Canada:

- Individuals in that area might also feel marginalized from a post-separation Quebec. Things like a stronger identification with Canada due to proximity with Ottawa, concerns that they may be treated differently than areas that had stronger separatist leanings, and language differences might make them even more marginalized than a post-independence Quebec.

- Given the strong economic dependence of Western Quebec on Ontario and/or Ottawa, some individuals might feel that economic security trumps any sense of "marginalization" they might feel

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.

First of all, you are right in that Ontario does enjoy a substantial trade surplus with Quebec. However, Ontario is not the only province with which Quebec trades. Currently, Quebec enjoys a trade surplus (as of the mid-90s) with British Columbia, New Brunswick, Alberta, and Newfoundland. (See: http://publications.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/21-601-MIE/21-601-MIE2002058.pdf)

Secondly, not sure if whatever figures you're looking at include Quebec workers employed in other provinces. In the National Capital region, there is an overwhelming number of Quebecers who are employed in the Ontario side (and relatively few Ontario workers who similarly work in Quebec.) Individuals crossing into Ontario to work would likely be hit by barriers.

Besides, I'm fairly sure partition of a seceding state is illegal under international laws.

There aren't any rules for unilateral succession of a province in Canada, so we can't really say what's legal/illegal.

What would likely happen is that the status of areas like Western or Northern Quebec would have to be negotiated over, and Quebec should not be surprised of the rest of Canada decides to play "hardball" over the issue.

[Vineon]

What would likely happen is that the status of areas like Western or Northern Quebec would have to be negotiated over, and Quebec should not be surprised of the rest of Canada decides to play "hardball" over the issue.

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

First of all, you are right in that Ontario does enjoy a substantial trade surplus with Quebec. However, Ontario is not the only province with which Quebec trades. Currently, Quebec enjoys a trade surplus (as of the mid-90s) with British Columbia, New Brunswick, Alberta, and Newfoundland. (See: http://publications.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/21-601-MIE/21-601-MIE2002058.pdf)

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.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Vineon

[segnosaur]

What would likely happen is that the status of areas like Western or Northern Quebec would have to be negotiated over, and Quebec should not be surprised of the rest of Canada decides to play "hardball" over the issue.

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

First of all, keep in mind that the article you quoted referred to an unofficial referendum that was held in parts of Serbia.

Furthermore, the article doesn't really specify what Canada's stance on Kosovo serbs who did not want to separate. Frankly, our isolation from the conflict probably meant that Canada never actually stated a position on that particular issue.

However, even if Canada did state that Kosovo should remain "in tact", that would not necessarily make them wrong in claiming parts of Quebec could be/should be partitioned... it would just make them hypocritical over the Kosovo situation.

First of all, you are right in that Ontario does enjoy a substantial trade surplus with Quebec. However, Ontario is not the only province with which Quebec trades. Currently, Quebec enjoys a trade surplus (as of the mid-90s) with British Columbia, New Brunswick, Alberta, and Newfoundland.

Overlooking that trade between Québec and a couple of those provinces is relatively small...

Well, I did pick provinces where the total trade was in the range of $1 billion/year or greater, and where Quebec held a very large surplus. So yes, the scale of trade between Quebec and Ontario is bigger than that between Quebec and B.C./Alberta/etc., but the trade surplus/deficit is large enough not to be ignored.

...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.

Free trade is good.

However, in the past we've seen Quebec benefit from certain protectionist measures (the most notable is their restrictions on out-of-province workers). Before we agree to any trade deals we'd have to make sure that all such barriers were removed.

The problem that I see from the Separatist side is that they assume that all such agreements are a done deal... but it won't be anywhere as clean as they seem to think.