Quebec General Election 2014

[carepov]

Couple of things:

1) The Anglophone population is almost exclusively centered in and around Montreal,Quebec City and the Eastern Townships - outside that is almost exclusively Francophone. Your Statscan Link qualifies Urban as anyone living in or around a population center of 1000 or more.....that's pretty rural to most people. Point is - the vast majority of these areas are PQ strongholds.

2) Credit Rating/Economy - we're each entitled to our opinion but credit rating agencies have no choice but to downgrade Quebec's credit rating. It's exactly like removing a co-signer from a loan.

3) As for the living standard - the credit rating is one problem. Another is the elimination of Transfer Payments - always subject to interpretation but at least $7 billion annually and probably a lot more. Another is that 32% of the Federal Civil Service is Francophone - mostly living in Quebec. Over time - if not immediately, those jobs will be either eliminated - or given to people living in Canada.

4) There will be additional ongoing costs in "running a country" - and there won't be any compensating revenue. Some sort of military, border security, passports and untold bureaucracy needs, etc.

As for calling them Blockheads......an old phrase associated with the Bloq Quebecois but pretty appropriate. Leave everyone in the dark - all roses. Think again.

Thanks for clarifying, but still when you say "Separation is based in large part on ignorance" I do not think this is true or helpful. Separation is more besed on different values where other interests outweigh economic interests. For example when children move out from their parent's house or when couples separate there is almost always a lowering of standards of living...

What happened when Czechoslovakia separated? Not much. What would happen if Scotland separated? Not much.

[TimG]

What happened when Czechoslovakia separated? Not much. What would happen if Scotland separated? Not much.

Both of those examples don't have large majorities in geographically significant territories opposing separation. They also do not split the parent country in two. Quebec separation would be more problematic for those reasons alone.

[Keepitsimple]

Thanks for clarifying, but still when you say "Separation is based in large part on ignorance" I do not think this is true or helpful. Separation is more besed on different values where other interests outweigh economic interests. For example when children move out from their parent's house or when couples separate there is almost always a lowering of standards of living...

What happened when Czechoslovakia separated? Not much. What would happen if Scotland separated? Not much.

You're entitled to that opinion but I've listed only some major stumbling blocks - there's certainly a lot more - all at a cost. These facts have not been communicated to the population at large - especially those "urban" Quebecers I was talking about. Perhaps ignorance is too strong a word - but when large swaths of the population are not aware of these basic challenges, what can I call it?

[carepov]

You're entitled to that opinion but I've listed only some major stumbling blocks - there's certainly a lot more - all at a cost. These facts have not been communicated to the population at large - especially those "urban" Quebecers I was talking about. Perhaps ignorance is too strong a word - but when large swaths of the population are not aware of these basic challenges, what can I call it?

How do you know that the majority of separatists are not aware of the costs of separation?

[WestCoastRunner]

Comparing Quebec to the Nazis is always a great way to make a point.

Does anyone remember Godwin's Law:

"Godwin’s Law is an internet adage that is derived from one of the earliest bits of Usenet wisdoms, which goes “if you mention Adolf Hitler or Nazis within a discussion thread, you’ve automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in.”

By 2007, The Economist had declared that “a good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument.”

[carepov]

Both of those examples don't have large majorities in geographically significant territories opposing separation. They also do not split the parent country in two. Quebec separation would be more problematic for those reasons alone.

Sure it would be problematic, I agree. I am mainly taking issue with labelling the majority of separatists as ignorant.

What is ignorant are people that believe that if Quebec separates there will be a civil war or some kind of similarly dire consequences.

[WestCoastRunner]

Separation is based in large part on ignorance. The old guard may be dying off but Quebec is still largely rural with a uni-lingual constituency that doesn't care about the rest on Canada and doesn't understand the economic and cultural realities of separation - especially as things play our over the next 25 years:

What these blockheads fail to recognize is that it is the ROC that is protecting Quebec's language and culture......and that amounts to sheer ignorance.

I can't really see how these fighting words can help an honest and open dialogue on separatism. Who does it benefit and how does it move the conversation forward in an intelligent manner? Now, I understand this is a very small forum but it is representative of many Canadians that do not live in Quebec and it certainly has an undercurrent of racism.

[g_bambino]

Separatists have already made it clear that they don't care about the law and the only question is whether they think they can grab land without being condemned as the villains. That is where the reactions of people on the ground matter. If people in Montreal simply shrug and accept it then Canada has no leverage. The same is if the Cree choose to stay with Quebec because they are given a sweetheart deal (to be honest, the Cree could decide that they trust the separatists more than the feds and Canada should not assume they would want to stay).

Separatists say all sorts of conflicting things. They "say" they don't care about the law--federal law, anyway--by ignoring it, while openly moaning about the Clarity Act, indicating they're aware it's going to have some impact on them. The matter of the First Nations (Cree and Inuit) territory within Quebec that the Northeastern Quebec Agreement says is governed by Ottawa falls into the former camp; separatists simply pretend there's no question about it. But, that's now. If it comes to Quebec independence, I don't see what grounds the new country would have in simply taking that land as its own; the province presently governs that area as much as it governs Labrador. Taking one would be tantamount to taking the other.

Montreal is a different matter altogether. It is firmly under the control of the Crown in Right of Quebec.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited March 12, 2014 by g_bambino

[segnosaur]

Thanks for clarifying, but still when you say "Separation is based in large part on ignorance" I do not think this is true or helpful.

Actually, I think its quite true, and quite helpful.

During the last referendum, there were a lot of statements made by separatists that were quite... questionable. (Parizeau claiming that they can continue to use the Canadian dollar with no problems, claims that Quebec wouldn't be subject to partition if it decided to separate, that any Canadian public servants in Quebec would still have work, and that Quebec would not have to assume any debt were they to separate.)

I seem to also remember that during the last election at least some sovereignty supporters thought they could still use Canadian passports and send MPs to Ottawa in the event of a "Yes" vote. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995#Referendum_question)

That is pretty much the definition of 'ignorance'.... a lack of knowledge (supported in part by lies) that many 'yes' voters had during the referendum.

In my opinion, the best way to deal with the separation issue is by eliminating the ignorance. Educating the Quebec public, by letting them know exactly what they could expect from a 'yes' vote, will let them know what exactly their vote means. (And if many of these "I can vote Yes and still use my Canadian passport/our federal jobs won't disappear/etc." believers know the true effects of a "yes" vote, it might cause a few of them to rethink their positions.)

Separation is more besed on different values where other interests outweigh economic interests.

The problem is, many feel that Quebecers were not properly informed in the past referendum.

The "Yes" side was outright lying about some things.

The "no" side was was soft-selling its side.

And as a result, at least some people were voting from a position of ignorance.

What happened when Czechoslovakia separated? Not much.

Not sure if that's a proper comparison.

In Canada's case, Quebec depends to a certain degree on benefits obtained from the rest of Canada... transfer payments, favorable work exchanges, etc.

On the other hand, in the case of Czechoslovakia, from what I know the Czech and Slovak areas were on a more equal footing. (One side had been receiving transfer payments from the other but they had been stopped before the separation). Furthermore, at the time the division was relatively friendly. (i.e. none of this "We're not taking any debt! Yes you are!" stuff that characterizes Quebec's independence movement.)

It should also be pointed out that at the same time that Czechoslovakia was breaking up, it was also going through other political and financial upheavals... losing its former benefactor in the U.S.S.R., the introduction of private enterprise, etc., factors totally unrelated to its dissolution. Those factors will probably mask any hardships they might have encountered due to the division.

[Keepitsimple]

I can't really see how these fighting words can help an honest and open dialogue on separatism. Who does it benefit and how does it move the conversation forward in an intelligent manner? Now, I understand this is a very small forum but it is representative of many Canadians that do not live in Quebec and it certainly has an undercurrent of racism.

Holy mackerel Batman - are YOU ever off base.....and this is a great example of how people frivolously throw the term "racism" around. I'm bi-lingual from Montreal - moved to Toronto some time ago. My mother is French - name is Longpre. I have cousins who can't speak English. I'm in a fairly good position to look at things objectively - from a historical and cultural perspective. So....while everything I agree that my posts are my own opinions, I would suggest they are fairly well informed and do indeed help to open, if not move the dialogue forward.

[WestCoastRunner]

Holy mackerel Batman - are YOU ever off base.....and this is a great example of how people frivolously throw the term "racism" around. I'm bi-lingual from Montreal - moved to Toronto some time ago. My mother is French - name is Longpre. I have cousins who can't speak English. I'm in a fairly good position to look at things objectively - from a historical and cultural perspective. So....while everything I agree that my posts are my own opinions, I would suggest they are fairly well informed and do indeed help to open, if not move the dialogue forward.

Holy mackerel??? That's funny. My grandparents came to Canada from France. I too have extended family in Quebec who do not speak a word of english. What I don't get is what gives you permission to frivolously throw terms out like 'blockhead'. I just don't get it. How does that move forward your logic and how does it seek to drawn in intellectual conversation?

[Keepitsimple]

Holy mackerel??? That's funny. My grandparents came to Canada from France. I too have extended family in Quebec who do not speak a word of english. What I don't get is what gives you permission to frivolously throw terms out like 'blockhead'. I just don't get it. How does that move forward your logic and how does it seek to drawn in intellectual conversation?

Frivolous refers to your term "racist". I've explained that blockheads refers to the Bloq Quebecois - it's tongue in cheek for those who follow Quebec politics. But really, isn't it better to debate the substance of the matter - as I laid out in the post? You don't have to agree - but it's certainly worth some dialogue.

[WestCoastRunner]

I've explained that blockheads refers to the Bloq Quebecois - it's tongue in cheek for those who follow Quebec politics. But really, isn't it better to debate the substance of the matter - as I laid out in the post? You don't have to agree - but it's certainly worth some dialogue.

You are asking folks to debate according to your terms of quebec politics but which is not necessarily according to terms of others. Are you the expertise of Quebec politics and those who follow Quebec politics?

[Keepitsimple]

You are asking folks to debate according to your terms of quebec politics but which is not necessarily according to terms of others. Are you the expertise of Quebec politics and those who follow Quebec politics?

No - I'm not the expert ....only someone with a bit of understanding who has stepped forward with some points/opinions. You're entitled to disagree and if you so choose, offer some counter points.....and by all means, raise your own points/opinions that might contribute to the debate.....or would you rather we just passively sit back and let Quebec separatists dictate what information is debatable. What do you think about the pros and cons of Quebec separation?

[WestCoastRunner]

No - I'm not the expert ....only someone with a bit of understanding who has stepped forward with some points/opinions.

Good for you. I understand that. I will collect my thoughts. But in the meantime, I don't get why you don't have empathy for your french descendents. It is troubling to me.

[Keepitsimple]

Good for you. I understand that. I will collect my thoughts. But in the meantime, I don't get why you don't have empathy for your french descendents. It is troubling to me.

Quite the opposite. A rigged referendum saw almost a 50-50 split and since then, core support for Separatism has consistently polled in the low 40's.....in spite of a lack of knowledge of what Quebec would look like down the road. With a fully-disclosed roadmap and an honest accounting of the consequences, the numbers would surely drop significantly.....and yes that's only my opinion. So my empathy is with what I believe is a strong majority of Quebecers. I cannot have empathy for those that would choose to separate from Canada. I can respect their choice - if it is a fully informed one - but empathy? More like a great sadness because I truly believe that separation would be a slow and steady death march for the Quebecois culture. Their survival in North America will necessitate an anglicizing of their business environment - even to trade with the ROC.

[WestCoastRunner]

Quite the opposite. A rigged referendum saw almost a 50-50 split and since then, core support for Separatism has consistently polled in the low 40's.....in spite of a lack of knowledge of what Quebec would look like down the road. With a fully-disclosed roadmap and an honest accounting of the consequences, the numbers would surely drop significantly.....and yes that's only my opinion. So my empathy is with what I believe is a strong majority of Quebecers. I cannot have empathy for those that would choose to separate from Canada. I can respect their choice - if it is a fully informed one - but empathy? More like a great sadness because I truly believe that separation would be a slow and steady death march for the Quebecois culture. Their survival in North America will necessitate an anglicizing of their business environment - even to trade with the ROC.

Wonderful! I like this. Very balanced and thoughtful. I have a great sadness too but I do not live in Quebec although they are part of Canada. And in the end, I do not believe separation will happen. I think there is more passion in Quebec to stay within Canada than without.

[carepov]

During the last referendum, there were a lot of statements made by separatists that were quite... questionable. (Parizeau claiming that they can continue to use the Canadian dollar with no problems, claims that Quebec wouldn't be subject to partition if it decided to separate, that any Canadian public servants in Quebec would still have work, and that Quebec would not have to assume any debt were they to separate.)

I seem to also remember that during the last election at least some sovereignty supporters thought they could still use Canadian passports and send MPs to Ottawa in the event of a "Yes" vote. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995#Referendum_question)

That is pretty much the definition of 'ignorance'.... a lack of knowledge (supported in part by lies) that many 'yes' voters had during the referendum.

In my opinion, the best way to deal with the separation issue is by eliminating the ignorance. Educating the Quebec public, by letting them know exactly what they could expect from a 'yes' vote, will let them know what exactly their vote means. (And if many of these "I can vote Yes and still use my Canadian passport/our federal jobs won't disappear/etc." believers know the true effects of a "yes" vote, it might cause a few of them to rethink their positions.)

The problem is, many feel that Quebecers were not properly informed in the past referendum.

The "Yes" side was outright lying about some things.

The "no" side was was soft-selling its side.

And as a result, at least some people were voting from a position of ignorance.

Not much to disagree with there. The trouble is that "some people were voting from a position of ignorance" is not what KIS way saying. Also, no matter what the referendum question and no matter which side and on both sides of every election in all of history "some people were voting from a position of ignorance".

Some people are very informed and voted yes because they value having a new country more than the sacrifices mentionned.

Some people voted yes because it is in their own self-interest.

Some people voted yes because they are so pissed off with the status quo.

Some people voted yes because they felt there was no chance of separation and a large yes vote would allow Quebec to negotiate more independance/favors from Ottawa.

etc....

[August1991]

Separation is based in large part on ignorance.

Dead wrong.

Peladeau Jnr, like Parizeau, speaks good English. Both are rich and have travelled the world. They are not ignorant.

===

Today, walking home in the midst of a March snowstorm, I was wondering about an English-Canadian example of Peladeau Jr. Above, I gave the example of Belinda Stronach: offsping of a self-made man who decides to go into politics.

I think that a better example is Newfoundland's Danny Williams. "PKP" is comparable to Danny Williams.

Williams and Pelideau made their money through cable/media, government contacts/monopolies, both have big egoes and both want to be top dog.

====

I'm no fan of Trudeau Snr but imagine a federal State in which Berlusconi was merely a head of government in a sovereign, constituent republic of a larger State.

You would have the US Constitution.

Edited March 13, 2014 by August1991

[August1991]

It's not a matter of parts of Quebec seceding from Quebec, it's that the Northeastern Quebec Agreement specifies that certain territories inhabited by First Nations are not within the legislative jurisdiction of Quebec. Simply put, if Quebec declares independence, those lands won't go with it.

This is one of several issues.

1) The Anglophone population is almost exclusively centered in and around Montreal...

If Quebec were to vote to secede, I think that it is fair to argue that almost immediately, various regions of Quebec would vote to secede from Quebec.

Or, as Trudeau Snr described it, Quebec nationalists would make of Montreal a Danzig of the New World.

To put this in more modern terms, we may have a Canadian Crimea on our hands. It seems that Marois wants to turn Harper into Putin and make of the island of Montreal a Crimea for English-Canada.

Edited March 13, 2014 by August1991

[hitops]

The folks who don't think much would change if Quebec separated, probably don't pay much attention to markets, currency or provincial finances. A few realities if this were to occur:

1) The CDN would fall. Investors don't like instability or sudden change, and would sell CDN and pull money out of Canada/QUebec. It may eventually rise once our national financial stability is improved absent the liability of Quebec.

2) Quebec would be a financial failure, they are dependent on leeching off TROC, and have been for a very long time. The other reason is that given they still want to use the CDN, they would be unable to devalue it as means to afford vote-buying, and be in even worse shape, similar to some European nations currently stuck on the Euro.

3) A huge number of people would leave Quebec for elsewhere, for the same reason a huge number of people are leaving Spain, Portugal and France for Germany.

4) Right now, Quebec as a province can sustain a credit rating since TROC subsidizes them. They would go away if they leave.

5) The French language nonsense is sustained only again because TROC participates in creating a fantasy world where that kind of thing can survive. If they leave, the realities of the real world will suddenly force them to change or lose their workforce.

[August1991]

The folks who don't think much would change if Quebec separated, probably don't pay much attention to markets, currency or provincial finances.

Dead wrong. Peladeau Jnr, for example, is directly affected by such things.

4) Right now, Quebec as a province can sustain a credit rating since TROC subsidizes them. They would go away if they leave.

Wrong. Historically, Hydro-Quebec's credit rating is better than the government of Quebec. H-Q borrows at rates as advantageous as Canada's federal government. These are 30 year bonds with maturities around 2035 or so.

The lenders are not fools.

Edited March 13, 2014 by August1991

[Argus]

Let's say for debate the PQ gets a majority, maybe they get help form Pierre Poutine, and she starts down the road to separation, do you think there would be civil war? Would corporation start to leave and would she try to put tolls on ships in the St .Lawrence, would Quebec be able to receive CPP or other government benefits, many questions.

Nobody in Canada would fight to keep Quebec here. Hell, lots of us would love to contribute to them leaving.

[Argus]

If it were to separate, there is no reason to believe that life in Quebec would be significantly different than what it is today. For example why would the credit rating of the "nation of Quebec" be any different than the current credit rating of the Province of Quebec? Economic standards of living would likely decline in Quebec but not by much.

Given they'd be deprived of the billions in transfer payments that would immediately put them deeper in the hole than they already are. They'd also not have the federal government there to keep their ridiculous nationalism in line. So you can expect the language laws to be severely tightened. No more bilingual signs. It would be French only everywhere. Yes, corporations would flee, along with every professional who spoke English

[Argus]

Does anyone remember Godwin's Law:

"Godwin’s Law is an internet adage that is derived from one of the earliest bits of Usenet wisdoms, which goes “if you mention Adolf Hitler or Nazis within a discussion thread, you’ve automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in.”

By 2007, The Economist had declared that “a good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument.”

Yes, yes, we're all aware of it. But we're discussing a political tactic here being used by the PQ. And the Quebec Values Charter Is a political tactic based on identifying 'others' pointing at them, condemning them as dangerous and foreign, and rallying nationalist fervor on your side. It is entirely relevant to point out this is extremely similar to the tactic the Nazis used when they were getting started. I'm not suggesting the PQ are Nazis. I'm saying they're using the same dishonorable tactics.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Argus