Quebec General Election 2014

[TimG]

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.

And how will this be impacted if a large chunk of HQ's assets will be in the territory of another country with a desire to divert revenue from those assets for their own uses?

[segnosaur]

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.

Parizeau may have been worldly. Many others hardcore separatists may have been worldly, and/or were supporting separation even with the knowledge that there would be some negatives.

But, that does not mean that a significant percentage of "yes" voters themselves were not voting based on a position of ignorance.

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.

Except of course those pushing hardest for separation tend to claim that "Quebec is indivisible".

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.

Why exactly is that relevant?

Hydro Quebec may be fiscally sound, but they are not the only contributor to the government of Quebec.

In 2012 Hydro Quebec's profits were $860 million. This is dwarfed by the ~$7-8 Billion equalization payments that they currently receive from Canada (payments that would stop in the event of separation). Not to mention other financial benefits Quebec gets from the rest of Canada.

And if the Government of Quebec's credit rating is already lower than that of Hydro Quebec while still IN Canada (while receiving equalization payments), don't you think its reasonable to assume that it will fall even further following separation (with or without Hydro Quebec)?

Edited March 13, 2014 by segnosaur

[Smallc]

According to the federal government, Quebec is a net beneficiary of federal dollars to the tune of $16.3B per year.

[segnosaur]

And how will this be impacted if a large chunk of HQ's assets will be in the territory of another country with a desire to divert revenue from those assets for their own uses?

I also wonder what will happen to Churchill falls following a "yes" vote.

After all, much of Hydro Quebec's profits are based on very favorable terms it got when negotiating with Newfoundland over electrical contracts. If Quebec separates, Newfoundland might have more options for renegotiating and/or establishing alternatives.

[GostHacked]

But they want to keep the Canadian dollar? They were laughed at last time, and I am laughing at them again.

No if they want to separate, then they need to devise their own currency. Open borders and using the same currency? Then why are they separating again?

[Keepitsimple]

One would think it would be an easy question like "Do you want your own sovereign country, separate from Canada?". Here's the questions that were asked in the two referendums. Incomprehensible? You bet it is: Cheating? I'll leave that to you.

From the 1980 Referendum:

"The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?"

From the 1995 Referendum:

"Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"

Edited March 13, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Topaz]

I think the PM should make it very plain to the people of Quebec before the election, if they create their own country, the C$$ is not yours, the government benefits stop and they may find themselves out of a job, if the business they work for decides to leave the province, no province is will become a "common-law" province in Canada, its all or nothing. Now the only question is does Harper have the gonads to deliver the message?

[segnosaur]

I think the PM should make it very plain to the people of Quebec before the election, if they create their own country, the C$$ is not yours, the government benefits stop and they may find themselves out of a job, if the business they work for decides to leave the province, no province is will become a "common-law" province in Canada, its all or nothing. Now the only question is does Harper have the gonads to deliver the message?

I agree with that.

Furthermore, I believe that the federal government should state that separation requires only 50%+1. This may differ from what the clarity act demands (it requires a 'supermajority'.) However, I want to prevent anyone from voting yes "strategically" (i.e. they don't want to separate, but they want to expand Quebec's powers, so they vote yes hoping they'd fall in between the majority and supermajority range so that they'd have more of a bargaining chip.) Furthermore, I feel that a result that's between a majority and supermajority would cause significant harm, with the uncertainty caused by both sides claiming victory.

[Wilber]

I'm just tired of Quebec playing this stupid game every 15 or 20 years, Are you in or out? Make up your goddam mind.

[Boges]

I'm just tired of Quebec playing this stupid game every 15 or 20 years, Are you in or out? Make up your goddam mind.

They're in. They just want to extort money from tROC.

I read today that the two previous referendums asked a multi-sentence question that led the voter to believe they could keep the Loonie/Dollar and their passport.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Boges

[TimG]

Furthermore, I believe that the federal government should state that separation requires only 50%+1.

I think this is a false debate. Secession requires the agreement of all other parties in confederation. If Quebec does not offer terms that the other parties can agree to then there can be no secession. A UDI would require that Quebec commit to using illegal force to expel the Canadian government and seize government assets. This is a dangerous tactic because there is no guarantee that illegal force would not be met with force.

IOW - a slim majority would require more concessions to get a deal (i.e. give up territory) but it still could be used as a basis to start negotiations. A large majority would require fewer concessions. The problem is the separatists live in a dream world and do not understand the concessions that Canada would demand and they think they would have the moral authority to start a war if Canada does not give them the terms that they want.

Edited March 13, 2014 by TimG

[segnosaur]

They're in. They just want to extort money from tROC.

I read today that the two previous referendums asked a multi-sentence question that led the voter to believe they could keep the Loonie/Dollar and their passport.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not...

But assuming you're being honest, I don't think its accurate to say "separatists just wanted to extort money".

Some may have viewed a yes vote as a bargaining chip to get more money or other benefits from the rest of Canada (in which case they were ignorant, or idiots, since the referendum question had a "separation regardless in a year" clause.)

Some may have actually wanted separation, being ignorant of the eventual impact on the economy and society in general. (They wouldn't have necessarily wanted more from the rest of Canada, but they didn't realize how much less they'd be getting. This was an ignorant opinion too.)

Some may have been smart enough to recognize the potential difficulties, but still voted yes for whatever reason. The problem is, many of those people were lying sacks of crap (i.e. those who were leading the separation charge, but making false claims about how easily separation would be.)

[Boges]

This is rhetorical question but, how much has the Federal government(under both parties) tried to appease Quebec since they only came below 2% from getting a yes vote in 1995?

Quebec gets special treatment because they're the ones that keep threatening to secede.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Boges

[TimG]

if they create their own country, the C$$ is not yours, the government benefits stop and they may find themselves out of a job

No one can stop an independent Quebec from using the CDN$. The main problem is an independent Quebec would have no say in monetary policy and could not inflate its way out of debt nor use a lower currency to boast its exports. More importantly, unlike Greece, Quebec would not have partners that care about whether it keeps the currency.

One thing which people ignore is the Canadian debt. If I was a Canadian bond holder I would have serious concerns about being told that I now hold a Quebec bond when I paid for a Canadian bond. The only way for Quebec to 'take its share' would be to issue new Quebec bonds at a much higher rate and use the proceeds to buy Canadian bonds. This would make the debt burden for an independent Quebec much worse than it would be if you simply divided the per capita debt. It also means that the succession agreement would likely stagger the takeover of debt over time which would provide an incentive for Quebec to default on 'its share' when times get tough.

Prudent Canadian negotiators would have to assume that Quebec will eventually default and structure the deal to ensure that Canadian interests are protected as much as possible given that eventuality.

Edited March 13, 2014 by TimG

[August1991]

After all, much of Hydro Quebec's profits are based on very favorable terms it got when negotiating with Newfoundland over electrical contracts. If Quebec separates, Newfoundland might have more options for renegotiating and/or establishing alternatives.

And presumably, an independent Quebec could also re-negotiate access to the St. Lawrence River. Maybe Paul Martin's ships will have to use the Erie canal.

If you want to play this game, the other side can play it too.

[August1991]

They're in. They just want to extort money from tROC.

Boges, your logic makes sense if you were negotiating with a single person. But Quebec is not a single person - it is several million people.

One person can connive. Don't expect conniving behaviour from a group of people, let alone several million.

=====

Quebec society is genuinely divided on this issue. About 40%, about 2 million adults, want to have a separate country. They are frustrated because they cannot convince other Quebecers to agree with them.

If there is conniving, it is not to extort money from English Canada. It is to convince their fellow citizens to agree with their desire for an independent country.

=====

To return to the OP, one of the most powerful statements that Péladeau Jnr made when he announced his entry to politics was that he was doing this for his children. He wanted them to have an independent country. This resonates with many Quebecers.

If you are confused about this, I suggest that you read Trudeau Snr's speech on 20 May 1980. No doubt it's available on wikipedia or youtube.

Edited March 14, 2014 by August1991

[TimG]

And presumably, an independent Quebec could also re-negotiate access to the St. Lawrence River.

I am pretty sure the Americans would insist on the St. Lawrence being declared international waters like the Danube.

Quebec Hydro's contract for Churchhill Falls will only be valid if Quebec negotiates a deal (which means accepting that it goes no where if it does not offer terms acceptable to Canada). Any UDI would likely terminate any legal obligations that Newfoundland currently has.

FWIW: I am sure that the "terms acceptable to Canada" will include a better deal for Churchhill Falls.

Edited March 14, 2014 by TimG

[August1991]

I am pretty sure the Americans would insist on the St. Lawrence being declared international waters like the Danube.

Insist?

You mean Americans such as, uh, John Kerry?

Quebec Hydro's contract for Churchhill Falls will only be valid if Quebec negotiates a deal (which means accepting that it goes no where if it does not offer terms acceptable to Canada). Any UDI would likely terminate any legal obligations that Newfoundland currently has.

FWIW: I am sure that the "terms acceptable to Canada" will include a better deal for Churchhill Falls.

TimG, you seem to view life/the world/a country as a "zero-sum game".

Fortunately, most other Canadians - whatever their language or origin - don't see life in such a way.

=====

TimG, I suggest that you go back and rethink your opinion of Americans, and rethink also your view of life.

Edited March 14, 2014 by August1991

[TimG]

Insist?

Yes. Americans use the river as well. They have no interest in seeing it being used in a dispute between Canada and Quebec. The precedent is set for the Danube and it would be in Canada's interest to support a declaration that the St. Lawrence be declared and international waterway.

TimG, you seem to view life/the world/a country as a "zero-sum game".

What is "zero sum" about following the law? Quebec can either follow the law and negotiate terms with Canada or it can repudiate the law and declare a UDI. If it repudiates the law it has no right to insist on any legal protection based on prior contracts. Edited March 14, 2014 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

Boges, your logic makes sense if you were negotiating with a single person. But Quebec is not a single person - it is several million people.

One person can connive. Don't expect conniving behaviour from a group of people, let alone several million.

=====

Quebec society is genuinely divided on this issue. About 40%, about 2 million adults, want to have a separate country. They are frustrated because they cannot convince other Quebecers to agree with them.

Sorry August but the Separatist movement has been conniving for 40 years - intentionally keeping the consequences of Sovereignty hidden behind their rosy rehetoric. Forget the polls. Here's the conniving referendum question from 1995. A post referendum poll showed that much of the "yes" side had no clue as to what they were voting for. This indeed is "conniving"......

From the 1995 Referendum:

"Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"

Edited March 14, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[August1991]

Sorry August but the Separatist movement has been conniving for 40 years...

You describe it as a "movement" as if it were a single conniving person.

In reality, it is millions of people who fervently want an independent country. They are not conniving. They want a country. Unfortunately, they have been unable to convince several other million compatriots of their opinion.

====

At one time or another, we have all lived in an apartment beside or down the hall from a family/people in an unhappy/dysfunctional relationship.

Well, English Canada is watching a family feud, and this particular election in Quebec is a dramatic outburst between family members. The nastiness and hypocrisy, trust me, are reserved for other (francophone) family members - and not anyone from the ROC. And the conniving, trust me, involves various intrigues within the family - and not an extortion attempt.

When a family gets into a loud argument/knock-down fight between members, the last thing they are thinking about is what anyone else is thinking about them.

I hate comparisons that reduce millions of people to a single person but if I use my apartment analogy, the question English-Canadians might ask is: at one point do they a) intervene and tell the neighbours to make less noise or decide that they've had enough, and move to a quieter building.

Edited March 15, 2014 by August1991

[August1991]

Yes. Americans use the river as well. They have no interest in seeing it being used in a dispute between Canada and Quebec.

Precisely.

Americans don't care whether the Churchill Falls electricity comes through Quebec or under the Straits of Belle-Isle.

[August1991]

What is "zero sum" about following the law? Quebec can either follow the law and negotiate terms with Canada or it can repudiate the law and declare a UDI. If it repudiates the law it has no right to insist on any legal protection based on prior contracts.

TimG, you seem to view Canada as a fixed pie to be shared: If Quebec separates, it must lose because there's only so much pie to share.

But what if the pie (in the immortal words of Belinda Stronach) can change its size? What if Quebec independence makes the pie bigger?

With a bigger pie: Albertans won't have to pay several billion every year in equalization, and Quebecers will have a billion or so more than they receive now from Albertans.

[carepov]

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

What corporations would flee and why?

[TimG]

TimG, you seem to view Canada as a fixed pie to be shared: If Quebec separates, it must lose because there's only so much pie to share.

It is called taking advantage of a situation. As long as Quebec follows the rule of law its contracts with Newfoundland are protected. If Quebec chooses to repudiate the rule of law by declaring a UDI then Newfoundland would be free to rip up those contracts and there is nothing Quebec could do about it.

The word "outlaw" captures this scenario nicely. Most people think that it applies if someone breaks the law but it also means that the person is no longer entitled to the protections of law. Quebec would be an outlaw state if it declared a UDI and every prior agreement could be torn up if the other parties no longer thought it was in their interest.

Edited March 15, 2014 by TimG