What's Quebec's problem?

[Black Dog]

Okay, I keep hearing about how Gomrey is causing so much outrage in Quebec and bolstering the separatist cause there. Which is weird to me, because there's a long and cherished history in this country of federal politicians shovelling buckets of pork into la belle province and getting nothing but grief in return.

So my question is: what's Quebec's problem? for as long as I can remember, they've been threataning to take their ball and go home, this despite teh fact that are not a contributer to the rest of the country. Are there legitimate beefs I'm not seeing? Or is the case for separation simply that of a bunch of whiny brats using the threat of running away from home to get more stuff out of their parents?

[I miss Reagan]

I used to feel that Quebec was full of a bunch of spoiled brats as well. The problem isn't Quebec though, it's Ontario. Ontario and the Feds were the ones who pandered to their whinning. As with the natives, the Liberals continue to ruin Quebec by throwing money at them, thinking it will solve the problem.

All that aside, they have a different culture and they want to rule themselves. I don't see what's wrong with that. Who cares if Quebec leaves, it'll be good for all of us.

[Newfie Canadian]

I think, and I haven't really thought too hard about it, is that perhaps Quebec didn't really want to be part of the British Crown in the first place, and it has been simmering in the minds of many for decades and decades.

[Black Dog]

The problem isn't Quebec though, it's Ontario. Ontario and the Feds were the ones who pandered to their whinning. As with the natives, the Liberals continue to ruin Quebec by throwing money at them, thinking it will solve the problem.

Funny how Quebec never had a problem taking the money, though. Jeez, I thought you conservatives were all about personal responsibility. But I guess that goes out he window when you get a chance to bash Ontario. BTW, i remember it was a certain Conservative PM who set the standard for pork-barrelling in Quebec.

All that aside, they have a different culture and they want to rule themselves. I don't see what's wrong with that. Who cares if Quebec leaves, it'll be good for all of us.

I'd have no problem with Quebec separating provided they footed 100 per cent of the bill and created their own institutions (ie. monetary, military, health) to run tehir own show. No "soverignty association", no asking Canada to pay their way. That would be like the afore-mentioned teenager saying he's going to move out, but maintain access to the car, the fridge and the TV. Once your out, you're out.

[I miss Reagan]

My question about qubec separation is this... Exactly what do you think separation will accomplish?

Correct me if im wrong, but last time I checked Quebec's ecnonmy isn't exactly hot stuff. The large industry that is there 'ie Bombardier' is heavily subsidized by the federal government and a good chunk of the natural resources fall under the control of the first nations people who live there not the Quebec government(its in the constitution of you care to look).

Im left here scratching my head as to what people truly think the benifits of separation would be?

A distinc society? Sure yeah i guess, but what does that mean? Does a label really change reality?

i would love to hear what people come up with on this one

They wouldn't have to get down on their knees and beg and cry to get any little piece of legislation from Ontario. They're sick of the Liberal attitude "benevolent bestowal". I think the sponsorship corruption just further proves the arrogance of the feds in their minds. It's the kind of attitude described by PET: " The philosophy of the Liberal Party is very simple - say anything, think anything, or better still, do not think at all, but put us in power because it is we who can govern you best."

I like to hear Bakunin's take on it though.

[I miss Reagan]

Funny how Quebec never had a problem taking the money, though.

No kidding, but who ever rejects money. They feel entitled to it.

BTW, i remember it was a certain Conservative PM who set the standard for pork-barrelling in Quebec.

Oh I remember that PM as well, and I remember that being a big reason for us splitting off into the Reform party.

I'd have no problem with Quebec separating provided they footed 100 per cent of the bill and created their own institutions (ie. monetary, military, health) to run tehir own show.

Sounds alright to me, although I'd hate a bitter fight. Give them what's fair.

[Guest eureka]

This is absolutely pointless unless it is possible to discuss the issue and all it encompasses without enduring the anti-Liberal ranting.

The idea that Quebec can separate from Canada, and Canada continue to exist, is so idiotic that it numbs my mind to read such tripe. The idea that Quebec could be a distinct society with its own culture, a legislated one, ignores history, economics, and the culture of the Canadian population.

[I miss Reagan]

The idea that Quebec could be a distinct society with its own culture, a legislated one, ignores history, economics, and the culture of the Canadian population.

On the contrary. The francophone desire for independence is rooted in Canadian history. It's funny though, Canadians fail to realize how young Canada actually is. There seems to be this thinking that Canada will exist as it is forever. History of civilization tells us that political boundaries are pretty dynamic.

[Bakunin]

What we don't want is a centralized federal government.

What we want is something like an european union where we can share common goal and still have 100% separate government.

Thats what the association is all about, keep a symbolic and friendly link a bit like canada did with the british empire and commonwealth.

Now you prolly want to know why we want our own government, well thats just like canada doesn't want to be controlled by usa, we feel we are different enough, culturally, politically and we speak a different language and etc..

There is a statistic that explain well what will happen in the futur, its the % of ppl that want sovreignty according to their age.

18-24: 58%

25-34: 58%

35-44: 59%

45-54: 57%

55-64: 55%

65+: 39%

the 55-64 generation is the 1970 generation that started it all. the baby boomers architect of the quiet revolution. the 65+ generation is the Duplessis (conservative, catolic) generation.

[Kiraly]

Bakunin:

Looking at those numbers and considering the current political climate, would it be wise for Mr. Duceppe to hold off on a referendum or do you feel there is adequate support at this time to move forward?

[Guest eureka]

A referendum is a provincial affair and not up to Duceppe. Those numbers are Bakunin's dream and have shown the same trends for decades" they change as youngsters grow up and see the real world.

[Guest eureka]

The "francophone desire for independence is not rooted in history. It is a modern contrivance of a few ambitious people.

Francophones were a handful abandoned by France who survived only because of their position in a British colony and then in Canada. But for that, they would have disappeared as a "culture" as surely as they did in the US.

Quebec is - and I don't understand how this has to be repeated so often - a society with two cultures; one English and one French. The French in its bloodlines is almost as much British as it is French but the "pur laine" Quebeckers don't want to be told that.

Quebec has legislated illegally the obliteration of the English part of its community in order to achieve the purpose of that gang of ambitious racists who Bakunin supports without understanding what he is about. Canda has stood by and let it happen rather than suffer the discomfit of having to step in. That is all of Canada, federally and provincially This peaceful Kingdom is also a cowardly one.

[I miss Reagan]

Francophones were a handful abandoned by France who survived only because of their position in a British colony and then in Canada. But for that, they would have disappeared as a "culture" as surely as they did in the US.

Exactly. When are Canadians going to realize that there are limits at which appeasment and forbearance cease to be virtues.

Quebec is - and I don't understand how this has to be repeated so often - a society with two cultures; one English and one French. The French in its bloodlines is almost as much British as it is French but the "pur laine" Quebeckers don't want to be told that.

Don't get all pedantic with bloodlines. This has less to do with bloodlines but more to do with culture and language.

[Bakunin]

Bakunin:

Looking at those numbers and considering the current political climate, would it be wise for Mr. Duceppe to hold off on a referendum or do you feel there is adequate support at this time to move forward?

Like eureka say, its must be held by the provincial government and right now the liberal are in power but the provincial liberal in quebec suffer has much as the federal liberal right now and evrything point out that the pq would win the next election in 2007 and a referendum would be held in 2008-2009. Right now i think its impossible to lose that referendum if its held in 2008-2009 because their is no credible opposition to it. In my opinion, i think we should wait maybe in 2010-2015 and try to have good provincial surplus in our budget first.

Those numbers are Bakunin's dream and have shown the same trends for decades" they change as youngsters grow up and see the real world.

No its not its from a poll from this week here. And it can be statistically proved that the babyboomers and younger generation always has been more sovreignist while the duplessis generation and older where more federalist.Btw thursday is the 25th anniversary of the 1980 referendum.

[Black Dog]

Sounds alright to me, although I'd hate a bitter fight. Give them what's fair.

Sure: and in the interest of fairness, they can repay Canada al the money we've sunk in over the years, not to mention their share opf our national debt, the federal defecit.

What we don't want is a centralized federal government.

What we want is something like an european union where we can share common goal and still have 100% separate government.

Thats what the association is all about, keep a symbolic and friendly link a bit like canada did with the british empire and commonwealth.

In other words, you want to have you cake an eat it too. The way I see it is: what have you done for us lately? Why should the ROC give two hoots about the fate of post-secession Quebec?

[The Terrible Sweal]

What I don't get is how Quebeckers can take such offense at the sponsorship scandal. It was principally Quebeckers involved in it, right? So because some Quebec Liberals were corrupt it therefore follows that Canada is to blame?

What am I not getting here?

[I miss Reagan]

QUOTE

Sounds alright to me, although I'd hate a bitter fight. Give them what's fair.

Sure: and in the interest of fairness, they can repay Canada al the money we've sunk in over the years, not to mention their share opf our national debt, the federal defecit.

Sunk costs man. Think of it in terms of the money we'll save not having to pay them off to quit whining once they're gone.

[Bakunin]

In other words, you want to have you cake an eat it too. The way I see it is: what have you done for us lately? Why should the ROC give two hoots about the fate of post-secession Quebec?

We want to cook our own cake and eat it, this mean no more economic link except we would still continue to pay the canadian debt. But on the other hand, there is no need to be angry and we can still keep friendship link. I think both part can be winner in this. While quebec get its political power back and can get rid of the duplicated services wich is evaluated to more than 3 billions by fiscal expert. On the other hand, the roc get his 5 billion transfer back. Billingualism would cost less and etc..

What I don't get is how Quebeckers can take such offense at the sponsorship scandal. It was principally Quebeckers involved in it, right? So because some Quebec Liberals were corrupt it therefore follows that Canada is to blame?

What am I not getting here?

We don't blame canada, we blame the quebec liberal organisation. I don't think you should see quebec support for sovreignty as an act against canadian, just like canada refusal to participate to the iraq war didn't mean we hate american. Its just that we had different vision.

[Guest eureka]

One of the problems, BD, and why negotiations would be almost impossibly complex, is that, if Quebec were to be allowed to separate, it would have no legal responsibility for a share of the National Debt. This is an incredibly complex issue and any negotiations would probably last ten years.

By that time, some sense of reality might have been inculcated and Quebec would be crying to stay in. The division of Quebec would not make it very happy and that would be inevitable since there are a few million Quebeckers who are happy to be Canadians and want no part of their little racist utopia.

IMR> There is nothing pedantic in "bloodlines." It is an obsession with the ultra nationalists of Quebec who can offer no more than a belief in the purity of their French heritage as a reason for separation.

They have apoplectic fits when informed that their origins are thought to be 35 to 40% British and Irish.

[I miss Reagan]

IMR> There is nothing pedantic in "bloodlines." It is an obsession with the ultra nationalists of Quebec who can offer no more than a belief in the purity of their French heritage as a reason for separation.

They have apoplectic fits when informed that their origins are thought to be 35 to 40% British and Irish.

Hmm. In that case I apologise. Interesting.

We want to cook our own cake and eat it, this mean no more economic link except we would still continue to pay the canadian debt. But on the other hand, there is no need to be angry and we can still keep friendship link. I think both part can be winner in this.

Totally agree. But how do resolve the native issue?

[August1991]

There was question about Bakunin's numbers:

Those numbers are Bakunin's dream and have shown the same trends for decades" they change as youngsters grow up and see the real world.

Un sondage Léger Marketing effectué pour Le Journal de Montréal et The Gazette révèle que 54% des Québécois appuient la souveraineté. Seuls les 65 ans et plus y sont opposés dans une forte proportion, à 61%.

Leger Marketing

-----

I will try to be balanced in my answers:

So my question is: what's Quebec's problem? for as long as I can remember, they've been threataning to take their ball and go home, this despite teh fact that are not a contributer to the rest of the country. Are there legitimate beefs I'm not seeing? Or is the case for separation simply that of a bunch of whiny brats using the threat of running away from home to get more stuff out of their parents?

How long did it take Ireland to achieve independance? How long did it take Canada to achieve self-rule (in all its meaning, if it has even achieved that now)? If a referendum had been held in the US to abolish slavery in 1820, what would the result have been?

OTOH, I think Trudeau said that a federal state means a referendum everyday. If a federal state is to exist, each part must feel that it gains more by being in than by being out.

I have said before, Canada works best when individuals are not forced to choose between their region and Canada.

I used to feel that Quebec was full of a bunch of spoiled brats as well. The problem isn't Quebec though, it's Ontario. Ontario and the Feds were the ones who pandered to their whinning. As with the natives, the Liberals continue to ruin Quebec by throwing money at them, thinking it will solve the problem.

A major problem, I feel, is that Quebec politics have become sterile: every issue collapses into sovereignty/federalism. (Belinda? By people's opinion, I know whether they are a federalist or not.) The Liberal Party of Canada is the default federal position and this has been followed by Ontario voters.

As to throwing money, please understand that it is the federal Liberals who get the money - hard-core federal francophones, the Chuck Guites of the world (although he's from New Brunswick). It resembles a confidence trick.

I'd have no problem with Quebec separating provided they footed 100 per cent of the bill and created their own institutions (ie. monetary, military, health) to run tehir own show. No "soverignty association", no asking Canada to pay their way. That would be like the afore-mentioned teenager saying he's going to move out, but maintain access to the car, the fridge and the TV. Once your out, you're out.

I have seen various scenarios and all assume that Quebec would assume its per capita share of the federal government's liabilities as well as its assets. (Incidentally, when the Soviet Union dissolved, Russia assumed all assets and liabilities.)

Sovereignty-Association. Lise Payette famously said that no one can pick Quebec up, roll it up and then carry it out into the Atlantic Ocean. The association refers to the fact that Quebecers must continue to deal with the people around them. That is obvious. In fact, the whole issue is: on what terms do the people of Quebec deal with other North Americans. An economic association makes eminent sense: free trade, a customs union, perhaps a common currency - why not even shared expenses? The Brits, Germans and French share embassies abroad.

[August1991]

Part II

The idea that Quebec can separate from Canada, and Canada continue to exist, is so idiotic that it numbs my mind to read such tripe. The idea that Quebec could be a distinct society with its own culture, a legislated one, ignores history, economics, and the culture of the Canadian population.

Of course Canada can continue to exist. For reasons of history, people in Quebec have a strong attachment to Canada and many don't want to walk away from a political connection.

Here's another way to look at this: Canada is not the same country it was in 1900.

Now you prolly want to know why we want our own government, well thats just like canada doesn't want to be controlled by usa, we feel we are different enough, culturally, politically and we speak a different language and etc..

Many favour sovereignty on cultural grounds. But others favour it on economic grounds: An independent Quebec government that had the power to raise all taxes and determine all expenditures would make better decisions for the people of Quebec. French Quebecers get left out of decisions taken in Ottawa. This is a compelling argument.

Quebec has legislated illegally the obliteration of the English part of its community in order to achieve the purpose of that gang of ambitious racists who Bakunin supports without understanding what he is about. Canda has stood by and let it happen rather than suffer the discomfit of having to step in. That is all of Canada, federally and provincially This peaceful Kingdom is also a cowardly one.

Utter nonsense. Montreal has two English universities, and four English colleges. In even small towns across Quebec, it is possible to buy a daily English newspaper. Everywhere in Quebec, it is possible to receive medical and dental treatment in English. No other province offers similar services to any second language group (French, Chinese or other). For God's sakes, we are in North America.

In other words, you want to have you cake an eat it too. The way I see it is: what have you done for us lately? Why should the ROC give two hoots about the fate of post-secession Quebec?

This is the state of affairs the Liberal Party has created. Canadians now see other Canadians as "thieves" or, whoi can get to the trough first.

I think Bakunin posted elsewhere that we should be helping one another and cooperating. There are countries in the world where citizens of one region have good feelings, even pride, toward other regions. Imagine! We don't have that in Canada and IMO, it's one unfortunate aspect of Liberal rule.

What I don't get is how Quebeckers can take such offense at the sponsorship scandal. It was principally Quebeckers involved in it, right? So because some Quebec Liberals were corrupt it therefore follows that Canada is to blame?

What am I not getting here?

You seem them as Quebecers. People in Quebec see them as federal Liberals. (Stretched comparison: Imagine Ralph Klein was accused of having arranged the Ohio vote so that it went Democrat and then Americans blamed Canadians.)

I think both part can be winner in this. While quebec get its political power back and can get rid of the duplicated services wich is evaluated to more than 3 billions by fiscal expert. On the other hand, the roc get his 5 billion transfer back. Billingualism would cost less and etc..

I have always found the estimates of duplication of services small, and over-rated. IMV, the real savings arise from better decisions. People in Quebec can spend their own money more wisely. Everyone will get more value for their dollar. It's win-win.

They have apoplectic fits when informed that their origins are thought to be 35 to 40% British and Irish.

Nonsense. Burns, Johnson, Ryan and Blackburn are common family (and political) names.

[Bakunin]

One of the problems, BD, and why negotiations would be almost impossibly complex, is that, if Quebec were to be allowed to separate, it would have no legal responsibility for a share of the National Debt. This is an incredibly complex issue and any negotiations would probably last ten years.

By that time, some sense of reality might have been inculcated and Quebec would be crying to stay in. The division of Quebec would not make it very happy and that would be inevitable since there are a few million Quebeckers who are happy to be Canadians and want no part of their little racist utopia.

IMR> There is nothing pedantic in "bloodlines." It is an obsession with the ultra nationalists of Quebec who can offer no more than a belief in the purity of their French heritage as a reason for separation.

They have apoplectic fits when informed that their origins are thought to be 35 to 40% British and Irish.

I hate it when ppl talk about separation as if it was the end of the world... many country splitted off and their are already international convention on how evrything including the debt should be handled ( Vienna convention ). Its a liberal tactic to scare people...

Louis IV, king of france used to say: " Après moi, le déluge".

translation: " After me, the flood" meaning its the end of the world.

[The Terrible Sweal]

What I don't get is how Quebeckers can take such offense at the sponsorship scandal. It was principally Quebeckers involved in it, right? So because some Quebec Liberals were corrupt it therefore follows that Canada is to blame?

What am I not getting here?

We don't blame canada, we blame the quebec liberal organisation. I don't think you should see quebec support for sovreignty as an act against canadian, just like canada refusal to participate to the iraq war didn't mean we hate american. Its just that we had different vision.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, it's nice to knowit's nothing 'personal', but it doesn't really explain the logic involved. How is secession a rational response to corruption among some Liberals?

[Guest eureka]

There are no such conventions, Bakunin. The National Debt is a debt of the country of Canada. A separate Quebec would be a new entity with no obligation at all to share in the Canadian government's indebtedness.

It will, though, because it would not dare risk the repercussions. However, it is part of the negotiations that would, you hope, follow any declaration. In those negotiatios, Quebec would be the weaker partner; a supplicant. It would not get a very good deal at all.