M. Bosclair clarifies his position

[fellowtraveller]

The worst thing about it all would be the uncertainty, which is the bane of business and investing. The consequences might be fatal to Quebec, but if not, would certainly be massively injurious.

The uncertainty has been ever-present as long as I can remember. It would be a relief to decide once and for all.

If and when the PQ win a provincial election, the 'yes' vote in a quick referendum is virtually a foregone conclusion. Its' only logical. The time and place to fight, really the only opportunity to fight the separatists, is in a provincial election campaign.

Can anybody identify any current or future federalist leaders that the swing vote in Quebec will listen to? Anybody?

And to answer the question "What will happen the day after the referendum?" - the answer is that the National Assembly will declare independence from Canada.

[politika]

And to answer the question "What will happen the day after the referendum?" - the answer is that the National Assembly will declare independence from Canada.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not if the federal government votes no on allowing them to seperate. please correct me if I am wrong here, But I am pretty sure Jean Cretien in the 1995 referendum had the final say wheather Quebec seperated and I am pretty sure he was thinking about saying no. If a referendum passed, Quebec would make a bill of decalaration independence and it would go through the senate to do its thing than through the House of COmmons to be passed like any other bill than it would be passed by the Prime Minister's consent than signed by the GG. I got this information from the CBC series "breaking point" I watched many weeks ago.

[seabee]

Canada would likely simply revoke the citizenship of people residing in Quebec.

The message to federalists in Québec, including anglophones, is simple. The NO side better win, because if the YES side does win, then the ROC will drop you like a hot potato. You'll be stranded on your own.

[seabee]

[...] my organisation took in a number who were planning to fight with guns no less.

..like the FLQ, a criminal organization.

[Riverwind]

Canada would likely simply revoke the citizenship of people residing in Quebec.

The message to federalists in Québec, including anglophones, is simple. The NO side better win, because if the YES side does win, then the ROC will drop you like a hot potato. You'll be stranded on your own.

Not at all: Canada would have a moral and legal obligation to support the division of Quebec so areas with large percentages of NO voters can stay within Canada and maintain their Canadian citizenships. Allowing residents of an independent Quebec to keep Canadian citizenship is not an option because:

1) They would have a right to vote and with 25% of the population living in Quebec their votes would influence the federal gov't.

2) They would have a right to immigrate to Canada at any time and claim social services (i.e. old age supplements, drug benefits, etc). This represents a huge future liability Canada needs to take measures to limit it.

Lastly, if Quebec separates Canada as we know it today will cease to exist. A new country called Canada may emerge, however, there is absolutely no reason why every citizen of the extinct country called Canada should be a citizen of the new country called Canada.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Sparhawk,

Lastly, if Quebec separates Canada as we know it today will cease to exist. A new country called Canada may emerge, however, there is absolutely no reason why every citizen of the extinct country called Canada should be a citizen of the new country called Canada

You raise a very interesting point here. On the one hand, there might be created an impetus for 'western separation', where BC, AB and SK, together or individually, decide to leave or create their own 'non-Canada'. On the other hand, Canada would still 'be', just as someone who loses a limb doesn't become a new person, just their appearance and capabilities change.

[Riverwind]

On the other hand, Canada would still 'be', just as someone who loses a limb doesn't become a new person, just their appearance and capabilities change.

Dear Thelonious,

Like many things in life, there are different ways to describe what is essentially the same thing. That said, I don't think Canada will exist as always like the amputee - I think it will be a new entity legally and politically. There are a couple reasons for this:

1) The West (Alberta in particular) would demand substantial changes to the structure of the federation before agreeing to be part of it.

2) Quebec seperatists absolutely love the idea that Quebec is theoretically not responsible for any of the Canadian national debt. Formally dissolving the country called Canada would ensure that legally ALL parts of the former country would be liable for that debt in the eyes of international community. I would leave it up to Bosclair to explain to the IMF why Quebec should shoulder less than a per capita share. I am sure the IMF will have no patience for self serving analyses that add intangible 'assets' into the equation.

[fellowtraveller]

On the other hand, Canada would still 'be', just as someone who loses a limb doesn't become a new person, just their appearance and capabilities change.

Dear Thelonious,

Like many things in life, there are different ways to describe what is essentially the same thing. That said, I don't think Canada will exist as always like the amputee - I think it will be a new entity legally and politically. There are a couple reasons for this:

1) The West (Alberta in particular) would demand substantial changes to the structure of the federation before agreeing to be part of it.

2) Quebec seperatists absolutely love the idea that Quebec is theoretically not responsible for any of the Canadian national debt. Formally dissolving the country called Canada would ensure that legally ALL parts of the former country would be liable for that debt in the eyes of international community. I would leave it up to Bosclair to explain to the IMF why Quebec should shoulder less than a per capita share. I am sure the IMF will have no patience for self serving analyses that add intangible 'assets' into the equation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have made point #1 many times, but it isn't just Alberta by any means. A confederation of Ontario plus the West and Martimes, under the old federal model, would be acceptable only to Ontario. Everybody would be obliged to carefully examine their options, and a rehash of what had just failed would not be one of them.

Point #2 ignores the reality that the primary thrust of separatism is not a cold analysis of the numers, aseets and liabilities. It's the cultural thrust, the romanticism of founding a new nation that will carry the day. Attempting to frighten the separatists with threats of $100 billion dollar debts won't change a single separatists vote, and making that threat itself may move a few borderline feds into the PQ camp.

[Riverwind]

Attempting to frighten the separatists with threats of $100 billion dollar debts won't change a single separatists vote, and making that threat itself may move a few borderline feds into the PQ camp.

This is not about threats at all: it is simply looking after the self interest of the rest of the country. Quebec will need to assume its per capita share of the national debt - as will every other political entity that emerges after the dust settles. I am simply pointing out that the logic used by separatists to justify not paying their share of the debt is, in fact, false and any yes voter who believes otherwise is sadly deluded.

Think about it, do you think the national debt would magically dissappear if all ten provinces become independent countries?

[BHS]

Attempting to frighten the separatists with threats of $100 billion dollar debts won't change a single separatists vote, and making that threat itself may move a few borderline feds into the PQ camp.

This is not about threats at all: it is simply looking after the self interest of the rest of the country. Quebec will need to assume its per capita share of the national debt - as will every other political entity that emerges after the dust settles. I am simply pointing out that the logic used by separatists to justify not paying their share of the debt is, in fact, false and any yes voter who believes otherwise is sadly deluded.

Think about it, do you think the national debt would magically dissappear if all ten provinces become independent countries?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, the other eight provinces and three territories would foist the debt on Ontario and Alberta. Fortis et liber - ut incepit fidelis sic permanet.

By the way, I don't think the IMF has anything to do with our debt. I'm pretty sure all of our debt is held by private investors. But I could be wrong. Feel free to kick dirt in my eyes.

[Riverwind]

No, the other eight provinces and three territories would foist the debt on Ontario and Alberta. Fortis et liber - ut incepit fidelis sic permanet.

This has to be the most rediculous thing I have ever heard - I am assuming you are being sarcastic - because if you aren't you really have no concept of fairness or legality. In any case, if there was a real risk of that Ontario would seperate first and leave it all to Alberta.

Most government bonds are held by private investors. The IMF gets involved because it tries to ensure stability and confidence in the world financial system.

[fellowtraveller]

This is not about threats at all:

It is folly to continually look at issues from only one side. What you see as logical and proper looks like a threat to the other side. They would contend that federal mismangement is one of the reasons they are leaving, and it the historic problems of Canada have little to do with the new republic. Anyways, it is all an argument that comes after the horse has left the barn, which is a not a good place to be for a federalist negotiator

I'm not disagreeing that Quebec should be held accountable for its share, just that it is not going to be so easy to negotiate and much harder to collect. This isn't going to be a reprise of the Treaty of Versaille or anything close to it.

[Riverwind]

Anyways, it is all an argument that comes after the horse has left the barn, which is a not a good place to be for a federalist negotiator

If the country is dissolved then the negotiation is not between the Canadian govenment and Quebec. It is between the bond holders backed up by the IMF and Quebec.

This isn't going to be a reprise of the Treaty of Versaille or anything close to it

Expecting Quebec to assume a per captita share is not punative from any perspective. The only reason separatists are trying to avoid commiting to that is they know the debt would cripple the new country.

[seabee]

The only reason separatists are trying to avoid commiting to that is they know the debt would cripple the new country.

Today, every tax-payer in Québec pays his share of the federal debt as well as his share of Québec's debt. He also pays income tax to both the federal and the provincial government. Should Québec become independant and assume its share of the federal debt, for the tax-payer, it will just mean that he has only one check to make come income tax time, the amount of which is roughly equal to the sum of the two separate checks he used to make. It is a consolidation of debts.

[BHS]

No, the other eight provinces and three territories would foist the debt on Ontario and Alberta. Fortis et liber - ut incepit fidelis sic permanet.

This has to be the most rediculous thing I have ever heard - I am assuming you are being sarcastic - because if you aren't you really have no concept of fairness or legality. In any case, if there was a real risk of that Ontario would seperate first and leave it all to Alberta.

Most government bonds are held by private investors. The IMF gets involved because it tries to ensure stability and confidence in the world financial system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fair? Where does fair come into it? "Fair" is a word that's been co-opted by the left to mean giving in to leftist ideology in any given circumstance, however inequitable that happens to be.

The legality of the situation is also up in the air. You can guess that debt will be apportioned on a per capita basis, but there's no guarantee that's the way a severing up of the country would play out. The law is, afterall, a product of politics, and bares only a passing relationship with economic rationality. (That's hyperbole, by the way.)

For the record, I'm of the opinion that when all the chips have fallen a seperate Quebec will be saddled with something resembling it's portion of the debt, though probably less than the absolute amount. I base this on Quebec's current status as a "have-not" province under the federal equalization scheme. (Which is only "fair".)

[August1991]

... if Quebec separates Canada as we know it today will cease to exist. A new country called Canada may emerge, however...

I think we once discussed this in another thread long ago in the context of citizenship. I don't think it would work. There are perhaps a million Canadian citizens abroad right now: this would give rise to the potential of stateless ex-Canadians. In simple terms, what would stop me or anyone else living in Quebec to claim Canadian citizenship as no doubt many people (ex-Canadians) living in the US would?

Quebec seperatists absolutely love the idea that Quebec is theoretically not responsible for any of the Canadian national debt.

I don't think I have ever heard anyone in Quebec argue that. In general, the PQ line is that Quebec would acquire all federal assets in Quebec and assume its share of the federal debt. I have seen shares calculated per capita or per GDP.

No, the other eight provinces and three territories would foist the debt on Ontario and Alberta. Fortis et liber - ut incepit fidelis sic permanet.

By the way, I don't think the IMF has anything to do with our debt. I'm pretty sure all of our debt is held by private investors. But I could be wrong. Feel free to kick dirt in my eyes.

Quebec would never do such a thing. One of the largest borrowers in Canada is Hydro-Quebec and it enjoys the backing of the Quebec government when it borrows. The Quebec government would not sacrifice its reputation in such a manner.

If the country is dissolved then the negotiation is not between the Canadian govenment and Quebec. It is between the bond holders backed up by the IMF and Quebec.

The bondholders would probably look to the federal government - they signed the loan. But as I say, if anyone wanted to borrow in the future at good rates, it would be in the interest of all to arrive at a settlement perceived to be "fair". The IMF could be involved in this but I would doubt it.

I don't think you grasp the gravity of having a new country. Borders become actual, guarded and monitored (such as they are). Currency is not shared by gov'ts. (With the exception of a few powerless 'protectorates')Trade and, in this case, language barriers go up.

About two years ago, I drove from Paris to Amsterdam crossing Belgium. I did not stop at any border and I used the same currency to buy gas in three different sovereign countries.

A confederation of Ontario plus the West and Martimes, under the old federal model, would be acceptable only to Ontario. Everybody would be obliged to carefully examine their options, and a rehash of what had just failed would not be one of them.

Thelonious, I like this comment because it raises the serious issue of what Canada without Quebec would look like.

Point #2 ignores the reality that the primary thrust of separatism is not a cold analysis of the numers, aseets and liabilities. It's the cultural thrust, the romanticism of founding a new nation that will carry the day. Attempting to frighten the separatists with threats of $100 billion dollar debts won't change a single separatists vote, and making that threat itself may move a few borderline feds into the PQ camp.

Yes and no, Thelonious. People in favour of sovereignty range the gamut. It is not black and white. It is not as if there is a clear line. This is one reason the referendum is such a trying experience. (To put this in the English-Canadian context, imagine you had to choose between political union with the US vs. a complete severance of all ties, turning Canada into a Cuba. How would you vote?)

It's also false to imagine it as merely a romantic, idealistic pursuit. People have been arguing about this seriously for 40 years now. Believe me, it has been analyzed to death using cold logic too.

The threat aspect to your point is interesting because I sense Sparhawk's points carry veiled threats:

Canada would have a moral and legal obligation to support the division of Quebec so areas with large percentages of NO voters can stay within Canada and maintain their Canadian citizenships. Allowing residents of an independent Quebec to keep Canadian citizenship is not an option because:

1) They would have a right to vote and with 25% of the population living in Quebec their votes would influence the federal gov't.

2) They would have a right to immigrate to Canada at any time and claim social services (i.e. old age supplements, drug benefits, etc). This represents a huge future liability Canada needs to take measures to limit it.

If Canadians moves from one province to another now, they are not entitled to claim social benefits but must meet provincial residency requirements. In the case of occupational requirements, these can be onerous.

Sparhawk, many people in Quebec might vote against sovereignty but that does not mean they would refuse to live in a sovereign Quebec if it existed. People in Quebec have a strong attachment to living in Quebec - they wouldn't still be here if they didn't.

----

Look, the federal government can go to Plan B and make threats.

In the case of a wayward child, or a foolish spouse, a dose of cold reality (credible threats) might make the person think again. In the case of Quebec, this strategy makes no sense at all. A great human error is to imagine a society as one individual. Call it sociomorphism. Groups do not behave as individuals behave. You can threaten an individual and expect a certain response. If you threathen a group, the response will be entirely different.

Sparhawk, do you want to hold Canada together by threat? Is such a Canada worth having?

I still believe that Quebec will not separate but Canada is about to change fundamentally. Here's why I think this. Faced with a successful referendum, an English-Canadian PM need only respond with a reasonable, self-interested offer and immediately the Parti Québécois would be faced with a dilemma. Many people in Quebec would want to accept; and others would quibble. Then what?

Trudeau did this to good effect at least twice: in 1980 during the referendum when he promised to reform Canada and then in 1982 before the so-called "Night of the Long Knives" when he made a deal with Levesque. Mulroney did the same with Meech Lake.

The stakes are higher now because Quebec got burned in the previous offers. An offer from a non-Quebecer might still have credibility.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

For the record, I'm of the opinion that when all the chips have fallen a seperate Quebec will be saddled with something resembling it's portion of the debt, though probably less than the absolute amount.

You are more optimistic than I. I'll bet that Quebec (should cessesion occur) would walk away paying next to nothing. Any individual debt could be consolidated as a 'national debt', owed to another country, and then we'd only see it in trade, etc (really never). A country can't collect debts from individuals in another country without some sort of consent/collusion of the 'host country'.

Sparhawk states

If the country is dissolved then the negotiation is not between the Canadian govenment and Quebec. It is between the bond holders backed up by the IMF and Quebec.

and it should be noted that the IMF (and the World Bank) are 'stooges' for the US Foreign Policy dept, and any deal struck with them is de facto striking a deal with the US, which they could do anyway. I somehow doubt, though that Quebecois will want to be the 51st state, even if it is just beholden monitarily.

August1991,

QUOTE

A confederation of Ontario plus the West and Martimes, under the old federal model, would be acceptable only to Ontario. Everybody would be obliged to carefully examine their options, and a rehash of what had just failed would not be one of them.

Thelonious, I like this comment because it raises the serious issue of what Canada without Quebec would look like.

QUOTE

Point #2 ignores the reality that the primary thrust of separatism is not a cold analysis of the numers, aseets and liabilities. It's the cultural thrust, the romanticism of founding a new nation that will carry the day. Attempting to frighten the separatists with threats of $100 billion dollar debts won't change a single separatists vote, and making that threat itself may move a few borderline feds into the PQ camp.

Yes and no, Thelonious.

I actually did not write these two quotes.

[August1991]

I actually did not write these two quotes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Correct, my error. It was fellowtraveller who made that post.

[Guest eureka]

The Citizenship Act, for obvious reasons does not provide for the contingency under discussion. However, by simple amendment it could exclude the citizens of the newly foreign state. More likely there would be a new Act and Quebeckers would not have citizenship.

If one cares to think about, that is clear. There would be millions of Quebeckers who would, as Canadian citizens, have the right to vote by mail as expatriates FOR NO LONGER THAN FIVE YEARS, by the way. These would form a number that could influence the agenda of Canada.

They would also be citizens who did not pay taxes to Canada. That apart from the question of who they would vote for since they do not have Canadian residence.

The idea of retention of Canadian citizenship is the ultimate in absurdity.

Further, is it conceivable that Quebeckers abroad would be allowed to avail themselves of Canadian diplomatic services using their Canadian passports? Should Quebec citizens be entitled to the benefits of Canadian agreements with other nations for trade and tourist prtposes?

There are many other things toconsider but that should be enough to show that the retention of Canadian citizenship is a non starter.

[Guest eureka]

We can do a lot more of this, August, if you want to keep pushing the Parizeau fraud. The arguments you are presenting are quite similar to the deception he was perpetrating towards the soft sovereigntists.

[Riverwind]

Sparhawk, many people in Quebec might vote against sovereignty but that does not mean they would refuse to live in a sovereign Quebec if it existed. People in Quebec have a strong attachment to living in Quebec - they wouldn't still be here if they didn't.

I agree, the majority of ridings that vote no in a referendum would likely vote yes to stay with an independent Quebec. The issue here is not the outcome but whether these people are given the choice. If separatists refuse to give them the choice then a small minority would likely turn Montreal into Belfast. If they give them the choice then Quebec would likely lose some territory along the Ontario border and in the north but it would reduce the risk of violence.

Sparhawk, do you want to hold Canada together by threat?  Is such a Canada worth having?

Quebequers relish the idea of extracting concessions from the rest of the country by using referendums as the 'knife in the throat'. But get all pious and self righteous when the tables are turned. I am curious: can you give me any reason why country held together by through separatist blackmail and referendi is any better than country held together by frank discussion of the consequences of a referendum. They are really two sides of the same coin.

The stakes are higher now because Quebec got burned in the previous offers.  An offer from a non-Quebecer might still have credibility.

The problem is Quebec political establishment will assassinate any Francophone who has a nerve to accept any reasonable proposal from the rest of the country. If Quebequers want a new arrangement they have a simple way to get it: stop sending Bloquists and Liberals to Ottawa. If Quebequers sent nominally federalist MPs that could participate in a coalition gov't with the Conservatives then I am sure there would be a deal that Quebequers would find palatable coming out.

Unfortunately, as long as Quebequers insist on electing saboteurs like the BQ then all they will get is a broken country.

The saying 'you reap what you sow' and that applies here. The problems in the federation have been created by voting choices of Quebequers and it is within the power of Quebequers to fix it without separation by making different choices at the ballot box. Unfortunately, it is easier for most the demigogues in the separatist movement to paint Quequers as helpless victims instead of telling them to vote for federalists that are willing to change the status quo.

[August1991]

If separatists refuse to give them the choice then a small minority would likely turn Montreal into Belfast.

Trudeau once made a crack about turning Westmount into the Danzig of the New World but I don't think your proposal is feasible. More likely is the Bay James (Cree) and maybe around Ottawa. In a serious negotiation, territory would not be an issue. (BTW, Bourassa signed an agreement with the Cree and the James Bay electricity has no method of transmission south except through Quebec.)

Quebequers relish the idea of extracting concessions from the rest of the country by using referendums as the 'knife in the throat'.

This is the gravest error made in English Canada. In English-Canada, people think of Quebec as one person making threats in a negotiation.

"Extract concessions" is perhaps a sensible conclusion when watching the behaviour of one person. It makes no sense when watching the behaviour of millions expressed through a democratic referendum.

I have tried to explain that "Quebec" is millions of people with various opinions. Trudeau and Mulroney understood this.

The problem is Quebec political establishment will assassinate any Francophone who has a nerve to accept any reasonable proposal from the rest of the country. If Quebequers want a new arrangement they have a simple way to get it: stop sending Bloquists and Liberals to Ottawa. If Quebequers sent nominally federalist MPs that could participate in a coalition gov't with the Conservatives then I am sure there would be a deal that Quebequers would find palatable coming out.

Assassinate any francophone accepting a reasonable proposal? How do you define reasonable?

Simple way to get it? There was Trudeau and it turned into a weird, bilingual airport thing. Then, Mulroney did the Bourassa deal but that fell apart. Gilles Duceppe is the best you'll get, for the moment. He thinks Canada is a great country.

Can I repeat once again that Quebec is not a province like the others?

Quebec is the "gay" kid in the C.R.A.Z.Y. family of ten. The kid wants to come out of the closet, and be what he/she is, accepting all the responsibility of a person, but also wants to still have a family.

[Riverwind]

"Extract concessions" is perhaps a sensible conclusion when watching the behaviour of one person. It makes no sense when watching the behaviour of millions expressed through a democratic referendum.

August, look at the what you have said in this thread:

Following a positive referendum result, all English Canada need do is respond with a form of Meech. What would the "form of Meech" be? How about: Quebec no longer receives any equalization payments, it must continue to contribute to common Canadian expenses but the Quebec government has the sole authority to collect all taxes on Quebec's territory?

You are making the argument that a referendum is nothing but a negotiating tactic to extract concessions. The words 'knife at the throat' may have been used by only one person but it _is_ the philosophy that underscores how Quebec politicians deal with Canada. Given that context, can you really be surprised that Plan B sounds like a reasonable approach to a lot of Canadians.

Simple way to get it? There was Trudeau and it turned into a weird, bilingual airport thing.  Then, Mulroney did the Bourassa deal but that fell apart.  Gilles Duceppe is the best you'll get, for the moment.  He thinks Canada is a great country.

Trudeau and Mulroney changed the country in ways that make it more accommodating for Quebequers. Of course they did not do enough to meet the needs as they are perceived today, however, they still did manage to change the federation in positive ways. Duceppe and Bouchard before him have done nothing except poison the political environment and ensure a party that Quequers don't want in power retains power.

be what he/she is, accepting all the responsibility of a person, but also wants to still have a family.

What the gay kid has done is build a bomb and keeps threatening to blow up the house unless the family concedes to every demand. The family understands why the gay kid is frustrated and feels bad that their own fear of change contributed to the frustration, however, no meaningful reconciliation can take place until the bomb is dismantled. If the bomb is set off no one can predict what damage would be done.

[Guest eureka]

In the spirit of continuuing the dissection of the still warm corpse of Canada, it might be worth expressing some ideas on territory.The "Nationalist" of Quebec make much of the belief that they give more to Confederation than Quebec gets from it.

I would suggest, therefore, that Quebec goes out of Confederation with what it brought in, territorialiy.

That would mean the transfers of Canadian territory of 1898 and 1912 would be revoked and the land returned to Federal jurisidction. Quebec would then have about one third, the Southern portion, of its present territory.

Of that one third, much was settled and first explored by English speaking peoples and, since the New Quebec is an idea based on ethnic origin, negotiations over those regions should be held.

Then, the Aboriginal territories are a sticky question. They are part. at least in the South, of Quebec's 1867 origin. Yet, they are federal protectorates. The democracy that

quebec claims fuels its referendum process demands that they be freed to make their own decision.

Quebec should come out of this equitable process with about one sixth of its present extent. It would even have most of Montreal.

I think that would be a most fair and rather charitable division.

There would be some advantage to Canada also in this. There would be the capability of constructing transmission lines from Churchill Falls and possibly even roads and rails to the North of Quebec's new border. The James Bay facilities that now would not be in Quebec could have their power production diverted to Ontario and South. Canada would also have contro; of most of the South Shore and thus, direct connection with the East and the Sea.

Thta last might require some finessing: perhaps some land exchange from the North for the small regions of the South that Canada would require to ensure its territorial continuity.

Surely a win-win situation for both. It would certainly give Quebec more than the six feet of ground per person that Tolstoy said was all that a man needs. More than the destroyers of a nation deserve.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Can I repeat once again that Quebec is not a province like the others?

Quebec is the "gay" kid in the C.R.A.Z.Y. family of ten. The kid wants to come out of the closet, and be what he/she is, accepting all the responsibility of a person, but also wants to still have a family.

Quebec has 'come out' August. They enjoy more influence than any single other province. The influence (some say appeasement) Quebec has over the nation is palpable (I am shocked to find products in a grocery store without Francais on the label), and Montreal is known internationally as Canada's hotbed of culture, sexual liberalism, etc. it's hashish, it's car racing and it's 'culture'. Gay marriage has been accepted, as well as gay parenting. Yet, somehow, the 'gay kid' still says, in a pique of angst, "You just don't understand!"

What is it, August, that we don't understand? What is it that Quebec (through secession) hopes to gain?