Charest: "Independent Quebec is Viable"

[August1991]

Needless to say, this will be all over the French TV news tonight:

"The question today isn't whether we have the means," he said in the interview to be broadcast Sunday. "Yes, we do. Nobody questions that. "The real question is the following: what is in our best interests? What is best for Quebec?"

Link

Au dire du chef du Parti québécois, André Boisclair, le mouvement souverainiste enregistre une victoire définitive, puisque le premier ministre Jean Charest a reconnu vendredi à Paris que le Québec a les "moyens" de devenir indépendant.

En entrevue à NTR, vendredi, le leader péquiste a soutenu qu'une nouvelle page de l'histoire de la mouvance souverainiste était tournée, issue de 30 ans de débats. "Aujourd'hui, Jean Charest affirme que la souveraineté est faisable, que nous en avons les moyens."

Link

Welcome to Quebec politics, always a tiresome war of words. If it's not Harper avoiding the N-word, it's Charest speculating about sovereignty.

In all the reports, I noticed a minor unrelated detail. Of Charest's three children, two are in France as interns. One is with TV5 and the other with the Elysee. Membership has its privileges.

[Charles Anthony]

always a tiresome war of words.

Are you dismissing Charest's statement as having no substance? nor any political significance?

From the same article:

"Charest goes even further than his predecessor Bourassa, who stated in 1990 that it was up to Quebeckers alone to decide their future."

For years, people have categorically dismissed Quebec independence as financially non-viable. The "No" side now has one less stupid weapon. Who knows why Charest said this. It may have been a trap. He may want to still be part of the action when Quebec separates. Nevertheless, his statement must open more ears (on both sides of the St. Lawrence seaway) to be more receptive to sovereignty. I hope and pray so.

[lost&outofcontrol]

always a tiresome war of words.

Are you dismissing Charest's statement as having no substance? nor any political significance?

From the same article:

"Charest goes even further than his predecessor Bourassa, who stated in 1990 that it was up to Quebeckers alone to decide their future."

For years, people have categorically dismissed Quebec independence as financially non-viable. The "No" side now has one less stupid weapon. Who knows why Charest said this. It may have been a trap. He may want to still be part of the action when Quebec separates. Nevertheless, his statement must open more ears (on both sides of the St. Lawrence seaway) to be more receptive to sovereignty. I hope and pray so.

Couldn't not of said it better myself! One less bullet point the NO can use in the next referendum.

[Wilber]

I have no doubt an independent Quebec is viable. Most of our Provinces are probably independently viable. The question is, viable as what? Would independence come at a cost and what would that cost be, not whether it is doable.

[Leafless]

I have no doubt an independent Quebec is viable. Most of our Provinces are probably independently viable. The question is, viable as what? Would independence come at a cost and what would that cost be, not whether it is doable.

Then you do have doubt or you would not be saying "viable as what".

But I agree with you Wilber in the sense that NO province in Canada would be able to achieve an independent successful status as an individual country especially in this age of globalization where as 'the smaller you are , the worse off you will be'.

Speaking of Quebec, surley you realize that there is no way Quebec would be able to leave confederation with all it's present assets.

Quebec would be best described as an artificial province created by the rest of Canada and will virtually be always dependent on Canada.

[Charles Anthony]

will virtually be always dependent on Canada.

Quebec will be dependent on Canada for what?

[gc1765]

Charest is right...just because something is "viable" doesn't mean that it is ideal.

For example, I could 'survive' out in the bush by myself (separate from everyone else), but it doesn't mean that it is in my best interest.

[Wilber]

I have no doubt an independent Quebec is viable. Most of our Provinces are probably independently viable. The question is, viable as what? Would independence come at a cost and what would that cost be, not whether it is doable.

Then you do have doubt or you would not be saying "viable as what".

But I agree with you Wilber in the sense that NO province in Canada would be able to achieve an independent successful status as an individual country especially in this age of globalization where as 'the smaller you are , the worse off you will be'.

Speaking of Quebec, surley you realize that there is no way Quebec would be able to leave confederation with all it's present assets.

Quebec would be best described as an artificial province created by the rest of Canada and will virtually be always dependent on Canada.

I have no doubt but will it be a Switzerland or an Albania? Both are viable but very different.

[geoffrey]

But I agree with you Wilber in the sense that NO province in Canada would be able to achieve an independent successful status as an individual country especially in this age of globalization where as 'the smaller you are , the worse off you will be'.

Alberta would be better off without a doubt. We export more to the US than the rest of Canada anyways. The rest of the provinces, maybe not so well. I know Quebec could stand on it's own if it wished.

Speaking of Quebec, surley you realize that there is no way Quebec would be able to leave confederation with all it's present assets.

Why not? Companies are spun off all the time, why not just a greater scale? It is possible Leafless.

Quebec would be best described as an artificial province created by the rest of Canada and will virtually be always dependent on Canada.

All provinces are artifical, I can make the argument that Canada will always be dependant on Alberta.

[Leafless]

will virtually be always dependent on Canada.

Quebec will be dependent on Canada for what?

How will Quebec survive under it's present French entity like what the federal government and Canada presently allows it to do?

Economically speaking, what will Quebec produce or manufacture without knowing for certain or at all what it will have in assets when it separates?

Charest said himself " A sovereign Quebec would be plunged into five years of economic disturbances" whatever that means, as if any Canadian has the capacity to forsee a completely UNPREDICTABLE set of political consequences concerning the Quebec separation factor.

[Wilber]

All provinces are artifical, I can make the argument that Canada will always be dependant on Alberta.

No portion of the country is truly dependant on the rest. The only thing that is required for independence is a population willing to pay the price of independence, what ever it may be. The reason we have a country at all is years ago its people decided we were better off together than apart.

Always is a long time. How about as long as Alberta's oil and gas reserves hold out and Alberta's oil and gas is as important to the world economy as they are now, Alberta will have a major influence on the rest of Canada's prosperity? I would consider that a valid argument.

[August1991]

The following reports IMF data for 2005 of GDP per capita using PPP comparison for the exachnage rates:

1 Luxembourg 69,800

2 Norway 42,364

3 United States 41,399

4 Ireland 40,610

5 Iceland 35,586

6 Denmark 34,737

7 Canada 34,273

8 Austria 33,615

9 Hong Kong, PRC 33,411

10 Switzerland 32,571

11 Qatar 31,397

12 Belgium 31,244

13 Finland 31,208

14 Australia 30,897

15 Netherlands 30,862

Wikipedia

Ireland has a population of 4 million, Iceland 300,000, Denmark 5.4 million, Austria 8 million, Finland 5 million and Belgium 10 million. Quebec has a population of about 7 million.

----

Charest was factually right to say what he said. There is no question that an independent Quebec would have a viable economy. Indeed, looking at the list above, there is good reason to believe that small countries are more successful than large countries.

Charest was also politically correct to say what he said. He is PM of Quebec.

Apart from any cultural or other argument for independence, I have always felt that people in Quebec would be better served if political decisions were taken in Quebec rather than in Ottawa. Governments in small countries face immediate costs when they indulge in nonsense. If the price of foolishness is high, don't be surprised if there is less foolishness.

With all that said, many Quebecers have a profound attachment - like it or not - to this thing called Canada, an attachment that has withstood harsh treatment from other Canadians. The trick, it seems to me, is to have a federal system that respects autonomy.

[Toro]

I have no doubt an independent Quebec is viable. Most of our Provinces are probably independently viable. The question is, viable as what? Would independence come at a cost and what would that cost be, not whether it is doable.

Quebec is viable. But they'd be poorer.

According to the CIA table, Quebec would rank 29th per capita GDP. (Canada is 14th)

However, that's assuming no dislocation, which there would be with separation and Quebec no longer being in Confederation. Also, more expenditures would have to go to "deadweight" government expenditures, lowering GDP.

Finally, Quebec would be would one of the most heavily indebted countries in the industrialized world.

Quebec’s total debt of more than $118-billion is equivalent to 42.7 per cent of its gross domestic product, the highest rate of any Canadian province.

Here.

Canada total debt is projected to be 62.5% of GDP in 2006.

OECD, table EO79

Canadian GDP is US$809 billion. (here).

Canada is expected to grow 3.1% in 2006 (here). So Canada's GDP will be $833 billion. Thus, Canada's total debt is about $520 billion. Thus, Quebec's share, at about 20% of GDP, is $104 billion. Thus, Quebec's total debt after independence would be $222 billion, or 81% {$222 billion / ($118 billion/0.427)} of GDP, which would mean Quebec would be the 5th most indebted country in the industrialized world. Only Belgium, Greece, Italy and Japan would be in worse shape.

So Quebec is certainly viable on its own, but the country would be poorer.

I betcha the sovereigntists aren't advertising that.

[geoffrey]

Debt doesn't mean poorer if managed right, Italy is very industrialised and wealthy. Not to mention, your GDP numbers are wrong, Canada's GDP is over 1 trillion.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/dsbbcan.htm

Nominal GDP: 1.4 Tril

Real GDP: 1.2 Tril (Rounded)

[Charles Anthony]

So Quebec is certainly viable on its own, but the country would be poorer.

They might be poorer or they might not. That is their right.

Who cares? The poor people of Quebec might move away. They might get a kick in the pants and learn something new or create a new business. They might starve and die in their independent Quebec. Who cares?

Is anybody responsible for spoon feeding them (or any other Canadian)?

I betcha the sovereigntists aren't advertising that.

They probably are not advertizing it because they are NOT mooches unlike the Rest Of Canada.

Separatists throughout the country have a sense of personal responsibility and do not feel that The Rest Of Canada should support their poverty. Just like Switzerland does not support poverty in Albania and just like Albania does not expect to be supported by Switzerland, Quebec sovereignists do not look to Ottawa and the rest of The Rest Of Canada to pay their bills.

My, oh, my! How we like to complain when people mooch from Ottawa and how we like to complain when they try to stop mooching from Ottawa.

[seabee]

QUOTE(Toro @ Jul 8 2006, 11:24 PM)

I betcha the sovereigntists aren't advertising that.

They probably are not advertizing it because they are NOT mooches unlike the Rest Of Canada.

Separatists throughout the country have a sense of personal responsibility and do not feel that The Rest Of Canada should support their poverty. Just like Switzerland does not support poverty in Albania and just like Albania does not expect to be supported by Switzerland, Quebec sovereignists do not look to Ottawa and the rest of The Rest Of Canada to pay their bills.

Bang on!

In fact, Charest's words could easily be interpreted as meaning; "Independance might be ok, but not yet; let's milk the ROC dry first."

Should there be another referendum in Québec in the near future, Charest will presumably lead the "No" side; think about it.

[Toro]

Debt doesn't mean poorer if managed right, Italy is very industrialised and wealthy. Not to mention, your GDP numbers are wrong, Canada's GDP is over 1 trillion.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/dsbbcan.htm

Nominal GDP: 1.4 Tril

Real GDP: 1.2 Tril (Rounded)

The number is from the OECD, in US dollars and using purchasing power parity.

But even such, it depends how it is calculated. Here is an example of different estimates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...y_GDP_%28PPP%29

But that's really besides the point. I was using like for like numbers to reach an estimate for Quebec's sovereign debt after separation.

And I wouldn't use Italy as a good role model going forward. I'd bet there isn't a bond trader alive who thinks Italy manages their debt "right", considering its deficit is around 6% of GDP (the US is 3%) and total debt to GDP is 122% (US 65%)

http://www.oecd.org/topicstatsportal/0,264...1_1_1_1,00.html Table EO79

I've posted this somewhere here before, but I'll do it again.

This is OECD data

http://www.oecd.org/document/28/0,2340,en_...1_1_1_1,00.html

Use tables 1b for the GDP data, and for foreign exchange rates use table C1. The data is after inflation and currency fluctuations, adjusted for purchasing power parity. The OECD data starts in 1970 and ends in 2003.

These are the growth rates

1970-2003

Australia 1.5%

Canada 2.3%

France 2.4%

Germany 4.6%

Italy -0.8%

Japan 6.6%

Spain 0.8%

Sweden 0.6%

UK 1.1%

USA 3.1%

Besides, I didn't say Quebec wouldn't be wealthy. What I said is that they'd be poorer, not poor.

[Leafless]

[quote name='Toro' date='Jul 9 2006, 06:53 AM' post='120810'

But that's really besides the point. I was using like for like numbers to reach an estimate for Quebec's sovereign debt after separation.

You can use all the numbers you like but it doesn't make one bit of difference concerning Quebec's separation factor.

That factor is totally unknown and no one even knows if Quebec will continue it's existence on the same planet in it's present form.

You are basing numbers on SPECULATION which is like predicting the outcome of a 'before and after' situation which has no bearing on present fact.

You are posting incorrect data and unless you can prove Quebec will leave confederation in it's present economic state and continue in it,s present economic state, I suggest you stop your Quebec BS.

[Toro]

Leafless

You do understand that I was making an argument against separation, right?

The numbers I put out are to show that there would be a greater economic burden on Quebec as an independent state.

You do understand that, right?

But English Canadians are deluding themselves if they believe Quebec isn't viable on its own. All anyone has to look on a map to figure this out. If Slovakia and Slovenia are viable as independent countries, then so is Quebec.

Of course, the separatists in Quebec are also deluding themselves when they say that Canada has no choice but to come to the table and give Quebec everything it wants. If Quebec separates, everything is on the table, including borders.

[August1991]

That factor is totally unknown and no one even knows if Quebec will continue it's existence on the same planet in it's present form.

You are basing numbers on SPECULATION which is like predicting the outcome of a 'before and after' situation which has no bearing on present fact.

Different planet? I have heard of suggestions to tow Quebec out into the Atlantic Ocean but launching it into space is a new idea.

BTW, Montenegro recently separated from Serbia. Of course, before that, Slovenia and Croatia separated from the former Yugoslavia. Estonia is doing very well as an independent country. Slovakia and the Czech Republic have successfully separated. Many years ago, Norway separated from Sweden - by referendum no less.

So, it is not "totally unknown" what will happen. Looking at the above examples, I simply conclude that there is a "dumb" way to do it and a "smart" way to do it.

[Wilber]

So, it is not "totally unknown" what will happen. Looking at the above examples, I simply conclude that there is a "dumb" way to do it and a "smart" way to do it.

This has been going on for most of my life and I'm tired of it. When you make up your mind let me know and I'll deal with it.

[Charles Anthony]

One thing that will be amusing is the division of "national debt" between a newly independent Quebec and the Rest Of Canada. Quebec can hold a referendum today, declare independence tomorrow and be an independent country the next day. Negotiating the division of "debt" will take forever.

Quebec will be able to say: "Screw you. Keep your funny money." and continue to hold the trump card. Very little (short of warfare and or trade barriers) can stop them.

Of course, the separatists in Quebec are also deluding themselves when they say that Canada has no choice but to come to the table and give Quebec everything it wants.

Federalist Canadians will be wise to come to the table diplomatically because Quebec will have the upper hand.

[Wilber]

What price Canada? Quebec at any price, even if it results in weakening the rest of the country? No thanks. The knowledge that the rest of the country will cave when threatened with separation by any Province will be this country's death sentence.

[geoffrey]

What price Canada? Quebec at any price, even if it results in weakening the rest of the country? No thanks. The knowledge that the rest of the country will cave when threatened with separation by any Province will be this country's death sentence.

Alberta needs to play that card better. Your right, it does work, that's why we pay out Quebec constantly. Quebec is better off on its own, or in like I've proposed before, a set of nations with common defense, foreign policy and currency.

[Toro]

Quebec will be able to say: "Screw you. Keep your funny money." and continue to hold the trump card. Very little (short of warfare and or trade barriers) can stop them.

And if Canada did decide to keep the funny money, Quebec's economy would plummet because monetary velocity surely tank and capital would flee. That would probably require a lending facility from the IMF to stabilize the Quebec economy. Quite the way to start out as a new nation.

There are vast amounts of assets owned by the Canadian government that would be transfered to a sovereign Quebec assuming negotiations took place. Those would not, of course, be transfered to Quebec if Quebec were dumb enough to say "screw you".

Federalist Canadians will be wise to come to the table diplomatically because Quebec will have the upper hand.

The smaller, economically weaker, more debt-laden, less-diversified nation that does not have its own currency and whose borders are up for debate does not have the upper hand.

Quebec would be a viable, albeit less wealthy nation on its own. But the sovereigntists peddle illusions to the population - such as this one above - to make the people of Quebec believe that separation would be painless. Maybe it would be, but maybe not. If Quebec votes for independence, everything is on the table, including borders, James Bay contracts, etc.