Charest: "Independent Quebec is Viable"

[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.

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.

You think so. I'm tired of a country where some Canadians feel other Canadians owe them. Where for reasons of geography, location or resources, language etc, some Canadians feel that they are somehow superior because of where they live. A country so well off compared to 98% of the people on this planet that it spends 98% of its time and energy bitching about how they are being screwed by their fellow Canadians.

The US fought the bloodiest war in its history over this issue. Less than 80 years later they were the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the planet. No talk of separation and regional alienation there. In spite of their faults, they act like a real country.

Just before the last referendum I was working in the US. An American I worked with couldn't get his head around the idea. He said in his country they would consider it treason. I tried to explain that it wasn't quite that simple. I don't think I convinced him but that may be because I'm not sure I was convincing myself.

[August1991]

The US fought the bloodiest war in its history over this issue. Less than 80 years later they were the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the planet. No talk of separation and regional alienation there. In spite of their faults, they act like a real country.

Wilber, you are mistaken. The US government is the wealthiest and most powerful on the planet. Ordinary Americans are no better off than Icelanders, the Irish or Norwegians.

The Canadian government will never be in the league of the US government. Instead, we might rather think about why the Icelanders and the Norwegians do so well. Indeed, why ordinary Americans do so well.

Just before the last referendum I was working in the US. An American I worked with couldn't get his head around the idea. He said in his country they would consider it treason. I tried to explain that it wasn't quite that simple. I don't think I convinced him but that may be because I'm not sure I was convincing myself.

Americans are confusing on several points. One concerns when WWII started. Like Russians, Americans insist it started in 1941. Another concerns the US Civil War. Too many Americans seem to think it didn't happen.

[Wilber]

The US fought the bloodiest war in its history over this issue. Less than 80 years later they were the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the planet. No talk of separation and regional alienation there. In spite of their faults, they act like a real country.

Wilber, you are mistaken. The US government is the wealthiest and most powerful on the planet. Ordinary Americans are no better off than Icelanders, the Irish or Norwegians.

The Canadian government will never be in the league of the US government. Instead, we might rather think about why the Icelanders and the Norwegians do so well. Indeed, why ordinary Americans do so well.

Just before the last referendum I was working in the US. An American I worked with couldn't get his head around the idea. He said in his country they would consider it treason. I tried to explain that it wasn't quite that simple. I don't think I convinced him but that may be because I'm not sure I was convincing myself.

Americans are confusing on several points. One concerns when WWII started. Like Russians, Americans insist it started in 1941. Another concerns the US Civil War. Too many Americans seem to think it didn't happen.

August, I shake my head. Considering our comparative levels of taxation, Canada's government should be far wealthier per capita than the US government. I have have had the pleasure of working in an with Americans over the years and I have never met or heard of one who thought their civil war didn't happen. If only Canadians could know and celebrate their own history as well as Americans. As far as the US and Russia were concerned, WWII didn't start until 1941. Until 1941 it was a European war that included the British Empire, not a world war. Both World Wars were initially European civil wars that ended up sucking in most of the rest of the world. As far as wealth goes, it was American wealth that decided both world wars and rebuilt a devastated Europe at the end of WWII which in turn enabled it to become strong and prosperous enough to resist Soviet expansion.

They still act like a real country compared to the bunch of bickering regionalists we call Canada.

[Charles Anthony]

And if Canada did decide to keep the funny money, Quebec's economy would plummet because monetary velocity surely tank and capital would flee.

Why?

The power will be turned off after separation? The lights will go out?

Who in their right mind would stop doing business in Quebec and with Quebec simply because Canada/Quebec debt negotiations were in a stalemate?

What formidable business in an independent Quebec requires the burden of a foreign government in Ottawa?

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.

Canadians will not go to war. They will negotiate because Canada will not be able to unload its debt on any other country.

If Quebec votes for independence, everything is on the table, including borders, James Bay contracts, etc.

Excellent point. Indeed, it is not a one-way street as Canadians have been bred to believe. Quebec is not just a mooch to Ottawa. Canadians benefit from Quebec.

I'm tired of a country where some Canadians feel other Canadians owe them.

Me too. Unfortunately, I think that it is inevitable when you have big government. Pierre Trudeau has convinced me of that. I also think that our country is non-sensically too big to be governed by a club in Ottawa and that Quebec separation is logical. I do not understand why more Canadians do not learn from the Bloc Quebecois.

Where for reasons of geography, location or resources, language etc, some Canadians feel that they are somehow superior because of where they live. A country so well off compared to 98% of the people on this planet that it spends 98% of its time and energy bitching about how they are being screwed by their fellow Canadians.

There are a lot of hard-working people who are not well-off in Canada. Nevertheless, they pay a lot of taxes and see a lot of waste.

[Wilber]

Me too. Unfortunately, I think that it is inevitable when you have big government. Pierre Trudeau has convinced me of that. I also think that our country is non-sensically too big to be governed by a club in Ottawa and that Quebec separation is logical. I do not understand why more Canadians do not learn from the Bloc Quebecois.

I agree that big government is a problem in Canada but mostly because it has a history of involving itself in things that are not really it's concern and neglecting those which are.

There are other very large and diverse countries which seem to manage just fine with out indulging themselves in all the regional BS that is endemic in Canada. The US and Australia come to mind. What should other Canadians learn from the Bloq? They are all about looking after their own little patch and to hell with the rest. Learn too much from them and there will be no such thing as a Canadian.

There are a lot of hard-working people who are not well-off in Canada. Nevertheless, they pay a lot of taxes and see a lot of waste.

You could say that about every country but they don't use it as an excuse to destroy their own nation.

[Charles Anthony]

I agree that big government is a problem in Canada but mostly because it has a history of involving itself in things that are not really it's concern and neglecting those which are.

Yes. Too many people minding other people's business instead of their own.

What should other Canadians learn from the Bloq? They are all about looking after their own little patch and to hell with the rest.

You took the words right out of my mouth!

People minding their own business instead of other people's business.

Which one is it?

What do you want your parliamentarian to do?

Go to Ottawa and defend the interests of a different constituency other than your own????

How can a group of people co-operate if individual interests are not even known (let alone defended)?

Sounds chaotic to me.

What I mean by "learn from the Bloc Quebecois" is that they are the first party to make a point of effectively defending the interests of their constituents instead of some "national vision bigger picture" hulabaloo. No party can stand up to them on that record.

[Leafless]

What I mean by "learn from the Bloc Quebecois" is that they are the first party to make a point of effectively defending the interests of their constituents instead of some "national vision bigger picture" hulabaloo. No party can stand up to them on that record.

What you are forgetting is they are a 'SEPARATIST' party and that's their job is to defend Quebec's nationalistic interest including the separation factor.

Surely you must agree in all reality they really have no buisness being a 'federal party' if they only represent the nationalistic interest of a single province.

You can not compare this federally dysfunctional party to bear any resemblence to other federal national parties.

[Wilber]

What I mean by "learn from the Bloc Quebecois" is that they are the first party to make a point of effectively defending the interests of their constituents instead of some "national vision bigger picture" hulabaloo. No party can stand up to them on that record.

I have provincial and municipal governments to look after all that. I need a federal government to look after my national interests. The Bloq has no interest in my national interests therefore I do not want the Bloq or any one like them representing me in Ottawa.

[Charles Anthony]

Surely you must agree in all reality they really have no buisness being a 'federal party' if they only represent the nationalistic interest of a single province.

No, I do not agree.

1) If you believe in democracy, you have to give them equal opportunity in Parliament, no matter what their stance happens to be. They pay taxes -- or rather, you take their money and call it "taxes" same difference, anyway.

2) Their interests are not only separation. Their interests also include defending their constituents (oh, my! what a foreign concept in Canada's parliament!).

You can not compare this federally dysfunctional party to bear any resemblence to other federal national parties.

Correct. They have a much more noble dimension: representing their constituents. A dimension which seems to be lacking in the other major toe-the-party-line clubs.

I have provincial and municipal governments to look after all that. I need a federal government to look after my national interests.

What are your "national interests" that can not be enforced by a more local government?

[Wilber]

What are your "national interests" that can not be enforced by a more local government?

Tell you what Charles, lets just turn ourselves into a bunch of bickering little fiefdoms who have no other national interest than what they can extort from the rest of Canada. The US and Australia will still be there long after Canada has Balkanized itself into oblivion.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If Quebec tries to separate, then it will face the possibility of a first nations attempt to seperate from Quebec. Don't get me wrong I favor them making their own decision in this matter, its their choice to make.

With respect to territory for a sovereign Quebec doesn't the constitution state you can only leave with what you had to start with? In other words "Lower Canada". Or am I wrong in this?

[Rue]

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.

Your personal attack on Charest's family reeks of petty jealousy.

More to the point you have taken Charest's comment completely out of context. Instead of pulling just a few of his words, go back and read the entire text of what he actuall said. It was far from seperatist or advocating sovereignty. Then again from the sounds of your personal attack against his family, you have issues with France as well. Would it make you feel better if they were working for the CBC? I doubt it.

[Charles Anthony]

What are your "national interests" that can not be enforced by a more local government?

lets just turn ourselves into a bunch of bickering little fiefdoms who have no other national interest than what they can extort from the rest of Canada.

That is what we have now. We do not have to reduce anything. That is an apt description of the entire history and current affairs of Canada.

The bickering continues because people use the power of the State (under the euphemism of "patriotism" and "national vision" or whatever) to extort and coerce other Canadians for financial gain.

To stop the bickering, we need smaller government and less government powers.

If Quebec tries to separate, then it will face the possibility of a first nations attempt to seperate from Quebec. Don't get me wrong I favor them making their own decision in this matter, its their choice to make.

The native populations should have that right to separate from Quebec in the same way that Quebeckers should have the right to separate from Canada.

Personally, I doubt natives will separate from Quebec because the political power struggle between first nations in Quebec and Ottawa is more imbalanced. Two smaller groups of people side by side will likely make a compromise whereas one small group and one foreign group in Ottawa will not.

Power struggles usually lead to compromise between smaller groups who live side by side and share the same resources. I believe that natives deep in Quebec and Quebeckers deep in Quebec will only find it natural to share. Whereas it is only natural for provinces on the East of this continent to have difficulty sharing with provinces on the West of this continent.

With respect to territory for a sovereign Quebec doesn't the constitution state you can only leave with what you had to start with? In other words "Lower Canada". Or am I wrong in this?

No. With a clear referendum win, anybody can declare independence with their current borders. All they need after that is international recognition from an other country and secession will happen.

The biggest challenge will be internal to Quebec. Quebeckers who want to stay as part of Canada will not readily accept secession. However, Canada is not going to send soldiers into Quebec to fight. Quebeckers will have to se

We will probably see a bunch of Canadian-Quebeckers with dual citizenships.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well have at 'er mate! This nation will not learn so it must suffer some consequences. It could be so simple to fix the problems but that would require balls and a spine to be politically incorrect.

As far as I am concerned this nation is effectively politically incompetent. To fix the problem they need to completely restructure both the Senate and the Commons. All provinces are supposed to be equal to the federal government in this commonwealth nation. But not a single effort was ever made to ensure this reality. Since the nation has no desire to "open the can of worms", that unratified piece of junk of a constitution, to deal with the issues, oh well what can I say!

We have part time Mayors, Premiers and a part time Prime Minister. Any citizen that showed up for work as often as these guys do would find themselves looking for work on a regular basis. Ole Ralph Klein only had the Legislature up and running 39 days one year here in Alberta. Then they wonder why they can't get anything done! Morons!

[Charles Anthony]

We have part time Mayors, Premiers and a part time Prime Minister. Any citizen that showed up for work as often as these guys do would find themselves looking for work on a regular basis. Ole Ralph Klein only had the Legislature up and running 39 days one year here in Alberta. Then they wonder why they can't get anything done! Morons!

I would ask why you would even need them at all.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Thats the pont isn't it! From my perspective we have a sad case of triplication going on that while it employs a lot of citizens, I can't say that I find any tax dollar value in bureaucracy. Between the politicians and the bureaucrats nothing gets done and we spend a lot of money doing it.

Make the Mayors sit in Provincial Legislatures as representatives, let the Provincial Legislatures sit in the House of Commons. Let the people elect a single leader for the entire nation and let them ride herd on all of the rest of the politicians. Do something ! Anything to stop the multi-directional navigation problems in politics. Citizens are the same everywhere. We all want the same thing, less taxes and more freedom from government oppression and interference in our lives.

[August1991]

Citizens are the same everywhere.

That's obviously wrong and hence the rest of your reasoning is wrong too.

Your personal attack on Charest's family reeks of petty jealousy.

More to the point you have taken Charest's comment completely out of context. Instead of pulling just a few of his words, go back and read the entire text of what he actuall said. It was far from seperatist or advocating sovereignty. Then again from the sounds of your personal attack against his family, you have issues with France as well. Would it make you feel better if they were working for the CBC? I doubt it.

I don't have a jealous bone in my body. I was reflecting rather on how government power works. In the grand scheme of things, this instance is a mere detail.

As to Charest's comment, if I took it out of context, then I was not alone.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Citizens are different everywhere? I contest that within some basic parameters, I think they are the same in that they all want the same thing, less taxes and more freedom from government oppression and interference in our lives.

Where in the world are citizens not like that?

[Toro]

And if Canada did decide to keep the funny money, Quebec's economy would plummet because monetary velocity surely tank and capital would flee.

Why?

The power will be turned off after separation? The lights will go out?

Who in their right mind would stop doing business in Quebec and with Quebec simply because Canada/Quebec debt negotiations were in a stalemate?

What formidable business in an independent Quebec requires the burden of a foreign government in Ottawa?

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.

Canadians will not go to war. They will negotiate because Canada will not be able to unload its debt on any other country.

Its not about going to war. Its dispelling this idea that Quebec - which does not have a currency, which does not have an army, which will have nearly half of its citizens not wanting to become a separate state including most of a very large linguistic minority - is somehow in a stronger position than Canada at the negotiating table.

The only thing that Quebec has going for it is that Canada would want to offload Quebec's portion of its debt. But even that is overblown since Canada's net debt is around 20% of GDP, according to the OECD link I supplied earlier. If under a scenario where Quebec said they weren't taking any debt - which means that Quebec wouldn't get any federal assets either - Canada's net debt would rise to 25%. Considering that was the level a few years ago, that's hardly a huge back-breaker for the Canadian population.

Why?

The power will be turned off after separation? The lights will go out?

Who in their right mind would stop doing business in Quebec and with Quebec simply because Canada/Quebec debt negotiations were in a stalemate?

What formidable business in an independent Quebec requires the burden of a foreign government in Ottawa?

There's a difference between haggling over whether Quebec will take 18% or 22% of the debt and what you said

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.

Saying "screw you" is tantamount to a trade war. (And of course, its naively presumptious to believe that if Quebec ever did take such a posture, a trade war would not result.)

Its not about turning the lights out. Its about a beligerent Quebec saying "screw you" and Canada putting pressure on Quebec to negotiate a fair deal. All the government of Canada would have to do is make a statement that says this;

"From today on, the Bank of Canada will cease supplying currency to Quebec."

People would start hoarding Canadian dollars and monetary velocity would plummet. This means less economic activity. Capital would begin fleeing Quebec immediately as investors dump Quebec bonds, which would force up interest rates in Quebec, not only costing the government of Quebec more money in interest payments on the debt and deficit it must re-finance, but would have the effect of a monetary tightening and slow if not contract the economy.

Hopefully, it wouldn't come to that. But this idea that Quebec somehow has the upper hand is simply wrong.

[Charles Anthony]

There's a difference between haggling over whether Quebec will take 18% or 22% of the debt and what you said

No.

If Quebec refuses both 18% and 22% then it is the same as Quebec saying "Screw you." because the negotiations are at a stalemate.

What can Canada do? The only thing is trade barriers and warfare. That is what I said.

Saying "screw you" is tantamount to a trade war.

Yes and Canada will also lose in a trade war. Thus, Canada will negotiate.

All the government of Canada would have to do is make a statement that says this;

"From today on, the Bank of Canada will cease supplying currency to Quebec."

Nobody can stop Quebec from using any curreny they want. I challenge you to explain how the Bank of Canada can stop it.

[Toro]

There's a difference between haggling over whether Quebec will take 18% or 22% of the debt and what you said

No.

If Quebec refuses both 18% and 22% then it is the same as Quebec saying "Screw you." because the negotiations are at a stalemate.

What can Canada do? The only thing is trade barriers and warfare. That is what I said.

Yes, and you also said that Quebec would have the "trump card."

Quebec will be able to say: "Screw you. Keep your funny money." and continue to hold the trump card.

So let's see.

On Canada's side, there is

- the army

- the currency

- questions about Quebec's borders

- large English minority in Quebec who will have voted +90% against Quebec independence

- a native population that may not want to be a part of an independent Quebec

- Quebec has a greater dependence on trade with Canada than vice-versa

- Quebec has higher debt per capita and pays a higher interest rate

- Quebec's economy is less diversified

- Quebec is smaller

And on Quebec's side, there is

- the national debt

Yes, Quebec would certainly have the upper hand.

Saying "screw you" is tantamount to a trade war.

Yes and Canada will also lose in a trade war. Thus, Canada will negotiate.

Yes, Canada would also lose in a trade war. But Quebec would lose more. Of course Canada will negotiate. But Canada will be in a stronger position than Quebec. Quebec has much more to lose.

All the government of Canada would have to do is make a statement that says this;

"From today on, the Bank of Canada will cease supplying currency to Quebec."

Nobody can stop Quebec from using any curreny they want. I challenge you to explain how the Bank of Canada can stop it.

Oh, Quebec could certainly continue to use the Canadian dollar. But if the government of Canada decided to stop supplying money into Quebec, then what can Quebec do? Nothing. Remember, you're an independent country now and have no say over the central bank. Plus, you would have already played your one "trump card" you could to hit the Canadian dollar.

A dollar bill lasts about 18 months before it has to be replaced. If the bank says its not going to supply currency into Quebec, then velocity must pick up to maintain the level transactions and thus GDP. But that would be unlikely to happen as people begin to hoard the money they have. Of course, the actual amount of money in circulation is a fraction of the total volume of money. And even if Canada did cut off money, there would be more than a few clever Quebecers who'd find a way to bring loonies back into Quebec. But there would be a slow but sure decrease in the quantity of money in Quebec over time. This is important: From an operational standpoint, Quebec needs the co-operation of the Canadian government to continue to use Canada's currency.

However, the biggest effect would be in the financial markets. If Canada were to make such a statement, Quebec's bonds would be crushed as investors dump the bonds of of a fledgling, unproven sovereign entity engaged in a crisis that investors know whom is in the weaker position. [Hint, its not Quebec.] Interest rates would skyrocket on Quebec's bonds as capital flees the province. Of course, Canada would not benefit either, but Quebec would be hurt more. That's why this idea that Quebec is in the stronger bargaining position is ridiculous.

[Toro]

Bump

[August1991]

Oh, Quebec could certainly continue to use the Canadian dollar. But if the government of Canada decided to stop supplying money into Quebec, then what can Quebec do? Nothing. Remember, you're an independent country now and have no say over the central bank.

Surely you don't mean that Quebec would be unable to use Canadian dollars because, uh, the Bank of Canada would refuse to replace the old ones? You've got to be kidding. If the Bank of Canada ever refused, I'd be quite to get into the business myself...

You more accurately point out that Quebec would have no direct say over monetary policy - but then again, if Quebec were using Canadian dollars, the Bank of Canada would want to know what is happening in the Quebec economy.

----

The issue of sharing the debt concerns the attitude of foreign lenders. To preserve their borrowing status, both Quebec and the new ROC would have to be seen to be creditworthy. It's anyone's guess how that would play out.

I've avoided the issue of a trade war - that's simply one hypothetical too many added to too many hypotheticals already. Although I'll note one market I've never seen mentioned: milk. The federal supply management scheme means that Quebec dairy farmers produce almost half of Canada's milk and then sell it into a hermetically sealed market. With independence, that market would disappear. The Quebec dairy lobby is so well-organized, and so vocal, that on this issue alone I think independence is debateable.

Anyway, Harper won 10 seats in the last federal election. Everyone in Quebec has taken note. House prices in Montreal's West Island are on the rise.

[Riverwind]

Surely you don't mean that Quebec would be unable to use Canadian dollars because, uh, the Bank of Canada would refuse to replace the old ones? You've got to be kidding. If the Bank of Canada ever refused, I'd be quite to get into the business myself...

I don't believe Toro is talking about paper currency. Banks depend on the BOC to backstop stop their financial transactions and ensure they have liquidity. The same is true of gov'ts. The BOC could make life very difficult for an independent Quebec if it wanted too.

[August1991]

I got the impression from Toro's comment here:

A dollar bill lasts about 18 months before it has to be replaced. If the bank says its not going to supply currency into Quebec, then velocity must pick up to maintain the level transactions and thus GDP.

However, the biggest effect would be in the financial markets. If Canada were to make such a statement, Quebec's bonds would be crushed as investors dump the bonds of of a fledgling, unproven sovereign entity engaged in a crisis that investors know whom is in the weaker position. [Hint, its not Quebec.] Interest rates would skyrocket on Quebec's bonds as capital flees the province. Of course, Canada would not benefit either, but Quebec would be hurt more. That's why this idea that Quebec is in the stronger bargaining position is ridiculous.

More scary nonsense Toro. Governments come and go. The negotiations to split debt and assets would take place under the eye of debtholders and that's the relevance. Most government debt is held by Canadians anyway.

I have always been irritated by English-Canadians who try the "you'll never survive without us" argument. There is something sadly pathetic in the argument. It is like the stereotypical ignorant husband telling the little wifey that she couldn't manage five minutes alone in the real world.

How do most English-Canadians react when a loud-mouth American says that Canada would be an impoverished frozen wasteland if not for its proximity to America?