Charest: "Independent Quebec is Viable"

[Riverwind]

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.

But that is not the argument. Quebec will survive - it will just end up being a lot poorer that it is today. There are committed soveriegnists that would be happy to accept a drop in standard of living in order to live in an independent Quebec, however, the majority of Quebequers probably do not feel that it is worth the trade off. That is why soveriegntists try to pretend that a break up would be painless. It is reasonable for federalists to point out that breaking up an advanced country like Canada is not trivial and has never been done before - all other break ups happened in countries which were already economic basket cases so the choas created by the break up was not significant compared to the chaos that was already present.

[Wilber]

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.

Any country could decide to use Canadian dollars as their currency. They would not be able to print their own money or control their own monitary policy. They would have to get those dollars on the open market and what would they buy them with? US dollars, Euros, Yen, Sterling? There is more than one country in the world that uses US dollars as their currency and I think the US could care less what happens to their economies. That doesn't sound much like independence to me.

[Charles Anthony]

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.

Please explain more about the Canadian dairy 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.

Specifically, what is in place now to maintain that market between provinces that would then disappear with separation?

Might we see a negotiated agreement between business analogous to what the softwood lumber industry has done?

But that is not the argument. Quebec will survive - it will just end up being a lot poorer that it is today.

I would not deny that either.

Other than the loss of current transfer payments, there is no real reason for their to be a significant difference in economic activity. If there was no animosity, there would be no change in prosperity. (I would take things a step further and say there would be an increase in prosperity directly related to less government waste and theft.)

Hypothetically, if every single Quebecker and every single Canadian wanted separation, would the division of the country lead to a poorer Quebec?

I think not.

[Rue]

I personally like what Jean Charest actually stated - that Quebec as an independent country is unrealistic. As he said the tendency is for nations to form unions. How would it make sense for Quebec to seperate when all European states have no formed a United States of Europe and Canada, Mexico and the US have had to in all intensive purposes form an economic alliance to counter the Europeans?

In this shrinking world of instant trade on the inter-net and immediate travel, borders and nationalities are becoming obsolete. For Quebecers to think they could be a distinct and independent country in north America is unrealistic. More to the point the average Quebec seperatist is aged and old. Young Quebecers travel the world and speak at least two languages and are not afraid of their own shadow or competiting in the international market place. L'Universite de Montreal's business school is clearly international and so is Laval's. I think the typical Quebecer of the next generation is more like Jean Charest-they are bilingual and pragmatic and see federalism as an opportunity to balance their own needs with other needs they have in common with other provinces.

I think Harper's concept of federalism has suprised me. I thought he would be a red-neck with Quebec but he has shown a remarkable moral integrity and is approaching federalism like Joe Clark would have. I think his approach to Quebec has more integrity then Mulroney's patronage approach and I think the Harper-Charest alliance is good for all of Canada.

[Charles Anthony]

As he said the tendency is for nations to form unions. How would it make sense for Quebec to seperate when all European states have no formed a United States of Europe and Canada, Mexico and the US have had to in all intensive purposes form an economic alliance to counter the Europeans?

That is a bad analogy.

Individual European countries are politically independent. They do not tax other countries or tell other countries how to run their internal affairs. The relationship between the federal government and the provinces is different.

[Rue]

As he said the tendency is for nations to form unions. How would it make sense for Quebec to seperate when all European states have no formed a United States of Europe and Canada, Mexico and the US have had to in all intensive purposes form an economic alliance to counter the Europeans?

That is a bad analogy.

Individual European countries are politically independent. They do not tax other countries or tell other countries how to run their internal affairs. The relationship between the federal government and the provinces is different.

Are you serious? You think European countries are independent of one another? You don't think certain European countries have not deliberately monopolized the European market place deliberately to dominate other European countries? You ever heard of European countries dumping their goods in other European states? Part of the reason the European Union was formulated was to prevent the Germans and French from trying to unfairly dominate the European market and impose their beliefs on others. Its not all a bed of independent roses in Europe. Don't mistake cultural independence from economic independence which was my point. Yes European countries like to say they are culturally different, but economically they are not independent, their economic actions are completely interlated. I believe the analogy I was making was of economic trade not culture. Quebec should not confuse its cultural desire to remain French with economic independence which is an illusion since we are all controlled by world markets. I think that is the pt. Charest was making.

[Riverwind]

Hypothetically, if every single Quebecker and every single Canadian wanted separation, would the division of the country lead to a poorer Quebec?

I look at this way: it is theoretically possible break up the country without creating an economic disaster, however, it would require incredible good will and a willingness to compromise on both sides. Unfortunately, if that good will and willingness to compromise existed in this country then we would also be able to rewrite the constitution in a way that would include Quebec. IOW - if we can't negotiate a new constitution then we don't have a snowball's chance in hell of negotiating the break up of the country.

[Toro]

More scary nonsense Toro.

Look, August, I'll go slow for you.

It was put forth by Charles Anthony that Quebec has the upper hand because they could walk away from Canada's debt.

That's nonsense.

Quebec saying "screw you" to the rest of Canada and saying they won't take a dollar worth of debt is an extreme position. This, according to Mr. Anthony, is what Quebec could do fairly easily apparently. It is an argument put forth by the separatists to assuage a population that separation would be painless. But in Canada, it would be considered an extreme act. Thus to dismiss any chance of an extreme reaction by Canada in response to an extreme action by Quebec is delusional.

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.

Sure, if Quebec didn't take any extreme positions such as walking away from its portion of the debt, then negotiations over the splitting of assets would probably not be particularly acrimonious.

But your premise is wrong. You're the one who has always argued (incorrectly IMHO) that countries cannot go bankrupt, which implies that sovereigns have the ultimate power over debtholders. Well, that applies here too. It will be governments who ultimately will dictate the terms, not the debtholders.

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.

And I'm always amused by Quebecers who assume that there would be no chance Canadians would have an emotional response to the destruction of their country. Would Canada turn into a Yugoslavia? Its unlikely. Is it impossible? No.

Besides, I've been arguing Quebec is viable as an independent country.

Quebec is viable.

...

So Quebec is certainly viable on its own

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.

Quebec would be a viable, albeit less wealthy nation on its own.

And I do think that ultimately a separation would be fairly uneventful. But what I'm saying is that assuming without doubt it would be uneventful is wrong.

[Charles Anthony]

Individual European countries are politically independent. They do not tax other countries or tell other countries how to run their internal affairs. The relationship between the federal government and the provinces is different.

Are you serious?

Yes. I am very serious.

Can you read?

You think European countries are independent of one another?

Did I write that? No.

You don't think certain European countries have not deliberately monopolized the European market place deliberately to dominate other European countries?

Did I write that? No.

You ever heard of European countries dumping their goods in other European states?

Did I write that? No.

Don't mistake cultural independence from economic independence which was my point.

The analogy that you presented is poor and does represent that.

I will repeat word for word what I wrote:

Individual European countries are politically independent. They do not tax other countries or tell other countries how to run their internal affairs. The relationship between the federal government and the provinces is different.

I said politically independent not economically independent. Quebec sovereignty seeks both. Your analogy applies to one.

Can you read without twisting words and making things up as you go along?

I look at this way: it is theoretically possible break up the country without creating an economic disaster, however, it would require incredible good will and a willingness to compromise on both sides.

I believe that the division of the debt will be more important than everything else that both sides will be financially better off to forget about animosities and negotiate cordially.

Quebec saying "screw you" to the rest of Canada and saying they won't take a dollar worth of debt is an extreme position.

By defacto, it is the only position from which negotiations will start.

This, according to Mr. Anthony, is what Quebec could do fairly easily apparently.

Yes. I will show you how.

The day after Quebec separates, the debt will not be divided. Negotiations will start and it will all be with Canada.

The next day, all of the debt will be with Canada.

The day after that, all of the debt will be with Canada.

Until negotiations are finally over, the debt will still be with Canada.

Throw all of the scare tactics you want. That is what is going to happen.

[Toro]

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...

No, August, that's not what I'm saying

Quebec could certainly continue to use the Canadian dollar.

Riverwind is correct.

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.

Currency in circulation is a fraction of the total currency outstanding - most transactions occur electronically. However, monetary velocity is still at least partially a function of currency in circulation, and GDP is a function of monetary velocity. Thus, draining physical money out of Quebec is bad for the Quebec economy.

But you seem to miss the whole point.

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.

The point is not that Canada would not be damaged. The point is not that this would be wise. The point is not that I suggest this is the course Canada should take. The point is to dispell this myth that Quebec is in a stronger position at the bargaining table than Canada. That is flat out wrong, and Quebecers must know this. That doesn't mean Quebec couldn't cut a mutually beneficial deal, but Quebecers are deluding themselves if they believe that Quebec has the least to lose.

[Toro]

Quebec saying "screw you" to the rest of Canada and saying they won't take a dollar worth of debt is an extreme position.

By defacto, it is the only position from which negotiations will start.

I'm not sure if English is your first language, but the idiom "screw you" connotates hostility and is a derogatory, disrespectful term. It is usually used after an event occurs. Its what one would expect Quebec would say after acrimonious negotiations broke down, not as an attitude Quebec would begin negotiations with, since if they did, then all bets are off.

Of course one would expect Quebec's initial bargaining position would be to take zero debt - they have no choice because its prevelant in the discourse. To not begin with this initial position would be seen as a loss of face.

This, according to Mr. Anthony, is what Quebec could do fairly easily apparently.

Yes. I will show you how.

The day after Quebec separates, the debt will not be divided. Negotiations will start and it will all be with Canada.

The next day, all of the debt will be with Canada.

The day after that, all of the debt will be with Canada.

Until negotiations are finally over, the debt will still be with Canada.

Throw all of the scare tactics you want. That is what is going to happen.

The day after Quebec separates, Canada will still collect taxes in Quebec to service the debt. Negotiations will start and Canada will continue to do so.

The next day, Canada will still collect taxes in Quebec.

The day after that, Canada will still collect taxes in Quebec.

Until negotiations are finally over, Canada will continue to collect taxes in Quebec.

Deny all you want. That is what is going to happen.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well guys, I think that when Quebec goes it will find itself either shy a few of its assets or short dollars covering its debt. Currently they are net recepients of billions of dollars a year in equalization, that money did not come from Quebec and it won't get to an independent Quebec either.

Quebec can stroll from its debt, no question about it. But that will not help their credit position. Quebec can use Canadian dollars all they want, no problem. Just try replacing them. The simple reality here is that monetary supply is the perogative of a sovereign nation so they can do what they want within the context of independence. They will just have to face the reality of the finance industry at that point.

How many federal dollars went into Hydro-Quebec or Bombardier? Don't think for a second that Canada will not wish to recoup those investments in some form. In terms of an international court Canada would prevail in attempting some find compensation, you can bet on that.

Meanwhile during any dispute with the feds, their support would be withdrawn. That will no doubt leave a lot of people out of work that used to work for the feds in Quebec. But have at her fellas, I want to watch how it works so Alberta can go to school on you and make sure we get a better deal!

[Leafless]

Meanwhile during any dispute with the feds, their support would be withdrawn. That will no doubt leave a lot of people out of work that used to work for the feds in Quebec. But have at her fellas, I want to watch how it works so Alberta can go to school on you and make sure we get a better deal!

Dollars to donuts most Canadian and foreign capital will also leave Quebec long before any deal on separation is ironed out.

Mass unemployment and poverty and total collapse in real estate could reign in Quebec.

I wouldn't depend on the oil sands either as the winning factor to sustain Alberta's economy because if any compulsory controls are implemented on air pollution could put an immediate stop to the oil extraction buisness.

Natural gas by design when burned (method used presently for fuel in the extraction process) produces 2-molecules of water vapour for every sngle molecule of natural gas. e.g. 100 cu.ft. of natural gas produces 200 cu.ft. of water vapour.

Also Alberta's economy is dangerously forging ahead to quickly.

All you potential separatist are in dream land.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Hey thats a good idea! Have the feds ban extracting oil from the tar sands! I like that, it will damned well guarantee that Alberta separates. Failing that you folks can go for NEP2 or a carbon tax, either way I can see a free Alberta in a heartbeat.

Thats what I want to hear from you eastern fellas, talk like compulsory government controls. We like to hear you guys say things like that!

[NL_Separatist]

Separation ,from something that the few want and believe in ,is totally enticeable.While some have given everything to a dream ,a myth ,an almost Utopia,Others have given nothing ,but the gluttony of immagration.

I would love to see "Quebec separate " Go gettem buddy ??????????