Breaking Canada

[VedaSloan 119179]

I wasn't asking to start a fight or anything. I was genuinely curious as to why people freak out when the mention of Quebec separating comes up.

 

Reading this thread I have noticed this strange "thing" (I say thing because I'm not sure of the exact word) going on where everyone talks like if Quebec separates they are also going to pick up and move to Europe or something. They will still be there, just not officially a part of Canada. It's not like they'll disappear in a flash of light or something.

[roamingguy 300292]

I don't think anyone thinks Quebec is going to disappear to Europe or where ever. I liken separatism to a divorce. Yes the woman or man as the case may be is still there, but not together, and yes, it is emotional, both divorce, and separatism

RG

[Phaedrus 209521]

Laws post 1976 by government of Quebec are against "free speech" laws in most developed County's. Example's having to speak french to work in a company over so many people, French only signs or certain size of lettering, not being able to sent your kids to the school of your choice, I could go on and on, this is not only against free speech but down right dictatorial.

I have to disagree here. Language requirements are nothing to do with Free Speech. I'm not going to talk about how much or little free speech Quebec does or doesn't allow, because I know next to nothing about it, but the fact that the government requires some things to be done in a particular language for official purposes - or chooses to only offer schooling in its chosen language - is not an infringement on Free Speech. Provided you can say what you like without fear of censorship (which, it should be noted, is not the same as freedom from consequences), your right to Free Speech has not been infringed.

[Guest jake_cdn]

I know that Lou says that this issue is about Canada and why it has to include Québec but I need to vent a little first.

 

I have always felt strongly about Canada as a federalist. Part of the beauty that we grew up with was that Canada, all of Canada, is part of one unified group of provinces/territories under a parliament that was elected by majority to represent all of the people in Canada. However, I am sad to say that our federalist government has weakened itself by a transfer of power to the provinces allowing self governed parallel powers within the country.

 

I lived in Québec most of my life and there are things that people truly forget when speaking of Québec and separation. First of all the overwhelming majority of people speak French only. In a place like Arvida, Québec people do not have access to English newspapers, radio and in some cases English television. They do not speak English and for them it does not even exist except in the corporate world and in our (their) elected Federal government. Is this unfair? Perhaps. However, history has dictated that Québec joined the union of provinces in 1867 of their own volition and not under seige or an act of war.

 

Also do not forget that Québec is not the only province to suggest that they separate from Canada. This has been threatened as much by the western provinces mainly for economic and self governing reasons.

 

I am still a federalist but do not want to have a country that is divided and spends time pondering and fretting over dissenting provinces bent on separation no matter where they are located.

 

To the matter of Québec and separation. I would suggest that if Québec truly believes that they are a sovereign nation then as much as I would hate to lose them, personnally, I would embrace their departure from the Dominion of Canada.

 

There are some interesting issues that require discussion if this were to happen.

 

I would certainly not support the continuation of transfer payments to Québec for the duration that had once been suggested. I would support half of the annual tranfer payment in the first year and nothing in year two. I would also expect that Québec would have to introduce their own currency at the point of separation. With no further economic ties to Canada, Québec would have to have a monetary status that was sanctioned by the rest of the world and should not be expected to share in Canada's global economic stability. The Canadian military bases would have to be closed and sites in Québec could be transferred to Québec without personnel or equipment.

 

I could go on about the difficulties that a sovereign Québec would face but I could also say that Canada as a country would have some mending and restructuring to do as well.

 

As a Canadian, my Canada includes Québec. There is beauty in Québec that all should experience, from the language to the culture to the wonderful people. However I would not sacrifice Canada for Québec.

 

Sovereignity is not only for Québec it is for Canada as well.

[LeeRichards 177238]

I am a Canadian and want this country to stay as one. I am a Western Canadian, spent most of my life in Manitoba and spent some time living in Alberta. Went through the Western seperation period that I thought was not even a remote possibility, nor feasable, and just a bad idea. Thankfully that idea is dead and buried, at least for now. Will never happen anyways.

 

I have been very fortunate to have been able to spend a great deal of time travelling Canada coast to coast for both work and pleasure. Time in Quebec included. Beautiful and cultural province. What a wonderful country to live in. I realize this is a Province seperation issue/thread but Canada is a multi multi multi-national country. Not English and French. Not Quebec and the rest of Canada. Multi-national.

 

This country needs to stick together. Not constantly, constantly talk about seperation or have an agenda or hidden agenda of seperation.

 

This country has had some great leaders that actually had a vision of a unified country in the past. And actually governed and worked at just that. It has been many, many years since we had a leader with a vision. In my opinion of course. We don't have one now either but at least a majority government.

 

Maybe a pipe dream but I hope that someday soon, throwing Party Loyalty aside, we will actually have a governing leader of one of the parties that will have a vision that can unify this country.

[Gabriella Laurence 301887]

I am a Canadian and want this country to stay as one.

 

This country needs to stick together. Not constantly, constantly talk about seperation or have an agenda or hidden agenda of seperation.

.

 

From someone who was born in Montreal... I am proud to be a Canadian with a French speaking background.

[Andee 220524]

I was born in Quebec and lived there until I was 16 years old, so I still have a soft spot for my province of birth. I identify as a Canadian, not a Quebecoise. I want Canada to remain as one country, but I understand why some Quebeckers want independence.

 

But really, I do not believe Quebec could sustain itself as an independent nation from an economic point of view. Not to start a debate, but it seems to some that Quebec is like the kid who left home but still wants mom and dad to support them. If the kid can fly on his own, then I say go for it.

 

As the birth rate in Quebec continues to decline, I am wondering if there will be enough people who identify as French Canadian to even sustain an independent nation in the future. The statistics speak for themselves.

 

That's all I have to say about that.

[Guest s******ecan****]

I would also expect that Québec would have to introduce their own currency at the point of separation. With no further economic ties to Canada, Québec would have to have a monetary status that was sanctioned by the rest of the world and should not be expected to share in Canada's global economic stability .

 

Quebec wouldn't have to create its own currency and we couldn't stop them from adopting the Canadian dollar, nor could the Americans stop them from using the US dollar if they so chose. We could cut them off from Monetary policy (ie no say over interest rates or the supply of money) this is the reason countries create a currency so that they can control monetary policy.

 

We would also have lots of economic ties with a seperate Quebec, that is inevitable, the terms though need not be favourable.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

.... WHat does Canada means to you? Why is it so fundamental that Canada stays the way it is? What do you gain by having Québec in the federation if we cost you money? .... Why would it trouble you or change anything for you? ... Please someone take 2 minutes of your precious time to explain that mistery to me. Merci!!!

 

The influence of the people of Quebec on Canadian policies and values has been of great practical importance throughout our shared history. Quebecers bring a valuably different social perspective and understanding due to their background. As such, they have often been the source, and voice, of sober second thought about important Canadian public policy issues. They have exerted a generally moderating influence on some of the more dominant ideologically-driven tendancies of the "Rest of Canada" down through the years (and vice-versa, I think - though that is not really for me to say). Some (including me) may think this is a good thing; some think this is a bad thing. Sometimes the discussion and differences seem like nothing more than endless, tiring, squabbling. But the long term results have shaped the identity of Canada in indelible ways.

 

As a result of this, I'd guess that Quebec is actually closer to the heart of the "average" Canadian's sense of Canadian Identity than is the rest of Canada to the "average" Quebecer's sense of identity (whatever "average" might mean, ha ha). Two centuries of constant give-and-take has made Quebec a part of our psyche.

 

For example, Quebec and Quebecers have been a major force (for better or for worse, depending on your perspective) in resisting the tendancies of the Federal Government to ride roughshod over those provisions of the Canadian Constitution that specify the division of powers between Federal and Provincial governments. Canada would certainly be a radically different country today without its long history of trying to accomodate the prevailing views within each of our founding "Nations".

 

Sometimes Quebecers have successfully influenced Canadian policy (the decision to stay out of the debacle of the War in Iraq is a recent example that is still relatively fresh to mind). More often, they have failed to ultimately sway Canadian policy (the most lamentable being Canada's eagerness to send a whole generation of young men to their deaths in the trenches of the Great War - there to serve as British-substitute cannon-fodder in what was essentially a petty squabble amongst the European "Imperialist-type" powers. Although even in that case, Quebec was able to moderate and delay overseas conscription of non-volunteer martyrs for King and Country. Otherwise, the Canadian government would have caved in to the manipulations of the army high command much earlier).

 

Were Quebec to leave Canada, this presence and influence within Canadian governing and policy-making institutions would be lost, even though, as others correctly point out, Quebec's geographic presence would be unaffected.

 

It's pointless to dispute, or argue about, the fundamantal idea of "Maitres chez nous". "Pur Laine" Quebecois' French roots and ethnic heritage do of course make them different, despite our historical commonalities. The desire for their "own country" is natural in this context, and will always exist. In the discussion and decisions regarding Canadian policy, the views and desires of Quebec often "lose out" (so to speak), or are subject to negotiation and compromise - which would not be the case were Quebec to strike out on its own. It is of course for Quebecers to choose whether the path of the last two centuries is leading to a place that they wish to be.

 

Money, which Lou mentions, is surly a consideration in everything in this world. But all the arguments about money and finances are a sideshow (mostly, of course, driven by half-truths and obfuscations intended to cynically influence those who are on the fence about independance, one way of the other).

 

As for an actual split: During any transitional period, and period of uncertainty of any sort, the economy inevitably suffers. But in the long-run, both Quebec and Canada are economically-viable, relatively rich entities. Negotiating the Terms of Separation, should it ever come to such a lamentable pass, would inevitably be a hard-nosed process and bad feelings would be generated. But as long as cool heads prevail (admittedly not an absolutely guaranteed certainty when humans are involved in anything), any truly widespread bitterness would also likely be only temporary.

 

My impression is that many Canadians would be primarily concerned with such issues as somehow making sure that the majority of Quebecers actually truly favour independence - that they're not "Bait-and-Switched", so to speak. Also high on the list of Canadians' concerns would be the protection of minority rights in an independant Quebec, the fate of First Nations, and the fate of geographical regions and areas where independence is not favoured by the majority. There's a very healthy dose of the hypocritical in some of these concerns, given Canada's performance on the same issues, but those concerns would certainly be front-and-centre nonetheless. (The scenario with utter disaster written all over it would be one where the results of a referendum with a narrow majority on an ambiguous question were used to justify such aggressive, unilateral actions as those planned by Parizeau after the last referendum.)

 

Here in Atlantic Canada, the loss of Quebec would have important and particular ramifications that are somewhat different than those in the "Rest of Canada" (a phrase of convenience that has no essential meaning, given the diversity of the regions). With an independant Quebec, Atlantic Canada would be geographically isolated, and our ultimate political affiliation would inevitably be up in the air. We are generally a "have-not" region , because of a number of complicated historical factors, not the least of which has been the long-standing Federal drive to fund huge industrial and infrastructure developments in central Canada to our detriment (massive funding to industry in Central Canada is "just good economic policy"; a tiny dribble of funding to Atlantic Canada is derisively termed "regional subsidies"). (Think the St-Lawrence Seaway mega-development of the 1950's, built with public money, which diverted shipping traffic and business from the traditional Maritime ports.)

 

In this context, because we in Atlantic Canada are so small and uninfluential, we are thankful to have been blessed with a much more politically powerful Quebec, operating within the Canadian federation - its fight for itself as a sometime economic "have-not" has won compensations from the ROC for themselves that have also been a boon to us here in Atlantic Canada. Were the voice and influence of Quebec on the formation of Canadian policy to be lost, us little guys in the East would likely receive even shorter shrift for our concerns.

 

All these points are open to debate and different interpretations. All except for the fundamental point that Canada would have turned out very differently without the uniquely irreplaceable voice of Quebec.

[Guest s******ecan****]

our ultimate political affiliation would inevitably be up in the air

 

In what sense? Should a Canada ex-Quebec survive Quebec seperation(and there is no reason to believe otherwise) Atlantic Canada would remain just that.....Atlantic Canada.

 

A geographical seperation would hardly be fatal....in fact in this day and age its a bit of an anachronism. We need only look to Alaska to see an example of a small geographic area with a small population remaining united with a larger nation despite a physical seperation.

 

As to our political affiliation it wouldn't be with Quebec, you couldn't get more than 5-10% of the population to vote for that. Nor would it be with the US, this was never a realistic choice and is less so now given the widening ideological gap between us and our southern neighbours. An independent Atlantic Canada is a non-starter for a variety of reasons.

 

As to getting shorter shrift I see more influence as the result. Atlantic Canada's share of the seats in Parliament would increase percentage wise with the Quebec seats gone, and strategically we would increase in importance to keep an Atlantic presence for the nation. Also NL is becoming an energy powerhouse so not all of the Atlantic Canadian economies are struggling. Besides Quebec has always looked out for its own interests...I can never recall Quebec ever using its influence to help Atlantic Canada, in fact they have often done the opposite.

 

*no bold typefaces were harmed in the making of this post.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

oops, I didn't intend to suddenly switch the focus of discussion away from Quebec. Rather, I was trying to provide some context to my perspective on Quebec. And my perspective happens (inevitably) to be that of one (particular) Atlantic Canadian.

 

In what sense? ...

 

In the sad event of a Quebec separation, many things all across this continent could hardly help undergoing careful re-examination in the face of whatever the new political nuts- and- bolts turn out to be. Atlantic Canada's ties to the ROC would be one of those things. By using the phrase "up in the air", I was simply conveying my own feeling that the conclusions of such a complicated process cannot be perfectly guessed beforehand.

 

The heritage of the Maritimes is, when all is said and done, much more closely tied to New England than it has ever been tied to any part of Canada. The Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG/ECP) is a vehicle that has explored the unthinkable in the past (although if I recall correctly, they got their knuckles figuratively rapped, ha ha!). As I said, "All these points are open to debate and different interpretations". There's room for all sorts of guesses about possible scenarios.

 

...I can never recall Quebec ever using its influence to help Atlantic Canada ...

 

My pointing out of the connection between the interests of "have-not" Quebec and the interests of "have-not" Atlantic Canada was not intended to imply that Quebec has fought altruistically, with the Atlantic's interests specifically in mind. Rather, Quebec's considerable clout has indeed been used with the primary aim of securing benefits for themselves. My point, imperfectly conveyed, was that those same benefits won by Quebec for themselves have historically also gone, by nature of the federation, to not just Quebec, but to all the other have-not provinces, including those in the Atlantic region, on a "me-too" basis.

 

I myself am unable to imagine any eventuality whatsoever that would give the Atlantic region any proportionally significant clout within either the current Canada or a post-Quebec Canada.

 

Now ... back to talking about Quebec!

[Guest s******ecan****]

My pointing out of the connection between the interests of "have-not" Quebec and the interests of "have-not" Atlantic Canada was not intended to imply that Quebec has fought altruistically, with the Atlantic's interests specifically in mind. Rather, Quebec's considerable clout has indeed been used with the primary aim of securing benefits for themselves. My point, imperfectly conveyed, was that those same benefits won by Quebec for themselves have historically also gone, by nature of the federation, to not just Quebec, but to all the other have-not provinces, including those in the Atlantic region, on a "me-too" basis.

 

 

 

Hmmm but this does not hold up to scrutiny. The Equalization program is a product of the 1982 Constitutional Act section 36 "Equalization and Regional Disparities" (which Quebec is famously not a signatory). It is the product of Pierre Trudeau and his vision of Canadian Federalism. It was not created as a payoff to Quebec that Atlantic Canada just happened to profit from. It was meant to strengthen Canadian unity by redistributing regional wealth (in fact as we know it has also contributed to a lot of disunity, notably in western Canada) and opportunity.

[scribbles 6031]

The problem I have with Quebec separatism is simple, really.

 

Any people who have been conquered in war are likely to lament the loss of their sovereignty. The French lost to the English. And, ever since, the French have wanted their country back. It's understandable.

 

However, efforts to being that about have done more harm than good to Quebec. The 93 referendum, before a single vote was cast, resulted in a mass exodus of many corporations who had housed headquarters there up until that point of uncertainty. That alone was a huge setback to their economy. Trying to legislate the survival of their language and culture has dissuaded many other businesses from dealing extensively with Quebec. Sign laws are, plainly, a headache that many people don't want to have to deal with.

 

I am not anti-Quebec or anti-French. What I dislike is that a minority in one province is constantly causing strife for a majority in that province and in the country in a losing effort that would not result in a stable country anyways. I mean, in 93 the goal was to separate but keep the Canadian Forces personnel stationed there, not take their portion of the federal debt with them, keep our currency and have an exclusive deal with us for natural resources. Seriously?

If they want to go, go. But, under any circumstances than those listed above, they would fail from the outset because they would be bankrupt. All in order to protect a culture and language, beautiful as it is, from illusory predations and oppression by the federalists.

 

Find better ways of working as part of Canada and keeping making your culture attractive to people, instead of trying to dig a moat when nothing on your side of it can stand on it's own.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Scott, I state once again: "All these points are open to debate and different interpretations". I answered Lou's original question ... from my perspective.

 

... The Equalization program ...

 

I didn't mention the Equalization Program - which began in 1972, and the roots of which go as far back as the statutory subsidies enshrined in the BNA Act of 1867. The relationship of the Federal government to the provinces is more complex than any one program, I think. (Speaking strictly in monetary terms, equalization, for example, accounts for only about a quarter of federal transfers to the provinces). Many ways of "Sharing the Wealth" have been important throughout the whole complex and varying history of "constitutionalized" Canada.

 

Nor, I very emphatically wish to point out, did I refer to "payoffs" to Quebec. This is a very politically charged term, the use of which might, I fear, be interpreted by others as needlessly provocative - and possibly draw their attention away from the substance of the positive opinion about Quebec that I was expressing.

 

Hmmm but this does not hold up to scrutiny...

 

For clarity, let me try re-stating my point this way: Approximately 70% of the Canadians residing in "have not" provinces are Quebecers (this math carefully skips over the anomaly that Ontario has strayed onto the wrong side of the line lately). This means Quebec has historically carried the bulk of the voting power wielded by the "have-nots". Redistribution of wealth within Canada to the "have-nots" is a principle of social justice - and as such should apply to all regions, including Atlantic Canada. This is neat and admirable as an abstract ideal. But, on less abstract terms, it has been, and continues to be, good federal politics largely because of the presence, voting power, and assertiveness of "have-not" Quebec.

 

... *no bold typefaces were harmed in the making of this post ...

 

ha ha ... yes, I do recognize that not everyone likes my use of bold. But I learned long ago that many folks (for a number of reasons) just don't read completely through posts - often skimming just enough to miss some of the points that I was most interested in getting across. I started using bold in the hope that it might attract the eye of more readers to certain points in my text that would best minimize the potential for misimpressions of just what it was that I was trying to say. I myself think it works. ymmv!