Sorry I must have missed the guerrilla war the Bloc was waging, i seem to have missed the violent oppression of the french. Seems to me they have the sole grievance of having been beaten by wolf neigh two centuries ago.

At further expense to the canadian taxpayer. They have milked this for all its worth, if they finally split off, good riddance, they can deal with their own problems. A complete cutting of ties, no assistance, no aid, no friendly relations.

I personally think that Canada should do what's in her best interest. Let Quebec seperate as a French nation. It seems absurd that Quebec should enjoy the protection and benefeits of being part of Canada if they wish to be their own nation.

~Ben

(Perhaps Canada would like to take over Louisiana, but if they were smart, they'd reject it)

Things evolve and change over time, i know Quebec is not quite like that, but there has been murders and bombings....

But just for the sake of discussion; what do you think Quebec might look like if the separate and we cut them off. Things always have the potential to get nasty.


Why do you insist so deeply on vindictive behavior if the map of Canada changes? Why do you think it would be impossible, or wrong, to help them on their marry, create an equal partnership over time? Isn't it that sort of animosity that creates ancient hatreds? And for what? Nationalism? What a charade!

Taxes are spent on much worse things after all.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Do you feel as though it would be possible for them to separate and Canada to promote and help them succeed at it?

That wouldn't be wrong would it?

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

It solves nothing.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

I was simply refering to the danger posed by having a geographically concentrated culture that could try to seperate from the greater whole. Something I would like to avoid happening in this country.

As Andrewl already pointed out, we already have one such "nation" within Canada.

And States don't have a monopoly on 'nations'. Nations can (and often do) transcend States.

The very concept of a 'nation-state' is arbitrary and artificial. States are not equal to nations and nations are not equal to states. They are two different things (that can be explosively dangerous when combined and manipulated).

All in all, the concept of Quebec being recognised as a nation is not at all controversial up here. Anyone who denies the reality of it is a idiot who knows nothing about Canadian politics.

What is controversial is the Constitutional definition of any such assertion or recognition of the nation of Quebecois. This is what people like myself refer to as the Meech Lake nightmare (redux).

I haven't read through this thread here (beyond the first couple of posts) so I'm not really trying to address anyone's arguments here. I'm just re-posting a few key points from a discussion I've been having at another site regarding this issue.

* * *

A few thoughts on Harper's initiative here.

1. This initiative from Harper has all the signs of having been a spur-of-the-moment decision. This idea has NEVER been floated in any Conservative circles - ever. Indeed, even in hollow principle, it flies in the face of the traditional Conservative party platform.

2. The purpose of this initiative appears to be entirely stort-term and tactical (which is very bad news and tends to suggest that Harper is neophyte political strategist). In the short term, the purpose of this initiative is to head off the broadside that was coming from the BQ. Harper was in a tight place because he is dependent upon the BQ in the House and there is no way in hell Harper was going to be able to support the BQ proposal (that was due to be tabled next week). Harper's initiative is an attempt to get ahead of the BQ proposal. In this respect, it has been successful in setting the terms of the debate from the BQ proposal to Harper's proposal (where the terms are so much less controversial than the BQ one).

3. Another short-term advantage to Harper is the perceived 'boost' this gives to Michael Ignatieff's campaign for the Liberal Leadership (due next week). Michael Ignatieff has all the personality and charisma of someone like John Kerry and thus, from Harper's point of view is the ideal campaign opponent (ie. perceived to be a weak campaigner). Ignatieff's campaign has been faltering lately and Bob Rae is really starting to look like he's going to win it, so a boost for Ignatieff has to be in Harper's short-term political interests here. Without a doubt, Rae would be a far more formidable opponent than the stiff and inexperienced Ignatieff.

4. Harper's initiative has all the smell of desperation on Harper's part (this is generous, the alternative is idiot incompetance). Harper's control of the house is on the line (requires BQ support) and Harper's Conservative government has not been polling well at all (suggesting that Harper would likely lose his minority government to a leader-less Liberal party if an election were held today). And it is difficult to see the bright side in Harper's proposal. It is pretty much guarranteed to be hated by Harper's own political base, and is unlikely to produce any additional vote strength in Quebec for the Conservative party, so I don't see any electoral 'upside' to this for Harper. Indeed, in the short, medium and long terms, this proposal plays to the Liberals by neutralising a potentially deadly split in the Liberal party over the issue.

5. Constitutional issues are particularly dangerous. We have a long history in Canada of our political class being completely out of touch with the electorate when it comes to any Constitutional issue. The finely nuanced words of Ottawa-comprimises do not always mean the same things to the citizenry of Canada and backlashes can and do build up to punish the politicians for their audacity in proposing fundamentally radical changes to the Constitution that no one wants (except the politicians).


6. Harper is defending his proposal by insisting upon the precise English meaning of his finely nuanced words. As is well known in the 'soveriegnty' debate (to which this proposal is integral to) words often have different (emotive) meanings in English and French. The term 'nation' is exactly like 'sovereignty' with an ambiguity of different meanings in the translation. This can be a major minefield when addressing Constitutional issues involving Quebec.

7. Harper is very poorly placed (politically speaking) to be making such Constitutional noises about Quebec and should refrain from trying to lead the issue for this reason. Harper is already on the defensive, pointing out that his proposal is ultimately symbolic in order to calm his horrified supporters. This is a huge mistake since every word Harper utters to defend his proposal in front of his supporters (by saying it is hollow or symbolic only) is going to piss off Quebecers. It is a no-win situation for Harper once this starts to happen and it started happening six hours after his announcement. Not good. If the proposal is hollow and symbolic, why bother making it? If it is tangible, what does it mean in Constitutional terms? The more Harper downplays the proposal, the more Quebecers are going to demand it be defined in the Constitution and that opens up the Meech Lake 'can-of-worms' that no one really wants to face (again).

All in all, this is looking like a very bold move for Harper (the Ottawa establishment media were initially falling over themselves gushing with praise for Harper - save only Andrew Coyne). At the same time, the proposal appears to be so ill-planned and ill-timed (and Harper so over his head on this issue) that it is likely to do more harm than good to Harper and Canada. There is a reason the Liberal Party has been torn in knots over the issue (they understand it). Harper's simplistic approach suggests that he really hasn't thought very deeply about this dangerous issue.

This is precisely what Quebec wants and has been working towards and Canada has been trying to accomodate it. It is very complex.

It seems hard to believe that a sovereign Quebec would not enjoy military protection, seeing that it would be bordered by Canada and the U.S. I know as well that the provinces enjoy a fairly high level of Federalism in Canada, such as each province having its own healthcare system, so what exactly (besides passports) would the Quebecois lose being their own nation? Exactly how much federal aid does Ottawa hand out to the provinces?

~Ben

The issue of 'sovereignty' is complex because the word means different things in English and French. In English, soveriegn is absolute independence. In French, it can be much more whishy-washy and less clear cut.

As for transfers, that too is very complex since the Federal government collects the vast majority of all taxes in the country and then gives the money back to the provinces (called 'block grants') according to variously negotiated funding formulas based on population and need (since the Provinces themselves pay for just about all government services like police, fire departments, roads, public works, education and healthcare insurance).

Thus it is possible for the citizens of a Province to remit some $10 billion in taxes to Ottawa and that Province can receive back $12 billion in block grants. This is exactly the case with 8 of 10 Provinces. Alberta and Ontario are reversed. Ontario remits some $45 billion to Ottawa and gets back less than $35 billion. The difference is used to subsidise Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces. In real numbers or per capita, Quebec is the number one welfare case province in Canada sucking up huge subsidies.

If cross-subsidies were eliminated, Quebec would lose about $10 billion a year directly in transfer payments and would probably lose another $10 billion a year in various national agreements that overwhelmingly favour Quebec (for example, Quebec controls some 85% of the Canadian quota for dairy products - this is worth some $8 billion a year. Also over 50% of all Federal government contracts and Canadian defense spending programs go to Quebec - some data suggests this figure is actually 75-85%).

Either way, total independence for Quebec would knock about 10% off of Quebec's GDP immediately (and add a corresponding 10% boost to the 'rest of Canada') as a result of lost government subsidies.

It is important to note when reviewing any Quebec policy proposals to note that all Quebec plans for "sovereignty" are predicated upon maintaining the present levels of subsidy. This is absurd, but no Quebec politician has the guts to admit otherwise to Quebecers since Quebec likes to pretend that they pay a net subsidy to support the rest of Canada (which is hiliariously funny).

Also, most Quebec proposals also call for maintaining the usage of Canadian passports and Canadian currency (and Canadian taxpayer subsidies) - and also 2/3 of the land area of Quebec itself (which officially belongs to the Federal government!).

In other words, the Quebec threat of separation/independence is laughably weak. They want their cake and they want to eat it too - and they want Canadian taxpayers to pay for it. And the very idea of it is very, very popular in Quebec (go figure). Quebec on its own is not economically viable. Only Ontario, and to some extents, Alberta have the economic ability to actually be independent States.

Alberta might actually be better off as an independent state. (not that i would support that).

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

A boom/bust economy that was a Provincial welfare case right up until 25 years ago? And a provincial economy that is smaller than the city of Toronto and almost entirely dependent upon resource extraction and agriculture?

Sure, whatever.

And it is certainly true that Ontario's GDP would increase by 10% if Ontario were to be an independent sovereign nation. Indeed, Ontario sacrifices 10% of its income for the honour of flying the maple leaf and has been doing so now for almost a century.

Indeed, just kicking Quebec out would raise Canada's standings on the Amnesty International index and Transparency International index by removing the lion's share of political corruption in Canada. We'd be fighting with the Finns for 1st place (instead of our usual mid-top-ten position).

I don't think this move is going to help improve Harper's low support in Quebec and with others, including his own party, for alot of reasons already cited by many prior posts.

I hear some say this is going to help 'cut off the separatists at the pass' so to speak, but I don't think so. Rather, I think it will embolden them.

I really think this is a bad move for those who favour Canadian cohesion and the preservation of the nation. This is especially so considering Quebec voted down two prior secession votes, and instead of capitalising on it, Parliament seems to be playing with fire with separatist doctrine and giving the Quebec secessionist movement tacit legitimacy despite the claims that it is merely 'cutting it off at the pass' with this measure.

Doubtlessly, Quebec has a French based history apart from 'English Canada' as the separatists love to claim. But, I've felt that has always been somewhat misleading because there are large and/or noticeable French populations and influences in the Maritimes and the Prairies too. Bloc Quebecois (BQ) separatists love to hog the identity for themselves as if the French connection is unique to them and thus make it a raison d'etre for separation, but really it is part of Canada's makeup generally, and should be something that serves Canadian identity and cohesion instead.

Nationalism can indeed be turned into something ugly when taken to extremes, but often times I think some people want to throw the baby out with the bathwater on account of that, and when doing so, create the seeds for their own disintegration.

I feel that a nation that doesn't build and cement national glue between its citizens to see themselves as a whole, and build and uphold a national unity of identity and a common cause in that regard, will eventually become unglued. It lacks the resoluteness of desiring and securing perpetuity for its own existence.

I don't think Nunavut provides a good example for justifying this motion. The size and population of Quebec, the goals of the BQ, and the risks involved, are materially different.

The US, for example, also has 'Indian Nations' as well as states, but nobody questions that everyone within it is American under the flag and government of the United States, and makes common cause with it. But, many Americans once toyed with such ideologies like the BQ beforehand, where there were 'doctrines of secession' floating about in the various states. Before the South grabbed ahold of it, New England states played with the doctrine themselves.

The reasons were not altogether different than those raised by BQ separatists--extract power and concessions from the federal government and other states by threatening withdrawal. To promote this, the 'doctrine of secession' advocates constantly characterised their respective states as being different than those of other states (e.g., the South was agricultural and required slaves and that the North was an industrial giant who wanted to control, hobble, exploit and/or harness the South. Northern states earlier raised similar arguments to jockey for themselves).

The rhetoric of these people sunk into their people's minds over time. People eventually came to believe their own BS and/or get convinced of it by argumentum ad nauseam (say it repeatedly and eventually it sinks into, shapes and becomes part of the public mindset). The results were finally seen with the Civil War.

Perhaps Alberta could also join the U.S. But then, would anyone actually want to become American when they can can otherwise be free as well?