# Québec Election: 7 Apr 14



## Edward Campbell (5 Mar 2014)

The media is reporting that Premier Marois asked the LG to dissolve the legislature and drop the writs for a provincial general election on 7 Apr 14.

Recent polls indicate a PQ majority is possible.


----------



## Journeyman (5 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ..... 7 Apr 14.


Not a long campaign season; I guess she's hoping to strike while the iron is hot.


----------



## Remius (5 Mar 2014)

She's going to win a strong majority I think.  She's also throwing the sovereignty card upfront so she can claim she has a mandate to hold a referendum.  These old dinosaurs are on their last breath for this.  

I think the CPC should just keep quiet, let the election pass and deal with any referendum talk when it it actually comes to it happening.

It might actually become an issue for the 2015 federal election: Who is best placed to deal with Quebec in the advent of a possible referendum on sovereignty.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Mar 2014)

I agree with Crantor.

What I've been reading/hearing suggests that she has played the _identity_ card quite well. It has worked with the people she needs ~ older Francophone Quebecers ~ in the ridings she needs to 'turn.'

The economy appears to be the key issue for a majority of Quebecers and it _should_ be Premier Marois' weak suit, but ... the _statist_ and _soft socialist_ model, which is the primary source of QC's productivity problems, is very popular and deeply entrenched in _la belle province_.

As to playing the sovereignty card early, it is also to blunt the Liberal's biggest weapon: separation fatigue. When they try to raise it the PQ will just  :dunno: saying, "what's the problem? Yeah, we're gonna have a referendum ... maybe ... when there are "winning conditions."

I also agree that the CPC should just watch and wait ... silence, respect for Québec's _right_ to decide its own future in its own way, is the best policy. When it comes to the national general election I think Prime Minister Harper will be able to play the referendum card in Ontario, where he needs to best M. Trudeau.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> It might actually become an issue for the 2015 federal election: Who is best placed to deal with Quebec in the advent of a possible referendum on sovereignty.



If a referendum becomes an issue for the 2015 election there will probably be little said in public by any of the leaders. Their comments on the subject would likely have to support the No side, and be construed by the PQ government as meddling in their internal affairs. Notwithstanding that a separation vote clearly also involves the ROC.

That being said, if the vote is already done and the Yes side wins, then there are perhaps different considerations which I think give Mr Harper an outright advantage. Of course Marois could schedule the vote for the same time as the federal election and throw a frak into everything, but that might be a bit too Machiavellian even for her.

So, given the foregoing, here's a short scorecard from the ROC perspective (solely relative to the subject at hand):

Trudeau: Quebec roots (negative), wishy-washy policy vis-a-vis separation (negative), generally seen by ROC as weak and superficial (negative)
Muclair: Quebec roots (negative), party owes its current place in Parliament to Quebec (negative), clear policy on vote requirement (positive), generally seen as strong in Quebec (positive)
Harper: not from Quebec (positive), generally seen by ROC and Quebec as strong (positive), clear policy on separation (positive)

Feel free to disagree with my scoring results.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> She's going to win a strong majority I think.  She's also throwing the sovereignty card upfront so she can claim she has a mandate to hold a referendum.  These old dinosaurs are on their last breath for this.
> 
> I think the CPC should just keep quiet, let the election pass and deal with any referendum talk when it it actually comes to it happening.
> 
> It might actually become an issue for the 2015 federal election: Who is best placed to deal with Quebec in the advent of a possible referendum on sovereignty.



The ROC is tired of the same ole, same ole.  The ROC will most likely welcome a referendum on separation and gladly bid Quebec "bonne journée" and "Bon voyage".  If Marois gets her majority and passes Bill 14, the only Anglos left in Quebec will be the elderly who do not have the means to leave.  The ethnic cleansing will be a fait accompli.  

Quebec will be a richer province by it, richer than Alberta, after they tap all their oil and natural gas reserves.  The ROC will no longer have a 'spoiled child' whining for handouts and special treatment, and will see benefits in the reductions in administration costs and money transfers.  There would be no real losers in Separation.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Mar 2014)

Michael den Tandt, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, suggests that a superficial reading of the impact on the 2015 election suggests that M. Trudeau's Liberals will benefit most from a PQ majority and a (threat of a) referendum, but he concludes that, on deeper analysis those factors may well favour the Conservatives:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/04/michael-den-tandt-as-we-head-into-a-quebec-provincial-election-welcome-to-national-unity-crisis-3-0/


> As we head into a Quebec provincial election, welcome to National Unity Crisis 3.0
> 
> Michael Den Tandt
> 
> ...




I agree with Mr den Tandt: _Captain Canada_ will not play this time around. Canadians, generally, are indifferent to the l_oss_ of Québec ... in fact some will not even see it as a loss. That _indifference_ is grounded, as is so much in Canadian political thought, on a profound ignorance of economics, but it is there, all the same.

But: I don't think _National Unity Crisis 3.0_ is going to matter very much. I think Quebecers are almost content with their _independent_ place in Canada ~ and I think that the _Québec Charter of Values_ will make them even more comfortable. Many (most?) Franchphone Quebecers have already separated; Canada, for them, is what so many Europeans want the EU to become: a _superstate_ that looks after things like the common currency and defence and trade policy but allows the _member states_, which is how those Quebecers see Québec, go their own ways on the really important _social_ issues. In fact, I think further _evolution_ or _devolution_ in that direction (towards greater and greater provincial _independence_) is a good thing for Canada.

My guess is that a combination of Québec's _contentment_ and Canadian _indifference_ will mean that the next _neverendum_ (never ending referendum) will fail, yet again.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Mar 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So, given the foregoing, here's a short scorecard from the ROC perspective (solely relative to the subject at hand):
> 
> Trudeau: Quebec roots (negative), wishy-washy policy vis-a-vis separation (negative), generally seen by ROC as weak and superficial (negative)
> Muclair: Quebec roots (negative), party owes its current place in Parliament to Quebec (negative), clear policy on vote requirement (positive), generally seen as strong in Quebec (positive)
> ...



Would the fact that both Trudeau and Muclair are Quebecers with vested interests not disqualify them from any negotiations that would be involved with Separation, as that would be seen as a conflict of interests.  Of course they would not be negotiating on the side of Canadians, but on the side of the Separationists.  It would therefore be a one sided negotiation, not two sided; Quebecers negotiating with Quebecers, not Quebecers negotiating with Canadians on what Quebec takes with her when she leaves.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Mar 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The ROC is tired of the same ole, same ole.  The ROC will most likely welcome a referendum on separation and gladly bid Quebec "bonne journée" and "Bon voyage".  If Marois gets her majority and passes Bill 14, the only Anglos left in Quebec will be the elderly who do not have the means to leave.  The ethnic cleansing will be a fait accompli.
> 
> Quebec will be a richer province by it, richer than Alberta, after they tap all their oil and natural gas reserves.  The ROC will no longer have a 'spoiled child' whining for handouts and special treatment, and will see benefits in the reductions in administration costs and money transfers.  There would be no real losers in Separation.




While I agree that your argument represents the Canadian norm, George, your conclusion is  :bullshit:

If we allow Québec to leave we get saddled with 100% of our national debt being repaid by only 77% of the people who ran it up. Québec will not "take away" any of the national debt for the simple reason that it will be a poor little country unable to sell its bonds on the market. Plus we, the _rump_ of Canada will still be on the hook for old age pensions, and, and, and, and ... nearly _ad infinitum_ for seven million foreigners, who will still have Canadian citizenship until they die. And rest assured our _Supremes_ will not let us strip them of it.

There will be a huge price to be paid, by Quebecers and Canadians, if Québec declares independence.


----------



## GAP (5 Mar 2014)

PQ will get back in simply because there is no competition.....


----------



## Remius (5 Mar 2014)

Interesting score card Modmike.

I'm not sure I agree though.

It is likely that a referendum would happen after the 2015 election (but not long after).

The CPC, and more specifically the PM, is not liked in Quebec.  At all.  Which is ironic given that they are all in favour of giving the Provinces (all of them) more powers.  In fact the CPC has been conceding many things to Quebec (and not to appease them, just that it happens to be in sync with their philosophy).

Being from Quebec is not necessarily a negative.  It may actually be a positive when you are trying to convince Quebecers not to leave confederation.  It's a bit harder for a speratist to accuse their opposition of not knowing what they want or meddling when they are in fact from there. 

I'm not sure if the ROC beleives that Trudeau is weak and superficial.  Most I think, and including Quebecers (who seem to like him if you belive the polls) are blind to that.  The media, the CPC and political junkies might see that but I'm not sure about the ROC.  If he courts the youth vote and the Franco vote he might be well placed.  THE PROBLEM THOUGH WILL BE HIS MOUTH FILTER.

Mulcair will not see another Orange Crush.  Plus he has known sovereigntists in his own party.

The thing is, if the PQ win a majority, Quebec as a whole may vote differently at the Federal level (historically they are known for this dual bloc voting phenomenon).  I can't foresee that they would vote en masse for the CPC.  The NDP without Jack Layton will likely not be an option.  Which could mean that teh province as whole would vote Liberal as a counter to Pauline Marois and her majority to bring that balance they seem to enjoy.

As Mr. Campbell indicated, the key will be who can convince Ontario, who would be the better person to face off against a possible referendum.  The Economy was to be front and center for the next election but this might trump that.

I don't think a PQ Government with a referendum mandate will be ignored by any leader.  I don't think any of them can afford to be seen as complacent.  Someone will fire the first shot and take that lead and all of them will fall in with there reasons why the other guy shouldn't be the guy to lead against this.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ........your conclusion is  :bullshit:
> 
> If we allow Québec to leave we get saddled with 100% of our national debt being repaid by only 77% of the people who ran it up. Québec will not "take away" any of the national debt for the simple reason that it will be a poor little country unable to sell its bonds on the market. Plus we, the _rump_ of Canada will still be on the hook for old age pensions, and, and, and, and ... nearly _ad infinitum_ for seven million foreigners, who will still have Canadian citizenship until they die. And rest assured our _Supremes_ will not let us strip them of it.
> 
> There will be a huge price to be paid, by Quebecers and Canadians, if Québec declares independence.



It will all depend on how and who is doing the negotiations.  Of course if we are in the position that Quebecers are negotiating with Quebecers, then the above will be a reality and the ROC will be given the shaft.  If we have a strong negotiator from the ROC 'cutting' off all Quebec's ties with the ROC and dividing all Debt according to the proper percentages, then there will be no such problems.    Quebec can not have, nor should they have, any debts forgiven; and those will have to be a factor in negotiations.  I do agree with the point that those who have earned a Pension in the CAF and Public Service, should continue to collect.  However, for other Quebecers, Quebec already manages their own pensions and taxes.  They will not be entitled to Canadian Passports, Canadian currency or any other connection to Canada.  "You want to separate, you separate...Full Stop."  This will mean it must be a complete severance, not a case of "friends with benefits".  That is utter BS.  There will be no place for the ROC to play the role of "Mr Nice Guy" in any negotiations on Separation.  The question now is: do we have the strong willed statesmen capable of bringing this all about without the huge costs E.R.C. points out?


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Mar 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It will all depend on how and who is doing the negotiations.  Of course if we are in the position that Quebecers are negotiating with Quebecers, then the above will be a reality and the ROC will be given the shaft.  If we have a strong negotiator from the ROC 'cutting' off all Quebec's ties with the ROC and dividing all Debt according to the proper percentages, then there will be no such problems.    Quebec can not have, nor should they have, any debts forgiven; and those will have to be a factor in negotiations.  I do agree with the point that those who have earned a Pension in the CAF and Public Service, should continue to collect.  However, for other Quebecers, Quebec already manages their own pensions and taxes.  They will not be entitled to Canadian Passports, Canadian currency or any other connection to Canada.  "You want to separate, you separate...Full Stop."  This will mean it must be a complete severance, not a case of "friends with benefits".  That is utter BS.  There will be no place for the ROC to play the role of "Mr Nice Guy" in any negotiations on Separation.  The question now is: do we have the strong willed statesmen capable of bringing this all about without the huge costs E.R.C. points out?




The bonds that make up our national debt are Canadian bonds, issued by Canada and repayable by Canada. There is no disputing that. It is our, Canadian, debt. If QC separates it is still Canada's debt .. there are just fewer Canadians to share it.

Québec already has its own _national_ debt and it will be hard pressed to cover that. The new _nation-state_ will not have the fiscal capacity to take on a share of our debt. It's a dead issue. We can exact promises, but Québec wil not be able to keep them ... it will be a Northern Argentina.

Quebecers who were born in Canada will, in all likelihood remain _entitled_ to Canadian citizenship under the same rules that permit dual citizenship, today, for others.

An independent Québec can use whatever currency it wants. It would be unwise to adopt our dollar because we would, certainly, not allow that new nation to have any voice at all in our fiscal or monetary policies. They can have a _peso_ of some sort ... see Northern Argentina, again.


----------



## Remius (5 Mar 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It will all depend on how and who is doing the negotiations.  Of course if we are in the position that Quebecers are negotiating with Quebecers, then the above will be a reality and the ROC will be given the shaft.  If we have a strong negotiator from the ROC 'cutting' off all Quebec's ties with the ROC and dividing all Debt according to the proper percentages, then there will be no such problems.    Quebec can not have, nor should they have, any debts forgiven; and those will have to be a factor in negotiations.  I do agree with the point that those who have earned a Pension in the CAF and Public Service, should continue to collect.  However, for other Quebecers, Quebec already manages their own pensions and taxes.  They will not be entitled to Canadian Passports, Canadian currency or any other connection to Canada.  "You want to separate, you separate...Full Stop."  This will mean it must be a complete severance, not a case of "friends with benefits".  That is utter BS.  There will be no place for the ROC to play the role of "Mr Nice Guy" in any negotiations on Separation.  The question now is: do we have the strong willed statesmen capable of bringing this all about without the huge costs E.R.C. points out?



George you are wrong on several fronts.  You can't strip Quebecers of their citizenship or their passports.  Even if they seperate they are still Canadian Citizens like it or not.  Just like any other dual citizen. They can use the currency all they want.  Nothing prevents that.  But they really won't be independant but rather dependant on Canada's monetary policy which not be ligned up with theirs.  

We have way more to lose than to gain by this.


----------



## dimsum (5 Mar 2014)

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/05/jonathan-kay-if-quebec-separates-we-keep-montreal/

....so, move Bagotville's stuff to St-Hubert and Valcartier/VDQ to the Eastern Townships?   >


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Mar 2014)

I hope Pauline and her party fall flat on their face, but I fear it won't.


----------



## ballz (5 Mar 2014)

If "Quebec" separates, do we really lose "all" of Quebec?

My understanding of the 1995 referendum is that a few high-population areas (Montreal and Laval) did not want to separate from Canada. Geographically, most of Quebec wanted to separate, but the southern, urbanized places didn't.

Can't we just keep Montreal et al and let Northern Quebec go (if this were to happen again, which I suspect it would)? Would this be part of the "negotiations?"

I see no reason why we would have to pay Quebeckers their Old-age pension... Quebec has the Q.P.P. and does not contribute to the C.P.P?

Also, WRT bonds, yes, they are Canadian bonds issued by the Government of Canada... but two questions on that... the first one being, you can "sell" debt just like you can sell assets... While I understand the bond-holders would want a higher interest rate if we sold some of our debt to Quebec, this could be negotiated to get rid of some of it, no?

Secondly, I don't now how much we currently pay interest on our debt. But, when you consider Quebec's current economic status, and the ridiculous proportion of equalization payments it receives.... is it not possible that we could still be better off shouldering the debt between 77% of the current population, considering we wouldn't be paying equalization payments out of @$$ to the Quebeckers? I guess I'd need to really sit down and look at the numbers for this but it seems plausible.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Mar 2014)

Quebecers born after separation would no longer be entitled to Canadian citizenship.  Not that they would care for about 18-20 years, but they would be on their own.  Newfoundland could build a new hydro project upstream of the Great Whale, and ship cheap hydro back to the Rock, leveraging all its Hibernia income.  The Canadian currency would be fun to refresh...perhaps the Plains of Abraham on the back of the $20 bill?  Queen on all the bills?  The Maple Leafs scoring on the Habs on the back of the $5 bill? ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Mar 2014)

>Plus we, the rump of Canada will still be on the hook...

Make no assumptions about anything except who is liable for debt issued by the GoC, including no assumptions about "who" might be pressured to take on some of that debt in their own interests and no assumptions about the size of the new nation of Quebec.  Everything will be on the table during the separation "negotiation", and Quebec will have no place at the table at the subsequent constitutional convention after it separates and the feds and provinces see the size of the resulting liabilities and set about rewriting laws - constitutional and otherwise - as necessary.  The composition of Parliament will also be remarkably altered.  The Supreme Court interprets laws, but it has to interpret them according to what is there.

It might have to wait until after the next federal election "mandate" is delivered, but Quebec - and citizens of Canada who elect to remain in Quebec to collect rents they no longer pay - can be cut off, full stop, to do their own muddling along in the confines of what used to be Lower Canada.  All it takes is enough anger in each average voter.  Anger won't be hard to provoke; the average voter isn't going to trouble himself to listen to - let alone comprehend - "nuanced" arguments from some sub-sections of the political elite as to why he should have to endure anything he perceives as an injustice.


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Mar 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/05/jonathan-kay-if-quebec-separates-we-keep-montreal/
> 
> ....so, move Bagotville's stuff to St-Hubert and Valcartier/VDQ to the Eastern Townships?   >



In a similar vein, the FN of Quebec have long held that if Quebec has the right to separate from Canada, they have the right to separate from Quebec. A very thorny, acrimonious, and possibly explosive situation.


----------



## devil39 (6 Mar 2014)

Ya-a-a-a-w-w-w-nnnnn

Used to be quite emotional about this....but quite frankly no longer care.  

Albertan through and through born and raised.....have managed to live 17 years in Ontario though thanks to the RCMP and the Army.  Quite familiar with the issues but no longer concerned.  

I love Quebec and love most Quebecois....will probably still visit.  It will probably be like going from Cypriot pounds to Turkish Lira when I visit Quebec, fun and fun.  

Would be nice if my kids didn't need a C-B-C for a full career in the Army.  A shitty old E-B-B in any language might be good enough


----------



## wannabe SF member (6 Mar 2014)

Why is no one mentioning the possibility of seeing the maritime become exclaves? Why is no one mentioning the problems will arise when the overwhelmingly federalist natives reclaim their territory? Why is no one mentioning the disputes on who controls the seaway. And what about Montreal or the eastern townships of the anglo majority or the loss of 23% of the population?

Seriously, anyone who thinks that we'll be better off after this whole thing hasn't looked at the situation in full. We're looking at the demise of Canada full stop. We'll be cut off from our east coast, see a founding member leave the country and be left with a potentially unstable neighbor with demonstrable tendency towards ethnic nationalism with a sizable population of natives, anglos and other minorities.

Lets not get started with the blow to Canadian identity.


And you know what, this will all pale in comparison to what we'll have to deal with if Quebec passes the referundum on a bogus question or with a slim majority. Then what? Refusal to negotiate from the feds leading to a possible unilateral declaration of independance leading to ...

You get the idea. 

I hope and pray that the referendum (and it is coming) fails or I think we're looking at the biggest  internal crisis this country will have ever faced.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Mar 2014)

Good post, Inky; the last thing we want is to break Canada apart. It is fine to be tired of QC's constant whinging; it is fine to not care; the fact that many (most?) Canadians don't care about QC simply mirrors the fact that many (most?) Quebecers don't care about Canada, either. We, many (most?) of us, have already _separated_ the two _nations_, we really don't need to _separate_ into two _states_. 

As to a referendum: the first thing Mme Marois needs is "winning conditions." I'm not sure she's going to find them. 

A PQ majority will, immediately, cause a loss of business confidence and an economic downturn ~ I'm not sure how big (or small) but I am sure it will happen. Quebecers will be willing to vote _Oui!_ when times are good and they have confidence in their futures. When they are uncertain and worried about their own, individual, personal welfare they are most likely to vote "Non!"

It may, however, be useful to illuminate the problems that a newly independent Québec will face: a weak, failing economy; a large _national_ debt; several *separatist* movements, amongst aboriginals (who have a much better legal claim for sovereignty than does Québec), in the Outaouais and the Pontiac region of West Quebec (just across the river from Ottawa and Petawawa respectively); in the Eastern Townships and, maybe, in parts of the Montréal and Montérégie regions, too. All these will cause many (a majority?) of Quebecers to reject sovereignty before[ a referendum can even be held.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Mar 2014)

The wheel spins yet again. Based on the past referenda, the area of Quebec covered by majority separatists (as measured by riding) encompasses most of the area defined by "New France" at the time of the conquest: i.e. pretty much a strip along the St Lawrence river. It isn't a continuous strip either, Montreal is not pro separatist (note are several other areas as described up-thread).

As a technicality, the huge expanse of northern Quebec (south of James Bay) which was the old "Rupert's Land" territory of the HBC was only handed to Quebec as an administrative convenience (and this is also one of the areas where the Native population is quite vocal about not separating from Canada). If the "District of Ungava" were to separate from Quebec, we would have essentially a northern land corridor linking Ontario to Labrador, and in due time could build road, rail, pipeline and hydro corridors to link Canada to the Atlantic.

Of course the St Lawrence Seaway is a joint project by Canada and the United States, even if *we* were unable or unwilling to stake our claim I'm pretty sure the United States will not let their claim lapse (and of course they can enforce their claim as well).

I'm pretty sure that outside of the desire of some Quebec ideologues to become bigger fish by making a smaller pond, the MO of the PQ is to attempt to blackmail Canada with more threats. As a lot of you note, most Canadians are past the point of caring, and it seems the PQ leadership hasn't read "The Big Shift" or come to terms with the fact that demographics and economics has shifted westward. The days when Montreal was the financial capital of Canada is long gone, and while the PQ may scramble to get something like that back, Toronto's position as the financial capital of Canada is under threat from places like Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver; the PQ is literally swimming against a huge tidal bore.

The fact that the demographic shift also means a majority government can be formed without a significant representation from Quebec must also stick in their craws, so the rhetoric is ramped up to "11" in an attempt to gain a voice since they no longer have a seat at the table.

Like most other people, I'm pretty willing to set the receiver to "ignore", but think some quiet preparations need to be made in case someone or something slips up. If there is a referendum and a UDI, the GoC should have some pretty clear conditions in place (like a non negotiable "every riding with a 60% yes supermajority is no longer part of Canada", and "the costs of evacuating Canadian citizens from ridings with a 60% supermajority will be taken from the current year's equalization payments, while the Government of Quebec bears the costs of moving people who wish into territory controlled by the new Government"). Other administrative actions like  a new census, voting rolls and quickly recalling and issuing new Canadian passports should also be in place. Do it quickly, like ripping off a bandage, and many long term problems will be prevented from festering.

_edit to correct autocorrect...._


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Mar 2014)

Oh, and I bet all those civil servants from Quebec who work in Ottawa would be happy to lose their jobs overnight.

I agree with Edward, the stakes for Quebec are being understated:

- dramatic rise in unemployment
- significant downturn in the economy
- exodus of business capital and operations
- civil unrest as FN agitate for their own separation

To name a few.


On another front, I wonder if this is going to come back to bite her:

FTQ wanted Pauline Marois to help stop corruption inquiry


----------



## Remius (6 Mar 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Oh, and I bet all those civil servants from Quebec who work in Ottawa would be happy to lose their jobs overnight.



It wouldn't happen overnight.  But yes there would be a reduction in the PS over time.  But I doubt it would be based on what side of the border you are on, particularly in Ottawa.  Remember that there are many civil servants from Ottawa working in Gatineau as well.  In the aftermath of a referendum, they would all still be Canadian citizens with the same qualifications for the job they had prior to and the same rights as any other Canadian.  Things wouldn't just shut down based on the border.  

While it might make some of us feel good to think we'd play hardball, the reality is that we will be bound by laws and regulations just like before and we'll have to play by those rules.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> ......, the reality is that we will be bound by laws and regulations just like before and we'll have to play by those rules.



Funny how we already have laws and regulations and the province in question has been breaking them for over three decades.


But....I guess their form of ethnic cleansing is perfectly legal under our Charter of Human Rights and our Official Bilingualism Laws........

Really!


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Mar 2014)

I think the public perception of foreign nationals working for the federal government would be too much for Ottawa to ignore. I realize these folks would still legally be Canadian, but in politics appearance is everything. I also don't believe for one second that an independent Quebec wouldn't fire the first salvo.


----------



## Remius (6 Mar 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Funny how we already have laws and regulations and the province in question has been breaking them for over three decades.
> 
> 
> But....I guess their form of ethnic cleansing is perfectly legal under our Charter of Human Rights and our Official Bilingualism Laws........
> ...



Well we don't know that yet do we.  Their charter of values has yet to be tabled and has yet to be challenged, which I'm sure would be when it gets tabled and/or enacted.


----------



## Remius (6 Mar 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think the public perception of foreign nationals working for the federal government would be too much for Ottawa to ignore. I realize these folks would still legally be Canadian, but in politics appearance is everything. I also don't believe for one second that an independent Quebec wouldn't fire the first salvo.



That's the problem.  They are not (or will not be) foreign nationals.  Many current military and civilian workers are dual citizens.  This would be no different.  It's not a question of ignoring it is a question of having your hands tied.  You won't be getting their passports, you won't be stopping them from using our currency and you can't stop them from benefitting from all the rights afforded to all Canadians.

What will be an issue for them is their first generation Quebecers.  They will not be getting passports, they will not benefit from being Canadian.  This is literally going to take a generation.  It's not a next day thing.

More realistically is seing their economy collapse and many things coming to a standstill (but again, there would likely be a negociated transition).  Things like the fact that they would be on their own for border security, airports, rail, etc etc.  Dealing with their own (and likely way more volatile seperatists).  They wouln't be G20 or G8/7, entrance into treaties and agreements would have to be negociated (and likely long and drwn out).  Do you honestly believe the US will just accept them as part of NAFTA?  Doubtful because they want out of NAFTA with us lol. 

Not sure what you mean by the first salvo?


----------



## George Wallace (6 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Well we don't know that yet do we.  Their charter of values has yet to be tabled and has yet to be challenged, which I'm sure would be when it gets tabled and/or enacted.



What do you mean  "we don't know that yet"?  Of course we know that now.  Anglos are being discriminated by Quebec's Language Police for the use of English in signage and even on FaceBook.  If that is not harassment and against our Charter of Human Rights then what is it; not to mention the intent of our Bilingualism policies?  Thousands of Anglos are leaving Quebec annually due to this discrimination.  That is "ETHNIC CLEANSING" in a nonviolent, but still discriminatory manner.  Don't try to brush this off as anything else than what it really is.

As for Quebec being a "have not" province; what a crock.  Quebec is a "have not" province because they choose to be.  Quebec is sitting on vast mineral, oil and natural gas deposits.  If they separate and are cut off from all financial aid from the ROC, they will be forced to develop those resources and will be wealthier than all other provinces.   If you want to consider their share of the National Debt; like Germany after the Second World War, they can pay it off as they develop these natural resources.   

Navigation along the St Lawrence Seaway will be quite an interesting point, as they bring up more than Canada/Quebec negotiations, but will also involve the US.  The St Lawrence Seaway is a joint Canada/US endeavour, in it construction, maintenance and its administration.  It does not end at the Ontario Quebec border.  Will the US put up with its ports along the St Lawrence Seaway being blocked or obstructed in any way?


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> That's the problem.  They are not (or will not be) foreign nationals.  Many current military and civilian workers are dual citizens.  This would be no different.  It's not a question of ignoring it is a question of having your hands tied.



Absolutely, that's why I said appearance. I know their legal standing will be as Canadians, but I doubt the ROC will care about such specifics.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Not sure what you mean by the first salvo?



Meaning "Quebec jobs for Quebecers. Fire the Canadians" as the first shot. It will not matter that these folks are legally entitled to work there, the perception will be they are foreign; made worse by their being Canadians. We've already seen how well Quebec welcomes out of province workers, how well do you think they'll tolerate foreigners?


----------



## wannabe SF member (6 Mar 2014)

I remain convinced that even in the best case scenario, both Canada and the hypothetical new republic would end up worse off. 

I believe that a huge problem will be the new state's treatment of minorities. There's always been a strong xenophobic undercurrent in Quebec but it was kept in check by the Charter to some extent. As a first Gen immigrant, it is something I've had to deal with up to this very day. I have absolutely no faith in an independent Quebec's willingness to respect the rights of anglos, immigrants and natives. The former won't be a problem since we'll probably see a mass exodus (which will in itself be a massive loss for Quebec). I believe that the strong cohesion within native bands and their historical willingness to duke it out with the authorities leave me confident that they would be able to fight for their own rights.

It is when I think about my family left in Montreal, the disparate group of immigrants from different communities, often poorly educated and with little or no collective consciousness that I'm worried. I don't see how this can end well.

And in the end, all that doesn't matter to me as much as the most important point. I am not willing to see my home province break away from my country, full stop. In the end, people can talk self-determination all they want and discuss the finer points of international law. I believe that whatever happens, our leader should find their cojones and declare this country indivisible just as our southern neighbors once did.

The age of Nationalism is a bygone era and history has shown us that we'll be better off without it, why then should we still abide us by a political concept that is arguably responsible for provoking the devastation of Europe in the last century?

Forgive me if I seem a bit aggressive but this subject makes me very emotional.


----------



## Remius (6 Mar 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What do you mean  "we don't know that yet"?  Of course we know that now.  Anglos are being discriminated by Quebec's Language Police for the use of English in signage and even on FaceBook.  If that is not harassment and against our Charter of Human Rights then what is it; not to mention the intent of our Bilingualism policies?  Thousands of Anglos are leaving Quebec annually due to this discrimination.  That is "ETHNIC CLEANSING" in a nonviolent, but still discriminatory manner.  Don't try to brush this off as anything else than what it really is.
> 
> As for Quebec being a "have not" province; what a crock.  Quebec is a "have not" province because they choose to be.  Quebec is sitting on vast mineral, oil and natural gas deposits.  If they separate and are cut off from all financial aid from the ROC, they will be forced to develop those resources and will be wealthier than all other provinces.   If you want to consider their share of the National Debt; like Germany after the Second World War, they can pay it off as they develop these natural resources.
> 
> Navigation along the St Lawrence Seaway will be quite an interesting point, as they bring up more than Canada/Quebec negotiations, but will also involve the US.  The St Lawrence Seaway is a joint Canada/US endeavour, in it construction, maintenance and its administration.  It does not end at the Ontario Quebec border.  Will the US put up with its ports along the St Lawrence Seaway being blocked or obstructed in any way?



I mean exactly what I said.  The charter of values, which I thought you were referring to when you used the term ethnic cleansing (by the way you are completely minimising what ethnic cleansing truly is).  It hasn't stood up to any legal challenges yet because it hasn't been made into law yet.  

Thousands of Anglos, Allophones and Francophones leave Quebec for a variety of reasons.  Many are economic and some are as you indicated.  Work out west for example.  You would probably see some spikes anytime a PQ government is in power and even more so when a referendum rears it's ugly head.  Some stats are showing an increase in the anglo population in the early half of the 2000-2010 decade.  However that can be explained by immigration and a return of Anglophones who had moved out of the province after the last referendum.  Trust me when I say that I agree that Anglos in quebec are treated as second class citizens.  I'm not arguing that.  

My point is that we will, if we will, have to negiciate whether we like it or not.  We'll have conditions but rules will be in place.  Some stuff we won't like and some we will.  The rules while benefitting them will also likely benefit us. 

But it isn't and won't include revokation of citizenship and magically banning them from using our money or throwing them out of their jobs. That stuff is not feasible.  

Not sure where the have not province thing came from but I'll answer by saying that Quebec's social policies is what is driving their economy into the ground or at least preventing growth.  They can't afford it.  Likely this will be exasperated in an independant Quebec even more so.   We'll likely have a Greece situation here where everyone works for the state, in some cardboard Utopia that will collapse on itself.  They can't afford to live the dream they think they will.


----------



## Remius (6 Mar 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Absolutely, that's why I said appearance. I know their legal standing will be as Canadians, but I doubt the ROC will care about such specifics.
> 
> Meaning "Quebec jobs for Quebecers. Fire the Canadians" as the first shot. It will not matter that these folks are legally entitled to work there, the perception will be they are foreign; made worse by their being Canadians. We've already seen how well Quebec welcomes out of province workers, how well do you think they'll tolerate foreigners?



Well an independant Quebec would have no authority to fire any federal public servant or military type.  The ROC might not care about their standing but the legality would trump it.  The rule of law isn't going to go out the window overnight.

In all likelyhood the referendum will fail so all this is moot.  But what you would see is an area like Gatineau wanting to stay Canadian.

If you wanted to avoid the issue, the Feds should declare an NCR district seperate from Ontario and Quebec.  Rewrite the Indian Act and recognise the territorial claims of some native bands and make it legally difficult to try and secede.  The Clarity Act and recognising Quebec as being Distinct were good pre-emptive steps.  Also changes in the rules for Citizenship were good too (your kids will not be Canadian if born out of country if you aren't living in Canada).


----------



## Remius (6 Mar 2014)

This is a wikipedia article on Quebec partition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Quebec

Yes it is wikipedia but it gives a good snapshot of the history and arguments for and against partitioning Quebec if it secedes from Canada.

My preference is the division based on localities.  Which ultimately would scare enough Quebecers to vote no.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Mar 2014)

Inky said:
			
		

> I remain convinced that even in the best case scenario, both Canada and the hypothetical new republic would end up worse off.
> 
> I believe that a huge problem will be the new state's treatment of minorities. There's always been a strong xenophobic undercurrent in Quebec but it was kept in check by the Charter to some extent. As a first Gen immigrant, it is something I've had to deal with up to this very day. I have absolutely no faith in an independent Quebec's willingness to respect the rights of anglos, immigrants and natives. The former won't be a problem since we'll probably see a mass exodus (which will in itself be a massive loss for Quebec). I believe that the strong cohesion within native bands and their historical willingness to duke it out with the authorities leave me confident that they would be able to fight for their own rights.
> 
> ...



No doubt, both would land up worse off .....Initially.  If you look around the world, it is very common that initially there will be some 'hard times', but then life moves on and stable, often prosperous, economies will take over.  

I look at this more along the lines of the Separatists, and more importantly their elected members, are stuck in a fantasy 17th Century mindset.  The world is evolving and times are changing faster every day.  Gone are the days that French is the language of Diplomacy, the language of Science, etc.  English, a compilation of several or dozens of languages is the world's language of Commerce, Diplomacy, Air Traffic Control, etc.  The French hatred for the introduction of "non-French" words into their speech and writing is fanatical.  The advent of the computer age and the creation of new words to describe it makes me wonder wtf is wrong with them.  Who cares that a computer mouse was called a "mouse", or that we have a "Windows Operating System", or that a computer is called a "computer", "Bits" and "Bites", "Screen Shots", etc.?  Seriously, these are new words to describe new creations.  Why must there be a French translation for newly created words?  I wonder what the new French translation for Millie Cyrus' twerking will be?

Most of the francophone Quebecers, who are members of the military, that I have worked outside of the Province of Quebec are more 'worldly' than the proponents of separation.  They have seen their advantages in the world as a whole outweigh the attitudes perpetuated by many of the separatists.   I am sure that this was mainly due to their having the opportunities to live and work well removed from Quebec politics.   At the same time, I am sure that the majority of Quebecers are just as fed up with and apathetic towards these discussions as the ROC are.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Mar 2014)

>the reality is that we will be bound by laws and regulations just like before and we'll have to play by those rules.

Again, do not underestimate the speed at which old laws - including the rock-bottom fundamental ones - will be voided and new ones written after actual separation.

You doubt?  Ponder on the number of conflicts inflamed by perceived unjust imbalances.

>I remain convinced that even in the best case scenario, both Canada and the hypothetical new republic would end up worse off. 

Objective evaluation won't be the determining factor.  Emotion will.  If the numbers show that a person's own situation and prospects will be better if he contributes to a lump annual tribute to Quebec to remain in Canada, my guess is that most people will choose not to pay tribute.

You doubt?  Ponder on divorce settlements for a while.

My best guess: the response will be the most uncompromising legal expression of f-off imaginable.  "Sovereignty association" is a laughable separatist self-delusion.


----------



## Remius (7 Mar 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Again, do not underestimate the speed at which old laws - including the rock-bottom fundamental ones - will be voided and new ones written after actual separation.
> 
> You doubt?  Ponder on the number of conflicts inflamed by perceived unjust imbalances.
> 
> ...



Brad, just because someone leaves the club doesn't mean that it stops functioning.  Legally, Canada will still be held to its obligations.  National ones and international ones.  Voiding our acts, and laws will only happen if we get drawn into a civil war.  That will not happen.  Likely we'll see a Velvet Divorce type of scenario (mind you the elements are somewhat different).  Canada will want to reassure Canadians and teh world that it is business as usual minus Quebec.  Otherwise, our dollar becomes Canadian tire money and our economy collapses with everyone not having faith in our country.  THAT is why Canada will do everything it can to maintain its laws, treaties, acts etc etc. 

The problem with your second point is that we have to approach it objectively and would hope that the Leader to do it will not act on emotion.  Otherwise, hell will break loose.  This is why it has done be done in the framework of our laws and system and hold Quebec to that standard as well.  The delusion is thinking that Canada would be better off without Quebec.  Canada will not be.  All  they see is the transfer payment issue and even then many people don't understand how even that works to begin with.  No, there is way more to lose.  Divorce settlements are a bad example.  

Your best guess is likely to be wrong but it is a guess either way.  It won't be the biggest expression of eff off because we can't afford to do that because the implications of doing that are too great to let happen.  And whoever is in charge will hopefully see that and likely will be under pressure.

Negociations will happen whether we like it or not.  Laws will bind us to our obligations or we become irrelevant across the country and abroad.  I'm not sure why people think they wouldn't or shouldn't.  It's not a bad thing.  In fact it may actually benefit Canada more than it will benefit Quebec.

People need to get away from the currency issue or the citizenship thing.  Those things are non starters. At least for a generation after seperation.

What you should look at is economic policies, trade agreements and transfers, international agreements, investments and local secession (or rather local areas remaining in Canada).  Those realistically will be where Quebec will hurt the most if they seperate. 

*Edit*  Citizenship can be redefined yes.  It was looked at after the last two referendums but no one had the will or desire to tackle that football since it would in all likelyhood mean the end of dual citizenship.  It would likely I think be tackled after a seperation but that is a risk that still needs to be communicated to all and would require some changes to the citizenship act.  I will partially withdraw the statement that it is a non starter in that regard.


----------



## d_edwards (7 Mar 2014)

This all makes me question whether the ability to hold dual citizenship is something that should be addressed.   And what negative or positive outcomes would result.   Would the sovereignty movement lose votes if any advantage of Canadian citizenship  be lost if they were successful?


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2014)

Re dual citizenship, I'm pretty sure that an angry and vengeful Canada will put a quick end to that. If Quebec wants to set it's own path, then fine, but they have also given up the ability to access the rights and privileges of being a Canadian while doing so.

WRT using Canadian currency, there is actually nothing to stop an Independent Quebec from doing so. Indeed, there is nothing to stop Ukraine from doing so either, if they so desired. The sticking point in adopting and using a foreign currency is that the adopter has no say in the issuing nation's Fiscal or Monetary policy.

This could have counterintuitive effects. Since Quebec could be expected to continue to offer massive social programs and government spending even after a UDI, they might suddenly discover they are suffering deflation and a depression as the amount of money is not sufficient to cover the extravagant amount of promised goods and services. This is the opposite of the usual inflationary problem, where _too much money_ is in the system, being used to bid up a static or more slowly growing pool of goods and services. Of course that sort of problem solves itself if left alone, but historical experience from the Great Depression and understanding the desire of Quebec technocrats to meddle suggests that in this hypothetical case, the Quebec  Depression will be very long and hard (the worst year of the Great Depression was 1938, a full 9 years after the 1929 "crash" and a direct result of "New Deal" meddling with the American economy).

One can imagine a future Conservative government slowly turning the screws by adopting a balanced budget policy and implementing a 10 year plan to pay off the debt, for the benefit of Canadian taxpayers...


----------



## George Wallace (7 Mar 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Re dual citizenship, I'm pretty sure that an angry and vengeful Canada will put a quick end to that. If Quebec wants to set it's own path, then fine, but they have also given up the ability to access the rights and privileges of being a Canadian while doing so.



Canada will have no say in what Quebec does or does not permit in the way of Dual Citizenship.  I am of the opinion that with the current climate, other than being able to reap Canadian benefits, Quebec would want nothing to do with an Anglophone Canada, and likely take a path of not permitting Dual Citizenship; it not being "pur laine".   It may not necessarily be the individual's right to claim it. 

On the subject of Premier Minister Marois not attending the English Language debates; it would appear that she is sending a signal that Anglophone and Allophone votes mean nothing to her.  I am sure that this will be capitalized upon by the opposition parties.  She must be very confident in her party's position.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Mar 2014)

We are speculating before the PQ has won a majority, let along won a referendum, neither of which is a sure thing.

However the situation that bothers me the most is a PQ win in a referendum by a very small majority (in other words not as required by the Clarity Act) followed by an immediate UDI and recognition as a sovereign state by a number of nations, some of whom promise military aid to Quebec in the event of a confrontation with Canada.

I don't think it is going to happen, but there always is the possibility. Hmm, maybe I should write a book proposal and send it to an agent.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2014)

I was actually talking about the view from the Canadian side of the border; if Quebec declares UDI and then blithely expects people living in Quebec to be able to live and work in Canada, collect Canadian benefits etc. as "dual citizens" then they will likely have another thing coming.

As for people who are caught behind the Quebec border, what happens to them is entirely up to the new government of Quebec. Anglo and allophones living there after a UDI would probably be advised to move out ASAP, and Canada can fund that out of the "Equalization" budget for Quebec. Actually, given that there will be no more equalization payments after a UDI, this does look better for Canada, since we can now free up resources to balance the budget or do other things that are needed.


----------



## wannabe SF member (7 Mar 2014)

Well if Obama's words yesterday are to be trusted, immediate UDI's after referendum or due to a parliamentary decree are no longer kosher in the today's world. Regardless of the economic implications, wouldn't the government be compelled to intervene militarily in Qc if the National Assembly decided to secede without negotiations? Wouldn't we at the very least want to send out troops to immediately secure military assets scattered across installations across the province such as reserve units who might find themselves vulnerable to being pilfered by the new government?


----------



## Remius (7 Mar 2014)

Secession wouldn't be immediate.  It would be a mandate to enter negotiations to secede.  Nothing would get transferred or traded until said negotiations would be finalized and a target date for the split would happen.  I suspect that armouries and some military installations would be transferred once numbers are crunched and Canada would strike those reserve units that belong to Quebec (barring any local areas that remained with Canada) from the order of battle.  Regular force units would likely be moved to Canadian soil.  There would be a reorg of Canadian units as a result.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Secession wouldn't be immediate.  It would be a mandate to enter negotiations to secede.  Nothing would get transferred or traded until said negotiations would be finalized and a target date for the split would happen.  I suspect that armouries and some military installations would be transferred once numbers are crunched and Canada would strike those reserve units that belong to Quebec (barring any local areas that remained with Canada) from the order of battle.  Regular force units would likely be moved to Canadian soil.  There would be a reorg of Canadian units as a result.



Logically and legally you are correct and I respect your balanced analysis, except an immediate UDI would empower the self-appointed independent government of Quebec to arbitrarily (and illegally in the perception of the rest of Canada) take all sorts of actions. Imagine declaring all Federal property and equipment in the new nation now belonged to Quebec and all members of the CAF in Quebec could consider themselves member of the armed forces of the new state of Quebec. Oh yes, and any oaths any federal employee took to the Queen were invalid.


----------



## Remius (7 Mar 2014)

Old Sweat: yes that could happen but remember that PQ government that would win a referendum will be seeking international recognition sis a top priority to legitimize their claim.  Unilateral declarations and announcements would not be to their benefit in that regard especially if the ROC acts in good faith.  The PQ have always wanted a negotiated separation. I see no reason why they would deviate from that.  But who knows.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Mar 2014)

Agreed. But who know with true believers? And we are in an atmosphere where a Crimean referendum is being legitimized by dubious process.

I am in southern Georgia and have just cracked a mason jar of guaranteed less than 30 days old when jarred corn whiskey, so I best sign off.

Good work, Crantor.


----------



## DBA (7 Mar 2014)

Weren't they going to declare unilateral separation after the last referendum if they won? I remember reading about the plans for it being leaked. Considering that was with a vague weasel question and 50% + 1 saying yes I don't see them wasting any time declaring sovereignty if they win the next referendum. The separatists have no inhibitions in screwing over the rest of Canada which gives them an advantage as the reverse is not true.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Mar 2014)

>THAT is why Canada will do everything it can to maintain its laws, treaties, acts etc etc. 

I have no idea what you are dreaming about.  I'm only referring to legal changes that could be made to cut Quebec and its residents completely off from drinking at the Canadian spigot.  Of course Canada would continue to respect its international agreements.

But for those who think the obligations of what remains of Canada are untouchable, try this thought experiment: if other regions decide to opt out of "Canada" because of the burden of its obligations and leave the remainder holding the bag, at what point do Canada's obligations become transferable?  And if those obligations become transferable when party #N leaves, why not when party #1 leaves?

Plan: immediately after Quebec secedes, the remaining provinces and territories, less PEI, announce their secession from Canada.


----------



## Remius (8 Mar 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Again, do not underestimate the speed at which old laws - including the rock-bottom fundamental ones - will be voided and new ones written after actual separation.



Brad, this is what you said.  If I misunderstood, sorry.  Rock bottom fundamental ones seems to imply a bit more that legal changes you are implying.  

Of course it is reasonable that after a split happens that Canada would redefine and rewrite the citizenship act but it is a case of at least a few years and again within the framework of our rules and laws.


----------



## Jungle (8 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Old Sweat: yes that could happen but remember that PQ government that would win a referendum will be seeking international recognition sis a top priority to legitimize their claim.  Unilateral declarations and announcements would not be to their benefit in that regard especially if the ROC acts in good faith.  The PQ have always wanted a negotiated separation. I see no reason why they would deviate from that.  But who knows.



I saw a televised interview some time after the 1995 referendum where Jacques Parzeau stated clearly that he intended to mak a UDI the morning following a successful YES vote...  and that was not part of the plan.


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Mar 2014)

Jungle said:
			
		

> I saw a televised interview some time after the 1995 referendum where Jacques Parzeau stated clearly that he intended to mak a UDI the morning following a successful YES vote...  and that was not part of the plan.



That was one of the factors that led to my speculation. After a UDI the government could claim in the odd logic that prevails at such times that as an independent country, the clarity act no longer applies. Cripes, they could also claim all federal property, assets and equipment now belongs to them and all members of the CAF in Quebec or from Quebec were encouraged to transfer to the armed forces of Quebec.

I wonder how the Americans would react to suddenly having a large approach into their air space no longer covered by the Norad agreement?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Mar 2014)

Time perhaps to clarify the Clarity Act.

All right people: Hold on for the big one: The Clarity Act does not apply to Quebec  ... nor to Alberta, or B.-C., or any other province that would wish to leave this great country.

The Clarity Act only applies to the Federal Government. It dictates to that government the principles that should guide it, and no one else, in applying from its side the Supreme Court decision that determined that a province has the right to secede and what the legal process to do so is. 

For instance, after a Yukonese referendum that votes in favour of secession but at a level lower than the one in the Clarity Act, the Federal government would be refrained, by law, from entering into negotiations on secession with Yukon or to recognize the results of said referendum.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Mar 2014)

I'm keen to hear what memebers here, especially those who know more about QC than I (which means many of you), think about the entry of M. Pierre Karl Péladeau into the race, as the PQ's newest _star_ candidate means. Here is a somewhat personal view by Michael den Tandt which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Tandt+Premier+Marois+brings+lion+into+tent+good/9597696/story.html


> PQ Premier Pauline Marois brings a lion into her tent – Pierre Karl Peladeau – for good or ill
> *Can the former Quebecor boss be a team player?*
> 
> BY MICHAEL DEN TANDT, POSTMEDIA NEWS
> ...


----------



## Remius (10 Mar 2014)

An interesting choice.  The problem that the PQ will now face is the fact that the Unions for the most part are no friends of Peladeau.  This might hurt Marois in the election.  In fact this may hurt her ability to get a solid majority.  It depends on how much of Peladeau they parade around.

As a side note: Although the PQ are enjoying solid polling numbers that suggest a majority it would seem that 60% of those polled are not keen on a referendum so we might not see those winning conditions any time soon...


----------



## Remius (10 Mar 2014)

To add and to correct what I wrote above, it would seem the PQ's polling numbers have dropped according to a new CROP poll published today.  The PQ and Liberals seem to be in a neck and neck tie for now.  Also note worthy is the fact the population seems dissatisfied with her leadership (58%).  As well, some 52% are still undecided or could change their minds. 

It will be interesting to see if:

A) Peladeau's nomination will hurt the PQ, given that the leftists hate him and that they would normally back a PQ government.  The CAQ could benefit from thsi thus splitting the vote.

and 

B) The upfront and honesty of the PQ in regards to a referendum (making it a mandate if they win) is scaring more Quebecers than they thought.  Although a significant amount of francophones support the whole Quebec identity agenda (like the values charter), it could be that the treat of a referendum scares turns them off more than the values charter turns them on.

Perhaps a majority isn't in the cards, which would be devestating for Marois and may open the door to a Peladeau leadership run...


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Mar 2014)

You've hit on what's bothering me, Crantor. I know there are _right wing_ sepratists ~ people who voted _Oui_ in the sovereignty referenda but vote, consistently, against the PQ. I am pretty sure I've met and worked with a couple of them. I can understand M. Péladeau being a _sovereignist_, what I can't fathom is why he'd support the loony-lefty PQ; why wouldn't he start his own _Oui_/_independentiste_ movement?


----------



## George Wallace (10 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You've hit on what's bothering me, Crantor. I know there are _right wing_ sepratists ~ people who voted _Oui_ in the sovereignty referenda but vote, consistently, against the PQ. I am pretty sure I've met and worked with a couple of them. I can understand M. Péladeau being a _sovereignist_, what I can't fathom is why he'd support the loony-lefty PQ; why wouldn't he start his own _Oui_/_independentiste_ movement?



Having more than one _Oui_/_independentiste_ movement would only divide the vote and hurt both parties.  He likely sees a united front with a common goal as the most beneficial at the moment.  Your suggestion would be more of an "after secession" formation of a party system for the new 'nation'.


----------



## Remius (10 Mar 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Having more than one _Oui_/_independentiste_ movement would only divide the vote and hurt both parties.  He likely sees a united front with a common goal as the most beneficial at the moment.  Your suggestion would be more of an "after secession" formation of a party system for the new 'nation'.



Well considering that the other parties except the Liberals are all sovereigntist/speratist parties, that might be a valid reason.  Too many players in a limited field. 

But it does not explain his alignment with a leftist party.  Peladeau is anything but.  In fact he could be described as anti-left.  The CAQ would have been a more suitable fit for him which is about as right as you'll get in Quebecn and he would likely be a serious contender for the leadership of that party post-election.

But it could be an opportunistic chance at being in power.  A guy like that des not want to join a party he thinks will lose.  He'll want a prominent spot and may even take a shot at being leader one day.  Ms. Marois may have miscaluclated at thinking his "star" power would bring some economic clout to her team but may end up scaring a chunk of her base away.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Mar 2014)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from ThreeHundredEight.com is the latest polling data:

http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/quebec.html?spref=tw






There is considerable additional data on the ThreeHundredEight.com web site.

There are 125 seats in the _National Assembly_ so a bare majority requires 63 seats.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Mar 2014)

There is an interesting "point of view" article in today's _Globe and Mail_ in which Quebec Liberal Leader Philippe Couillard says that, "Those who think they can separate Quebec from Canada without destroying anything, are in a world of illusion." He suggests that Canada will be _'destroyed'_ because Quebec is "a vital founding pillar of Canada." Separation, he says, will also "severely, severely hurt Quebec for many, many, many years. Severely hurt Quebec,” for far more than the five years Mme Marois envisions.

I agree with him.

Canada, as we know it, would cease to exist after separation. We can see some anti-French sentiments here, in Army.ca. My guess is that the country, at large, has a bigger, deeper anti-French sentiment. I doubt we would even pretend to care about the linguistic rights of the small minority of _Francophones_ in Canada (what, maybe 3% of the population). They, the remaining _Francophones_ will probably be outnumbered by Hindi speakers, they will be, probably again, about the same as Mandarin speakers: just another small linguistic minority.

A newly independent Quebec will, I expect, look a lot like Argentina: lots of potential but an economic basket case due to bad policies and politics.

But, I reiterate: my guess that the PQ will want the elusive "winning condition" before risking another referendum and I doubt they will be there because, as I have said before, Quebecers have already _separated_, emotionally, from Canada and they are, by and large, happy to be Canadians who can live and work in French. They understand that M. Couillard  is right and they don't want to be poor. A left wing, _statist_ PQ government? Yes! A sovereign nation-state of Quebec? No!


----------



## Remius (11 Mar 2014)

And here is an article from John Ibbitson that demonstrates what the West really thinks of the threat of seperation.  

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/in-booming-alberta-quebec-sovereignty-just-isnt-that-important/article17424385/


----------



## sandyson (11 Mar 2014)

With reference to 'The Eastern Townships':  they don't exist any more.  The approximate region is now 'L'estrie': within which when English is heard in a commercial setting, it is more likely from an American. To be hired in L'estrie, you must speak French in order to function.  This includes former English institutions e.g. retirement homes, universities, hospitals. Notwithstanding the NDP sweep in the last federal election, the strong trend is to the separatist cause.  Even Jean Charest (last Liberal premier) lost his seat to the PQ.
As a life long QuebecER (until now at least), I don't believe logic has anything to do with the issue.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Mar 2014)

OK.  Many of you said it wouldn't be so.  Guess what?

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

LINK



> The Gazette
> montealgazette.com
> 
> BY MONIQUE MUISE
> ...




More on LINK


----------



## dimsum (12 Mar 2014)

From the Gazette article, referring to Lac-Megantic:  

"Marois confirmed for the first time that a PQ government would not pitch in financially to build a new rail line that would pass around — rather than through — the town. Her party would be happy to help Lac-Mégantic evaluate all the options for such a project, she added, but "we would turn to Ottawa" for the funds to make it happen. The rerouted line of track could cost between $150 and $175 million. The federal government "is responsible for rail transport," Marois said."  

Um....she seriously thinks that Ottawa is responsible for something that will happen in her "separate nation" of Quebec, and that Canada won't laugh her off the stage when she demands $ for it?  I want some of what she's smoking.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Mar 2014)

The only thing that rings true in that article is "'(Separation) won't change our landscapes, that's for sure,' Marois replied. "

...but I'm willing to be corrected by any geologists.


----------



## Remius (12 Mar 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK.  Many of you said it wouldn't be so.  Guess what?
> 
> Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
> 
> ...



It isn't inconceivable to think that there would be an open border. The economy, tourism etc all benefit from open borders.  Something many want to see in North America actually.  In Europe people are free to move and work to and from.  

But, what Pauline Marois fails to take into consideration is Canada's willingness to accept anything she _thinks_  will happen in a post secession Quebec.  Nothing to stop her from having or wanting an open border to Canadians.  Canadians may feel differently.  A while ago I mentioned our US neighours.  That will be the key.  Canada will not want to jeopardize its current border arrangement with the US.  If the US has concerns about how Quebec decides to manage its own international borders and ports of entry, then Canada may be forced to restrict the Quebec/Canada borders in order to avoid a gateway type problem.  On the other hand if they are confident in their system then an open border my not only be preferable it may actually be necessary.

Again, these are things that would be negociated.  Also keep in mind that Ms. Marois is trying to ease concerns.  What we need is more of Couillard's realistic assessments without holding any punches back.


----------



## Remius (12 Mar 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> From the Gazette article, referring to Lac-Megantic:
> 
> "Marois confirmed for the first time that a PQ government would not pitch in financially to build a new rail line that would pass around — rather than through — the town. Her party would be happy to help Lac-Mégantic evaluate all the options for such a project, she added, but "we would turn to Ottawa" for the funds to make it happen. The rerouted line of track could cost between $150 and $175 million. The federal government "is responsible for rail transport," Marois said."
> 
> Um....she seriously thinks that Ottawa is responsible for something that will happen in her "separate nation" of Quebec, and that Canada won't laugh her off the stage when she demands $ for it?  I want some of what she's smoking.



Ok, I'm pretty sure she is referring to the here and now, not in the possible future Quebec.  

I'm not overly familiar with the federal responsibilities in regards to rail but they are responsible for regulations, safety and enforcement I believe.  If rerouting the rail system is a safety issue then yes, it is possible the feds would have to cough up the dough.  I'm not sure of all the nuances though and how much responsibilty the province has in this case. 

Until seperation happens (and I'm sure it will not), the federal government has its responsibilities, regardless of who is in power in whatever province.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> It isn't inconceivable to think that there would be an open border. The economy, tourism etc all benefit from open borders.  Something many want to see in North America actually.  In Europe people are free to move and work to and from.
> 
> But, what Pauline Marois fails to take into consideration is Canada's willingness to accept anything she _thinks_  will happen in a post secession Quebec.  Nothing to stop her from having or wanting an open border to Canadians.  Canadians may feel differently.  A while ago I mentioned our US neighours.  That will be the key.  Canada will not want to jeopardize its current border arrangement with the US.  If the US has concerns about how Quebec decides to manage its own international borders and ports of entry, then Canada may be forced to restrict the Quebec/Canada borders in order to avoid a gateway type problem.  On the other hand if they are confident in their system then an open border my not only be preferable it may actually be necessary.
> 
> Again, these are things that would be negociated.  Also keep in mind that Ms. Marois is trying to ease concerns.  What we need is more of Couillard's realistic assessments without holding any punches back.



I agree with you.  The EU has open borders and a 'common currency', at the same time maintaining individual national passports.   Many of these points are acceptable.    

What I am seeing now, is the emerging thoughts slowly being drawn out of Marois as to her vision, and perhaps the whole vision of the PQ, of a separate Quebec.   Does she, and the PQ, believe that we can break Canada into EU style 'nations' and be able to ensure economic, political and social conditions remain on an equal and level playing field?  We can look at the financial and political states of some of the EU nations and see that those models are not necessarily perfect.  How many failed EU states are being propped up by Germany, and the other strong EU nations?  Greece, Spain and Italy are facing extreme fiscal debts.   Does Marios still expect the ROC to prop up Quebec in a similar manner after separation?  I believe so.   Is this then, really separation?

Border crossings already exist between Canada and the US, including Quebec and the US.  Those would still exist.  Like the EU, entry points would still exist between the US and Canada/Quebec.  I don't see that being a major concern.  The Americans may just increase their regulations upon travellers to ensure their National Security, making travel for all Canadians and Quebecers to and from the US more difficult.


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Mar 2014)

This article from the Torstar News Service is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act. My reaction upon seeing it is 'good luck' with that.


Quebec Liberal leader says Canada must make concessions to stem separatism
http://metronews.ca/news/canada/969257/quebec-liberal-leader-says-canada-must-make-concessions-to-stem-separatism/

By Staff
Torstar News Service

MONTREAL—The leader of federalist forces in the Quebec election says Canadians from coast to coast should be prepared to make concessions to the province if there is any hope dealing once and for all with the recurring threats to national unity.

With an ascendant Parti Québécois seeking re-election and speaking bullishly about a new push for independence, angst outside of the province’s borders is noticeably higher in this election than in previous campaigns since the failed 1995 referendum on sovereignty.

The surprise candidacy for the PQ of multi-millionaire media titan Pierre Karl Péladeau, majority shareholder of Quebecor and the Sun newspaper chain, has only ratcheted up that tension, a rare across-the-board endorsement in an open letter signed by leading sovereigntists, including former PQ leaders Jacques Parizeau and Bernard Landry as well as ex-Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe.


But Quebec Liberal leader Philippe Couillard suggested an antidote to the cycle of separatist-induced angst that has already resulted in two failed referendums and talk of a third one if PQ leader Pauline Marois wins a majority government in the coming April 7 vote.

Couillard raised the spectre of a new push for a constitutional amendment that would recognized Quebec as a “distinct” society in Canada. This after two failed attempts at Meech Lake in 1987 and Charlottetown in 1992 and the refusal of former PQ premier René Levesque to sign the repatriated Canadian Constitution in 1982.

The federal government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has refused the idea of re-opening the Constitution to introduce an elected Senate or to set term limits for Senators. The federal Conservative leader has said repeatedly there is no willingness in the country for another heart-wrenching round of talks that, if they fail, could breathe new life into the grievances of those who want an independent Quebec.

Harper contented himself with passing a 2006 motion in the House of Commons that recognized “the Quebecois as a nation within a united Canada,” but it carries no specific obligations or responsibilities of Ottawa and affords no new powers to the province.

Couillard said on Tuesday at a campaign stop in Trois-Rivières, Que., that he has met with Canadians, including politicians in other provinces, who have confided their belief that the failure to accommodate Quebec’s specific demands at the Meech Lake or Charlottetown talks was a “missed opportunity” to blunt the argument for independence.

“But (the failure) is not the reason we should break up a country,” Couillard said.

Instead, the Liberal leader says that if constitutional talks are proposed in the future on an issue such as Senate reform or Ottawa’s relationship with First Nations, he would refuse to take part without agreement to also negotiate “the distinct character of Quebec in Canada.”

“I will not participate if the agenda doesn’t include the traditional demands of Quebec. That will be my historic duty as premier,” Couillard said.

He did not suggest rushing into such negotiations at the moment.

“We’re going to do it to win it.”

The PQ leader has long accused Couillard of having a secret plan to sign Quebec up to the Constitution without allowing Quebecers to debate the move.

“I hope that Mr. Couillard wouldn’t sign, whatever it is, without consulting the population of Quebec,” said Marois.

“So I invite him to tell us what his strategy is to have the distinct status of Quebec recognized, because that seems to be what he wants.”

The PQ leader herself began musing about the contours and detailed workings of an independent Quebec, something she has tried to steer clear of so far on the campaign. But Marois showed she has a clear vision of Quebec ― the country ― operating in European Union-like harmony with its Canadian neighbours.

“Quebecers will be able to go see the people of the Maritimes, or go see the people of British Columbia,” she said.

“It doesn’t mean that we won’t necessarily have citizenship, or that there is no (separate) passport.”

Earlier Tuesday, Couillard made strong defence of Canadian unity, warning that stripping Quebecers of their Canadian citizenship “won’t help Quebecers, it will damage Quebec. It’s a retreat, it’s a loss. It’s not a gain.”

He said it will also diminish the rest of Canada: “We are an essential party ― not the only part, but an essential part ― of what makes Canada such a great place to live in the world.”


Mod edit to add link


----------



## George Wallace (12 Mar 2014)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> This article from the Torstar News Service is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act. My reaction upon seeing it is 'good luck' with that.
> 
> 
> Quebec Liberal leader says Canada must make concessions to stem separatism
> http://metronews.ca/news/canada/969257/quebec-liberal-leader-says-canada-must-make-concessions-to-stem-separatism/



Why is it always the ROC who have to make concessions to Quebec?  It may be time that Quebec reciprocated with some concessions of their own.  Wouldn't it benefit the Quebec economy more if they honoured the intent of Canada's bilingualism policies as opposed to the ethnic cleansing of all Anglo and Allophones from the province?  

Quebec's Language Policies are already discriminatory and not applied in an honest and fair manner.  Take the "Language Police" harassing the Pontiac woman for her business site on FaceBook, but never an attack or mention of "Language use" at the Montreal Comedy Festival?  Interesting how they can harass the small businesses owned by Anglo and Allophone Quebecers, but not a large International event that brings in millions of foreign visitors and dollars.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Mar 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Why is it always the ROC who have to make concessions to Quebec?  It may be time that Quebec reciprocated with some concessions of their own ...




It's good politics for a Quebec election campaign ... but Canada, as John Ibbitson pointed out in an article reproduced above, is yawning.


----------



## Remius (12 Mar 2014)

Focussing on the election itself, it would seem that a majority of Quebecers have priorities that AREN'T about a referendum or a separation.  Healthcare, the economy and jobs and in third place is the debt.  Identity politics seem to come somewhere at the end but ahead of things like corruption. 

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/sujet/elections-quebec-2014/2014/03/10/007-sondage-crop-election-enjeux.shtml

The PQ hasn't really done much to help in any of those other than the identity politics, which isn't much of a priority for most Quebecers.  In fact, it is likely that they are worse off in those things.  Likely why the Liberals are focussing on the whole economy and jobs strategy while discrediting the whole referendum thing. 

If they frame it as the PQ wanting to focus on pet projects and not on the real substantial things that really matter to Quebecers, they could steal this one from Marois.  And that would be her political death at that point.    

_Edited to add link to Radio Canada polling article to support what I am saying._


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Mar 2014)

I think a referendum is unlikely, for reasons that I, and others, have given, but one issue that a successful referendum (and the subsequent negotiations) would _expose_ would be the currency non-union. A currency union which many sovereigntists, including Mme Marois, believe would be necessary or, at least, desirable is a non starter for the reasons explained by prof Stephen Gordon (and economics professor at l'Université Laval in Quebec City) explain in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _MacLean's_:

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/could-an-independent-quebec-use-the-canadian-dollar-would-it-want-to-2/


> Could an independent Quebec use the Canadian dollar?
> *The Euro crisis exposed why a monetary union between the ROC and Quebec wouldn’t work*
> 
> by Stephen Gordon
> ...




_Note: the hyperlinks are in the original article._

For the very good reasons Prof Gordon gives Canada would not agree to a currency union with Quebec. An independent Quebec can, of course, use whatever currency it wants ~ but it will be ill served by tying itself to Canada.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Mar 2014)

A much clearer evaluation and description than my simplistic "Quebec being Canada's Greece of the EU".


----------



## George Wallace (12 Mar 2014)

Here is an interesting read from the Suburban:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

https://www.thesuburban.com/article.php?id=2793&title=An-Open-Letter-To-Queen-Pauline



> An Open Letter to Queen Pauline
> 
> By Robbie Manis, March 5th, 2014
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Mar 2014)

>We can see some anti-French sentiments here, in Army.ca.

I don't think there is much anti-French sentiment.  There is plenty of anti-whinger sentiment.  Couillard's can go f*<k himself if he thinks there is any reason at all his province merits special privileges.

One person, one class of citizenship in the nation.

One province, one class of membership in the nation.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Mar 2014)

There is, apparently, according to the _Globe and Mail's_ *Capital Markets* reporter and *Streetwise* columnist Boyd Erman, a case for monetary union, at least from Ontario's perspective. But that case is that Ontario is flailing about (and failing?), due, in some part, to changing global markets and, in more cases, to inept Ontario Government policies, and it 'needs' Quebec, which flails about even more and fails (without the need for a question mark), to counter the increased productivity of the evil West.

ARTICLE LINK

Mr Erman's argument is, in my opinion, complete rubbish on both economic and political grounds.

Ontario doesn't 'need' Quebec to help it _balance_ the West; it (and Quebec) needs new, better economic policies. The solutions to most of Ontario's problems lie in Queens Park, not with the Bank of Canada or with the federal cabinet.

Quebec is a badly mismanaged entity. The so called "Quebec model," an imitation of the failed "French model," has failed. It is a _statist_, soft-socialist model that cannot work because they, _statism_ and socialism, require consistently competent political leaders, which cannot exist in a democracy, and _perfect_ humans (especially smart and industrious people who are, consistently, willing to work at full capacity for nothing more than the pleasure one derives from giving away the fruits of one's labours to feed, house and entertain the stupid and lazy) and they don't exist, either. It would be policy madness to allow mismanaged Quebec, with an economy equal to about 20% of Canada's, into a currency union ~ it is the equivalent of France, Italy or Spain in the _Eurozone_: none of those three are _qialified_, by the rules, to be there but because they all lie about their economies, as a matter of national policy, they are able to live off the fruits of the labours of the Dutch, Finns and Germans, while adding no value to the mix.

Any prime minister of the new _Canada minus_ who proposed allowing the newly independent Quebec a seat on the BoC's board would be tarred and feathered and run out of the capital on a rail.

It's all nonsense.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Mar 2014)

The key issue, I think, is a PQ majority. If that happens it will have two consequences:

     1. The Quebec economy will continue to founder and drift along in the wrong direction, doing real, measurable, economic damage to every Canadian resident, including those reading Army.ca; and

     2. It will reignite a wasteful, counter-productive _national unity_ debate ~ a false debate because Canada, with Quebec, is not, in any meaningful way, except geographic, _united_ even now.

In an article in the _national Post, the Canadian Press' Jennifer Ditchburn recycles some ideas re: Cui bono? Who wins, from amongst the federal leaders?

She attempts to be "fair and balanced" in laying out diverse opinions, but, in the end, concludes nothing.

A PQ majority says to me:

Elizabeth May      - zero impact, she is totally irrelevant to any discussion of any topic;
Justin Trudeau    - negative, he is a Francephone Quebecer, many, many Canadians, including certified Harper Haters will mistrust him;
Thomas Mulcair   - negative, he leads a Quebec based party with some nationalists, Canadians will mistrust them and him;
Stephen Harper   - slight positive, he is weak in Quebec but can be trusted to be strong for the West and even for Ontario.
_


----------



## devil39 (13 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There is, apparently, according to the _Globe and Mail's_ *Capital Markets* reporter and *Streetwise* columnist Boyd Erman, a case for monetary union, at least from Ontario's perspective. But that case is that Ontario is flailing about (and failing?), due, in some part, to changing global markets and, in more cases, to inept Ontario Government policies, and it 'needs' Quebec, which flails about even more and fails (without the need for a question mark), to counter the increased productivity of the evil West.
> 
> ARTICLE LINK
> 
> ...



I couldn't agree more wth the above.

It is so ludicrous that I wonder if they are not trying to inflame the opinions of thinking RoC's, with a view to goading us into saying nasty things, which will only serve to sway opinion of the undecided in Quebec.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Mar 2014)

Why would anyone even contemplate allowing the newly independent Quebec a seat on the BoC's board?  

That is contrary to the idea of 'separation/secession'.


----------



## Remius (13 Mar 2014)

I suspect that the Marois and like minded seperatists envision something akin to the EU. Shared currency but with a fundamental difference that the EU is lacking and that is a central banking agency.

I am anti seperation and a staunch federalist but, I could envision free trade, open borders, reciprocal treaties and MOUs on a variety of issues including and not limited to defence, trade etc etc.  These things are in our (the ROC) best interest.  I also envision Canada maintaining its responsabilities to ALL Canadian citizens (until such time as it may or may not be redefined).

I expect that negociations would be done in good faith.

However, it must be made clear, prior to any referendum and after, that Canada's economic policy is its own.  Canadians will demand that Quebec not be part of any decisions or BofC etc etc that impact our fiscal policy.  Quebec needs to undertsand that by going its own way that it forfeits the benefits of being in the federation but can still enjoy the benefits of being a close neighbour, perhaps even a preferential one.  Once independance is achieved Canada will decide what is good for Canada and that our internal issues are own own and that Quebec's vacated seat will be replaced with a fern or other potted plant.  

Joint currency and joint economic policy is not a good idea.  They are free to use ours, but we must resist, much like the Brits did, to adopt any kind of new unified monetary system where Quebec would have a voice.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Mar 2014)

I don't approve of people defacing election posters, etc, but even I have to admit that this shows considerable imagination:


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Mar 2014)

Let them go.  And good riddance.  They can create their own currency, their own economy, and then realise in a generation or so that the Quebecois is a dead nation.  Let them rot, I say.

Yes, I'm a federalist, but if someone wants to walk, I say let them go.  But no "sovereignty assocation" or any other such nonsense.


----------



## Lightguns (14 Mar 2014)

+1

Better to end in terror than terror without end.


----------



## Zulopol (14 Mar 2014)

I dont know why a lot of ``Quebecois`` want to make them own counrty... -_- I am a proud Canadian living in Quebec. I speak french and I love that our country is bilingual


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Mar 2014)

Most Quebecers, _Francos_, _Anglos_, _Allophones_ and whatevers, are pretty normal humans, each pretty much like the other. But a few are fruitcakes, and few of them are sick, anti-Semitic fruitcakes and some (many? most?) of those migrate towards the PQ because they _think_ (just hope?) it shares their views ...

Like the person mentioned in this report from CJAD Radio.

The PQ does itself no favour by allowing this sort of _trailer trash_ to represent it at the polls.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Mar 2014)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Let them go.  And good riddance.  They can create their own currency, their own economy, and then realise in a generation or so that the Quebecois is a dead nation.  Let them rot, I say.
> 
> Yes, I'm a federalist, but if someone wants to walk, I say let them go.  But no "sovereignty assocation" or any other such nonsense.



THEY?????     Nice one you racist [use your imagination here].  This from the guy who whines at anything that touches the RC church.......


Just out of curiosity, what about those families who have lived there for generations and don't want to "go"?


----------



## Jungle (14 Mar 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> THEY?????     Nice one you racist [use your imagination here].  This from the guy who whines at anything that touches the RC church.......
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what about those families who have lived there for generations and don't want to "go"?



 :goodpost:


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Mar 2014)

Notwithstanding the Technoviking's choice of words, we have, with he and Crantor, what I see as the two faces of Canada vs Quebec: downright hostility and a willingness to negotiate ... for our benefit. What I don't see is the kind of _goodwill_ which was there in, say, 1995.






And that seems, to me, to confirm e.g. Ibbitson's assessment ... we no longer care as much.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Mar 2014)

Bruce and Jungle

As this is a discussion on the possible outcomes of a Québec Election and monitoring of the lead up to it, you will naturally get the views from the ROC on the matter.  The ROC is basically of the opinion that the whole Quebec separation BS that has been going on for the past few decades has worn thin.  The ROC is tired of the whining of a certain Political Party.  If you two can't accept it, then you are the ones with the problem.  Calling anyone a racist because they are tired of the demands on the ROC by a certain Political Party, does you no credit.

As this is a discussion, as new facts are presented, views will change.  Your hurt feelings due to the "generalizations" in reference to the ruling Political Party in the province as meaning all Quebecers should require you both to lodge your complaints on a DA FORM IMT WF1 document enclosed and then circular filed:  DA FORM IMT WF1


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Mar 2014)

Yes George, you are so right.  I mean yes, how could anyone with actual ties to Quebec like Jungle and myself ever have doubted your wisdom??

...and how petty of either of us to take offence at being called "they".  I'm so ashamed...............


----------



## Lightguns (14 Mar 2014)

Ahh racism chants have started early.  Shall we have a round of Godwin's Law?  Nationalistic parties have always appealed to the evil straw man fear in their fellow nationals.  It is the only real cause they have to separate their block from the mainstream.


----------



## sandyson (14 Mar 2014)

I have two concerns. My first is physical geographical.  Atlantic Canada would be physically separated from the rest of the country. There does not appear to me any practical way to link it through a separated Quebec. (Maine is already a considerable obstacle.) I see no region that would be sympathetic to Canada, through which a corridor could be reserved.
My second is perceptive geography.  The physical nature of the continent promotes North-South communications.  In spite of this, the country was built East to West. Quebec separation will reinforce the North-South axis and perception.  I fear the remaining provinces will be ripe-for-the-picking by the US, especially Atlantic Canada.
Ironic: Quebec would eventually disappear.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Mar 2014)

Well that is another discussion entirely,........what land goes, and stays, with whom?
You know, the kind of decisions that reverberate for generations.


----------



## Lightguns (14 Mar 2014)

Quebec as it was in 1867, nothing more.  Unless parts of that want to be Canadian.  

The Atlantic question is interesting given that the Quebec Patriotic Militia now has an "Acadian component" in Tracadie, NB.  Will the Acadians take their que from the Quebec and throw off the hated chains of English oppression? >  Will Franco-Ontarians march on Ottawa and liberate it?  

The fact is the fall out from separation will be long and likely bloody at some point.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Mar 2014)

I know I'm repeating myself, but ...

     1. I don;t think there will be a referendum; but

     2. Even if there is one I expect the "Non!" side, the federalist side, to win again.

I the highly unlikely event that Quebec does have a referendum and does vote "Oui" then we will negotiate, in good faith.

But the new Quebec state will be saddled with several unhappy regions; _separatism_ will be a real, big, often violent crisis for the new country.

There is a useful table of Quebec's regions in Wikipedia. Here is the map from that article:






My _guess_ is that Region 10 will rise up quickly in a (sometimes) violent separatist movement which will succeed because Quebec will be unable to counter it on either a military or political level.

I also _suspect_ that Region 7, the _Outaouais/Pontiac_ region, will also be heavily and sometimes violently _separatist_. Ditto of parts of Regions 5, 6 and 16.

My guess is that the "good faith negotiations" will produce a free trade and "free passage" agreement, think something like the _Schengen Agreement_ in Europe, which will make Canadian _intercourse_ between Atlantic Canada and _Upper Canada_ easy, but the "perceptive geography" problem will be very, very real.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Mar 2014)

anic:


I _truly_ don't know how some of you sleep at night.   :not-again:


----------



## Remius (14 Mar 2014)

The fact is guys, that support for a referendum is low.  Very low in fact.  Almost 60% plus don't want to hear or talk about it.  It's also hurting the PQ in the polls.  Their tactic of talking about it upfront seems to have backfired.  Yesterday at various press conferences they didn't even want to talk about it and are trying to change the channel and talk economy, something that Quebecers actually care about and something the PQ has proven to have a bad grip on. 

In fact, having a referendum and them losing badly might actually put a nail in that coffin once and for all.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> The fact is guys, that support for a referendum is low.  Very low in fact.  Almost 60% plus don't want to hear or talk about it.  It's also hurting the PQ in the polls.  Their tactic of talking about it upfront seems to have backfired.  Yesterday at various press conferences they didn't even want to talk about it and are trying to change the channel and talk economy, something that Quebecers actually care about and something the PQ has proven to have a bad grip on.
> 
> In fact, having a referendum and them losing badly might actually put a nail in that coffin once and for all.



Indeed.  The more Marois is in the press, the more she is making a fool of herself.  Even yesterday's jostling at the podium put her, and PKP, in a negative way.  Come April, there will be quite a different political climate in the province.


----------



## Remius (14 Mar 2014)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Quebec as it was in 1867, nothing more.  Unless parts of that want to be Canadian.
> 
> The Atlantic question is interesting given that the Quebec Patriotic Militia now has an "Acadian component" in Tracadie, NB.  Will the Acadians take their que from the Quebec and throw off the hated chains of English oppression? >  Will Franco-Ontarians march on Ottawa and liberate it?
> 
> The fact is the fall out from separation will be long and likely bloody at some point.




Edit.  Argh.  Screwed up my post.  Basically my response to this is that I think you don't really have a good grasp on francophones outside of Quebec.  Most do not support separation.  You know how Canadians sometimes identify themselves as not being American?  We'll with Francos  outside Quebec you can do the same only replace American with quebecer.

Separation in Canada would likely be more akin to the Velvet  divorce in Czechoslovakia.


----------



## Jungle (14 Mar 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As this is a discussion, as new facts are presented, views will change.  Your hurt feelings due to the "generalizations" in reference to the ruling Political Party in the province as meaning all Quebecers should require you both to lodge your complaints on a DA FORM IMT WF1 document enclosed and then circular filed:  DA FORM IMT WF1



 :

George, you are unsuccessful at hiding your own francophobia on this site, so anything anybody says against Francos will be OK with you.
I am a federalist, and I consider both Francos and Anglos with attitudes like technoviking idiots. I don't have hurt feelings, and your post is childish.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Mar 2014)

Jungle said:
			
		

> :
> 
> George, you are unsuccessful at hiding your own francophobia on this site, so anything anybody says against Francos will be OK with you.
> I am a federalist, and I consider both Francos and Anglos with attitudes like technoviking idiots. I don't have hurt feelings, and your post is childish.



I'll see your  : and raise you  :  :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Mar 2014)

Ooops, sorry. Thought this was the gun control thread for a minute.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Mar 2014)

Bonjour.  Je viens de l'ouest du Canada.  Qu'est qui ce passe maintenant?


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Mar 2014)

>Just out of curiosity, what about those families who have lived there for generations and don't want to "go"?

We won't know until negotiations begin.  Sometimes it's helpful to understand boundaries and which things are supersets or subsets, though.  For example, any political subdivision of Canada is more readily divisible and subject to being divided than Canada itself.  If the PQ assumes that Canada is divisible, they have already conceded that every acre of QC is also divisible.  There aren't enough police in Canada to prevent breakaway parts of QC from remaining in Canada; the SQ isn't going to be able to do it and probably its membership is unwilling to risk being whacked over it.  People who don't want to give up the benefits of living in a part of Canada won't have to unless they living in a riding/region with a strong-ish majority of vehement separatists.

Separatists operate under a number of willful delusions: that the territorial integrity of QC is inviolate; that they will continue to enjoy pretty much all the privileges they currently enjoy from being Canadian; that their standard of living is not going to crash hard; that they will have at least as much influence on the world stage as Senegal; that a lot of people will not elect to relocate out of QC once QC is fully responsible for all of its income taxes; etc.  I don't begrudge them their idiot child optimism, but I believe the proper approach to settling the on-again/off-again yowling from the intelligentsia who want to pose as a country is not to reassure Quebeckers that we like them and want to be nice to them and to offer bribes, but to reiterate ad nauseum how fu<ked up their new country will be and how remorselessly Canada is going to put the co<k to them because the first order of business for Canada is to look after the needs of Canadians - in essence, to remind them that nations have interests, not eternal friendships or divorces with ongoing carnal privileges.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Mar 2014)

> >Just out of curiosity, what about those families who have lived there for generations and don't want to "go"?



I suspect that the problem will sort itself in two ways:

1. Look at the map Edward has posted upthread. If you live in the regions where there is a supermajority for staying in Canada, then you will probably "separate" from Quebec and rejoin Canada.

2. People who wish to remain Canadians but live in regions dominated by a supermajority of separatists would be well advised to leave (for their own safety and security. and to continue to be able to participate in all the opportunities and privileges of being Canadian), and Canada shold be willing to pay for moving and resettling them. Funds could simply be allocated from what used to be "equalization" payments. 

Of course any separatist who is living in a region that wishes to remain part of Canada should be equally willing to relocate, and the "nation" of Quebec should be equally willing to fund the move as well.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Mar 2014)

According to Éric Grenier of ThreeHundredEight.com, reporting in the _Globe and Mail_, "The CROP/Radio-Canada poll put the PQ and the Liberals in a tie with 36 per cent apiece. Compared to the firm’s last pre-election poll, in which the PQ held a lead of 40 per cent to 34 per cent for the Liberals, this represented a significant tightening of the race." This poll was taken on March 8, the day before Mr. Pierre Karl Péladeau entered the race. His impact remains to be assessed.


----------



## Jungle (15 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> According to Éric Grenier of ThreeHundredEight.com, reporting in the _Globe and Mail_, "The CROP/Radio-Canada poll put the PQ and the Liberals in a tie with 36 per cent apiece. Compared to the firm’s last pre-election poll, in which the PQ held a lead of 40 per cent to 34 per cent for the Liberals, this represented a significant tightening of the race." This poll was taken on March 8, the day before Mr. Pierre Karl Péladeau entered the race. His impact remains to be assessed.



Another poll, on the TVA network (French-language owned by Québécor) puts the PQ and PLQ at 37% each, and the CAQ at 14%.
Hopefully the trend will continue.

Edited to add:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pqs-sovereignty-focus-is-errant-poll-finds/article17506979/?cmpid=rss1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=gplus


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Mar 2014)

How do those who have a better informed view of Quebec than I see M. Péladeau's impact?

My, distant, _sense_ of it is that he's actually done more harm than good. Was Mme Marois "start struck" by his celebrity status?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Mar 2014)

Personally [and I'm just going with the folks I know] I think they would see him as a rich spoiled brat who cannot be trusted.  My wife and her family almost spit on the ground when "businessmen" come up in conversation............and some of them have been entrepreneurs but it's like the typical Canadian celebrity psyche we have.   Be a big star but not too big.........


----------



## Jungle (15 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> How do those who have a better informed view of Quebec than I see M. Péladeau's impact?
> 
> My, distant, _sense_ of it is that he's actually done more harm than good. Was Mme Marois "start struck" by his celebrity status?



PKP has brought the referendum into the campaign, and I do not think that was the plan for the PQ. Marois is now trying to bring the focus to the economy (which was not the campaign plan to start with) so there is quite a bit of improvisation going on now. Actually, during one press conference, Marois physically pushed PKP away from the mic to answer a question.

The only reason PKP joined the PQ is to effect independance. The guy is right-wing, no friend of the unions and is not known as a team-player. He is used to micro-manage just about everything, and to making decisions on his own. I don't think his presence will help the PQ; actually, in the medium-term, I think it will harm them.

The CAQ approached PKP a few weeks ago, and I think that would have been a good match, save for the separatist aspect.


----------



## Jungle (15 Mar 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Personally [and I'm just going with the folks I know] I think they would see him as a rich spoiled brat who cannot be trusted.  My wife and her family almost spit on the ground when "businessmen" come up in conversation............and some of them have been entrepreneurs but it's like the typical Canadian celebrity psyche we have.   Be a big star but not too big.........



That is part of a strange aspect of the Québécois: the tense relationship with wealth. Especially other people's wealth...


----------



## Jungle (15 Mar 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Bonjour.  Je viens de l'ouest du Canada.  Qu'est qui ce passe maintenant?



Salut, il y a quelques imbéciles qui essaient de dérailler la discussion avec leurs vues intolérantes, mais à part ça, tout va bien.

Some members here denounce Québec's Charter Of Values,  but they are just as intolerant as those who proposed and support that charter.


----------



## Remius (15 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> How do those who have a better informed view of Quebec than I see M. Péladeau's impact?
> 
> My, distant, _sense_ of it is that he's actually done more harm than good. Was Mme Marois "start struck" by his celebrity status?



I won't pretend to have a better informed view than most but I like to think I'm informed enough.

Peladeau is going to hurt the PQ.  I think Marois underestimated the reaction he provoked.  My take is that she wanted to bring some economic legitimacy to her team, something the PQ is sorely lacking.   But she has hurt some her base support, the unions.  Add to that the referendum shenanigans that no one wants to hear about and, well, she's in a free fall. 

Remember this though.  Last election, people voted against the PLQ and likely, I would think, Charest. They didn't necessarily vote for the PQ so much as vote for anybody but Charest.  And given the false promises they (the PQ) made to students it is doubtful they will enjoy the support they gave them last time.

This may turn into a liberal minority.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Mar 2014)

I'm fairly certain that M. Péladeau is an opportunist who hitched his wagon to the PQ in the hopes of rapidly advancing his profile and political career (probably by pole vaulting over Ms. Marois after this election to take the leadership and presumably becoming Premier in one fell swoop).

While becoming a big fish in a (self created) small pond may be relatively easy to do, long term I suspect that the reaction from the ROC will harm his media empire and have a big impact on his economic fortunes. The sad thing is the Sun media chain provides a point of view that is otherwise lacking in the Canadian Media, and (provided you actually read/watch multiple sources including Sun media) balance as well. Damaging the Sun media brand and denying that voice may well be the most toxic legacy that M. Péladeau leaves behind.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> ...Remember this though.  Last election, people voted against the PLQ and likely, I would think, Charest. They didn't necessarily vote for the PQ so much as vote for anybody but Charest.  And given the false promises they (the PQ) made to students it is doubtful they will enjoy the support they gave them last time...



Would us 'têtes carrées' be wrong in looking at the PQ election as the provincial equivalent of the federal 'orange crush' protest vote in 2011?


----------



## Jungle (15 Mar 2014)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Would us 'têtes carrées' be wrong in looking at the PQ election as the provincial equivalent of the federal 'orange crush' protest vote in 2011?



If you're talking about the last Québec provincial election, yes. The electorate wanted to get rid of the Liberals because of the corruption, and the ADQ-turned-CAQ was (still is) too far to the right for most Québécois.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (15 Mar 2014)

Here is a funny GIF







GTFO Pierre Peladeau LOL


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Mar 2014)

Jungle said:
			
		

> If you're talking about the last Québec provincial election, yes. The electorate wanted to get rid of the Liberals because of the corruption, and the ADQ-turned-CAQ was (still is) too far to the right for most Québécois.



Was actually thinking Federal, where the NDP took 59 or 75 federal ridings.  I don't think Quebecers actually thought an elected NDP government would be what they wanted, but the message to the PLC was clear.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Mar 2014)

Been trying to stay away from this, but some observations come to mind.

What we appear to have here is the fallout of separation and negotiation.

The exact same arguements, slings and arrows, name calling and vindictive that will follow at the national level are in the works here.

Almost like a blueprint.

Stay at it everybody.

All the name calling and recriminations. The discussion points in languages that other sides may not understand, the outlandish accusations of nationalism on the basis of racism.

Maybe, the government of the time, whenever that may be, can cut to the chase, read this thread and solve their problems in one feld swoop.


_edit - spelling_


----------



## Infanteer (16 Mar 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The discussion points in languages that other sides not may understand, the outlandish accusations of nationalism on the basis of racisism.



My point (in French) was kind of hinting at that.  There are French speaking Canadians outside of Quebec and there are many Francophones in Quebec opposed to separation, so this isn't a French-English thing which is why we need to avoid getting throwing the word "they" around.

The other important point from my statement was that out West (remember that economic engine thing?) nobody really cares right now.  It's not news, nor is it alarming as it simply doesn't matter out here.  Folks living east of Thunder Bay see this as life and death but it really is a distant issue out here.  If this event ever did happen, obviously there'd be some choices to make, but Western Canada is not twisting itself into knots because a few loudmouths in another province's politics.  Welcome to the Pacific Century I guess.  

Quebec, and indeed the rest of Canada, needs to consider the PQ like a louder version of these guys - full of sturm and drang but that's about it:

http://www.freealberta.com/links.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Mar 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> My point (in French) was kind of hinting at that.  There are French speaking Canadians outside of Quebec and there are many Francophones in Quebec opposed to separation, so this isn't a French-English thing which is why we need to avoid getting throwing the word "they" around.
> 
> The other important point from my statement was that out West (remember that economic engine thing?) nobody really cares right now.  It's not news, nor is it alarming as it simply doesn't matter out here.  Folks living east of Thunder Bay see this as life and death but it really is a distant issue out here.  If this event ever did happen, obviously there'd be some choices to make, but Western Canada is not twisting itself into knots because a few loudmouths in another province's politics.  Welcome to the Pacific Century I guess.
> 
> ...








300 Milpoints headed your way. I _think_ the "they" comment was, actually, fairly carefully _refined_ to mean only those Quebecers who will vote for separation for all the wrong reasons, but it still isn't helpful, as we saw.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Mar 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> My point (in French) was kind of hinting at that.  There are French speaking Canadians outside of Quebec and there are many Francophones in Quebec opposed to separation, so this isn't a French-English thing which is why we need to avoid getting throwing the word "they" around.
> 
> The other important point from my statement was that out West (remember that economic engine thing?) nobody really cares right now.  It's not news, nor is it alarming as it simply doesn't matter out here.  Folks living east of Thunder Bay see this as life and death but it really is a distant issue out here.  If this event ever did happen, obviously there'd be some choices to make, but Western Canada is not twisting itself into knots because a few loudmouths in another province's politics.  Welcome to the Pacific Century I guess.
> 
> ...



I was speaking with my parents today and supposedly there is growing movement in Northern, NB (primarily amongst the Acadien population) who would want to separate from Canada and join Quebec should they choose to separate.  Understandably, I believe this is being driven by the poor economic fortunes of the French population in NB who are largely ignored by the "Golden Triangle" of Moncton, Saint John and Fredericton.  In any event, I tend to agree with you that the PQ like to blow a lot of hot air but that their isn't much behind any of it.  Quebecer's just don't see separation as an important issue right now.


----------



## upandatom (17 Mar 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The ROC is tired of the same ole, same ole.  The ROC will most likely welcome a referendum on separation and gladly bid Quebec "bonne journée" and "Bon voyage".  If Marois gets her majority and passes Bill 14, the only Anglos left in Quebec will be the elderly who do not have the means to leave.  The ethnic cleansing will be a fait accompli.
> 
> Quebec will be a richer province by it, richer than Alberta, after they tap all their oil and natural gas reserves.  The ROC will no longer have a 'spoiled child' whining for handouts and special treatment, and will see benefits in the reductions in administration costs and money transfers.  There would be no real losers in Separation.



I will easily agree on this (we barely do on matters GW) , with the exception that the Province/possible country wont be richer by any means. The higher ups will be rich. IE-Look at Marois holding an election so she can avoid testifying-thats why the election came earlier then expected-

First Nations own majority of the land where the natural resources are sitting, and they have already stated- a referendum is a no go in their lands (the lands make up about 50% of Quebec lands mass, it is quite significant) the last referendum they voted a whopping 96% NO seperation. 

In my eyes, let Quebeckistan seperate-
They can take their debt, (which increases by $21 million a day. there is an Iphone App for the debt and how much, how quickly it grows)
Allow the $20 Billion or so a year they take (which is 1/3 of what is allotted to  ALL PROVINCES and Territories) to be kept in in use for the rest of Canada
They will be removed from NATO, 
Any and all Free trade agreements with any country that Canada has set up will be null and void for Quebec
Military resources will be pulled from Quebec.
There will be a Mass Exodus of English and French population to NB,ONT, and most likely Alberta. (Last year 29000 Families moved from jan-sep to other provinces)  

From my eyes, its a Bonus, Quebec brings in about 7-8% of Canadian Export, for the amount they take, its a win win. 

Who cares, Canada loses the Montreal Port, meh, we can make do, ( regardless  I can see Montreal with its money, and high English, Italian, Irish and Jewish population it will say, umm no we are not seperating, )

There is another solution- The federeal government steps in and says "Smarten the F#$% up"
I dont give a shit if they signed the constitution or not, what has been going on their is disgusting, that province has become an embarassment for the rest of Canada. The corruption and the "Language Gustapo" the harassment of Anglos (even bilingual Canadians) needs to stop. 

Lose the baby gloves, treat Quebec like a grown up, 

The freedom to speak what language you prefer, wear simple religous and cultural items, is a Canadian right that we stand up for. 

YEs my grammar and spelling is horrible today, this issue just pisses me off to no avail.  

I will fully agree the "They" word needs to stop. It isnt a French English thing, this is a power hungry cow thing (just look how how flustered she is with the whole PKP issue), not a language.


----------



## Remius (17 Mar 2014)

An onteresting take on the local talk radio show this morning.  One of the pundits basically said that the reason support for sovereignty is so low these days is that Quebecers as a whole have no real beef with the RoC.  Most Quebecers see no reason to start a fight for no reason. 

The CPC is more than content to give Quebec more power in its own internal affairs as it lines up with their policies.  Something they are willing to do with all provinces.

Another interesting point was an explanation about PKP that lined up with what Gilles Duceppe was saying this weekend. When it comes to sovereignty there is no left and no right.  It's sovereigntists vs federalists and it may be why they thought bringing in PKP was a good idea given that he is more right than left.  Duceppe explained that in the sovereignty debate, federalists generally unite regardless of their political stripe but that for sovereigntists its somewhat more difficult.  

However, this didn't or hasn't really worked out well.  The PQ has lost the ethnic vote, the union vote, likely the student vote and now it would seem the soft nationalist vote.  

Looking forward to the debate on Thursday.

Pauline Marois will have a hard time re-defining her campaign...


----------



## xo31@711ret (17 Mar 2014)

'I was speaking with my parents today and supposedly there is growing movement in Northern, NB (primarily amongst the Acadien population) who would want to separate from Canada and join Quebec should they choose to separate.'....Sorry Royal, but I gotta disagree. Just a little background - I've been married to an Acadienne now since 1993; we met in Chatham 1991 a few years before it closed. She was a adm clerk, I was a medic after I LOTPed from the First in London Ont. We've been coming to here hometown for leave, holiday's etc since we met in '91. Both my girls always went to a francophone school ( not immersion): Gagetown, Sept-Iles, and here at Ecole Secondaire Nepisguit. When we were posted to NCSM/HMCS JOLLIET on an RSS posting from 06 to 010, I wrongly & stupidly thought I would be in the heart of separatists country, Duplessi region. I was wrong; yes I met a few die-hard separatists but for the most part the majority I met were proudly & firstly Quebecois but also happy to be Canadian...which I personally have no problem with. After we retired in 010, we a built a house here north of Bathurst, in a small Acadian village...I'm bettin' I'm probably one of the few ' Newfie square-heads' here . All my in laws are proudly Acadian. I've only had one problem with an older guy here (won't call him a gentleman) many years ago who dropped by at my father-in-law's camp & proceeded to drink my beer (which I had no problem with). But then he started to put me down because my french was poor & I was a' english newfie' all the while guzzling my beer.  Before I could politely explain to him what he could do with his (ball) cap,  my father-in-law( about 80 at the time) & borther-in-law stood up, said a few things in my defence before they showed him the door. I've been coming here since 1991 & have lived here since 010. Met a lot of great people, been to many functions at the local "Clue d'Or", Remembrance day ceremonies and I have NEVER yet met any here who would be in favour of separating, let alone joining with Quebec. I have personally had (just a couple) Quebecois in Chatham & Gagetown who, after I said my wife was a Francophone, asked me where in Quebec she was from. When I replied "new Brunswick, she's an Acadienne", they actually replied "Oh, t she really isn't french then." To which I replied "Yeah, no, when you meet her, I don't recommend you saying that". She stated that (on rare occasions) early in her career when she was posted at St Hubert when it was the Mobile Command HQ, she was poked fun at by (a very) few because of her 'accent' & use of anglo words. She felt that by these very few individuals, she was considered their country pumpkin cousin....and being a Newfoundlander, I sometimes felt the same by (a very few) idiots when I was posted to Ontario. Probably why I feel a kinship to Acadians - down to earth folks with their own unique culture, dialect & not full of s**t ....for me, in my uneducated opinion, the feds see Canada ending just west of Edmunston NB. For our provincial politicians in power here, New Brunswick ends just north of Moncton & Fredericton. Pro Patria & Militi Seccurimus


----------



## Journeyman (17 Mar 2014)

upandatom said:
			
		

> They can take their debt, (which increases by $21 million a day. there is an Iphone App for the debt and how much, how quickly it grows)
> Allow the $20 Billion or so a year they take (which is 1/3 of what is allotted to  ALL PROVINCES and Territories) to be kept in in use for the rest of Canada
> They will be removed from NATO,
> Any and all Free trade agreements with any country that Canada has set up will be null and void for Quebec
> Military resources will be pulled from Quebec.


And here I thought that there'd be complex negotiations and Constitutional issues; looks like it's a done deal.  :


----------



## George Wallace (17 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> An onteresting take on the local talk radio show this morning.  One of the pundits basically said that the reason support for sovereignty is so low these days is that Quebecers as a whole have no real beef with the RoC.  Most Quebecers see no reason to start a fight for no reason.



And the ROC have no real beef with Quebecers.  It is the Sovereignists that garner the wrath of non-sovereignists across the nation.   



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Looking forward to the debate on Thursday.
> 
> Pauline Marois will have a hard time re-defining her campaign...



Has she changed her mind on the English debates?


----------



## upandatom (17 Mar 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> And here I thought that there'd be complex negotiations and Constitutional issues; looks like it's a done deal.  :



Scotland tried a referendum (or their version) several years ago, In international law (I am definetly no lawyer by any means, this all was read from various news articles and editorials), and the same basic concept was that they lose all of that (NATO, trade agreements you name it). Im sure it is a shit tonne more complex, but you would think that it would be a precedent that it would be an idea of how it would work.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Mar 2014)

xo31@711ret said:
			
		

> ........... I have personally had (just a couple) Quebecois in Chatham & Gagetown who, after I said my wife was a Francophone, asked me where in Quebec she was from. When I replied "new Brunswick, she's an Acadienne", they actually replied "Oh, t she really isn't french then." To which I replied "Yeah, no, when you meet her, I don't recommend you saying that". She stated that (on rare occasions) early in her career when she was posted at St Hubert when it was the Mobile Command HQ, she was poked fun at by (a very) few because of her 'accent' & use of anglo words. ........




LOL in a sad kind of way.  It might be of interest to point out that when those very same people visit France, the 'real' French are quite often to treat them in the same manner.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> The CPC is more than content to give Quebec more power in its own internal affairs as it lines up with their policies.  Something they are willing to do with all provinces.



Which Quebec sees as part of the problem. How dare they not be treated as special!


"All animals are equal; some are more equal than others" - Orwell


----------



## Remius (17 Mar 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And the ROC have no real beef with Quebecers.  It is the Sovereignists that garner the wrath of non-sovereignists across the nation.
> 
> Has she changed her mind on the English debates?



Not that I've heard of.  I'm pretty sure though, that for her, the English vote is a write off anyway. Plus she has a really hard time communicating in English and I doubt she'll want to make things worse than they already are.


----------



## Remius (17 Mar 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> LOL in a sad kind of way.  It might be of interest to point out that when those very same people visit France, the 'real' French are quite often to treat them in the same manner.



This being one of the reasons francos outside Quebec generally don't identify as Quebecers or have any real willingness to support soverigntists.

A Franco-Ontarian with his specific accent and words is more likely to be treated as a minority in that province.  This happens a lot.  Not so much in the border area of Ontario/Quebec, but when you start going deeper it is somewhat surprising that a lot of people don't even think that francos exist outside Quebec.

As to the Acadian seperatists...lol.  Most of what Royaldrew posted should be taken as rumour and gossip from a friend of a friend.  There is no real seperatist movement there except for a few loud mouths.  The last time something like that happened was durng the height of the PQ in the 70s with the Parti Acadien.  I don't think they were able to even get a seat in the Legislature.  Being an officially billingual province and allowing french schools pretty much appeased whatever bad blood might have existed.  

When I was in high school, there was a girl who would spew out that Franco Ontarians should seperate.  Lol.  She got a lot of WTF looks from everyone.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> When I was in high school, there was a girl who would spew out that Franco Ontarians should seperate.  Lol.  She got a lot of WTF looks from everyone.



I imagine if you were to look her up again, she has not changed her stripes.  :-\


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Mar 2014)

xo31@711ret said:
			
		

> 'I was speaking with my parents today and supposedly there is growing movement in Northern, NB (primarily amongst the Acadien population) who would want to separate from Canada and join Quebec should they choose to separate.'....Sorry Royal, but I gotta disagree. Just a little background - I've been married to an Acadienne now since 1993; we met in Chatham 1991 a few years before it closed. She was a adm clerk, I was a medic after I LOTPed from the First in London Ont. We've been coming to here hometown for leave, holiday's etc since we met in '91. Both my girls always went to a francophone school ( not immersion): Gagetown, Sept-Iles, and here at Ecole Secondaire Nepisguit. When we were posted to NCSM/HMCS JOLLIET on an RSS posting from 06 to 010, I wrongly & stupidly thought I would be in the heart of separatists country, Duplessi region. I was wrong; yes I met a few die-hard separatists but for the most part the majority I met were proudly & firstly Quebecois but also happy to be Canadian...which I personally have no problem with. After we retired in 010, we a built a house here north of Bathurst, in a small Acadian village...I'm bettin' I'm probably one of the few ' Newfie square-heads' here . All my in laws are proudly Acadian. I've only had one problem with an older guy here (won't call him a gentleman) many years ago who dropped by at my father-in-law's camp & proceeded to drink my beer (which I had no problem with). But then he started to put me down because my french was poor & I was a' english newfie' all the while guzzling my beer.  Before I could politely explain to him what he could do with his (ball) cap,  my father-in-law( about 80 at the time) & borther-in-law stood up, said a few things in my defence before they showed him the door. I've been coming here since 1991 & have lived here since 010. Met a lot of great people, been to many functions at the local "Clue d'Or", Remembrance day ceremonies and I have NEVER yet met any here who would be in favour of separating, let alone joining with Quebec. I have personally had (just a couple) Quebecois in Chatham & Gagetown who, after I said my wife was a Francophone, asked me where in Quebec she was from. When I replied "new Brunswick, she's an Acadienne", they actually replied "Oh, t she really isn't french then." To which I replied "Yeah, no, when you meet her, I don't recommend you saying that". She stated that (on rare occasions) early in her career when she was posted at St Hubert when it was the Mobile Command HQ, she was poked fun at by (a very) few because of her 'accent' & use of anglo words. She felt that by these very few individuals, she was considered their country pumpkin cousin....and being a Newfoundlander, I sometimes felt the same by (a very few) idiots when I was posted to Ontario. Probably why I feel a kinship to Acadians - down to earth folks with their own unique culture, dialect & not full of s**t ....for me, in my uneducated opinion, the feds see Canada ending just west of Edmunston NB. For our provincial politicians in power here, New Brunswick ends just north of Moncton & Fredericton. Pro Patria & Militi Seccurimus



There's No Shore like the North Shore and that's for sure!  I am from Bathurst and lived there my whole life, both my parents still live there.  I can tell you that THERE IS underlying animosity between the Northern half of the province (predominantly French) and the Southern half of the province (predominantly English).  My father and mother are both quite well connected in the community as well and they spoke to me on the phone about this as well.  



> the feds see Canada ending just west of Edmunston NB. For our provincial politicians in power here, New Brunswick ends just north of Moncton & Fredericton.


  I agree with you on these two points but to clarify my point on NB potentially splitting I would say it would only be contemplated if Quebec did separate as the Canada as we know it would no longer need to be a bilingual country; therefore, the province of NB would no longer need to be a bilingual province.  Les Acadiennes and Quebecois may not get along but if the Acadiennes felt isolated before Quebec separation they will feel far worse afterwards.  I would think they would throw their lot in with Quebec in that case as I doubt English NB would want to maintain the province's bilingual status as their would be little reason to do so.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> As to the Acadian seperatists...lol.  Most of what Royaldrew posted should be taken as rumour and gossip from a friend of a friend.  There is no real seperatist movement there except for a few loud mouths.  The last time something like that happened was durng the height of the PQ in the 70s with the Parti Acadien.  I don't think they were able to even get a seat in the Legislature.  Being an officially billingual province and allowing french schools pretty much appeased whatever bad blood might have existed.



You talk like you know the in's and out's of NB politics but are you even from there?  Ever heard of the NB CORE Party, at one point in the 90's they were the official opposition party in NB.  Guess what one of their party platforms was?  Getting rid of bilingualism in the province.

NB may have official bilingualism but the economics and politics of the province are completely screwed up.  Development and investment basically ends at the Miramichi River Valley and the province may let Acadiennes practice French in school but you just need to drive in the back woods of Northern, NB along the "Peninsule Acadienne" and look at some of the people living in shanty houses on social assistance to realize equal opportunity doesn't necessarily mean equal.


----------



## Remius (17 Mar 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I agree with you on these two points but to clarify my point on NB potentially splitting I would say it would only be contemplated if Quebec did separate as the Canada as we know it would no longer need to be a bilingual country; therefore, the province of NB would no longer need to be a bilingual province.  Les Acadiennes and Quebecois may not get along but if the Acadiennes felt isolated before Quebec separation they will feel far worse afterwards.  I would think they would throw their lot in with Quebec in that case as I doubt English NB would want to maintain the province's bilingual status as their would be little reason to do so.



I think I disagree with that assessment.  I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong but consider the origin and nature of billingualism in New Brunswick (which predates 1982 by almost 12 years).  In reality it has nothing to do with Quebec.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that NB would only mainatin it's Billingual status even if Canada decided to drop it.  No other province is billingual anyways so i doubt that there would be a big change.  Only at the federal level.  Some provinces might still continue their policies or regional billingualism like Ontario and maybe Manitoba (which would likely have reduced services but still a regional form of official billingualism).

Francophones outside Quebec are already isolated from Quebec and were fighting for language rights for decades.  And these rights were mostly fought for at the provincial and municipal levels particularly for education and services.  As I've mentioned before, Quebecers (francos at any rate) are very uninformed or care little for francos that are not Quebecers.  While there have been some agreements and some financial and political support it is few and far between. 

In fact, Francos outside of Quebec have formed formal and informal alliances to promote the French language and French language rights within their own communities.


----------



## Remius (17 Mar 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> You talk like you know the in's and out's of NB politics but are you even from there?  Ever heard of the NB CORE Party, at one point in the 90's they were the official opposition party in NB.  Guess what one of their party platforms was?  Getting rid of bilingualism in the province.
> 
> NB may have official bilingualism but the economics and politics of the province are completely screwed up.  Development and investment basically ends at the Miramichi River Valley and the province may let Acadiennes practice French in school but you just need to drive in the back woods of Northern, NB along the "Peninsule Acadienne" and look at some of the people living in shanty houses on social assistance to realize equal opportunity doesn't necessarily mean equal.



Full disclosure.  I'm not from NB and I'm not from Quebec.  I am, I think, informed on issues affecting fancophones particularly those outside Quebec.  Me being from there or not should not necessarily have any impact on the argument.  It would be like me telling you that because you are not a francophone despite seemingly knowing the ins an outs of a particular subject that your arguments are not valid.  I would rather not use my cultural or language background to back up an argument and stick with some of the facts.  I have family in NB (yes acadians from my maternal side) but that has no impact on what I am saying except the personal link and yes I've been but not often to the province but enough to know that there are some spots I don't want my car to break down (I realise that is a stereotype). 

Back to COR though.  I am familiar with them.  But not intimately.  I remember when the Liberals owned every seat in the legislature.  I knew someone who was consulting on the procedural nightmare that was causing hence my interest in that particular situation.    One of there mandates was to drop the OL act but at the same time they wanted to regionalise language with unilingual French or English if the majority spoke that language.    But I believe that the voters were still displeased with the conservatives and their scandals and given that the party was a non entity afterwards should be telling that it was only a fringe movement with no gas.

Granted, an eventual seperation from Quebec might change that mood, however Acadians would likely fight within their own province than join an independant Quebec.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Mar 2014)

I am interested in how the various parties will react since the ground has shifted rather decisively towards economics as being the key issue of the election. I also will be looking to see if infighting starts within the ranks of the PQ, especially since separatism seems to have been kicked out from under their feet.

Whoever can move fastest and bring the best answers to the table for economic issues will probably pull ahead in this election.


----------



## Remius (17 Mar 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I am interested in how the various parties will react since the ground has shifted rather decisively towards economics as being the key issue of the election. I also will be looking to see if infighting starts within the ranks of the PQ, especially since separatism seems to have been kicked out from under their feet.
> 
> Whoever can move fastest and bring the best answers to the table for economic issues will probably pull ahead in this election.



I think, and many other pundits and experts are predicting this, that Couillard will talk economics but end every argument or point with a reminder that a vote for Marois is a vote for separation.  Marois will desperately try and change the channel.  But I doubt that the media or her opponents will let up or give her a break.  The debate should be lively.  The only real problem is what the PLQ offers (I don't know if they'll have anything substantive on that issue).  also remember that healthcare is a top issue, and this is also something that larders should focus on.

Marois's problem is that she declared an election, I think, to solidify her power, not necessarily for any mandate, just power.  She's likely under tremendous pressure from the PQ pure laines.  This is make or break for her.  And peladeau will be waiting in the wings, maybe.  

But, sovereignty, Peladeau and the recent dumb @ss comments from Mailloux about circumcision and baptisms being akin to rape all are hurting the PQ and creating a free fall.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> The only real problem is what the PLQ offers (I don't know if they'll have anything substantive .....


So they're just like their Federal counterparts?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Mar 2014)

Are things heating up? I don't know.

Normally, I don't look at things my spam filter catches, but this just got caught there.

I'm not debating, or agreeing with anything in it. I just thought that we should realize that we're not in our own little private discussion on this subject.

There are others out there taking it serious enough to start these emails. I also believe there are enough tin hat wearing people out there that all they need to jump on the bandwagon and make noise is an invitation, like this, in their inbox.

So here it is, posted in it's entirety.



> If Quebec should decide to hold a referendum and the Quebecois vote for leaving Canada, the fun starts.
> 1.	Aboriginals will refuse to give up their traditional territory.
> 2.	The St. Lawrence Seaway is jointly owned by Canada and the United States; Quebec has no claim to the lands set aside for the Seaway.
> 3.	Montreal is an island in the St. Lawrence and may not be part of a new Quebec.
> ...


----------



## Remius (17 Mar 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> So they're just like their Federal counterparts?



For now.  Looking at what they had promised as far as jobs and the economy goes in 2012, it was far more substantive than what the PQ was proposing.  I assume we'll hear more this week, week 2 of the campaign.


----------



## upandatom (17 Mar 2014)

Isnt New Brunswick officially Bilingual as well? 

and by bilingual I mean actually, truthfully, scouts honour Bilingual? not Quebec bilingual where english is borderline "tolerated"


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Mar 2014)

upandatom said:
			
		

> Isnt New Brunswick officially Bilingual as well?
> 
> and by bilingual I mean actually, truthfully, scouts honour Bilingual? not Quebec bilingual where english is borderline "tolerated"



I thought the same for Manitoba. They have a pretty large French speaking population  :dunno:


----------



## Remius (17 Mar 2014)

upandatom said:
			
		

> Isnt New Brunswick officially Bilingual as well?
> 
> and by bilingual I mean actually, truthfully, scouts honour Bilingual? not Quebec bilingual where english is borderline "tolerated"



New Brunswick is the only province that is "voluntarily" declared billigual.  Quebec is in fact the only officially declared unillingual province.  It is NOT billingual at all.

Manitoba although officially billingual is only so as a result of court rulings and not by any legislation or policy adopted by that province.  It in fact gets a disproportionate amount of linguistic services in comparison to its population when compared to other provinces.  It's actually quite a complicated situation.

The other provinces function in English but have not declared themselves as unilligual or English only.  Some like Ontario have developped regional billingualism policies.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Mar 2014)

Quebec is bilingual.




They speak French and Joual.


----------



## Remius (17 Mar 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Quebec is bilingual.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Its more like they read French and speak joual


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> New Brunswick is the only province that is "voluntarily" declared billigual.  Quebec is in fact the only officially declared unillingual province.  It is NOT billingual at all.
> 
> Manitoba although officially billingual is only so as a result of court rulings and not by any legislation or policy adopted by that province.  It in fact gets a disproportionate amount of linguistic services in comparison to its population when compared to other provinces.  It's actually quite a complicated situation.
> 
> The other provinces function in English but have not declared themselves as unilligual or English only.  Some like Ontario have developped regional billingualism policies.



Cheers.


----------



## xo31@711ret (17 Mar 2014)

' I agree with you on these two points but to clarify my point on NB potentially splitting I would say it would only be contemplated if Quebec did separate as the Canada as we know it would no longer need to be a bilingual country; therefore, the province of NB would no longer need to be a bilingual province.  Les Acadiennes and Quebecois may not get along but if the Acadiennes felt isolated before Quebec separation they will feel far worse afterwards.  I would think they would throw their lot in with Quebec in that case as I doubt English NB would want to maintain the province's bilingual status as their would be little reason to do so.'
...Drew, I'm NOT criticizing you my friend, far from it;I respect your opinion Brother. But here where I am (Robertville; being from Bathurst, you know where it is) I just don't see it, hear it, feel it. Mostly any time talk of separation, from what I hear is the exact opposite: proud to Acadian and Canadian. Same with retired military folks I served with from Tracadie, Caraquet & other places along the Acadian peninsula. Never have I heard anyone (from here) discuss any positives separating, especially with a union with Quebec if it separated. Quit the contrary actually. Of course a lot (not all) of these folks at the time were, or had been in uniform one time in their lives...I work in part time in Belledune at the port and I don't see it there either. I see some (very) minor animosity on rare occasions especially between the older folks; but even that is rare. I think some of that is 'history' driven. I remember when Bouchard,   before the referendum, came to New Brunswick in the Dieppe area to make a speech and looking for support. It was all over the news when he would be there, timings, etc. From talking to military friends who were at that 'town hall meeting', Bouchard was damn near run out on a rail...nary a peep from the media though. Cherrs Bud & Pro Patria "Never Pass A Fault'.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Mar 2014)

xo31@711ret

I think your calculations on the amount of francophones in New Brunswick comes up a little short.  The area from Grand Falls through Edmundston has a large francophone population.  Fredericton's francophone population is growing.  It is not just the North Shore from Campbellton to Cape Tormentine and into Dieppe.   

..................But we are straying way off topic now.


----------



## TCBF (17 Mar 2014)

Inky said:
			
		

> ...
> ... I don't see how this can end well....
> 
> The age of Nationalism is a bygone era and history has shown us that we'll be better off without it, why then should we still abide us by a political concept that is arguably responsible for provoking the devastation of Europe in the last century?
> ...



- Emotion is a good sign - it means that you care.
- Nationalism is the only bulwark against tribalism and fundamentalism. Nationalism is the only structure under which liberty can prevail. Notice I said liberty and not democracy. One can have democracy without liberty. Fact is, a bunch of cohesive small nations have a better shot at liberty than a small group of large nations or empires.
- The only constant regarding the boundaries of nations is that there is no constant. Canada will not 'end' any more than Germany 'ended' in 1945. Dozens of other examples exist.
- Give yourself a mission: Assume separation will take place. What policies should a future Canada and Quebec enact to ensure that they can both make decisions completely without input or interference from the other, yet result in being them the two top countries on earth that everyone will want to live in.  Now, make that future.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Mar 2014)

TCBF said:
			
		

> ...... Assume separation will take place.


When numerous people are citing polls showing the separatists falling, why would one start with that assumption?  So far, such thinking has done little other than showcase the bigots and people lacking the slightest comprehension of real-world politics/economics.


----------



## TCBF (17 Mar 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> When numerous people are citing polls showing the separatists falling, why would one start with that assumption?  So far, such thinking has done little other than showcase the bigots and people lacking the slightest comprehension of real-world politics/economics.



- Because the people who come out on top are those who can make "Plan B" work. 

- If it is even a POSSIBILITY, should we not be talking about the kind of Canada we want to live in?


----------



## a_majoor (18 Mar 2014)

While the PQ's hopes to win an election, possibly spring a referendum on people and emerge with a "mandate" for separation may be in shambles right now, it is not entirely clear that the other parties have what it takes to win the election.

The speculation about NB francophones wishing to join an independent Quebec makes the assumption they are willing to hitch their wagon to a much smaller horse. Most people believe that a newly independent Quebec will have a massive drop in their standard of living (even without subdividing into Quebec and the various territories which will return themselves to Canada, or the other self induced forms of turmoil which will happen, especially if there is a UDI).

I suspect that most people outside of Quebec, regardless of language or origin, will recognize that the new "nation" will be small, insular and have very limited opportunities for most people. Kind of like now, only ramped up to "11".


----------



## Remius (18 Mar 2014)

Today's CROP poll has the liberals jumping 3% ahead of the PQ.  This might be the Peladeau effect we were waiting for, shifting some undecided. 

The threat to the PQ isn't necessarily losing what they have, but the shifting undecided vote.


----------



## upandatom (18 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Today's CROP poll has the liberals jumping 3% ahead of the PQ.  This might be the Peladeau effect we were waiting for, shifting some undecided.
> 
> The threat to the PQ isn't necessarily losing what they have, but the shifting undecided vote.



I have given up on paying attention to the polls. They are very biased, one day the PQ is up 10%, the next day Liberals 5%, it depends on the source doing the poll and whoever is reading the answer. 

The fact is- What Marois has done is create a hate filled environment, one for the uneducated, unemployed, out of work welfare unilingual francophone (please let it be known I am not talking all francophones here, I know some that think she is stuck pig) that hates the english, they hate Canada. She has started by saying oh the reason why you are taxed so high is because Canada wants the money (fails to state they pull 33% of the federal provincial pool). There have even been quotes by her in the recent months agreeing with the PQs reasoning for the previous referendum failing is the "Jewish Money." It is utterly disgusting, They know Marois will fall for this and theat is why PKP, is next in line nipping at her heels. 

The sad part is, the money Quebecor Media Inc makes is from all of Canada, people "cancelled" there videotron because PKP and QMI own it; 
Well heres a thought-

Sun Media (newspapers) (includes the former Osprey Media)
TVA Group (broadcasting, publishing & production)
Vidéotron (cable television and internet service provider)
Canoe Inc. (internet websites including Canoe.ca/Canoe.com portal and Archambault.ca)
MediaPages (print and online directories)
TVA Publishing Inc. (largest magazine publishing company in Quebec)
Quebecor Media Book Group (book publishing companies)
Archambault stores (books, music and video)
Distribution Select (distributor of CDs and videos)
Le SuperClub Vidéotron (Movie rental stores)
Nurun Inc. (interactive agency)
Gestion Studios Bloobuzz S. E. C (a video games publisher)

Thats the list right from Wiki, that is alot of companies that people would have to start to "Boycott" 
He is still a major share holder in QMI

Its just a sad state of affairs. The comments, the harrassment, the assaults (literal assaults) on "anglos" who are also Canadians, because of the language they speak, and the Federal government sitting on their hands.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Mar 2014)

TCBF said:
			
		

> ...... should we not be talking about the kind of Canada we want to live in?


I'm already in the kind of Canada I want to live in -- and it includes Quebec.  As Monty Python pointed out, "I'm not quite dead yet."

So I'll leave you folks to it.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Mar 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'm already in the kind of Canada I want to live in -- and it includes Quebec.  As Monty Python pointed out, "I'm not quite dead yet."
> 
> So I'll leave you folks to it.



+1.

Too many Vandoos and Chaudieres and Royal Highlanders have spilt their blood for Canada to have the whole thing unravelled by a few small-minded folks on both the "We want to separate!" and "Good, go separate!" sides....


----------



## Jungle (18 Mar 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'm already in the kind of Canada I want to live in -- and it includes Quebec.  As Monty Python pointed out, "I'm not quite dead yet."
> 
> So I'll leave you folks to it.





			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> +1.
> 
> Too many Vandoos and Chaudieres and Royal Highlanders have spilt their blood for Canada to have the whole thing unravelled by a few small-minded folks on both the "We want to separate!" and "Good, go separate!" sides....



+2

Exactly, I refuse to let it all go to shit !!


----------



## TCBF (18 Mar 2014)

Jungle said:
			
		

> +2
> 
> Exactly, I refuse to let it all go to crap !!



- Are you in a position to refuse? What are your options?


----------



## Infanteer (18 Mar 2014)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Are you in a position to refuse? What are your options?



I'll be a guy who doesn't say "f**k, let them separate!"; that's as much as I can do.


----------



## Jungle (18 Mar 2014)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Are you in a position to refuse? What are your options?



I'm in a position to vote. What's your plan ??


----------



## TCBF (18 Mar 2014)

Jungle said:
			
		

> I'm in a position to vote. What's your plan ??



Right now, same as yours.  ;D

And I like Canada in it's present geographic form, it just needs some tinkering to roll back a bit of the Marxist thing we have going on. Or Fascist thing, depending on one's point of view. I suppose, to be accurate, I should call it a 'statist' thing, and get everyone - right and left - all riled up.


----------



## Remius (19 Mar 2014)

For those that care, it seems that the PQ might be trying to change the channel by using the charter of values.  Bernard Drainville has been announcing that a vote for the Liberals is a vote against the charter (well duh). 

At any rate it should be noted that, while popular with some segments of the population, it figures almost dead last in Quebecers political priorities.

I wonder if this is what they want to use to change the channel.  In my opinion it won't work.  Quebecers want a focus on health care and the economy.  With the Liberals now releasing a part of their economic platform it might be that the PQ doesn't feel it can win that issue so maybe they feel that by placing an issue they feel they can win on (even though it doesn't figure prominently among voters) they can change the conversation.

I really think that the PQ and Marois have completely misjudged everything from the begining, including launching this election.


----------



## Jungle (19 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I really think that the PQ and Marois have completely misjudged everything from the begining, including launching this election.



I think you are correct; they will bring back the charter because it was their workhorse for the last few months, and they were having some success with it. However, after a number of conversations with people here, I think the support is directed more to exploring solutions to the "accommodations" then to the charter in it's present form. But the PQ want to push it regardless, hopefully it will bite them in the ass (a bit more).


----------



## TCBF (19 Mar 2014)

The phrase "Intellectual Inbreeding" comes to mind.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Mar 2014)

Interesting story, reproduced, without further comment, under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/22/marois-hints-that-out-of-province-anglophones-may-sway-quebec-vote-through-fraud/


> Marois hints that out of province anglophones may sway Quebec vote through fraud
> 
> Canadian Press
> 
> ...



 :


----------



## Nfld Sapper (22 Mar 2014)

:facepalm: sounds like she is channelling Parizeau and his "ethnic vote" bullshit...


----------



## upandatom (24 Mar 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The wheel spins yet again. Based on the past referenda, the area of Quebec covered by majority separatists (as measured by riding) encompasses most of the area defined by "New France" at the time of the conquest: i.e. pretty much a strip along the St Lawrence river. It isn't a continuous strip either, Montreal is not pro separatist (note are several other areas as described up-thread).
> 
> As a technicality, the huge expanse of northern Quebec (south of James Bay) which was the old "Rupert's Land" territory of the HBC was only handed to Quebec as an administrative convenience (and this is also one of the areas where the Native population is quite vocal about not separating from Canada). If the "District of Ungava" were to separate from Quebec, we would have essentially a northern land corridor linking Ontario to Labrador, and in due time could build road, rail, pipeline and hydro corridors to link Canada to the Atlantic.
> 
> ...



Exactly- if its going to happen it will, Rick Mercer had a good rant- Also great point on letting "Ridings" go that want to, let them, instill guards on all military facilities until everything is moved out. 

Center of Canada has now moved West, noone cares about a Seperation anymore.


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Mar 2014)

For a break from speculating on the post-separation situation, this story from the Montreal Gazette reports that the latest poll suggests the Liberals have a seven point lead. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

Liberals ahead by seven points in latest poll


THE GAZETTE MARCH 25, 2014
  
Liberals ahead by seven points in latest poll

Results of a Léger Marketing poll of 3,692 people conducted for the Journal de Montréal and published March 25.
MONTREAL — A new poll by Léger Marketing has confirmed the Liberal Party of Quebec is ahead in voter intentions and heading toward not only winning the April 7 election but doing so with a majority.

The poll, published in the Journal de Montréal on Tuesday, shows the Liberals with 40 per cent support, followed by the Parti Québécois with 33 per cent, the Coalition Avenir Québec with 15 per cent, and Québec solidaire with nine per cent.

The poll, which had 3,692 respondents, making it the largest sample taken in this election, also shows the Liberals ahead in most of Quebec’s regions. It leads in the Outaouais, Montreal, Laval, Estrie, Chaudière-Appalaches, Mauricie and Quebec City regions, and slightly ahead in the Montérégie region. Its 42 per cent support in the Quebec City region, compared to 25 per cent for the PQ and 20 per cent for the CAQ, would change the map there. Nine of the CAQ’s 19 seats are in and around Quebec City.

The Liberals’ 53 per cent support in Laval, meanwhile, would likely translate into a sweep of the city in the next election. The Liberals currently have four seats on Ile Jésus, while the PQ has the other two.

The PQ leads in Abitibi-Témincamingue, Laurentians/Lanaudière, Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean/Côte-Nord and Bas-St-Laurent/Gaspésie/Iles-de-la-Madeleine regions.

Bryan Breguet of poll watcher Too Close to Call calculated that with this latest poll, the Liberals have a 71 per cent chance of a majority government, and an 86 per cent chance of winning the election.

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette


----------



## upandatom (25 Mar 2014)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> For a break from speculating on the post-separation situation, this story from the Montreal Gazette reports that the latest poll suggests the Liberals have a seven point lead. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.
> 
> Liberals ahead by seven points in latest poll
> 
> ...



I want to see this Corruption thing all the way to the end, (including Marois testifying) so Im going to bet on the Majority Government. I can see the Liberals hammering it jut to put the final kicks to the PQ when they are down. 

The biggest thing though, this is a Poll, from alot of different areas, but as you all know, the way someone or an area votes can change two streets over. Hopefully this is a bang on the nose poll.


----------



## Remius (25 Mar 2014)

Plus, it would seem that the PQ are in panic mode.  Trying to use fear mongering to get the vote.  Lol.  This was Marois' election to lose.  If she does lose, she's done.  But as we have seen, sometimes it just takes a slip up to turn things on their head.  Still two weeks to go...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Mar 2014)

The message is slipping from the control of the PQ, and currently the Liberals are opening a lead in the polls (of course we all know which poll actually counts). The National Post has two interesting articles on this, and Premier Marois is apparently also trying to keep her personal wealth out of the picture as well (the Liberal leader has offered to post his tax returns on line, she has refused):

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/26/parti-quebecois-says-it-was-told-to-keep-quiet-after-questioning-by-anti-corruption-cops/



> *Parti Québécois says it was told to keep quiet after questioning by anti-corruption cops*
> 
> Sidhartha Banerjee, Canadian Press | March 26, 2014 4:33 PM ET
> More from Canadian Press
> ...



and

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/26/matt-gurney-good-news-for-canada-even-the-separatists-cant-talk-about-separation/



> *Matt Gurney: Good news for Canada: Even the separatists can’t talk about separation*
> 
> Matt Gurney | March 26, 2014 9:05 AM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## upandatom (27 Mar 2014)

Election or Not, 

The investigation should continue- 

IDGAF, shes corrupt, she lies, and she incites fear mongering and hate crimes. If she is stealing money, there is no way her current position and the fact its mid election should interfere with a Criminal investigation into allegations of Fraud and Corruption. Any other Canadian would not be able to say, "what until April 7th", and if it were any other party, I guarantee that @%^ would be hooting and hollering to get it finished before the election was over. 

She goes against everything that being a Canadian stands for and it boggles my mind how the Federal government just sits back on its hands-

no it doesnt really, Quebec is not the centre of Canada anymore, the west is, with the oil and money. Good for them.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Mar 2014)

upandatom said:
			
		

> Election or Not,
> 
> The investigation should continue-



Yes, an investigation should continue, but everyone is still innocent until proven guilty



> She goes against everything that being a Canadian stands for and it boggles my mind how the Federal government just sits back on its hands-



The strategy of the PQ is to provoke fights with the Federal Government and the ROC. The best strategy in this case is to place them on "ignore" and let them start chewing on each other


----------



## Infanteer (1 Apr 2014)

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/31/andrew-coyne-marois-pq-joins-list-of-those-who-would-use-notwithstanding-clause-to-block-minority-rights/

Interesting editorial, if not for the specifics on PQ anticipated stratagems, then for Coyne's comment:



> Which is clarifying in a different way. It reminds us of what kind of country we live in, and what kinds of things are possible in it. If the PQ wins a majority, that is, and proceeds with its plans, it will mean that in Canada, in 2014, a government can pass legislation to, in effect, purge the civil service of religious minorities — thousands of observant Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs, dismissed from employment for no reason other than that they refuse to renounce the symbols of their faith — and those affected can have no recourse to the courts to protect them. And we owe this possibility to the notwithstanding clause.



We must always be suspicious of the term "progress".  In the 20th century, the nation with the cultural inheritance of Beethoven, Schiller and Goethe was able to convince itself to stick six million people in ovens.  Humanity is capable of repeating such feats of evil and quotes like Coyne's remind one of hell and intentions....


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Apr 2014)

I've noticed that progressive are never "like that anymore" (whatever "that" was); and while it may be true as a statement of fact relative to a particular value of "that", it's a mistake to conflate that with "and could never make another grave mistake".

Morality is a measure of intentions, means, and ends.  There is no pass for 1 out of 3, or even 2 out of 3.

The most important role of keystone legal documents (charters, constitutions, etc) is to spell out how governments are constrained and restrained.  Spelling out limitations on the person rather than the state and providing get-out-of-jail clauses for governments are signs of dangerously weak documents.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Apr 2014)

Good news, in my _opinion_, from an article in the _Globe and Mail_ which says that "The PQ fell to 28 per cent support, nine percentage points behind the Liberals ..." 

Four days to go.


----------



## Remius (3 Apr 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Good news, in my _opinion_, from an article in the _Globe and Mail_ which says that "The PQ fell to 28 per cent support, nine percentage points behind the Liberals ..."
> 
> Four days to go.



Much more important is the fact that the francophone vote is tied.  That is an important number to watch and is surprising (as rightly stated in the article).  Of course undecided voters could swing things.

I imagine that the PQ is hoping they can prevent a Liberal majority and try and keep them at a minority situation.  Amazing how they went from possibly forming a strong majority to possibly losing badly.  And they managed to do it to themselves on the merits of their fantasy land ideas.  

I suspect that heads will roll and party purges will occur.  Marois, dubbed the Concrete Lady, won't survive this.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Apr 2014)

Good analysis, Crantor, thanks for that. I'm an _outsider_ and I miss many of the nuances.

Milpoints awarded.


----------



## upandatom (3 Apr 2014)

I agree,
I also read that PKP is not doing so well. He hasnt the support with his constituents they thought he would.


----------



## Jungle (3 Apr 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Much more important is the fact that the francophone vote is tied.  That is an important number to watch and is surprising (as rightly stated in the article).  Of course undecided voters could swing things.



Yes, and the Franco vote is rarely head-to-head; it is usually in favour of the PQ. The present situation is significant.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> I imagine that the PQ is hoping they can prevent a Liberal majority and try and keep them at a minority situation.  Amazing how they went from possibly forming a strong majority to possibly losing badly.  And they managed to do it to themselves on the merits of their fantasy land ideas.



Right now, the PLQ is looking at a good chance of forming a majority govt.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> I suspect that heads will roll and party purges will occur.  Marois, dubbed the Concrete Lady, won't survive this.



They always do; after the loss, the PQ lynch mob will come out and take care of Marois. The party is known for eating it's leaders after a defeat.


----------



## Privateer (3 Apr 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Marois, dubbed the Concrete Lady, won't survive this.



Turns out it was that special Quebec concrete.  http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/montreal-is-falling-down/


----------



## a_majoor (3 Apr 2014)

PKP is also likely to see the ROC take its revenge as well, dumping readership and viewership to Quebecor properties like the Sun chain of newspapers and Sun TV. He personally may be insulated from heavy financial losses, but the employees of Quebecor will not be so fortunate.

In a way that is sad, since this is probably the only legacy media outlet that connects with the populist strain in the body politic, and provides an outlet for both readers and writers who are not wedded to the "Laurentian consensus", but he did it to himself.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Apr 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Much more important is the fact that the francophone vote is tied.  That is an important number to watch and is surprising (as rightly stated in the article).





			
				Jungle said:
			
		

> Yes, and the Franco vote is rarely head-to-head; it is usually in favour of the PQ. The present situation is significant.



Could this be the death knell of separatism as a real political movement in Quebec?  Could the PQ be moving to the "buzzing fly" nature of _Alberta First_?


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Apr 2014)

I expect it will take another couple of generations to cough its lungs out completely.  I suppose demographic and social changes have killed separatism, but separatists haven't figured it out yet.  Canadians can exchange news and views much more readily than they could the last couple of go-arounds, so excluding curmudgeons such as myself, Canadians - younger ones in particular - are forming more cross-country ties.  French as a language in Canada is not going away.  It has become apparent that no one province should assume it will be prosperous forever; being a national citizen of Canada poses more opportunities than being a national citizen of Quebec.  Immigrants to Quebec from outside Canada may select Quebec for linguistic and cultural reasons, but presumably their main aim was to immigrate to Canada.

The appeal for separatism may continue to be very strong, but only in diminishing, relatively homogeneous regions.


----------



## Jungle (3 Apr 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Could this be the death knell of separatism as a real political movement in Quebec ?



I would not go that far, but it could be the beginning of the end, as Brad Sallows explained. I wish the PQ was given the same treatment as the BQ and separatism become a marginal movement.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Apr 2014)

I expect that if the Liberals form even a minority government that Ms Marois will not get a chance to fall on her sword. More likely "night of the long knives".


----------



## Remius (4 Apr 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Could this be the death knell of separatism as a real political movement in Quebec?  Could the PQ be moving to the "buzzing fly" nature of _Alberta First_?



I doubt that it will ever truly go away but it may become a much more fringe movement.  Not unlike confederate secessionists in the U.S.  (my many trips to South Carolina has shown me that many people there truly believe teh south shall rise again).

But an interesting analysis last night with CBC's At Issue Panel was that this would set back the PQ agenda some 30 years (meaning it's essentially dead).  What gives this more meaning that anything we have heard before is that this statement is coming from PQ and Bloc insiders.  

They are essentially stating that this election is indeed a pseudo-referendum (a sort of referendum on a referendum) since it would seem that the subject of holding a referendum is front and center and will most probably be rejected en masse. 

The threat of seperation might indeed be relagated to the most militant types but Quebec Nationalism will be as strong as ever.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Apr 2014)

Which is fine - "provincialism" (if that's what we call provincial nationalism) is fine in Canada.  It will be far easier to have those discussions with all 10 provinces with separatism put into a box and pack away.


----------



## upandatom (4 Apr 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I doubt that it will ever truly go away but it may become a much more fringe movement.  Not unlike confederate secessionists in the U.S.  (my many trips to South Carolina has shown me that many people there truly believe teh south shall rise again).
> 
> But an interesting analysis last night with CBC's At Issue Panel was that this would set back the PQ agenda some 30 years (meaning it's essentially dead).  What gives this more meaning that anything we have heard before is that this statement is coming from PQ and Bloc insiders.
> 
> ...



Ill agree to an extent, but I think its more of a new generation. Educated, the internet has been and is a wonderful tool. Its spreading information, faster and easier then before. People are being educated and not sheltered on what is happening Nationally, and Provincially around them instantaneously via smart phones, FB, Twitter, you name it. 

The last election she used the students to gain the edge with anti corruption (huh funny how the tables have turned and now the PQ are being investigated). With the tables turned, more prominent issues are at hand such as Jobs, infrastructure and health care. 

I honestly believe the typical seperatist is just getting to old to fight the good fight anymore. those that voted in 95, minimum age of 18, are now possibly educated, have careers, and are now 37, comfortable in their lives and realising a Country of their own might not be the best thing. 

The new generation of voters wants to stay in Canada, they are proud to be Canadian, and are willing to fight to stay Canadian. 

I fully believe that is why there has been a huge swing in the popularity vote. (and the fact many realise a Country of Quebec would be third world and broke as #%^$)


----------



## dapaterson (4 Apr 2014)

I recall discussions with a friend in the early 90s (before the 95 referendum).  At that point, his intent was to go into business.  So, his philosophy was "We'll have a referedum, I'll vote yes, it will fail, then we'll abandon that idea and start voting Reform."

I don't think any of the political parties has managed to tap into Quebec's youth - they aren't Levesque era Pequistes, but nor do they respect the patronage laden Liberal brand.  My personal view is that the last federal election, with the NDP wave, may not have been an abberation.  A new provincial soical democrat party without the sovereignist trappings could have significant success.


----------



## observor 69 (4 Apr 2014)

"A new provincial soical democrat party" 

I just got a headache reading the Wiki history of various permutations of Social Democratic parties in Quebec.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Apr 2014)

I just saw this on _Twitter_:

Pour rappel, avant les sondages de la fin de semaine, voici la situation actuelle:
(As a reminder, before the polls this weekend, here is the current situation





Source: Le Journal de Montreal

There are 125 seats in the National Assembly, a majority requires 63 seats. The polls suggests there is a good chance of a Liberal majority.


Edit, to add:

And the _Montreal Gazette_ suggests that the vote split will produce a *"Slim Liberal majority ... as PQ continues to slide"*. The _Gazette_ pegs the Liberals at 41% support, PQ at 29%, CAQ at 19% and Québec solidaire at 7%.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Apr 2014)

And the above is supported by this analysis, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Angus Reid Global_, supports the above polls:

http://www.angusreidglobal.com/polls/48942/quebec-liberals-lead-on-eve-of-final-campaign-weekend-movement-of-caq-vote-hurts-pq/


> Quebec Liberals lead on eve of final campaign weekend; movement of CAQ vote hurts PQ
> *Marois deemed best premier by 20% of eligible voters.*
> 
> *April 4, 2014*
> ...




Going back a month, to the post that opened this thread, it appeared then, to me, that a PQ *majority* was possible.

It now looks, to me again, anyway, as if Mme Marois has totally bungled a campaign that was her's to win ~ based on the popularity of the _Quebec Charter of Values_ amongst older voters in key, largely French speaking ridings ~ and a PLQ _majority_ is not more likely.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Apr 2014)

Chantal Hébert, in the _Toronto Star_, strikes me as being someone who understands Quebec and here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright from that journal, are her thoughts on Monday's election:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/04/04/quebec_election_campaign_a_devastating_blow_to_sovereigntists_hbert.html


> Quebec election campaign a devastating blow to sovereigntists: Hébert
> *Over the past month Quebec voters have all but spelled the three letters of the word NON in boldfaced characters for Pauline Marois to read.*
> 
> By: Chantal Hébert National Affairs, Published on Fri Apr 04 2014
> ...




I think we need to remember Jacques Parizeau's hockey game analogy. While I will be mightily pleased if the PQ is humbled on Monday, I do not believe it will finally douse the fires of separatism. Charismatic leaders like Bouchard and skilled political tacticians like Parizeau can, and will try to resurrect it. A PLQ victory on Monday will signal an intermission, not the end of the game.


----------



## pbi (5 Apr 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And the above is supported by this analysis, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Angus Reid Global_, supports the above polls:
> 
> http://www.angusreidglobal.com/polls/48942/quebec-liberals-lead-on-eve-of-final-campaign-weekend-movement-of-caq-vote-hurts-pq/
> 
> ...



You might be right, but my gut feel is that this thing is slowly but surely dying a natural death. And thank God for that. I am not one of those who says "F8ck 'em: let 'em go".

I think (very unscientifically) that I have seen three indicators in the last few years that suggest that Quebecers' view of Canada is changing:

-lots more Quebec license plates on the 401. Maybe it's the Anglos fleeing, or Quebecers deciding to cross border shop in Detroit, but I doubt it. I think they are feeling way more comfortable about simply visiting the rest of Canada. I hope so;

-here in Kingston, LOTS of Quebecois tourists. Lots.  Again, maybe there are reasons I don't understand, but I see it as positive; and

-the many young Franco officers that I have come into contact with in the last few years seem to lack that sullen, "chip-on-the shoulder" attitude that was, IMHO, prevalent years ago.

I think (and I hope...) that time, an increasingly better standard of education and of living, and the introduction of immigrants who are from _le Francophonie _but don't spend their lives fretting about The Conquest, are gradually changing things. There will always be pockets of _ Independentistes_, but I think with less and less power.

Patience, thoughtfulness and a reasonable level of respect for Quebecer's concerns will, I believe, see us through to a better day.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Apr 2014)

Mme Marois.

The Tim Hudak of Quebec.

Motto:

Snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Apr 2014)

Stick 'em both into Thunderdome.....


----------



## GAP (5 Apr 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Mme Marois.
> 
> The Tim Hudak of Quebec.
> 
> ...



Hmm....seems to be in the water....BC NDP,  Wild Rose in Alberta, PC's in Manitoba, PC's in Ontario....


----------



## a_majoor (5 Apr 2014)

GAP said:
			
		

> Hmm....seems to be in the water....BC NDP,  Wild Rose in Alberta, PC's in Manitoba, PC's in Ontario....



Those are not the parties of the Laurentian consensus....


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Apr 2014)

Well, today's the day, and here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is and analysis of what the political future _might_ hold for _la belle province_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/election-results-pivotal-for-divided-quebec/article17849135/#dashboard/follows/


> Election results pivotal for divided Quebec
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I don't think the _sovereignty_ notion is dead but I do think that many Quebecers have decided that the better route to sovereignty is through Canada, by making Canada into something more akin to the EU, something that Prime Minister Harper, at least the Stephen Harper who wrote the "Alberta firewall" letter and who declared Quebec to be a _nation_, might like ~ through, in other words, a steady _devolution_ of federal powers to the provinces (or to regional groups).


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Apr 2014)

I wonder if the thoughts in this opinion piece by former Conservative minister Monte Solberg explains, in some part, why the CAQ is doing so well. As Solberg notes, Alberta (population 4 million) is about to replace Quebec (population almost 8 million) as Canada's second largest economy.

That _status_ says a lot about what's wrong in Quebec: _low *productivity*_.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (7 Apr 2014)

Get out and vote today!

Ref: CANELECTGEN 001/14: "CF MEMBERS AND DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE EMPLOYEES ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN QUEBEC SHALL BE GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME TO VOTE. THE QUEBEC ELECTION ACT PROVIDES THAT ELIGIBLE ELECTORS ARE ENTITLED TO FOUR CONSECUTIVE HOURS FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING."


----------



## Remius (7 Apr 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I wonder if the thoughts in this opinion piece by former Conservative minister Monte Solberg explains, in some part, why the CAQ is doing so well. As Solberg notes, Alberta (population 4 million) is about to replace Quebec (population almost 8 million) as Canada's second largest economy.
> 
> That _status_ says a lot about what's wrong in Quebec: _low *productivity*_.



It definitly is a reason why the economy is in decline.  The CAQ knows this and wants to set things right.  The CAQ is doing well because it is able to woo those fiscally responsible Péquistes and nationalists that know that the key to true sovereignty is a robust and thriving economy.  Legault left the PQ for that reason. 

They are also able to woo disenfranchised liberal voters who want to vote for an alternative ceacuse the CAQ at least in the short term aren't talking about seperation. 

I think the CAQ will eat a lot of the PQ support as voters scarmble to vote for anyone but PQ but without having to compromise themselves by voting for a federalist party.  Given the choice between the CAQ's fiscally responsible platform and Action Solidaire's left leanings who are talking about seperation, the CAQ likely looks better and what they feel they need.

All this looks good for the PLQ, as the nationalist vote (both left and right get split).  

As a side note:  Even though the polls are in the Liberal's favour, anything can happen tonight.  The best line on today's talk radio was "Poll splitting does not necessarily mean vote splitting".


----------



## upandatom (7 Apr 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I wonder if the thoughts in this opinion piece by former Conservative minister Monte Solberg explains, in some part, why the CAQ is doing so well. As Solberg notes, Alberta (population 4 million) is about to replace Quebec (population almost 8 million) as Canada's second largest economy.
> 
> That _status_ says a lot about what's wrong in Quebec: _low *productivity*_.



It is a huge drive that Alberta is the main center for commerce now, even Ontario has had a decline in the economy, but Quebec is not making money for problems with the Provincial Government. 

Low productivity due to people leaving the province in herds, businesses and companies (international corporations as well) are saying see you later Quebec, they are paying to move their top brass, but not the worker bees. 

Plain and Simple- nobody wants to try to make money in Quebec anymore, the government with its previous corruption, and PQ with its made up problems (Charter of values?? come on, thats why we are Canadian, we fight as Canadians for Canadians rights and beliefs, not so we can tell people what they can and cant wear) 

FYI in 19 Months, this Province has wasted $160 Million dollars in Elections, that $160 million could of gone to social programs or stimulating the economy.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Apr 2014)

Low productivity is also a result of counterproductive government regulations which tangle business in red tape and slow or even stop investment. This is applicable at all levels (for the small businessman trying to start something as simple as a food truck, dealing with City Hall could kill the business even before it starts. In London ON City Council refused to license food trucks until committee "reviewed the menus" to ensure they were nutritious and "diverse" with the report to come back in Sept, costing the truck operators the entire summer. Toronto truck operators faced a similar battle). Tim Hudak had an interesting story at a PCPO gathering about a person wanting to open a boutique winery employing 4 people: they needed to fill out forms for 8 separate departments and ministries (who would have blamed the owner for packing it in due to frustration?).

Considering that the average small business owner is estimated to do 30hr/month on paperwork in Ontario, the owner is putting in almost a full week "working" for the government rather than growing thier business, and since they are working 3/4 of the month on their business and the other 1/4 for the government(s) it is no wonder they are being clobbered by the Chinese and other competitors.

One can only imagine what small business in Quebec has to put up with.


----------



## Remius (7 Apr 2014)

Language laws, and now this charter thing do not help any business.  Also the threat of economic instability does not help either.

The PQ complains of McGill students just doing a drive by for studies.  Fine but what does the province do to keep them?  Nothing.  

Did you know that one has to speak french to be admitted to the Ordre des Ingeniueurs du Quebec?  Doesn't matter that you might be the best PEng in Ontario, if you don't speak the language you can't work there.  Or how about the fact that the province refuses to acknowledge various provincial and international accreditations that are in fact superior to Quebec's?

So you can't attract talent, you marginalise people that might actually contribute something and block your ears as if nothing is wrong.  

The PQ's big issue is cultural identity when in fact every Quebecer is on the hook for 24 000$ per person in debt and no real plan for servicing the debt that grows every year because of the massive interest on it.

But hey, let's spend millions to enforce detrimental language laws and the 28 foreign offices to promote Quebec's interests abroad.

Or how about the student tuition that is heavily subsidized and hasn't seen an increase in 30 years.  Protugual had free tuition and look where it has gotten them.

Many Quebecers want it all but don't want to pay for it.  That's the real issue.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Apr 2014)

From 308:

http://www.threehundredeight.com/2014/04/final-quebec-projection-liberal-victory.html


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Apr 2014)

I think anything other than a PQ majority would spell the end of days for Ms Marois. While she may not face immediate repercussions, there will be slow and painful erosion of her influence and ability to lead the party.

I also have to think that given 308's track record that if the results fall anywhere into the high-low band then the PQ is done; which probably means the same thing for Ms Marois.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (7 Apr 2014)

The Toronto Star (among others) has a  interactive map  showing the Quebec riding's and results as the polling stations start posting numbers. 

As the polls start reporting the Liberals are leading in 39 riding's and the PQ in just 17. Still early in the game however.


----------



## Remius (7 Apr 2014)

Following radio canada.  13 liberal elected leading in 40. PQ have 3 and leading in 17.  Early but fast.


----------



## Remius (7 Apr 2014)

And radio canada is calling it.  Liberal government.  Still not sure if it will be a majority.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Apr 2014)

That's some serious spankerin' going on right now.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Apr 2014)

Just one poll in but even Marois is behind in her riding........I'm sure she'll win it but still one can dream.


----------



## Remius (7 Apr 2014)

And they are calling a majority liberal now.


Wow.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Apr 2014)

CBC just called a Liberal majority....


----------



## Journeyman (7 Apr 2014)

I guess the people who immediately jumped on the "OMG anic: They're separating! Fck those Quebec bastards!" bandwagon are feeling a little dumb now.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (7 Apr 2014)

Wonder how Mr. Peladeau is doing in his riding??


----------



## Remius (7 Apr 2014)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Wonder how Mr. Peladeau is doing in his riding??



Slight lead last time I saw.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (7 Apr 2014)

PKP won his riding...


----------



## Remius (7 Apr 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I guess the people who immediately jumped on the "OMG anic: They're separating! Fck those Quebec bastards!" bandwagon are feeling a little dumb now.



What's more, and this will be in the postmortem, is that the CAQ hasn't stolen that much of the PQ vote. It seems that Quebec is stating loudly that a referendum is not wanted in very firm terms.  I doubt that I'll ever see one or the threat of one in my lifetime barring some crisis.  


There will likely be some serious soul searching happening in the PQ.  Their very reason to exist has been rejected.


----------



## Jungle (7 Apr 2014)

Marois is ahead by only 121 votes in her riding...


----------



## Infanteer (7 Apr 2014)

Today I'm proud of my fellow countrymen and women in Quebec for showing themselves to be true Canadians.  They said "non" to a party running on a bigoted platform that flew in the face of everything it means to be Canadian (that Charter policy belonged to South Africa of the 1950s and not Canada of the 2010s).  They said "non" to a party that only sought to cause discord and damage to the internal dialogue of our nation.  They said "oui" to moving on with things and taking Quebec into the 21st century with the rest of Canada.  

We grouse about democracy from time to time, but today was the perfect example of why it works.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Apr 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Today I'm proud of my fellow countrymen and women in Quebec for showing themselves to be true Canadians.  They said "non" to a party running on a bigoted platform that flew in the face of everything it means to be Canadian (that Charter policy belonged to South Africa of the 1950s and not Canada of the 2010s).  They said "non" to a party that only sought to cause discord and damage to the internal dialogue of our nation.  They said "oui" to moving on with things and taking Quebec into the 21st century with the rest of Canada.
> 
> We grouse about democracy from time to time, but today was the perfect example of why it works.



If only we had a 'Facebook type" like button.....


----------



## Nfld Sapper (7 Apr 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> If only we had a 'Facebook type" like button.....


 :goodpost:

 ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Apr 2014)

Marois is ahead in her riding by 400 votes now.............I guess we can't have everything.


----------



## Remius (7 Apr 2014)

She won't be around for too long.  Don't worry to much about her being elected lol.


----------



## cupper (7 Apr 2014)

She should be reelected.

I believe it is suitable punishment for the leader of a defeated party to have to go back and sit as the defeated leader, and feel such embarrassment as can be heaped upon them.

Like a taking a penalty in hockey. You go to the box, feel shame for 2 minutes.


----------



## Jungle (7 Apr 2014)

Marois's lead has shrunk to 125...


----------



## Jungle (7 Apr 2014)

Marois's lead down to 70...

EDITED: now down to 8 !!


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Apr 2014)

I think the concrete lady will soon be wearing cement galoshes.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Apr 2014)

Losing by 40..


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Apr 2014)

The one guy on CBC has a point,...it would be easier for her to lose and not have to walk back into the Govt. building.


----------



## Jungle (7 Apr 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Losing by 40..



Tipping point.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Apr 2014)

Trailing by 400


----------



## Jungle (7 Apr 2014)

Marois now 427 behind, with only a few boxes left to count.


----------



## Jungle (7 Apr 2014)

Pauline Marois has now been defeated.


----------



## Journeyman (7 Apr 2014)

While it reinforces the message that her policies aren't where the populace are heading, it would he nice for her to keep her seat and have to deal with her party's defeat on a regular basis until the next election.  Otherwise, a win for her could still be interpreted (clutching at straws) as "I'm still right, but the voters simply didn't like the party's roster of candidates; separation and 'you shall/shall not wear...' is still on."


Edit: pedantic punctuation


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Apr 2014)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Pauline Marois has now been defeated.



Happy dance... rancing:


----------



## Janie Therrien (8 Apr 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Today I'm proud of my fellow countrymen and women in Quebec for showing themselves to be true Canadians.  They said "non" to a party running on a bigoted platform that flew in the face of everything it means to be Canadian (that Charter policy belonged to South Africa of the 1950s and not Canada of the 2010s).  They said "non" to a party that only sought to cause discord and damage to the internal dialogue of our nation.  They said "oui" to moving on with things and taking Quebec into the 21st century with the rest of Canada.
> 
> We grouse about democracy from time to time, but today was the perfect example of why it works.



Well said!!


----------



## Remius (8 Apr 2014)

She just resigned.


----------



## PMedMoe (8 Apr 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> She just resigned.



Sore loser....   :


----------



## Jungle (8 Apr 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Today I'm proud of my fellow countrymen and women in Quebec for showing themselves to be true Canadians.  They said "non" to a party running on a bigoted platform that flew in the face of everything it means to be Canadian (that Charter policy belonged to South Africa of the 1950s and not Canada of the 2010s).  They said "non" to a party that only sought to cause discord and damage to the internal dialogue of our nation.  They said "oui" to moving on with things and taking Quebec into the 21st century with the rest of Canada.
> 
> We grouse about democracy from time to time, but today was the perfect example of why it works.



Very well said... I am extremely happy with the results. The PQ is taking a serious beating, and the message is clear: the majority of Québécois want to remain in Canada, and they want to be inclusive while protecting their language and culture. The Liberals now have 4 years to advance their agenda, and I'm convinced the opposition will be breathing down their necks to keep them honest.

It's now time to move forward.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Apr 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> We grouse about democracy from time to time, but today was the perfect example of why it works.


Disagree.  It was an example of a popularity contest picking the team that we wanted. Democracy in its current form is a shitty system.

Here is but one example of the popularity contest picking the team we don't want:

Hamas


Or, when they pick another side, we cry "foul" and "illegal":

Crimea


Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that the PQ didn't win (and I feel a massive case of _Schadenfreude_ that Ms. Marois is currently unemployed), but what if they did?  Would it mean that democracy doesn't work?  Because people picked a different team?  I just don't have any faith in the current version of democracy that we have, where money talks and trumps all.

I only hope that Quebec got the provincial government that they need, not the one they deserve.  :-\


----------



## wannabe SF member (8 Apr 2014)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I only hope that Quebec got the provincial government that they need, not the one they deserve.  :-\



 :goodpost:

On another note, I found the CAQ's performance quite interesting. When the ADQ became the official opposition, they were then swept off the field by a resurgent PQ and that was the death of the party and, witht his, the hope that a serious center right party was a viable option in Quebec. At the start of the campaign, many people likewise predicted the death of the CAQ. Legault's formation not only survived but added 4 seats. 

This is good news for Quebec fiscal conservatives. Adding to the mix, the NDP plans on opening up shop in Quebec soon which could take a lot of the soft nationalist wind out of the PQ sails. With this in mind, the 2018 elections might represent a total paradigm shift in Quebec's political scene and one which, I hope, will exclude the separatist option for good.

BZ to Couillard, I'm not a liberal but I would have voted for a goat rather than see Marois come back to power.


----------



## Remius (8 Apr 2014)

The PQ is at a crossroads now.  Or will be in the next few months and needs to re-evaluate what it wants to be.  

The party has always been a marriage of convieniance between conservative and progressive democrats with the latter holding the most power within the ranks but both had the same goal.  

Now with the CAQ taking on more and more of that conservative side of the alliance, the PQ might actually begin to fracture.  If PKP stays on, Quebec Solidaire may see more support come their way from the left half of the PQ who will not stomach being under his leadership.  

Last night, Chantal Hébert said it perfectly.  Marois not only leaves the the party in shambles she has poured a pound of salt into as well.   

Expect a divisive leadership campaign and many people abandoning ship for better pastures.

This provincial election in particular will become a case study in many a poli sci course.


----------



## devil39 (8 Apr 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I guess the people who immediately jumped on the "OMG anic: They're separating! Fck those Quebec bastards!" bandwagon are feeling a little dumb now.



I think that as long as a national balance is attempted to be attained/maintained by coercion or the threat of separation there will be an element of reaction with the same.  This is human nature, and not necessarily all bad either.  

Not everyone can "turn the other cheek" like Journeyman  >


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Apr 2014)

I was pleased to wake up and read that she got bitch slapped, friggin hard, along with her party.  Good riddance to bad rubbish.  I hope that PKP will feel the burn too.  

Yes, I'll admit it, I was one of those who was worried those parasites would get their way.  I'm damned glad they did not.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> The PQ is at a crossroads now.  Or will be in the next few months and needs to re-evaluate what it wants to be.
> 
> The party has always been a marriage of convieniance between conservative and progressive democrats with the latter holding the most power within the ranks but both had the same goal.



Being correctly political I would characterize the PQ as a National Socialist party; explicitly about using the power of the State to direct economic output and favours to a client base defined by ethnicity. (Social Democractic parties like the NDP have a similar philosophy but the recipients of State bounty is defined in that case by economic "class"). Good riddance to them.

And here is the Star on the election results:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/04/07/quebec_liberals_jump_to_early_lead_over_parti_qubcois.html



> *Quebec Liberals win majority over Parti Québécois as Marois steps down*
> Phillippe Couillard’s Quebec Liberals have won a stunning election upset, trouncing the Parti Québécois to win a majority government.
> 
> By:Allan WoodsQuebec Bureau, Published on Mon Apr 07 2014
> ...


----------



## Remius (8 Apr 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Being correctly political I would characterize the PQ as a National Socialist party; explicitly about using the power of the State to direct economic output and favours to a client base defined by ethnicity. (Social Democractic parties like the NDP have a similar philosophy but the recipients of State bounty is defined in that case by economic "class"). Good riddance to them.
> 
> And here is the Star on the election results:
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/04/07/quebec_liberals_jump_to_early_lead_over_parti_qubcois.html



That can't be the definitive description however as it has always been a combination of competing values both right and left.  Bouchard, Landry and Boisclair were all right of center.  Heck Bouchard actually managed to balance the budget when he headed the party.  

Your national socialists are being driven to Quebec Solidaire, the fiscal conservatives being driven to the CAQ thus a party that is splintering now that their common cause is in hibernation or in a long term coma.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Apr 2014)

devil39 said:
			
		

> Not everyone can "turn the other cheek" like Journeyman  >


True enough.   

To be fair, I can knuckle-drag with the best of the Cro-Magnons.....when necessary.  I was waiting for Quebec politics to justify it though; being a dickhead in response to election rhetoric doesn't help the situation.


I don't believe anglo politicians when they're campaign babbling either.


----------



## upandatom (8 Apr 2014)

The young voters have spoken, 

very loud and clear.


----------



## Remius (8 Apr 2014)

upandatom said:
			
		

> The young voters have spoken,
> 
> very loud and clear.



I'm not so sure.  I'll be interested to see the demographics on this one.  With 71% voter turn out it is a decent but not awesome showing, I would like to see what the youth turnout was like.  Last time remember that there was that maple spring brouhaha that motivated students to come and vote.  

Definitly a newer generation of Quebecers have spoken.  One that is more in sync with Canada and the world than that babyboomer generation that grew up in an era of social(ist) revolution around the world and remember a time when French Quebecers were not the dominant force in Quebec.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> That can't be the definitive description however as it has always been a combination of competing values both right and left.  Bouchard, Landry and Boisclair were all right of center.  Heck Bouchard actually managed to balance the budget when he headed the party.
> 
> Your national socialists are being driven to Quebec Solidaire, the fiscal conservatives being driven to the CAQ thus a party that is splintering now that their common cause is in hibernation or in a long term coma.



True, like most associations there are competing sub groups and interests contained within, but the sum of the parts was indeed National Socialist in nature and effect. Splintering the various sub groups is a great end result for everyone, however, and the QS would be a fine home for the National Socialists.

I have to admit that suggesting Bouchard, Landry and Boisclair as beig "right of center" seems a bit weird, although I will say they were more centerist than many other leaders. And balancing the budget and the efficient management of resources should be the duty of any political leader, regardless of their ideology.


----------



## Remius (8 Apr 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> True, like most associations there are competing sub groups and interests contained within, but the sum of the parts was indeed National Socialist in nature and effect. Splintering the various sub groups is a great end result for everyone, however, and the QS would be a fine home for the National Socialists.
> 
> I have to admit that suggesting Bouchard, Landry and Boisclair as beig "right of center" seems a bit weird, although I will say they were more centerist than many other leaders. And balancing the budget and the efficient management of resources should be the duty of any political leader, regardless of their ideology.



It isn't all that weird really since they were all fiscal conservatives.  Bouchard being from Mulroney's cabinet and Landry carrying on Bouchard's ideology.  In fact both created tensions with their socialist old guard partners.  Bouchard wasn't keen on the left's anti semitism and made unpopular fiscal choices but it led to balanced books.

Bouchard in my book was the biggest threat to a unified Canada.  He was charismatic and knew what it took to get independance but PQ hardliners would have none of that.  

The PQ had and is going to have plenty of infighting between the left and the right.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (8 Apr 2014)

I was just waiting for her to channel Jacques Parizeau and blame the defeat on the anglophone, allophones and, all those students... ;D


----------



## Remius (8 Apr 2014)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> I was just waiting for her to channel Jacques Parizeau and blame the defeat on the anglophone, allophones and, all those students... ;D



I'm no fan but I suspect she has a bit more class than that.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2014)

Why the Québec solidaire will NOT be the party to carry the mantel of separatism. So long as the impulses behind the PQ continue to exist in Quebec society, some form of populist party (maybe even the PQ under new management) will exist. The QS is simply too far from the mainstream to attract more than limited support:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/04/07/jonathan-kay-can-quebec-solidaire-become-the-go-to-sovereigntist-option-for-2018/



> *Jonathan Kay: Can Québec solidaire become the go-to sovereigntist option for 2018?*
> 
> Jonathan Kay | April 7, 2014 | Last Updated: Apr 8 10:17 AM ET
> More from Jonathan Kay | @jonkay
> ...


----------



## GAP (8 Apr 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I'm no fan but I suspect she has a bit more class than that.



Not much more. I suspect she thought that, but remembered what happened to Jacques Parizeau.


----------



## upandatom (8 Apr 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure.  I'll be interested to see the demographics on this one.  With 71% voter turn out it is a decent but not awesome showing, I would like to see what the youth turnout was like.  Last time remember that there was that maple spring brouhaha that motivated students to come and vote.
> 
> Definitly a newer generation of Quebecers have spoken.  One that is more in sync with Canada and the world than that babyboomer generation that grew up in an era of social(ist) revolution around the world and remember a time when French Quebecers were not the dominant force in Quebec.


By younger I am more referring to the eligible voters that have been around since the 95 referendum, and the Student vote which marois threw away with lies. 

I wrote about it earlier how the voters in the 95 referendum now are most likely career orientated, comfortably situated, nice homes, nice jobs good benefit plan and are not so easily swayed by made up problems etc from the Marois Govt . Even at that, the majority of the voters from that referendum are either too old to care, or moved on. 

Maybe the new Generation of voters is a better term to use. 

This was a strong statement about a whole Canada, not a Canada with a Quebec state. I was proud to see it as well, that the people came to their sense.

I read Facebook statuses about how the rest of Canada was like hey the snow is melting, and Quebec is like "suck it marois." 

Also- From Harper "I would like to thank Pauline Marois for her, public service" Usually the PM says more on a matter other then a brief thanks,


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2014)

upandatom said:
			
		

> Also- From Harper "I would like to thank Pauline Marois for her, public service" Usually the PM says more on a matter other then a brief thanks,



Good manners and good form require the Prime Minister to make some sort of statement without doing the happy dance. "I would like to thank Pauline Marois for her public service" is a polite send off, and you can read "Don't let the door hit you on the way out" into that if you are so inclined... >


----------



## cupper (8 Apr 2014)

She didn't even get a please play again when she rolled up her rim. ;D


----------



## Journeyman (9 Apr 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Good manners and good form require the Prime Minister to make some sort of statement without doing the happy dance.


Unless you're that_ other _Trudeau........


----------



## upandatom (9 Apr 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Good manners and good form require the Prime Minister to make some sort of statement without doing the happy dance. "I would like to thank Pauline Marois for her public service" is a polite send off, and you can read "Don't let the door hit you on the way out" into that if you are so inclined... >



I clearly thought/remembered when the last provincial change the PM went into more detail about the quality of work, or etc regardless of the political party ie- the last election. 

unlike this short but sweet GTFO of that chair,


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Apr 2014)

Two interesting post mortems on the Quebec election:

In the _Globe and Mail_ Lysiane Gagnon suggests we have Scenes from a PQ defeat: A party in denial, a province in rebellion. The _denial_, she opines was in the speeches, especially by M. Drainville; the _rebellion_ is evident in the fact that voters no longer trust the PQ to govern for the province, they know that independence, which is not most people's priority, will be back on the table, no matter what the PQ says during the election campaign.

In _Le Devoir_ we find Requiem pour le projet de pays and we read that many of the most prominent separatists, people like Gérard Bouchard and Louise Beaudoin, despair for their _movement_.

I _sense_ that, as I said before, most Quebecers no longer 'need' a separate nation. They are reasonably content to be a _nation_ within a broad, they would prefer looser, federal state. What amazes me is that Stephen Harper is not more popular; Quebec _nationalists_ should love him because he, more than any other federal leader, _might_ give them what they want: less and less federal _intrusion_ into their daily lives. But ...  :dunno:  (Actually, I do understand why they dislike his socio-economic policies and, especially, ht e'law and order' agenda.)


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Apr 2014)

Pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if the loss of interest in separation is at all due to the expansion of the internet in people's lives. In the '95 referendum period, the rest of the world was no as easily accessed as it is today. Could it be that Quebecers in the 20-40 age group are now more worldly and less insular than their parents, and less susceptible to arguments made in a vacuum?


----------



## Remius (9 Apr 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if the loss of interest in separation is at all due to the expansion of the internet in people's lives. In the '95 referendum period, the rest of the world was no as easily accessed as it is today. Could it be that Quebecers in the 20-40 age group are now more worldly and less insular than their parents, and less susceptible to arguments made in a vacuum?



I'm am sure that it has had an effect.  Interweb, media, free trade, etc etc.  But also, in the article provided by Mr. Campbell above, in which Gerard Bouchard states that the youth of today are more preoccupied with the concept and values of _individual rights_ than with the concept of the right to a sovereign nation.  It is as good as any other reason for this shift.

But also, they are not fighting the old fight.  Largely because there is nothing to fight against.  Their language, their laws, their culture is all protected and no one is trying to take it away.  I was raised in a generation where we had to fight for our education but it was at the tail end of that fight with only a few vestiges of that time that were left.  The old guard remembers having to fight for their rights and was arguably a fight for cultural survival.  Rights that are now enshrined and protected.  They see that they do have a place in Canada and the world and that there is no more "boogey man" (or bonhomme sept heure).

The PQ is trying to find that foe, that great threat but no one is buying it because they aren't seeing it.   PM Harper deserves kudos for doing nothing.  Staying out of it and getting other leaders to do the same.  He did not want to give the PQ the enemy they were hoping for and it worked.


----------

