# Quebeckers have a mental Bloc



## Edward Campbell (16 May 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an insightful column by Lysiane Gagnon:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lysiane-gagnon/quebeckers-have-a-mental-bloc/article2021790/ 


> Quebeckers have a mental Bloc
> 
> LYSIANE GAGNON
> From Monday's Globe and Mail
> ...



I think Mlle Gagnon is quite correct: many (probably most) Quebecers are no longer Canadians; they have become _Québécois_, a distinct, _separate_ and, in most respects, a _sovereign_ people. They recognize that we, not they, voted for 'fiscal federalism' and 'sovereignty association' and allowed them to _separate_ at almost no cost to themselves – how many Nova Scotians or Albertans know anything about Canada in the United Nations? Quickly: does Canada have diplomatic missions in the capitals of Afghanistan, Bahamas, Cameroon, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Fiji? (To save you the _Googling_ the answers are Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes and No.) How much 'real' sovereignty are Quebecers missing?

When, not if, Jack Layton disappoints the already _sovereign_ majority (which will happen before 2015)  Québec's vote will swing, wildly, again, towards a party that will represent its special, separate and sovereign interests.

Canada will remain wilfully oblivious to the fact that we have lost a province and gained an 'associate state.'


----------



## GAP (16 May 2011)

Especially since Harper has proven that the adage of "You Can't get a Majority without Quebec" has been put to rest.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 May 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, is more on this topic:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/decision-canada/nation+divided+election/4788152/story.html 


> A nation divided by an election
> 
> BY DESMOND MORTON, OTTAWA CITIZEN
> 
> ...




I disagree with Morton on a couple of points:

1. While it is true that a majority government with so little Québec 'bench strength' is, indeed, unprecedented, it is something with which we had best grow accustomed. As I have said, several times in these _fora_, those who want to lead Canada must learn to govern without Québec; *not against* Québec, just without much representation from it; and

2. The big challenge has nothing to do with Mr. Harper's perceived resentment, it has everything to do with the direction in which Quebecers next turn when, not if, the NDP fails to satisfy them.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (16 May 2011)

I would recommend Harper to appoint every Quebec member to cabinet with Maxime Bernier pretty close to him in the front row.


----------



## wannabe SF member (16 May 2011)

I disagree with the idead that sovereignty is a done deal. The make-up of Quebec is dramatically changing with immigration as the previous Péquistes governnment's failure at social engineering is becoming more apparent. Immigrants aren't buying the salad and neither are the more industrious Québécois. The proof of this is in the Beauce region which remains in conservative hands after this election.

Furthermore, nothing guarantees that we lose all of Quebec the referendum go through, I for one, am for partition. Most of Quebec's territory was acquired post-confederation, I don't see why the feds couldn't take back the territory that was given along with federalist enclaves like Montreal.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 May 2011)

Inky said:
			
		

> ...
> Furthermore, nothing guarantees that we lose all of Quebec the referendum go through, I for one, am for partition. Most of Quebec's territory was acquired post-confederation, I don't see why the feds couldn't take back the territory that was given along with federalist enclaves like Montreal.




Drifting off topic ...

I agree with you.

What's the first problem facing an independent Québec? _*Sepratrism*_ and potentially violent _*separatists*_.

My first – and I _think_ pretty good - guess is that if a free and fair (clear question) referendum passed, province wide, it would fail in some regions, most notably: the North (James Bay and the Ungava Peninsula) the Pontiac/West Québec and the Eastern Townships. Separatist movements would quickly develop and agitate very strongly in those regions.

The aboriginal separatists in the North have the only valid case for separation – more valid in the eyes of the United Nations than Québec's case – because those aboriginals can, fairly, claim to be a colonized people.

But the substantial English minorities in some regions will be constant thorns in the side of a new aggressively _French_ government – the _Anglais_ will bring out the worst in the French _nationalists_ and many 'soft nationalists' will leave the movement, à la Lucien Bouchard after _l'Affaire Michaud_ in 2000/2001, thus weakening the legitimacy of the new national government.

My second guess is that any separation would, eventually, be settled through a multi-national panel that would partition Québec and allow some regions to rejoin Canada.


----------



## observor 69 (16 May 2011)

Which reminds me of being in Bagotville in the 1970's and being concerned about the strong regional separatist sentiment.
 The Lac St.Jean area had no love for the feds and as a member of the distinct minority Anglais I was quite happy when I packed my bags and left


----------



## 57Chevy (18 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But the substantial English minorities in some regions will be constant thorns in the side of a new aggressively _French_ government – the _Anglais_ will bring out the worst in the French _nationalists_




I pity the English speaking French Canadian or any other minority who may someday have to deal with any of the Federal Agencies owned and operated by those same biased individuals.




			
				Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Which reminds me of being in Bagotville in the 1970's and being concerned about the strong regional separatist sentiment.
> The Lac St.Jean area had no love for the feds and as a member of the distinct minority Anglais I was quite happy when I packed my bags and left



House for sale may be coming !


----------



## xo31@711ret (19 May 2011)

My wife, a NB Acadain was posted to Sept-Iles, on the lower north shore ( I left the regs & went reserves to serve at that unit). I speak little to no french myself. And anyone who's been to the lower north shore knows it is very franco with a spattering of some anlgos - though not much. Sept-Iles for example has a population of about 27,000 with about 700 bilingual anglo-phones. My point is, I went to Sept Iles very ignorant & bias thinking I was going into 'the dragon's den' of separatism. What I learned after 4 years there is yes, there are a few folks who are die-hard separatists. But most I found were proud Quebecois first and Canadians second.  Especially after the last provincial election a few years ago when the media & especially the PQ were surprised when the riding I lived in (Dupleessi) must of gotten sick of being ignored by the PQ & went red.


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 May 2011)

They can afford to be 





> proud Quebecois first and Canadians second.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (19 May 2011)

If any one is interested: A good piece of fiction was written about 15 years ago but Rufus Marlowe (not his real name - changed to hide which member of one of the Montreal Militia unit he is). Its called "Victory?" and it deals with civil war in Quebec after a UDI by  a separatist government. The main tank battle to try and capture Camp Farnham from the Canadian Forces actually takes place (in the book of course) in fields across my house!

Good read - probably not for sale anywhere anymore, but possibly available at your local library.  

To those who will:  Enjoy


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 May 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If any one is interested: A good piece of fiction was written about 15 years ago but Rufus Marlowe (not his real name - changed to hide which member of one of the Montreal Militia unit he is). Its called "Victory?" and it deals with civil war in Quebec after a UDI by  a separatist government. The main tank battle to try and capture Camp Farnham from the Canadian Forces actually takes place (in the book of course) in fields across my house!
> 
> Good read - probably not for sale anywhere anymore, but possibly available at your local library.
> 
> To those who will:  Enjoy


There are actually a few copies still kicking around out there:
Amazon.ca
Amazon.com


----------



## MrsAlex (20 May 2011)

Alright. As a Quebecker, I have to admit the "Bloc" mentality is definitely a reality. That "Bloc bubble" has kept Quebec population from really experiencing federal politic. And that most definitely has played into the last election. However, I don't think the NPD wave in Quebec is explainable by that alone. In the last few years, the separatist movement has lost a lot of ground. The arguments used to sell the independence to the Quebeckers are dated and do not appeal to the majority of the younger generation. Of course, all the rest of the Canada hear from us comes out of the mouth of Duceppe and the like. The truth is the PQ is also loosing ground in Quebec. I sincerely think many Quebeckers want to finally experience a federalist party. And, the way things were on the political field during the elections, the NPD was the logical choice for most of them.



PS: the book sounds interesting, might give it a look


----------



## a_majoor (23 May 2011)

Quebec voters might have much reason to regret their embrace of the BQ; if this is correct the Maritimes and Quebec are facing the "New Canada" of Ontario + the West as the base of political and economic power in Confederation:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/995231--harper-s-conservatives-here-to-stay



> *Harper’s Conservatives here to stay?*
> Published On Sat May 21 2011
> 
> JONATHAN HAYWARD/THE CANADIAN PRESS
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Feb 2012)

Rather than start a new thread ...

I found this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act _interesting_, to say the least, and, maybe, even a little thought provoking:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/would-justin-trudeau-separate-from-stephen-harpers-canada-maybe/article2337672/


> Would Justin Trudeau separate from Stephen Harper’s Canada? ‘Maybe’
> 
> TAMARA BALUJA AND BILL CURRY
> 
> ...



First, a quibble: Pierre Trudeau was *not* an intellectual, not unless that term has lost all meaning. He was a law professor, a job which is about as _intellectual_ as being, say, a professor of engineering. He had one big idea - he was an anti-nationalist and he found only one way to express that sentiment: by being anti Maurice Duplessis. That was all he was - for heaven's sake my great aunt's cat was anti Duplessis and made almost as much sense as Trudeau did in _Cité Libre_, a journal that had several hundren readers.

_"If at a certain point, I believe that Canada was really the Canada of Stephen Harper – that we were going against abortion, and we were going against gay marriage and we were going backwards in 10,000 different ways – maybe I would think about wanting to make Quebec a country.”_ That seems pretty clear to me; if a majority of Canadians turned very, very socially conservative - something that would make me unhappy and uncomfortable - then I would, likely, quit the Conservative Party and support a party that opposed _the Canada that was going backwards in 10,000 ways_, while Justin Trudeau woud become a separatist.

Good luck with that Liberals.


----------



## Danjanou (14 Feb 2012)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If any one is interested: A good piece of fiction was written about 15 years ago but Rufus Marlowe (not his real name - changed to hide which member of one of the Montreal Militia unit he is). Its called "Victory?" and it deals with civil war in Quebec after a UDI by  a separatist government. The main tank battle to try and capture Camp Farnham from the Canadian Forces actually takes place (in the book of course) in fields across my house!
> 
> Good read - probably not for sale anywhere anymore, but possibly available at your local library.
> 
> To those who will:  Enjoy



The fun part was trying to figure out the pseudonyms of the main and supporting characters from the different Regiments. Having just been posted to one of the units in the book, it was interesting to note how accurate he was in their descriptions and persona. Not a bad read and one of the better in this rather limited genre. Far superior to Rohmers efforts and the 1970's Killing Ground (IIRC the name)


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Feb 2012)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If any one is interested: A good piece of fiction was written about 15 years ago but Rufus Marlowe (not his real name - changed to hide which member of one of the Montreal Militia unit he is). Its called "Victory?" and it deals with civil war in Quebec after a UDI by  a separatist government. The main tank battle to try and capture Camp Farnham from the Canadian Forces actually takes place (in the book of course) in fields across my house!
> 
> Good read - probably not for sale anywhere anymore, but possibly available at your local library.


That one is still available to buy (used) if one hurries
http://www.amazon.ca/Victory-Novel-Civil-War-Canada/dp/0969629605/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329250216&sr=8-1
Never heard of this one - may order one of the used ones up myself.



			
				Danjanou said:
			
		

> The fun part was trying to figure out the pseudonyms of the main and supporting characters from the different Regiments. Having just been posted to one of the units in the book, it was interesting to note how accurate he was in their descriptions and persona. Not a bad read and one of the better in this rather limited genre. Far superior to Rohmers efforts and the 1970's Killing Ground (IIRC the name)


Maybe you mean "Separation"?


----------



## a_majoor (14 Feb 2012)

The reality, of course, is that Western Canada is evolving and in terms of economics and demographics leaving Quebec and Eastern Canada behind. As well, there is a very large and growing population of immigrants from socially "conservative" cultures who are very much against gay marrage and other progressive tropes (an unintended consequence of multiculturalism, to be sure). It is already possible to generate a majority without Quebec, and with the new seat distribution, the ability of Quebec to influence events will be even smaller. 

The real question might not be "will Quebec separate?", but rather will they be shown the door.


----------



## 57Chevy (14 Feb 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The reality, of course, is that Western Canada is evolving and in terms of economics and demographics leaving Quebec and Eastern Canada behind. As well, there is a very large and growing population of immigrants from socially "conservative" cultures who are very much against gay marrage and other progressive tropes (an unintended consequence of multiculturalism, to be sure). It is already possible to generate a majority without Quebec, and with the new seat distribution, the ability of Quebec to influence events will be even smaller.
> 
> The real question might not be "will Quebec separate?", but rather will they be shown the door.



Eastern Canada and especially Quebec is evolving proportionately with the rest of Canada.
As for the real question
IMO, Quebec will never separate for that reason exactly. 
"The Growing population of immigrants in all regions accross the country." 

The other reason ( I think ) is bilingualism.
No separation without bilingualism.... but that's my opinion.


----------



## a78jumper (14 Feb 2012)

One thing for certain, Justin Trudeau is a featherweight in the brains department....takes after his Mom. :nod:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Feb 2012)

So Justin Trudeau's criteria for leaving the country is not getting exactly what he wants?  On a serious note, I thought that Harper had made it pretty clear that the abortion issue wasn't being raised again, nor the gay marriage one.  

I hope that JTs tactics aren't that of the Liberal party as a whole... Canada needs to have a legitimate second party and left alternative to the NDP.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Feb 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> So Justin Trudeau's criteria for leaving the country is not getting exactly what he wants?  On a serious note, I thought that Harper had made it pretty clear that the abortion issue wasn't being raised again, nor the gay marriage one.
> 
> I hope that JTs tactics aren't that of the Liberal party as a whole... Canada needs to have a legitimate second party and left alternative to the NDP



No matter  how many times Mr Harper says it, nor how many backbench motions are quashed by the PM, the Liberals will persist in dragging out this tired trope.


----------



## FSTO (14 Feb 2012)

The only thing that JT has going for him is good hair. But most of it grows inward and tickles his brain.

How dare that ignorant twerp think that his values are Canadian values. I have listened to the likes of Trudeau, Rae, Axworthy, Lalonde, Whelan et al spout their crap for 30 years. I have felt their disdain and outright hatred towards western Canadians as they did everything in their power to limit our growth and foster their pandering to Quebec. So now the shoe is on the other foot and they don't like the feel of it. Well you reap what you sow ass clowns.  Let us hope that a few years in the wilderness teaches them some humility, but the actions of JT today show that they have a long way to go.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Feb 2012)

First of all, I am a Canadian, a western Canadian.  The way the "East" (Ontario and Quebec) treated the West in the past was disgraceful at times. 
JT is a spoiled brat who is reopening old wounds that have not healed over. In fact, many westerners say " you want to go? Then go!"
Be careful what you wish for JT.


----------



## Maxadia (15 Feb 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> First of all, I am a Canadian, a western Canadian.  The way the "East" (Ontario and Quebec) treated the West in the past was disgraceful at times.



I'm an Easterner....and I'll agree with everything you've said above.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Feb 2012)

RDJP said:
			
		

> I'm an Easterner....and I'll agree with everything you've said above.



And the Atlantic provinces were screwed over as well.


----------



## Maxadia (15 Feb 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> And the Atlantic provinces were screwed over as well.



You bet they were.


----------



## larry Strong (15 Feb 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> And the Atlantic provinces were screwed over as well.



What comes to mind instantly....Quebec......Power/Electricity....Newfoundland.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Feb 2012)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> The fun part was trying to figure out the pseudonyms of the main and supporting characters from the different Regiments. Having just been posted to one of the units in the book, it was interesting to note how accurate he was in their descriptions and persona. Not a bad read and one of the better in this rather limited genre. Far superior to Rohmers efforts and the 1970's Killing Ground (IIRC the name)




Reactions to the _Dauphin's_ musings are in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Separatist+comments+reveal+real+Justin+Trudeau+analysts/6153616/story.html


> Separatist comments reveal the real Justin Trudeau, analysts say
> 
> By Robert Sibley
> 
> ...




I think it is true that _"Trudeau reflected the sentiments of many Quebecers who feel they don’t share the values of the Conservative government,"_ but that's neither here nor there. Québec isn't going anywhere because there's no place to go, nationhood, as envisioned by a majority of Québecers is impossible, even if they can win a referendum.

Trudeau has already excused himself from this leadership race ~ it looks, to me, as if he's disqualified himself from the next one, too.

Can you just imagine the even bigger smile on this guys' face?






Dominic LeBlanc — Beauséjour
_Franco_, 45 years old, fluently bilingual, electable, smart ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Feb 2012)

Inherent narcissism does not stop a person,  massively supported by a bias, (malevolent to me; benevolent to Redeye) media, from being elected by people to be the head of a country. 

His father did his very best to tear apart Canada.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Feb 2012)

Quebec separatism suffers from some reality issues. First thee is the issue of First Nations. The FN will know they have the Quebecers by the short and curlies and will make them pay dearly for any support. Where will this money and future monies come from?
2nd I suspect that the GDP of Quebec likely outstrips the rest of the Francophone world not counting France, so who are they going to trade with purely in French?
3rd Most of the immigrants in the francophone world are not white and come from very poor countries. So if Quebec need immigrants the pool they have to draw upon will significantly change Quebec culture and they will not have the education to quickly start contributing to the Quebec economy.
4th They are going to have to deal with a significant backlash by the rest of Canada, including boycotts of their goods
5th They are going to lose out on any more transfer payments and I doubt many politicians are going feel any political pressure to bow to Quebec’s demands for  payouts and transfers of funds
6th What happens to all Federal lands within Quebec? Who pays for the transfers, cleanups? Again the average English-Canadian (or recent immigrant) is going to tell the politicians “I ain’t paying no blackmail monies”


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Feb 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Inherent narcissism does not stop a person,  massively supported by a bias, (malevolent to me; benevolent to Redeye) media, from being elected by people to be the head of a country.
> 
> His father did his very best to tear apart Canada.




While I agree that the Trudeau era was bad, even very bad for _national unity_ it was not, I believe that Pierre Trudeau retained any of his youthful separatist/fascist/Abbé Lionel Groulx fantasies. It was, I think more the unintended consequences of his approach. It was hard for Trudeau, who *promoted* the "French fact" in Canada, to appear as anything other than anti-English, thereby simultaneously fueling _Franco_ animosity and _Anglo_ mistrust. Additionally, his evident disdain for Québec's popular leaders (political and social) stoked the flames of _Franco_ humiliation without earning any "respect" in English Canada. Trudeau (mistakenly) thought he was the smartest kid in the room; in fact others, including René Lévesque and Peter Lougheed, had a much better understanding of Québec and Canada.

In my opinion Pierre Trudeau's main problem was that he was not, in his heart or his mind, a Canadian or a Québecer; he was a European and he was never "at home" in the country of his birth, not even when he was leading its government.


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Feb 2012)

I did not mean it was his intent, but it was the result produced. He was not smart enough to figure out for ever action there is a reaction.

But, look at some of the kiddy antics which did not exactly enhance unity: fingers, fuddle duddle, pirouetting, sell your own wheat, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Apr 2012)

The _Good Grey Globe's_ Jeffrey Simpson tries to square the circle in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/canadas-political-reversal-is-complete/article2391100/


> Canada’s political reversal is complete
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...




This is Simpson's own mini "lament for a nation" - the "nation" in which he believes has its intellectual _soul_ in Montreal and its economic _heart_ in Toronto and those red-necked Westerners and _provincial_ Maritimers are to consider themselves lucky to be guided by the Montreal-Toronto (Liberal) axis.





Change is good, Donkey Jeffrey


----------



## Infanteer (4 Apr 2012)

The Calgary:Montreal dichotomy is interesting.  I shall also be interested to see how the Vancouver:Calgary dichotomy evolves in Western Canadian politics - the greater Vancouver metro area has about half the population of Western Canada.  Having lived in BC and Alberta for most of my life, I can say that BC outside of Vancouver is very similar to rural Alberta, except that the NDP has a traditional level of support in much of the BC interior based upon forestry/mining union support.  In Vancouver however, anything goes politically, with much of the outlying municipalities going Conservative while the urban core splits between NDP and Liberal.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jun 2012)

Donald Savoie is a serious student of Canadian governance, so his views, expressed in this opinion piece which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, deserve our attention:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/who-will-speak-up-for-canada/article4377617/


> Who will speak up for Canada?
> 
> DONALD SAVOIE
> 
> ...




To begin: I agree fully with Prof Savoie when he says, _"I remain firmly convinced that a united Canada is worth fighting for and better than any alternative. I also believe that those Canadians who argue that we would all be better off without Quebec gloss over the huge political and economic costs of getting there."_

I also agree with him that Canada has changed and most Canadians are likely to say, _“Over to you Quebeckers – you decide.”_

The debate has changed, it reminds me of the "conversation," in the 1760s, between the government in London and the colonists in America; they talked past one another, not _with_ one another. The American colonists were not asking for much: just the civil and political rights which their kith and kin in Britain, proper, took for granted. The British government, equally, had legitimate grievances, mostly economic, about the costs of defending the colonies and their unwillingness to do or pay their fair share and, in fact, their smuggling (with the French Caribbean islands) which deprived Britain of revenue. But while both sides talked neither heard the other.

I have said before that, in my opinion, French speaking Quebec has already left Canada in all meaningful social senses. What we need to do, solely on economic grounds, is to further decentralize what is, already, the most decentralized federation in the modern world,* creating an even looser union.


---------
* Ronald L Watts, _Comparing Federal Systems_, McGill-Queen,s University Press, Montreal & Kingston, 1999


----------



## Infanteer (30 Jun 2012)

Good post Edward, and I concur with all your assertions.

It's funny how mainstream Canada is eager to wrap itself in a Maple Leaf flag, but when it comes to the nuts and bolts of things, we are really 6-8 different entities that are rapidly losing patience with each other.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Jun 2012)

It probably has something to do with the fact that most people would like to find their own path between cradle and grave, but at the same time can't resist telling others which path to follow.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Aug 2012)

More on the _two solitudes_ in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/to-quebec-canada-barely-exists/article4510793/


> To Quebec, Canada barely exists
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I believe that Jeffrey Simpson is about right: while the _divide_ is nothing like as deep as when I was a child, we (Canadians and Quebecers) simply are uninterested in each other; Canada is willing to "pay the freight" for Quebec because we, instinctively, understand that _separation_ will hurt us, badly, and Quebecers are willing to remain something less than _maîtres chez eux_ because they understand, also instinctively, that they are much closer to being Greece, on their own, than being even Ontario.

I also believe that Simpson is in a minority in the media: he really wants something other than a PQ government. In my opinion most journalists are, mainly secretly, hoping for a PQ government because it would *make news*, it would create federal-provincial tensions and they, journalists, would have ready made stories for a few years. But, I'm betting that Prime Minister Harper will foil them, even if Mme. Marois does become premier. He will, mostly, just ignore her demands - you cannot have a _one way_ argument, not for very long, anyway. On some demands, like "Quebec Citizenship" Stephen Harper may have to act. My personal preference would be for him to use the (essentially obsolete, maybe even unconstitutional) powers to disallow any such legislation, _de facto_ saying: _"F__k off, Mme. Marois; rude message follows! Take your stupid little law and shove it up your ample arse!"_ But, he will not do that; rather, if the act intrudes, even a wee tiny bit, into federal powers he will go to court - maybe directly to the _Supremes_ but, possibly, to the Court of Appeal of Quebec, allowing the Chief Justice of Quebec t tell Mme. Marois and the Government of Quebec to stick to her/its (provincial) knitting.

In effect, I expect Prime Minister Harper to actually welcome a PQ regime. It will allow him to play _Captain Canada_ and defend the Constitution against the Franco-vandals. It will, also, almost certainly embarrass Thomas Mulcair, for the reasons to which Simpson alludes, and, equally likely, the Liberal leader, too, because they, unlike Harper's Conservatives, need Quebec if they are to have any hope of forming a government.

(How many Quebec seats do Stephen Harper and the Conservatives need? In my opinion no less than three (Joe Clark managed to form a minority with only two seats back in 1979) but he need not _compromise_ on Quebec _nationalism_ issues in order to get any more than, say, 10.)


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Aug 2012)

Tried and true strategy.  "Let's you and him fight."  (Harper, with respect to PQ and NDP.)


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Aug 2012)

I have always believed that the majority of the separatist support in Quebec is a mile wide and inch deep. The support for separatist parties is like a strike vote done by people who really don’t want to go on strike, but want strength at the negotiation table. However sooner or later the other side calls you on it and I think this is what is happening in the ROC. Quebecers are starting to realize the bluff is no longer working and aren’t sure what to do. When faced with the real costs both finically and socially of separating the rose coloured goggles won’t be working. I have no doubt the “Elite” will salivate at the thought of their own country, but the average joe is going to look at their wallet and the rest of the world and say “No thanks”


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Aug 2012)

I'm just pissed at the thought that the PQ were not that long ago on the knife's edge of going the way of smallpox and have since made a recovery.  I get so friggin tired of hearing their bleats.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'm just pissed at the thought that the PQ were not that long ago on the knife's edge of going the way of smallpox and have since made a recovery.  I get so friggin tired of hearing their bleats.




I think you are expressing the (solid majority) Canadian view.

I know many here are tired of this topic, but here is more, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ - if you just read the highlighted bits from Prof. Tom Flanagan you will get the main, political, point:

My *emphasis* added
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/elections/wearily-quebec-and-canada-could-soon-drag-themselves-back-into-the-ring-but-do-we-care/article4513853/


> Wearily, Quebec and Canada could soon drag themselves back into the ring. But do we care?
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...



The answer to John Ibbittson's headline question, "...do we care?" is a pretty resounding "No," if we, here on Army.ca are a fair sample of Canadians. I'm repeating myself, but just as Senator Jean-Claude Rivest says that _"Quebeckers “share the values of all other Canadians. But they want to stay Quebeckers within Canada,"_ so do Canadians understand that Quebec shoud not and is not going anywhere, thus any Quebec premier, of any political stripe, is "negotiating" from a position of weakness and, worse for her or him, "negotiating" with someone (Stephen Harper) who isn't interested.

But, to Prof Flanagan's point: this is an opportunity for Harper to do something that I believe *should* be done and that I also think Prime Minister Harper wants to do: further decentralize the Canadian federation.1

__________
1. See here


----------



## Nemo888 (1 Sep 2012)

Another nonissue to distract the electorate. Let's bring up abortion and gun control while we are at it. I remember when parties had financial policies and took stands on issues that actually mattered in the real world. 

Governments generally don't touch hot button issues legislatively. 95% of what they do is collecting and allocating financial resources. Talk less about the 5% of the job and more about the 95%. Catering to single issue crackpots is getting on my nerves and giving special interest carte blanche to make financial policy that is not in our best interest


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Another nonissue to distract the electorate. Let's bring up abortion and gun control while we are at it. I remember when parties had financial policies and took stands on issues that actually mattered in the real world.
> 
> Governments generally don't touch hot button issues legislatively. 95% of what they do is collecting and allocating financial resources. Talk less about the 5% of the job and more about the 95%. Catering to single issue crackpots is getting on my nerves and giving special interest carte blanche to make financial policy that is not in our best interest




But the arguments between Canada, represented by Prime Minister Harper's government, and Quebec are economic and social: it is both the (failing? failed?) _Quebec Inc_ model vs. (increasingly) "free market" Canada and e.g. the gun registry and "tough on crime" sentencing guidelines. Shifting EI, for example, to *all* the provinces (even through an "arms length" (from the feds) multi-province agency for those provinces who do not want to manage EI on their own) _might_ "toss a bone" to Quebec and releive the national government of an often controversial programme.

In my personal opinion (worth exactly what you're paying for it) Quebec (and other provinces) are wrong on the long gun registry: it is an unnecessary, unjustifiable intrusion into the privacy of too many _innocent_ Canadians, but Quebec, especially, _might_ have a better _vision_ of retributive justice, especially for young offenders - an idea need not be wrong just because it is from Quebec. But, (still just my opinion) _Quebec Inc_ is a dumb idea - based too much on social policy and not enough on fiscal policy and we, Canadians in BC, AB, SK and NL, especially, are paying for Quebec's social experiments - and, therefore, since we are paying the freight, we ought to have in say in them.


----------



## Nemo888 (1 Sep 2012)

Except that we are going bankrupt. Spending our grandchildren's future.

Remember when the Army had it's own bank a few years ago. Imagine if it still existed and the mortgage interest and profits went into DND's or the GOC's budget.  Mortgage interest is almost my largest monthly outlay.  You could raise taxes by merely getting your mortgage with such a bank. It could be one of the largest tax hikes in the history of Canada and I wouldn't even notice. The only difference to me would be slightly better interest rates on my mortgage. You could also turn student loans into tax generating annuities. Health Care AND new jets, no need to choose.

Something like that is what's needed. Bold new thinking to solve our actual problems. The current system is broken.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Sep 2012)

I think the disillusionment with the ROC of Quebec and its ongoing multi-faceted social experiment (outright separation, sovereignty association, whatever is next...) is close to passing a point-of-no-return, wherein many Canadians may actually be willing to accept "taking a (n economic) hit to stop what, fairly or not, they see as one of the longest games of political extortion in the developed world.  The time may come where "rest  of" Canadians accept what would be a notable, but certainly temporally finite reduction in quality of lifestyle, as did West Germans regarding unification, to force Quebecers' hand on the issue, and see Quebec truly move out on its own.

I'm not saying it would be the best thing for a "whole" Canada (as in the integrity of the Federation), but I think that ROC'ers are getting close to hitting their (multiple regions, BC, AB, prairies, Toronto/905, Rest-of-Ontario, NL and the other Maritimes) respective limits of tolerance. Red Square kids with smart phones, drinking Starbucks that alone total for more than the tuition raise they oppose, enjoying "post-increase" tuition that is still significantly less than any other province in Canada just reinforces the sentiment of not only individuals but a society that is «pas mal gâtée» (rather spoiled).  People criticize Mr. Harper's appointment of functionaries in some cases who are unilingual anglophone, but the question is, is that entirely wrong? Must all senior functionaries be perfectly bilingual? Would not that in itself give regionally-unfair preference to Quebec? I also question the "black-and-whiteness" of the 'uningual' characterization -- what was the functionary's OSLO score? I bet there were at least some As or Bs in their profile, so 'unilingual' is an inappropriate qualification.  I say that as a «tête carrée, originaire de Toronto», who while fully bilingual due to personal choice and appreciation of the French language, and pursuit of high school studies prior to entry into the CF, personally believe that Quebecrs have certainly not been disadvantaged by the Nation's OL policy. 

The issue will be how does the situation become resolved, if ever?  The number of Canadians who are not only "amenable to", but actually think it may very well be time to call Quebec's bluff (understanding that there are some, likely very few, Quebecers who actually would want to go through with "cold, hard" separation) and say, "Right then!  Off you go!" and let Quebec figure out how it will pay for a population-proportioned "fair share"  of Canadian debt.  Heck, give Quebec three frigates and 20 CF-18s and share of other 
CF and GoC assets that cost more than a wee bit'o'cash, and see how long the honeymoon of a «Quebec libre» lasts. 

Would the rest of Canadian's quality of life take a hit for a while? Yes, but there is, in my opinion, a growing share of out society that is willing to consider the possibility, and that is something that the «pur laine» and the young "Red Square" crowd would do well to consider in earnest.

My :2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## George Wallace (1 Sep 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I think the disillusionment with the ROC of Quebec and its ongoing multi-faceted social experiment (outright separation, sovereignty association, whatever is next...) is close to passing a point-of-no-return, wherein many Canadians may actually be willing to accept "taking a (n economic) hit to stop what, fairly or not, they see as one of the longest games of political extortion in the developed world.  The time may come where "rest  of" Canadians accept what would be a notable, but certainly temporally finite reduction in quality of lifestyle, as did West Germans regarding unification, to force Quebecers' hand on the issue, and see Quebec truly move out on its own.
> 
> I'm not saying it would be the best thing for a "whole" Canada (as in the integrity of the Federation), but I think that ROC'ers are getting close to hitting their (multiple regions, BC, AB, prairies, Toronto/905, Rest-of-Ontario, NL and the other Maritimes) respective limits of tolerance. Red Square kids with smart phones, drinking Starbucks that alone total for more than the tuition raise they oppose, enjoying "post-increase" tuition that is still significantly less than any other province in Canada just reinforces the sentiment of not only individuals but a society that is «pas mal gâtée» (rather spoiled).  People criticize Mr. Harper's appointment of functionaries in some cases who are unilingual anglophone, but the question is, is that entirely wrong? Must all senior functionaries be perfectly bilingual? Would not that in itself give regionally-unfair preference to Quebec? I also question the "black-and-whiteness" of the 'uningual' characterization -- what was the functionary's OSLO score? I bet there were at least some As or Bs in their profile, so 'unilingual' is an inappropriate qualification.  I say that as a «tête carrée, originaire de Toronto», who while fully bilingual due to personal choice and appreciation of the French language, and pursuit of high school studies prior to entry into the CF, personally believe that Quebecrs have certainly not been disadvantaged by the Nation's OL policy.
> 
> ...





Heck.  We could really kit out the Reserves across the ROC with all that equipment from 5e GBMC.   CF Budget would save BILLIONS in publications, two thirds of the paper used to translate English into French would be put to better use. Translation services and Post-Translation corrections would be done away with.  The list of non-military (government and private business) savings would be just as enormous.  We could probably see savings enough that we could write off their debt.


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 Sep 2012)

I believe Quebec has received gifts of a quarter of a TRILLION dollars in equalization dollars since 1957 from the ROC.

What does the ROC have to show for these gifts?


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2012)

Journalist (and Army.ca member) David Akin offers these thoughts, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Sun News Network_:

(My *emphasis* added.)
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2012/09/20120903-160546.html


> DEBT, NOT SEPARATISTS, THE THREAT FROM QUEBEC
> 
> DAVID AKIN | PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF
> 
> ...




I think David Akin has it just about right.


----------



## Rifleman62 (4 Sep 2012)

Huge debt is a security issue obviously.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Sep 2012)

And an economic one as well.

Central bankers everywhere have bet the house on virtually zero interest rates, and everyone makes plans accordingly. What happens when the bond hawks come out and start demanding more (much more) to continue purchase government debt? Greece and Spain are facing that now (Germany's central bank will no longer even accept Greek bonds as collateral), and we ahve see the United States and Ontario get credit dowwngrades bacause of their excessive debts.

When your economic recovery plan does not include allowances of ever escalating interest payments, or the fallout of your government giving bondholders a "haircut" (Greece delivered a 60% haircut to the holders of Greek government bonds), then your economy will be dragged down rapidly. In the case of sub polities like Quebec (or Ontario or California for that matter), this could create a huge amount of turbulance in the national economy, further devastating the local economy and hampering any possible economic recovery for everyone.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Sep 2012)

I think John Ibbittson has it about right in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

My ]emphasis
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/harper-offered-powerful-chance-to-smother-sovereigntist-dream-in-quebec/article4519537/


> Harper offered powerful chance to smother sovereigntist dream in Quebec
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




_Separatism_ will not be defeated in Quebec; for the rest of my lifetime and all of yours there will be _separatists_ ~ at a guess 20% of _Franco Quebecers_, mostly young, are always _separatists_.

But a "strategy of non-engagement" can, and in my opinion, should work to all of Canada's benefit, including Quebec's.

Quebec needs "adult leadership;" Mme. Marois is unlikely to offer it; but, eventually, it must come.


----------



## exuberance (5 Sep 2012)

I think we should take every young francophone child and place them in the care of nice (christian) english families spread out across the country.  That should just about do it.   :


----------



## GAP (5 Sep 2012)

W-G said:
			
		

> I think we should take every young francophone child and place them in the care of nice (christian) english families spread out across the country.  That should just about do it.   :



And I think you need to give your head a shake.....right after you read up on the dominant religion in Quebec......

 : twit


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Sep 2012)

W-G said:
			
		

> I think we should take every young francophone child and place them in the care of nice (christian) english families spread out across the country.  That should just about do it.   :


A variation on this theme has been tried elsewhere, with less-than-ideal-and-palatable results ....  :


----------



## exuberance (5 Sep 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> And I think you need to give your head a shake.....right after you read up on the dominant religion in Quebec......
> 
> : twit


Sorry my mistake, I should have been more clear.  By christians I meant protestant christians, not catholics...

I should stop trying to make fun at the expense of the countless amount of suffering those Natives went through.  

I thought there was a point...  something about working in the past...(how many seat do Natives have in Parliament?) anyway.


----------



## Danjanou (5 Sep 2012)

W-G said:
			
		

> I think we should take every young francophone child and place them in the care of nice (christian) english families spread out across the country.  That should just about do it.   :





			
				W-G said:
			
		

> Sorry my mistake, I should have been more clear.  By christians I meant protestant christians, not catholics...
> 
> I should stop trying to make fun at the expense of the countless amount of suffering those Natives went through.
> 
> I thought there was a point...  something about working in the past...(how many seat do Natives have in Parliament?) anyway.



Good morning  welcome to the site and thank you for in such a short time identifying yourself as a potential problem child and making it easier for the D/S.

Ok consider this your one freebie, next asinine post will introduce you to the warning system and quickly. 

STAFF


----------



## wannabe SF member (5 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think John Ibbittson has it about right in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> My ]emphasis
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/harper-offered-powerful-chance-to-smother-sovereigntist-dream-in-quebec/article4519537/
> ...



I beg to differ. It is my belief that immigration is the Panacea to our problems in that case. Fact is most immigrants are indifferent to the debate. My hope is to see the PQ and other separatist formations gradually pushed out of large population centers by the growing allophone population that is both apathetic to the sovereignty question and quite hostile to the PQ underhanded xenophobia.

IMHO, a lot of this emanates from two causes:

-The PQ made the (gross) miscalculation that francophones coming to Quebec (regardless of their origins) would share common values and, as such, would easily espouse their nationalist cause.
-Realizing that they were wrong, some elements in the party started pushing for an assimilationist policy to try and "smother" the values of immigrants coming to Quebec and thus make them adopt the culture and mindset of separatists.

The recent statements by Mrs Marois and some of her staff in the 2012 campaign have shown a new development. Realizing that assimilation is not as successful as they hoped, they are playing on the long standing fear of many Quebeckers that they will eventually be swallowed by the masses of anglos immigrants surrounding them and as such must opt to separate before it's too late.

Methinks that this last move shows desperation on their part. A day will come when the immigrant population will reach a critical mass and start to demand an end to the old debates. Maybe, then can we move on and start being full participants in this great political project of ours.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Sep 2012)

I would agree Inky IF Quebec was getting a good share of immigrants; they are not. They lag the other provinces in new permanent (immigrant) residents, temporary (immigrant) workers and students.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2011-summary/02.asp
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2011-summary/04.asp
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2011-summary/06.asp

As in pretty much everything related to economic growth and productivity Quebec is failing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Sep 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Huge debt is a security issue obviously.




And to make matters worse, the _Globe and Mail_ is reporting that two senior Canadian market analysts have already downgraded the _National Bank_ in the wake of the PQ victory:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/national-bank-slapped-with-downgrade-after-pq-win/article4520177/


> National Bank slapped with downgrade after PQ win
> 
> DARCY KEITH
> The Globe and Mail
> ...



More on link ~ about other downgrades


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2012)

Further to the "strategy of non-engagement," see this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/ottawas-approach-to-a-pq-quebec-more-stick-than-carrot/article4522862/


> Ottawa’s approach to a PQ Quebec? More stick than carrot
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Now, I happen to believe (as did both the Supreme Court of Canada and the British Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (which was Canada's final court of appeal until 1949)) that Employment Insurance must be a provincial responsibility because it is part of the "property and civil rights" domain which makes it an area of *exclusive* provincial responsibility(Constitution Act, 1867, section  92 [13]), so I wish that Human Resources Minister Diane Finley had said, "We'll be pleased to hand over responsibility, an sufficient tax points, for EI to *ALL* provinces as soon as Mme. Marois and a majority of her colleagues tell us they want it and present a plan to manage it on a provincial basis."

But, on balance, I think the PM is on the right track if he's doing what Ibbittson suggests for the reasons Ibbittson offers.

The key is 





> The pollster Ipsos Reid reported that, when asked whether Ottawa should accommodate the PQ’s demand to hand over Employment Insurance and other programs, eight in 10 Canadians outside Quebec said that Mr. Harper “should reject this demand because these programs are national in scope and best run by the federal government.” *[size=12pt]Eight . In . Ten.* ... No federal government could afford to ignore such a message.[/size]



The "two solitudes" have rarely been farther apart.


----------



## Privateer (6 Sep 2012)

Section 91 of the (now) Constitution Act, 1867, was amended in 1940 to add paragraph 2A, making Unemployment Insurance a federal responsibility.  It would take a constitutional amendment to make it a provincial responsibility.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2012)

Privateer said:
			
		

> Section 91 of the (now) Constitution Act, 1867, was amended in 1940 to add paragraph 2A, making Unemployment Insurance a federal responsibility.  It would take a constitutional amendment to make it a provincial responsibility.




Agreed; that's why I said _"I wish that Human Resources Minister Diane Finley had said, "We'll be pleased to hand over responsibility, an sufficient tax points, for EI to ALL provinces as soon as Mme. Marois and a majority of her colleagues tell us they want it and present a plan to manage it on a provincial basis.""_ The Constitution can be amended if enough provinces, and the feds, agree.


----------

