# Quebec Election: 4 Sep 12



## Edward Campbell (4 Aug 2012)

Quebecers go to the polls on 4 Sep 12. I think it is fair to say that Quebec's politics has lost some of it's drama, specifically, Canadians are no onger paralyzed with fear by the separatist bogeyman.

But Quebec matters; it is a big "have not" province which, like Ontario, ought not to be.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an opinion piece that I think sets the scene:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/age-collides-with-politics-in-todays-fractured-quebec/article4462141/?page=all


> Age collides with politics in today's fractured Quebec
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI
> MONTREAL — The Globe and Mail
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Aug 2012)

Quebec swapped the patriarchy of the church for the patriarchy of the state and the protestors want to increase the patriarchy.  Such progress.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Aug 2012)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a related opinion piece by a knowledgeable Quebec observer:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/quebecs-question-conomique/article4461174/


> Quebec’s question économique
> 
> ANTONIA MAIONI
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Another, related, _Globe and Mail_ article says that a full 70% of Quebecers say that their current (Charest) government is corrupt. Reporter Daniel Leblanc, commenting on a _Léger  Marketing_ poll says:



> A large majority of Quebeckers feel their provincial government is corrupt ... the issue of corruption is at the heart of the ongoing election campaign, and will remain so with the arrival in the race of anti-corruption crusader Jacques Duchesneau as a candidate for the upstart Coalition Avenir Québec [but] it is too early to gauge the impact on voting intentions ...



Currently, the article says, the PQ s in the lead, the Liberals are in second place and the new CAQ (Coalition Avenir Québec) is running third.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Aug 2012)

A look at the historical background of Quebec spending and the Quiet Revolution. Regardless of which party is elected to office in Quebec, the uncomfortable reality is there is much less money for transfers and much less willingness to continue down the same path, much less expand spending on transfer payments and social programs by the Federal Government and the taxpayers of Canada. Perhaps the real measure of the electoral candidates will be how well they are prepared to function under a system of declining transfers and entitlements:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/08/08/cost-of-revolution/



> *Cost of revolution*
> Vincent Geloso, Special to Financial Post | Aug 8, 2012 12:06 PM ET
> More from Special to Financial Post
> Quebec’s generous welfare state would not be possible without funding from the rest of Canada
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Aug 2012)

I'll start off by saying that I don't follow, nor do I care about, Quebec politics.

I do however, though I'm not sure why, have a very bad dislike for John Charest and his Liberals.

No matter what happens if they lose, I just want to see them get their asses handed to them.

That's the extent of my care and convo on the subject.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (10 Aug 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'll start off by saying that I don't follow, nor do I care about, Quebec politics.
> 
> I do however, though I'm not sure why, have a very bad dislike for John Charest and his Liberals.
> 
> ...



This is where the old saying "Be careful what you wish for" comes into play.  Like you, I depise Charest and the Liberals and what they stand for. However, if the Liberals lose and the PQ take over the consequnces will be much, much more worse. Better the devil you know.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Aug 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'll start off by saying that I don't follow, nor do I care about, Quebec politics.
> 
> I do however, though I'm not sure why, have a very bad dislike for John Charest and his Liberals.
> 
> ...



Sadly, Quebec has been the tail that wags the dog for decades now, and attempting to cater to the Quebec political classes sense of wounded pride has been the determining factor in modern Canadian politics since the PQ first burst onto the scene in the 1970's. This has also created major changes in Canada as well, including the shift in economic power away from Montreal to Toronto and quite probably the start of the shift in demographics from Eastern ("Old") Canada towards Western ("New") Canada.

I suspect the Quebec Liberals will be tossed because of their lackluster record and the links to organized crime and corruption. OTOH this may be the last hurrah for the PQ in its current form as well; Quebecers are beginning to wake up to the fact that the ROC no longer cares as much about what the Quebec political class wants, and that they no longer have the leverage they did, now that it is possible to elect majority governments without reference to Quebec. The Coalition Avenir Québec will need at least one more election cycle to either build and grow, or wither on the vine like so many other attempts to create third parties. Watch and shoot.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Aug 2012)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> This is where the old saying "Be careful what you wish for" comes into play.  Like you, I depise Charest and the Liberals and what they stand for. However, if the Liberals lose and the PQ take over the consequnces will be much, much more worse. Better the devil you know.



Nope. Like I say, I don't care.

They can all go to hell in a handbasket.

Can we do without Quebec? 

I don't know.

However, just about every time they open their yip, I want to try.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Aug 2012)

A provincial election in Quebec is sometimes a Kobayashi Maru.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Aug 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> A provincial election in Quebec is sometimes a Kobayashi Maru.



Then perhaps it's time to reprogram the computer


----------



## Sythen (11 Aug 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> However, just about every time they open their yip, I want to try.



I'm in the same boat as recceguy. Will doing without Quebec be good for Canada as a whole? Probably not. But I am willing to accept some pain now to save a lot more later.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Aug 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> I'm in the same boat as recceguy. Will doing without Quebec be good for Canada as a whole? Probably not. But I am willing to accept some pain now to save a lot more later.




It's worse than that: if Quebec wins a proper, legal referendum (fair question and all that) it will be bad, indeed very bad for Canada. Much as many of us might dislike Quebec we cannot afford to let it go. I'll repeat a couple of things I've said elsewhere:

1. If Quebec ever separates we (Canada minus Quebec) are still stuck with 100% of our national debt, Quebec will, for the first few seconds of its existence as an independent state, be debt free; the 27,000,000 of us who are left in Canada will be saddled with all the debt that all 34,000,000 of us (when Quebec was still "in") accumulated. Why? Because the global bond market will not buy bonds offered by Quebec to cover its fair share (or even an unfairly small share) of Canada's national debt - not matter what interest rates the agents offer; and

2. All Quebecers born up to the minute of Quebec's formal declaration of independence will be Canadian citizens, by birth, and will be entitled to all the rights and privileges that attach to that status: pensions, passports, and so on. So we gain nothing, not for about a generation, anyway, by casting off our least productive fellow citizens because they're still citizens and they're still unproductive.

That doesn't mean we have to give a damn about Quebec. It is, and we must make sure our politicians understand that this is our *national will*, a province just like all the others. It can be _maitres chez eux_ all it wants can afford, but it is just another province - a big one, a poor one (as a result of its own people's mismanagement of their own political affairs) and an unproductive one (self inflicted wound, again) - like all the others, no "better" than PEI.


----------



## Sythen (11 Aug 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 2. All Quebecers born up to the minute of Quebec's formal declaration of independence will be Canadian citizens, by birth, and will be entitled to all the rights and privileges that attach to that status: pensions, passports, and so on. So we gain nothing, not for about a generation, anyway, by casting off our least productive fellow citizens because they're still citizens and they're still unproductive.



Something I hadn't considered, tbh. Maybe we should demand that in any referendum that it is to be made clear that anyone who holds a Quebec passport after a 6 month grace period relinquishes any and all rights they would be afforded as a Canadian citizen? Seems like something that can be easily rectified.

EDIT: Also wanted to mention something else I thought of.. People on this board like to say that now a majority can be won without Quebec. That is really only true for Conservatives. Liberals/NDP will never make any real gains in Western Canada. They will need to continue to pander to Quebec and offer them everything they ask for to buy votes. We may need to adopt their "share" of the debt, which would could recoup by charging them to export things in to Canada, but in the end I'd rather get it over and done with now rather than later.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Aug 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Something I hadn't considered, tbh. Maybe we should demand that in any referendum that it is to be made clear that anyone who holds a Quebec passport after a 6 month grace period relinquishes any and all rights they would be afforded as a Canadian citizen? Seems like something that can be easily rectified.




Works for me if, and it's a big IF:

1. We do the same for every single Canadian who holds dual citizenship - something that is legal, now;

2. The Supreme Court says it's legal and proper - which is doubtful, in my opinion.


----------



## Sythen (11 Aug 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Works for me if, and it's a big IF:
> 
> 1. We do the same for every single Canadian who holds dual citizenship - something that is legal, now;
> 
> 2. The Supreme Court says it's legal and proper - which is doubtful, in my opinion.



oh definitely. Though I remember this being the topic of another thread, so I won't derail this one, I will say that we are in total agreement on this.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Aug 2012)

.....and me.

You're a Canadian or you're not.

Pretty simple.

Might sort out a whole bunch of other hyphenated Canadians around the country also.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Aug 2012)

If a declaration of independence is made and a big hole exists in map of Canada, what's to stop the other provinces from cashing out as well?  You think BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan would want to hang around, especially since they are fueling the engine these days?  How about the Maritimes?  What would geographic isolation mean for them?  An independent Newfoundland is in the memory of some of its older inhabitants.

My guess, you'd end up with a few new countries, a few additional states in the Union, and the end of one of the most successful liberal democratic states in history.

Can we live without Quebec?

Non.

Can we live without the separatist movement?

Oui.


----------



## Haletown (11 Aug 2012)

The original Quebec referendum, the real first one, was held in Arctic Quebec.  A young Inuk guy named Charlie Watt organized it and the vote was about 98 % to stay with Canada if Quebec leaves.  Trudeau made him a senator for that little operation.

I'f Quebec can leave Canda, parts of Quebec can leave it.

Without the federal transfer payments, Quebec would have a second  class economic system. If they repudiate their part of the national debt, the would be seen by lenders as huge credit risks, loan defaulters writ large and wouldn't be able to raise a penny at reasonable rates.  They would be French speaking Greeks.

Quebec  can't afford to leave and I doubt they will. But the blackmail will continue, the Federal  transfer $Billions will flow from Western Canada to Quebec and now Ontario.  Hard to write that - Ontario a have not province.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Aug 2012)

So, if Quebec has a referendum and leaves, shortly thereafter a referendum will be held by the rest of Canada to see if it will accept the lower St. Lawrence back into Confederation because the separatists are broke?


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Aug 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So, if Quebec has a referendum and leaves, shortly thereafter a referendum will be held by the rest of Canada to see if it will accept the lower St. Lawrence back into Confederation because the separatists are broke?




Interesting bit of speculation, isn't it?

It's in line with my contention that:

1. Canada needs to further decentralize its federation (and we are, already the most decentralized federation on the planet - see: Ronald Watts, _Comparing Federal Systems_, McGill-Queens University Press, 1999; and

2. Europe needs to further centralize - for at least some _Eurozone_ members; until

3. Canada and the EU look remarkably alike in constitutional terms.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Aug 2012)

I think the further we decentralize the further we reduce the friction that regionalism has on our confederation.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Aug 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I think the further we decentralize the further we reduce the friction that regionalism has on our confederation.




That's my belief, too.

I believe we can get most of the way there within our current Constitution - it requires, mainly, the federal government to vacate areas of provincial jurisdiction ... and to transfer the tax powers that are needed by the provinces to exercise effective jurisdiction. Further decentralization will cause some complications - complications such as we face, now, when we negotiate deals regarding e.g. fisheries with the USA: we must deal with the USA, proper, and all the states involved. We would look more like them on some matters. Ditto in some international organizations where our provinces have Constitutionally legitimate interests.

But the federal government would retain full, absolute power over its own, proper, areas of responsibility, including: fiscal policy, foreign and defence policy, the criminal code and so on.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Aug 2012)

1. Citizenship: pick one.

2. Debt: Quebec issues its government bonds to Canada for its share.  One of two things can happen: Quebec can make sure those bonds are worth something, and maybe sell a few more to others, or make those bonds valueless and never sell another penny of debt.  If Quebec decides it doesn't want to live within its means right now, Canada will be able to sell rather than simply hold.


----------



## Sythen (12 Aug 2012)

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/facts-plan-nord-quebec-liberals-northern-development-project-100507931.html



> Facts about the Plan Nord, the Quebec Liberals' northern-development project
> 
> 
> MONTREAL - Here are some facts about the Liberals' northern-development plan for Quebec, dubbed "Plan Nord":
> ...



End of article.

For someone like me who knows absolutely nothing about northern development, it sounds good. Anyone here who knows what they're talking about care to chime in?


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Aug 2012)

I was going to write something about Quebec politics and the culture of *humiliation* but I'll let (normally _lefty_) _Ottawa Citizen_ columnist Janice Kennedy do it for me in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/Canada+doesn+deserve+kicking/7071593/story.html


> Canada doesn’t deserve a kicking
> 
> By Janice Kennedy, The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> ...




I have explained, elsewhere, how and why _humiliation_ works in ther countries - notably China - as a tool for provoking nationalism. It, humiliation, can be a powerful tool - if it used well.

I'm not convinced that Québec solidaire is, actually, playing the _humiliation_ card - if it is I don't think it is playing it very effectively. It appears to me that it (Québec solidaire) is, rather, playing the _maîtres chez nous_ card, again - asking for the "status"of a sovereign state without the concomitant responsibilities. It was a winning formula when the Liberals were in power in Ottawa because, as Sythen noted, they (the Liberals) needed a firm Quebec base to achieve and hold power. It appears to me that the Conservatives do not have the same problem: they are learning how to govern without Quebec - not against Quebec, just with minimal support from it.

But the _humiliation_ 'narrative' has a lot going for it: almost none of it true, but a lot. It fact Quebec is a _failing state_ and has been since Jean Lesage launched the _maîtres chez nous_ campaign 50 years ago, in 1962. The "Quebec model" (or system) has been a consistent failure because it ignored flew in the face of sound economics. The "Quebec model" is insular and protectionist in a world that works best when it is globalized and open. The "Quebec model" seeks immediate and short term _social_ and _political_ gains and sacrifices medium and long term economic gains for them; consequently it cannot afford what  it has bought - it is living beyond its means. So: Quebec is right to feel _humiliated_, it is a second rate province; but Quebecers are looking in the wrong direction. Their problem, their only problem is themselves: French speaking Quebecers have failed themselves.

Quebecers are unlikely to admit that they are failures, that they are the sole authors of their own _humiliation_; that being the case they will remain a second rate, failed state within Canada - our very own Greece.

The problem is obvious; so is the solution: obvious but culturally impossible.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (12 Aug 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 2. All Quebecers born up to the minute of Quebec's formal declaration of independence will be Canadian citizens, by birth, and will be entitled to all the rights and privileges that attach to that status: pensions, passports, and so on. So we gain nothing, not for about a generation, anyway, by casting off our least productive fellow citizens because they're still citizens and they're still unproductive.



Though there would definitely be a constitutional challenge if Canadian citizenship was automatically stripped from those born within the geographical borders of Quebec, it is not without precedent (even in a Canadian context) for a right to a specific citzenship to be revoked upon independence.  On 31 March 1949, all those who had been born within the Crown Colony of Newfoundland (remember, we had forgone our status as a self-governing dominion years earlier) were British subjects.  On 1 April 1949, those roughly half million (or less) living on the Rock and the greater number living in Toronto (sarcasm) automatically became solely Canadian citizens, with (save some exceptions) no recourse to retaining their previous nationality.  Would there have to be some legislative changes, yes, but it is not beyond the realm of possiblity that Quebecers will be solely Quebecers.


----------



## Sythen (12 Aug 2012)

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2012/08/20120812-144335.html



> MONTREAL - The Parti Quebecois targeted the English language while the Liberals took aim at suspected criminals in the construction industry during the latest round of election promises by both parties on Sunday.
> Within the first 100 days of a PQ mandate, the party said it will create a new language law forcing companies of more than 10 employees to conduct business entirely in French. The new law would also prevent francophones from attending junior colleges in the province.
> 
> PQ Leader Pauline Marois said that her proposed law would affect roughly 54,000 businesses, which would be subjected to the same laws that currently apply to companies with more than 50 employees.
> ...



More on link.

So let's call this what it is: Fascism. They are implementing laws that allow the government to decide what language you speak in your own business.


----------



## Haletown (12 Aug 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2012/08/20120812-144335.html
> 
> More on link.
> 
> So let's call this what it is: Fascism. They are implementing laws that allow the government to decide what language you speak in your own business.



They like to think of it as being Progressive.  Same difference in the end, people who think they are so smart they  must always be right.


----------



## Sythen (12 Aug 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> They like to think of it as being Progressive.  Same difference in the end, people who think they are so smart they  must always be right.



On top of deciding which courses you're allowed to take in school. Why isn't the Federal government speaking out about this?


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Aug 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> On top of deciding which courses you're allowed to take in school. Why isn't the Federal government speaking out about this?


Because then everyone would gang up on the Feds. Right or not, nothing galvanized Quebeckers like someone else casting them in a negative light.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Aug 2012)

This report  in the _Globe and Mail_, headlined *Putting SNC back on track first priority for new CEO*, might have gone here, but one bit caught my eye and convinced me to add it in this thread:



> ... Norman Levine of Portfolio Management Corp. says Mr. Card will have to deal with antipathy created by the fact that he is not Québécois.
> 
> Quebec is a province that leans heavily toward hiring its own, Mr. Levine said Sunday. “It’s like nepotism. And, in nepotism, you are not chosen because you are the best,” he said, “you are chosen because you are what you are, not what your credentials are.”



And there we have another problem with _Quebec Inc_, the insular, provincial (in every sense of that word), protectionist _thing_ in which so many Quebecers have so much totally misplaced pride. It's why Quebec needs to elect a businesslike government - or follow Greece.


----------



## observor 69 (13 Aug 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This report  in the _Globe and Mail_, headlined *Putting SNC back on track first priority for new CEO*, might have gone here, but one bit caught my eye and convinced me to add it in this thread:
> 
> And there we have another problem with _Quebec Inc_, the insular, provincial (in every sense of that word), protectionist _thing_ in which so many Quebecers have so much totally misplaced pride. It's why Quebec needs to elect a businesslike government - or follow Greece.



And all Les Anglais families who left Quebec because no matter how good their childrens french they would never get ahead because they weren't pure lain.


----------



## foresterab (13 Aug 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/facts-plan-nord-quebec-liberals-northern-development-project-100507931.html
> 
> End of article.
> 
> For someone like me who knows absolutely nothing about northern development, it sounds good. Anyone here who knows what they're talking about care to chime in?



I'll give it my best shot although I'm out west and have never worked in Quebec.  

It is my understanding that Quebec's economy has always been driven in part by resources - fur trading,  wheat, timber, and more recently hydro projects of the last 30 years.  Mining has always been in the mix with bauxite (aluminum) and asbestos as main minerals off hand.    Unfortunately almost all of the this activity has been limited to a fairly narrow band along the St. Lawrence due to water/shipping access and high quality roads.

Quebec, like Newfoundland to British Columbia contains large amounts mineral deposits due to geological formation of the bedrock which forms northern Canada.  Most of these areas are remote, very rarely visited and in many cases have been off limit to exploration let alone development.    At the same time changes in technology in both the exploration field (ground penetrating sonar, computer 3D mapping, records compilation) and extration (helicopter portable drills for example) have allowed companies to better focus and develop projects.  Resources from Iron to Diamonds are found across the north just depending on quantity, volume, and grade of deposits found.

Plan Nord would open up the next level of resources to exploration and development where areas north of the existing logging and mining infrastructure would be considered for new facilities.   Unfortunately if you are going to allow exploration there is an expectation that you will allow development by industry which has raised concerns that projects would be "rubber stamped" for approval irregardless of what happens.       The infrastructure is rough to say the least and any serious mine would potentially involve building not just some road but possibly 100's of km of road, all season, and preferably paved which is a huge cost....but with out the road how do you get the equipment and manpower in?

Some of the opposition appears to be the NIMBY (not in my back yard) effect which is pretty common to run into when dealing with people.  This is part of why Quebec for example has limited coal bed methane development in the province despite having large natural gas reserves (more than that to that topic though).   Others are concerned with the revenue the province gets in royalties vs the profits made....Australia and other jurisdictions have wealth taxes that adjust the royalty rate depending on the profits made on the site while others like Alberta oil and gas have fixed rates irrespective of market forces.

When dealing with a fairly unexplored area there is lots of science still missing....what sites are you potentially disturbing, what effects will you have, short term impacts, long term impacts, alternatives.  So now the government has the perception of approving without knowing the impacts which alarms some.    Also woodland caribou (endangered species), first nation oppositions (reasons vary by person/band/tribal organization), and fear of "big corporation" all play a part.

Hope this helps...like I said before I'm not 100% in touch with what's happening in Quebec so I fully admit to any errors if someone more qualified can help out.


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Aug 2012)

Plan Nord is a series of huge open pit mines rivaling the oil sands in Alberta.

I heard that from a gal in P.E.I. who has a long lost sister living in Texas.

Once a road is in, IKEA is going to build several stores along the route.

The Jeffrey asbestos mine will be closed, filled in, and a French language only Disneyland Nord established.

Headlines:*

Charest pitches $1B fund to aid and block takeovers* http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebecvotes2012/story/2012/08/13/liberals-takeover-fund.html
*
PQ wants 15,000 more spaces in daycares* http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebecvotes2012/story/2012/08/13/quebec-election-pq-daycare-caq-health-care.html

*Québec Solidaire vows free tuition, more tax on rich* http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebecvotes2012/story/2012/08/10/quebecvotes-quebec-solidaire-budget.html

ALL of the above will be financed without whining to the ROC, AND funded totally from Quebec internal resources. (It's fun to promise the world financed by the hated ROC).


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Aug 2012)

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/08/14/matt-gurney-good-luck-with-those-extortion-demands-marois/
*
Matt Gurney: Good luck with those extortion demands, Marois* National Post - 14 Aug 12

Ahead of next month’s Quebec provincial election, Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois has a pretty good strategy. If her party forms the next government and she becomes premier, she intends to pick a series of fights with Ottawa. She will *demand more money, more autonomy, more control *over Quebec’s government. Ottawa can either capitulate, meaning that Marois has delivered the goods for Quebec, or it can refuse, at which point Marois gets to use Prime Minister Stephen Harper, not exactly a man widely loved in Quebec, as a foil. Even if she loses to Harper, Marois will just* spin that as yet another insult by Canada against Quebec*, and argue that that proves the need for sovereignty.

As I’ve already written here, it’s a good plan, because it truly is a win-win. The Parti Quebecois has never been stupid. For generations, they’ve *convinced frightened federal governments to keep the goodies rolling in, and have so conditioned Quebecers to expect the rest of Canada to just pay up and shut up* that even the provincial Liberals dare not act as if more, more, more wasn’t Quebec’s solemn right. But the PQ knows that even if Ottawa gets tough and says no, they’ll benefit from the battle.

It is looking increasingly likely, however, that if the PQ does indeed win and this scenario begins to unfold, Marois is going to have the play the grievance card after being spurned. It would appear that Canada is tired of piecing off one particular province. 

A new poll, released Tuesday by Abacus, shows that only 52% of Canadians outside of Quebec would vote to keep Quebec inside the federation if given the chance. The poll wasn’t a true blind sample, since it wasn’t truly random — online panelists were invited to participate. But it’s still believable. Other recent polls, as well as my own anecdotal observations, had been suggesting a great deal of Quebec fatigue in Canada for some time.

But Abacus also polled Canadians on how they felt Quebec should be treated while it still remains a part of Canada. The answer? Equally, and if that means Quebec leaves, so be it. Specifically, a whopping 88% of polled Canadians agreed with the statement that “All the provinces should be treated equally, even if it upsets Quebec and risks separation.” Again, that’s not a surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention to the tenor of the debate over the last few years. But what is interesting is how that massive number completes cuts across Canadian society. Support for Quebec staying in Canada varies significantly across different provinces and by political affiliation, but that 88% figure is eye-poppingly large.

What federal government, of any affiliation, would want to go contrary to 88% of the public? That would be hard enough on any hypothetical Public Policy Issue X. But this is something very specific. The Canadian public has expressed its preference for fairness. For a government to take a contrary view, it must side with the 12% of Canadians who think that Quebec should be treated unfairly if that’s what it takes to keep it in the country. That’s a political migraine waiting to happen.

Indeed, such figures are probably already causing headaches in Ottawa. Should another national unity crisis develop, the federal government will have very little room to maneuver. That will once again play into the PQ’s hands. They can set the tone of the ongoing debate. Ottawa would obviously have to work to keep Quebec in Canada, even though the public doesn’t want them to have many arrows in that quiver. Yet one gets the feeling that Ottawa saying, “Let’s just keep things as they are and hope this goes away” won’t pacify the PQ.

But there is also danger for the PQ here. With the exception of a few die-hard sovereigntists, it is likely that most PQ supporters don’t actually want to leave Canada, but are* perfectly content to pretend they are in exchange for more goodies*. The Abacus poll is the latest bit of evidence that that may not work well for much longer. Voting for the PQ could easily trap Quebec in a situation where, its demands having been rebuffed, it feels it either has to leave Canada or admit it was bluffing all along. In such an time, with emotions running high, anything could happen. And Quebec could end up its own country without ever having really intended to. It would seem that only a slim majority of Canadians would even miss them.

National Post
mgurney@nationalpost.com


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Aug 2012)

Two columns in the _National Post_ take on the notion that Quebec is both intolerant (Chris Selley) and xenophobic (Tasha Kheiriddin). I, personally find little fault with either column although I will understand that many Quebecers will treat it as just another example of _les anglais_ telling them, French Canadians, to "speak white."

Chris Selley says, _"Quebec is genuinely different: Different majority language, an island of French in a vast anglophone ocean; different conception of the role of government in society; different notions (if not rejection) of multiculturalism; a greater appreciation, perhaps, for genuine and aggressive secularism (along with a weakness for Ms. Marois’ odious ersatz form). In recent years, under Mr. Charest’s Liberals, Quebec society has reached something of an equilibrium on these matters. Angry anglos aren’t nearly as angry as they used to be. The reasonable accommodations foofaraw mostly died down, despite Mr. Charest’s unwillingness to help. This is generally seen as a good thing ... But odious principles aren’t validated simply because a society agrees on them. Intolerance is intolerance. Backwardness is backwardness ... And minority rights are minority rights. Over the years, various human rights organizations whose opinions generally matter to progressive Canadians have expressed their disapproval at government-enforced language restrictions that extend beyond public life and into freely undertaken commercial transactions. Mostly, we just look away."_

All that is, in my opinion nothing more than a series of incontrovertible facts, especially the fact that, for the most part, "we just look away." Why do we "just look away?" Because, I think we actually believe that French speaking Quebecers are, somehow, culturally _inferior_ and, therefore, need to be excused their consistent flaunting of the rights of others. If they were "like us," members of a strong, vibrant _liberal_ culture, then we would castigate them for their views, but ...

Tasha Kheiriddin says, _"First, Coalition Avenir Québec leader François Legault lambasted young Quebecers for being interested in living “the good life,” unlike children in Asia whose parents all want them to become engineers, and have to stop them from studying lest they make themselves sick. When he was attacked for this remarks, he retorted that the fault lies with Quebec parents, and that they should review the values they are transmitting to their children ... On Tuesday, Ms. Marois unveiled her party’s desire to implement a “Secular Charter” which would ban the wearing of any religious symbols by government employees. With, as my colleague Chris Selley tartly notes on these pages, one notable exception: Symbols of Christian faith, such as the cross which hangs over the Speakers’ Chair in the National Assembly. In other words, a crucifix necklace, good: hijabs and yarmulkes, bad ..._ [and]_ Then on Wednesday, Mr. Tremblay took xenophobia one step further, when he launched a tirade against Djemila Benhabib, the Parti Québécois candidate in Trois Rivières. On a popular radio show, Mr. Tremblay let loose: “I am shocked that we, the softies, the French Canadians, will be told how to behave, how to respect our culture by a person who comes from Algeria, and we can’t even pronounce her name.”_

It sure looks like xenophobia to me and if those remarks came from anyone except French speaking Quebec politicians we would all be up in arms. But they are excused because, I repeat, we do not hold French Quebec to the same high standards that apply to anyone in English multicultural Canada _hors de Québec_. The reason we don't have a "level playing field" is because we don't believe Quebec could manage on it ... we don't think they are quite "good enough" to _compete_ with us.

As Cassius said (courtesy Shakespeare) "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves." (Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141))


----------



## observor 69 (16 Aug 2012)

When it comes down to the game of prediction I would add a dash of caution in light of the surprise NDP success in the last federal go around.
I regarded that as a very smart alternate choice from the Quebec perspective.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Aug 2012)

The PQ might win the election, but discover the "war" has already been lost in Ottawa (One can always hope):

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=15450



> *Pauline Marois Is A Canadian*
> Posted on 18 August 2012 by PhantomObserver
> 
> When we consider the Québec provincial election, and the current attitude that the press seems to be taking towards the prospects of a Parti Québécois victory, it’s useful to remember the title of this blogpost.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Aug 2012)

This happens pretty often in Canadian politics, and 99% of Canadians normally shrug off the _strategic voting_ 'advice' but in this case, outlined in an article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, it might work because of the _federalist/separatist_ issue:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/elections/quebec-liberal-fundraiser-calls-on-party-faithful-to-vote-for-caq/article4491956/


> Quebec Liberal fundraiser calls on party faithful to vote for CAQ
> 
> RHÉAL SÉGUIN AND LES PERREAUX
> Montreal and Quebec City — The Globe and Mail
> ...




If I was a federalist Quebecer and if I agreed with M. Boily _"that Mr. Charest was headed for certain defeat in the Sept.4 election,"_ then I might well decide to vote CAQ to try to prevent a PQ victory.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Aug 2012)

While Ioubt that anyone of the candidates will speak of this, the real problems with Quebec are far deeper than student tuitions or what language you get your beer and smokes in:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/quebec-is-committing-slow-motion-suicide/article4488827/



> *Quebec is committing slow-motion suicide*
> JOHN IBBITSON The Globe and Mail Published Sunday, Aug. 19 2012, 8:48 PM EDT
> 
> Whatever her intention, Pauline Marois’s proposed secular charter is bound to worsen the immigration crisis in Quebec.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Aug 2012)

As we get closer to 4 Sep 12 the polls _might_ be more meaningful. This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of he Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, says that the provincial Liberals have fallen to third place:

My emphasis added
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/caq-ahead-of-liberals-in-new-quebec-poll/article4499135/


> CAQ ahead of Liberals in new Quebec poll
> 
> RHÉAL SÉGUIN
> Quebec City — The Globe and Mail
> ...




Some analysts are saying that the CAQ offers Quebecers a new alternative to the stale federalist/separatist split: a capitalist party that is disinterested in the Constitutional debate. The Liberals have been in power too long ... Quebecers, it seems to me, are a lot like other Canadians, they (like we) don't vote FOR a party, mostly they vote AGAINST the currently governing gang of thieves and imbeciles, regardless of ideology.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Aug 2012)

A PQ minority with CAQ as official opposition might be interesting.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Aug 2012)

Former Parti Québécois premier Jacques Parizeau is one of those (relatively few) Quebecers for whom sovereignty is the only issue and he will stop at nothing, including supporting parties other than the one he led, to get it. His support of an _Option Nationale_ candidate has, according to this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, _"created havoc with PQ Leader Pauline Marois’s efforts at winning a majority government"_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/elections/parizeaus-endorsement-of-maroiss-rival-harms-pq-push-for-majority/article4499300/


> Parizeau’s endorsement of Marois’s rival harms PQ push for majority
> 
> RHÉAL SÉGUIN
> Grandes-Piles, Que. — The Globe and Mail
> ...




I know a couple of Parizeau 'clones:' Quebecers who care little about the actual terms of _independence_ so long as they have the trappings. One acquaintance of mine said that, before he died, he wanted to see a sign, in French, at the border, saying *"Bienvenue Au Québec"* with arrows - one for "citoyens" and another, in English, for "foreigners," like Canadians.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (26 Aug 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Former Parti Québécois premier Jacques Parizeau is one of those (relatively few) Quebecers for whom sovereignty is the only issue and he will stop at nothing, including supporting parties other than the one he led, to get it. His support of an _Option Nationale_ candidate has, according to this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, _"created havoc with PQ Leader Pauline Marois’s efforts at winning a majority government"_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/elections/parizeaus-endorsement-of-maroiss-rival-harms-pq-push-for-majority/article4499300/
> 
> I know a couple of Parizeau 'clones:' Quebecers who care little about the actual terms of _independence_ so long as they have the trappings. One acquaintance of mine said that, before he died, he wanted to see a sign, in French, at the border, saying *"Bienvenue Au Québec"* with arrows - one for "citoyens" and another, in English, for "foreigners," like Canadians.



From my time living in la belle province, I would agree with this statement whole-heartedly.  Having listened to a number of separatists discuss their theories of why Quebec should be independent, it always seemed like it was more of a mental thing than a practical thing.  The majority wanted to feel that they were in charge of their own path, though the reality is that the situation on the ground would change little, and always seemed to have little grasp on A) how much the ROC helped them financially (most believe that their money supports the ROC) and B) How little the ROC actually cares about Quebec or it's politics.  

That said, I do somewhat agree with your thesis that we treat the Quebecois as inferiors.  I think the problem is that the federal government was refused to intervene in Quebecs affairs.  I believe that the average Canadian citizen views Quebecs language laws as unjust and would happily have them repealed.  As such, I believe that our lack of intervention in quebec's affairs, which essentially sell the whole "multicultural society" we try to market Canada as down the river, are more due to fear and political convenience than any sort of superiority complex.  On the flip side, the Quebecois I have met generally have a superiority complex, and believe that Quebec and its policies are vastly ahead of the ROC, particularly Alberta and the west, which they generally mock.

It is interesting, however, how quickly we would jump on the Americans if they banned Spanish in their country while allowing a part of our country to do just that.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2012)

An interesting, albeit slightly snarky, look at Pauline Marois and the _separatists_ and the even worse choices in this column by Margaret Wente which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisons of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/separatists-stir-up-a-nightmare-in-quebec/article4503811/


> Separatists stir up a nightmare in Quebec
> 
> MARGARET WENTE
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




It's not a pretty picture, is it?


----------



## 57Chevy (28 Aug 2012)

Everytime elections roll around in Quebec the beating of Mr. Levesques' dead horse begins to beat out the same
old issue that was again and again dismissed by the general population.
A political party found to promote racism in some way is one that should be abolished.
They remind me of a little kid who refuses to do away with the disposable diaper, and tries everything he can possibly dream up
to convince his mother that it's the best thing.

It's over ! 

Don't you get it yet  ! 

Finitos.

Lets move forward.
As far as I'm concerned, the party that promotes bilingualism has the true vision for the future of Quebec.

Which party would that be ? (I wonder)


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2012)

The _Globe and Mail's_ John Ibbittson discusses Jean Charest's _Ignatieff moment_ and the consequential possibility of another Quebec election in a few months in this video which is on the _Globe and Mail_ website.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2012)

Here. reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, is Conrad Black's assessment of the Quebec electoral situation:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/01/conrad-black-quebecs-real-revolution-will-come-when-it-looks-itself-in-the-eye/


> Quebec’s real revolution will come when it looks itself in the eye
> 
> Conrad Black
> 
> ...




I have to say that I agree, pretty much completely, with Lord Black's assessment, specially this bit: _"Quebec has provincial debt as great as the provincial economic product. It is a public sector-heavy society that is productive only in some natural resources, and would collapse if the province seceded, as transfer payments would cease ... What is needed, and will come eventually, is a Quebec leader and party that sells full participation in Canada with retention of the French language in those regions where its numbers make that possible; an ungrudging subscription to federalism with two official languages; and a return to the undoubted pecuniary vocation of French Canadian enterprise, not the dead hand of a clumsy, pompous, imitative, stifling public sector ..._[and]_ Quebec and its Quiet Revolution have failed, and its politicians have failed. The real revolution will come when Quebec looks itself in the eye and realizes where its ambitions and possibilities intersect._

Until the happy day comes when _"Quebec looks itself in the eye and realizes where its ambitions and possibilities intersect"_ then I'm afraid that I agree with Good2Golf's comment that _"it may very well be time to call Quebec's bluff_.


----------



## Haletown (1 Sep 2012)

Home run Conrad.

The money line . . . 

"Most Quebecers are not really interested in Canada, but aren’t especially hostile to it, dimly recognizing that their adherence as Canadians has been bought by transfer payments from English Canada; and they resent that"


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2012)

Quebecers vote with their feet and wallets in advance of the results according to this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _CTV News_

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/fear-of-pq-win-driving-some-anglophone-quebecers-to-ontario-1.939571


> Fear of PQ win driving some anglophone Quebecers to Ontario
> 
> CTVNews.ca Staff
> 
> ...




It isn't (generally older) _Anglos_ about which Quebec (no matter who forms the government) must worry; it is young, entrepreneurial _allophones_ who, according to a report I heard on _CBC Radio News_ last week, are either abandoning or avoiding Quebec altogether. Mme. Marois cannot find "ways to get along" with people who are not there.

And it's not all real estate; in my opinion our colleague Good2Golf has explained Canadians' frustrations very clearly.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Sep 2012)

ERC

Do you equate this to the early years of the current Sovereigntist Movement when Montreal, once the 'capital' of so many corporate headquarters, saw the mass exodus of those headquarters out of Quebec to Toronto?  Montreal of the late 80's was a Ghost Town compared to the vibrant city it was 70's.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2012)

The _exodus_ and the concomitant _decline_ of Montreal started, in earnest, in about 1960, when Jean Lesage _et al_ began the _quiet revolution_ and founded _Quebec Inc_ with the _nationalization_ of the hydro-electric companies which, in its turn, gave birth to the whole _maîtres chez nous_ thing.

The "tipping point" came with Bill 101 which was, largely, blamed for the relocation of _Sun Life_, then the largest employer of _Anglos_ in Quebec, to Toronto, but the foundations were laid in 1960, by Jean Lesage. But: Toronto surpassed Montreal, in almost every important measure, before 1975 ~ the fact was, and still is, that Montreal was/is too _provincial_ for big business; we know that many people in the technology and financial industries do not like working or living in Quebec. For example: Ericsson's decision to stay in Montreal (thanks to really generous Quebec government subsidies) has made life difficult for its R&D managers and the company's Mississauga Office has grown in size, over the years, as more and more functions are established there ~ nothing actually 'leaves' Montreal but nothing grows there, either.

This will be nothing like the the 1970s and '80s, mainly because there is no longer a very large, young and consequently mobile _Anglo_ minority that can move, easily.

But, the _CBC Radio News_ item to which I alluded earlier talked about young _Anglos_ in the National Capital region who had moved to the Quebec side because of the $7.00/day daycare only to find that a) it is rarely available, b) Quebec tax rates make living there less of a bargain and c) low housing _appreciation_ in Quebec means that their net worth has suffered. So they, the young _Anglos_, were "cutting their losses" and moving back to Ontario.


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 Sep 2012)

When Quebec separates, it will generate a very large staff reduction at NDHQ. Retired LGen Leslie wasted his time on his report. Quebec separation will handle the reduction at HDHQ and the other government departments.

We cannot have citizens of another country taking the jobs of Canadians can we!

Just think of all the openings that can be filled from the Indian ghettos solving another problem. Just be warned, Cree will not be the new second official language of Canada.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> When Quebec separates, it will generate a very large staff reduction at NDHQ. Retired LGen Leslie wasted his time on his report. Quebec separation will handle the reduction at HDHQ and the other government departments.
> 
> We cannot have citizens of another country taking the jobs of Canadians can we!
> 
> Just think of all the openings that can be filled from the Indian ghettos solving another problem. Just be warned, Cree will not be the new second official language of Canada.




Maybe it's worth a whole thread of its own, but ...

When you talked about civil service jobs "that can be filled from the Indian ghettos" I had this immediate image:







But, our native Indians/aboriginal Canadians/First Nation peoples (or whatever) lack the education to fill all those jobs ... assuming that any of the 30% of civil service jobs that are filled by Quebecers actually need to be filled by anyone.

The problem (and maybe the new thread) is that we have failed our First Nations peoples - or maybe we have allowed their own leaders to fail them.


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 Sep 2012)

ERC: 





> When you talked about civil service jobs "that can be filled from the Indian ghettos" ....



True, I pictured the same, but I call our "First Nations" people Indians. I was not referring to the South East Asian "Indians", whose Civil Service is infamous. Come to think of it





> our native Indians/aboriginal Canadians/First Nation peoples (or whatever) lack the education to fill all those jobs


 employment of our Indians in 





> the 30% of civil service jobs that are filled by Quebecers actually need to be filled by anyone.


 would have the same infamous result!


> The problem (and maybe the new thread) is that we have failed our First Nations peoples - or maybe we have allowed their own leaders to fail them.


 Well we tried to teach the Indian children to survive in a real word by educating them, teaching them a language to function in, etc and what happened. Every single one of them were abused, and because of that long ago abuse, generations of their children were abused by their abused parents/grandparents/siblings in a never ending circle of show me the money (so the Chiefs and their relatives can steal it). {Tongue firmly in cheek}.

A whole new thread so we can be called racists because we are not PC?

Across the street from me, the Westbank First Nation ( a very, very rich, well manged, self governing Indian Band) has redeveloped a beach front park. I bet the Band spent at least a quarter of a million on landscaping. The park is frost fenced off, no white people allowed. I personally have no problem with that. It is their land. Note that a huge amount of West Kelowna (Westbank) is on Indian land with more than several recently built or new big box shopping malls and housing/condos (not mine) developments. Does this mean I should not shop at the big box stores as I am bared from the Park?


----------



## DBA (2 Sep 2012)

Not sure how separation makes sense economically. Taking the more socialist and therefore lower growth route works when equalization payments prevent them from falling behind the more growth orientated provinces. After separation they lose that. The rest of Canada, and especially the high growth provinces, will then with the extra boost of being freed from sending so much money to Quebec outpace it even more. Within a decade they will be broke or will have to dismantle a lot of their socialist programs to the point of looking a lot more like the other provinces than they do now.

In short: Economically speaking separation will likely make them less distinct from the rest of Canada then they are now as part of Canada.


----------



## secondchance (3 Sep 2012)

I am going to vote for the Quebec Liberals' because I want to live in Canada. I want to serve Canada. And Quebec should be part of Canada.
It is all what I can say about election in Quebec.PQ and CAQ are both separatists. I even didn't think about them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2012)

This graphic, last updated Sun, 02 Sep 12, is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:






It projects a bare PQ *majority* (63 or 125 seats) based on winning 34.1% of the poplar vote ~ of course it could, very easily, be a stronger majority of, say, 65 seats, or a strong minority of 61 seats.


----------



## Remius (3 Sep 2012)

Still a lot of undecided voters.  And we could see an upset in the polls like in Alberta.  But I think that ultimately a change is in the air.


----------



## Remius (3 Sep 2012)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebecvotes2012/story/2012/09/03/parti-quebecois-referendum.html

Interesting article that brings up some of the concerns I voiced earlier.  The best scenario with a majority PQ would be that they have their referendum and end up with less support than in 1995.  That might be nail in the coffin once and for all.

Also note, there is a side bar on Mulcair and the threat that a PQ government poses for him.


----------



## Haletown (4 Sep 2012)

Why PSAC is such a great Union, one that all Canadians can love respect and support.

" Largest union of federal employees endorses Parti Québécois as best suited to represent interests of its members"

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Largest+union+federal+employees+endorses+Parti+Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois+best+suited+represent+interests+members/7183831/story.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Why PSAC is such a great Union, one that all Canadians can love respect and support.
> 
> " Largest union of federal employees endorses Parti Québécois as best suited to represent interests of its members"
> 
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Largest+union+federal+employees+endorses+Parti+Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois+best+suited+represent+interests+members/7183831/story.html




Yep! And people wonder why Stephen Harper "hates" them? They manage to shoot themselves in the foot yet again ... public 'service' unions remind me of Abba Eban's description of the Palestinians: they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.


----------



## 4Feathers (4 Sep 2012)

With the latest threat of a referendum, it is good that NB Power did not sell all of its resources to Quebec Hydro, and potentially put the entire provinces natural resources in the hands of a foreign company. I am sure many other Big Business decisions will be based on this threat as well. I feel bad for the people of Quebec with this economic cloud of gloom will once again be hovering.


----------



## Scott (4 Sep 2012)

I have always wondered, and am sorry for the derail, can the Newfies take back Churchill Falls power if Quebec ceases to exist as a province in Canada?


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2012)

Scott said:
			
		

> I have always wondered, and am sorry for the derail, can the Newfies take back Churchill Falls power if Quebec ceases to exist as a province in Canada?




It is unlikely - courts, in Canada and Quebec are most likely to say "a deal's a deal," regardless of changes in status.

But many deals _may_ unravel and Quebec will, certainly, without question have to negotiate its way into NAFTA and other trade deals, and that will be very, *very* difficult.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Sep 2012)

Well now ERC.

This is a Confederation of Provinces, or semi-autonomous states, that have arrogated to themselves the use of deadly force in the service of their communities.

It'd be interesting to see the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary face off against the Surete de Quebec on the Labrador border - in defence of "national" interests.

Jus' sayin', by!


----------



## Retired AF Guy (4 Sep 2012)

Well no big surprise, the PQ are now in charge, albeit a minority government. From the CTV, re-produced under the usual caveats.



> Parti Quebecois declared winner of Quebec election.
> 
> Sonja Puzic, CTVNews.ca
> Published Tuesday, Sep. 4, 2012 6:29AM EDT
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2012)

As at 2140 Hrs it looks like a PQ minority:

*Quebec Election Results*
Updated: Sep. 4, 2012, 9:40 PM EDT
Party	Elected	Leading	Total 	Vote Share (%)
PQ	            41	    17	  58	             32.88
LIB	            37	    10	  47	             30.56
CAQ	          11	      7	  18	             27.17
QS	              1	      1	    2	               5.58

Results from CBC News


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Sep 2012)

Looks like it could have much worse for the Quebec Liberals...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (4 Sep 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Looks like it could have much worse for the Quebec Liberals...



Yea, considering everyone was predicting this was to be a Liberal *Götterdämmerung. *  In the last hour the CAQ has picked up a couple more seats, now at 20 (elected/leading).


----------



## Infanteer (4 Sep 2012)

Well, this is probably the best result - the PQ have enough rope to hang themselves by being a crappy minority government but not enough rope to hang Canada as the opposition can shut a referendum movement down.


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Sep 2012)

At least we have the right Prime Minister in place to deal with them.


----------



## Monsoon (5 Sep 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, this is probably the best result - the PQ have enough rope to hang themselves by being a crappy minority government but not enough rope to hang Canada as the opposition can shut a referendum movement down.


Agreed - the political fallout of the coming corruption inquiry sh*tstorm will implicate the PQ as much as (or more than) the Liberals; this way, they'll be in a position to absorb the brunt of the political fallout without being able to push forward any of their more poisonous policies. I predict the government will fall over the budget around March.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Sep 2012)

No more than 12-14 months until the next Quebec election.


----------



## Nemo888 (5 Sep 2012)

Interesting thing is that the PQ got 3% FEWER votes than in the last election. It was not a vote for separation. It was a vote for change. Good luck to them getting rid of some of the corruption after having a party in power for much too long.


----------



## Nemo888 (5 Sep 2012)

P.S. I don't think we'll hear too much squawking as long as the 7.39 Billion in equalization payments pours in this year.

SIX PROVINCES TO RECEIVE $15.4 BILLION IN EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS IN 2012-13
(millions of dollars) P.E.I.  	N.S.  	N.B. 	Que. 	Ont.  	Man.
                               337 	1,268 	1,495 	7,391 	3,261 	1,671


----------



## aesop081 (5 Sep 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> P.S. I don't think we'll hear too much squawking



No, there will be plenty of squawking. Squawking gets more money.


----------



## Redeye (5 Sep 2012)

Didn't take long for some lunatic with a gun to show up at the afterparty - 2 wounded and the building set on fire? Only pic I saw looked like the guy had one of those civilianized Czech Vz.58 rifles.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebecvotes2012/story/2012/09/05/marois-victory-speech-shot-fired.html


----------



## Sythen (5 Sep 2012)

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2012/09/20120905-002452.html



> Man arrested with machine during victory speech by new PQ Premier Pauline Marois; fire set at building, Marois hustled off stage. Montreal police confirm two people shot outside Parti Quebecois rally; both in critical condition. More to come



End of article. Just breaking now.

More from CTV:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/two-shot-one-critically-outside-pq-headquarters-on-election-night-1.942821



> Two people were shot outside the Parti Quebecois headquarters in Montreal as PQ Leader Pauline Marois delivered her election victory speech Tuesday night, prompting her security team to whisk her off stage and evacuate the building.
> Montreal police said one person was in critical condition following the shooting. They arrested a 50-year-old man at the scene, clad in what appeared to be a long, blue housecoat and a makeshift balaclava.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/two-shot-one-critically-outside-pq-headquarters-on-election-night-1.942821#ixzz25ZIENU4B



More on link. Craziness.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Sep 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Didn't take long for some lunatic with a gun to show up at the afterparty - 2 wounded and the building set on fire? Only pic I saw looked like the guy had one of those civilianized Czech Vz.58 rifles.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebecvotes2012/story/2012/09/05/marois-victory-speech-shot-fired.html




One of the wounded has just died. Sad.


----------



## FlyingDutchman (5 Sep 2012)

Condolences to his family.  Glad they caught the guy quickly.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Sep 2012)

According to this morning's news, with 99.9% of the vote counted, the results are:

_Party   Seats_
PQ       54
Lib       50 
CAQ     19
QS         2

I agree with both Infanteer and CDN Aviator: it is about the best result for which we could have hoped, given the Liberals performance in their last term, and we will see another election soon.

I am pleasantly surprised at the Liberals performance; I'm guessing it means that Quebecers wanted change, but not all (or even most) of the PQ's _ideas_.


----------



## 57Chevy (5 Sep 2012)

I am quite satisfied with the results of a minority government.
The close race will put the sovereignty issue on the backburners for at least a while.

I'm wondering what Madame Marois will be doing with the red square issue now.

As an aside, I was very confident in Mr. Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi)
being re-elected again. 
He's been there forever.

Pierre Paradis
http://www.assnat.qc.ca/en/deputes/paradis-pierre-1113/index.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Sep 2012)

.... on the election results:





> “The people of Quebec have made the decision to elect a minority government led by the Parti québécois.
> 
> “On behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to congratulate Pauline Marois on her election victory, and the other candidates for taking part in this democratic process.
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (5 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _Party   Seats_
> PQ       54
> Lib       50
> CAQ     19
> QS         2


The headlines right up to the result tally were citing pollsters saying 'PQ and CAQ neck-and-neck; Libs eliminated,' yet people will still refer to polls as gospel (if it backs whatever political point they're attempting to make).   :not-again:


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Sep 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The headlines right up to the result tally were citing pollsters saying 'PQ and CAQ neck-and-neck; Libs eliminated,' yet people will still refer to polls as gospel (if it backs whatever political point they're attempting to make).   :not-again:




Opinion research (polling and the analysis of polls) is an excellent tool ... for marketing. It is less and less reliable when one moves from (relatively) simple choices (like brands of soap or TV programmes) and towards more complex things, like politics, and absolutely complex issues, like beliefs or policy.

I have a sense based on anecdotal _evidence_ that comes out after each election that:

1. Some (many?) people lie to pollsters keep their true intentions to themselves; when asked - they say "undecided" when they have, in fact, already decided to vote for _a_ or _b_; and

2. People (sometimes) don't make up their minds until they are actually in the voting booth and then they (sometimes) vote against the trend.


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Sep 2012)

I saw a discussion on one of the networks before the polls closed yesterday in which a pollster suggested that the polling figures for this election were suspect because:

a. the over 65 crowd is measured based on their proportion of the population, but seniors tend to vote in greater numbers than the rest of the population and they tend to vote Liberal in Quebec elections;

b. as Edward stated, people may declare themselves undecided when they have already made up their minds;

c. voters may conceal their choice because it seems to fly in the face of what the popular trend seems to be; and

d. support for one or more of the parties is soft and voters may change their minds at the last moment.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Sep 2012)

Very clever remarks by the Prime Minister. He sets the agenda and defines the arcs of fire for federal/provincial discourse.


----------



## fraserdw (5 Sep 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No, there will be plenty of squawking. Squawking gets more money.



The Feds best option is to simply ignore the squawking and focus on the economy.  The PQ have a tendency to take Federal powers and charge twice as much in fees and taxes to administer them.  If one does not give in to them while in minority, they will be forced to the polls early as their soft support disappears.  It will also send a message to the PQ's soft support that separation is not going to either easy or clean with the current Federal government.  Fear of the unknown is a great motivator for the voter.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Sep 2012)

.... from the PMO Info-machine:





> “I was angered and saddened to hear of last night’s horrific shooting at the Parti Quebecois event at Metropolis.
> 
> “It is a tragic day where an exercise of democracy is met with an act of violence.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (7 Sep 2012)

How a separate Quebec would transform our defence policy
Article Link
 J.L. Granatstein, Special to National Post | Sep 7, 2012

The Quebec election results on Tuesday almost certainly put an end to the prospect of a secession referendum for the immediate future. With only a third of the vote and 54 seats, and with opinion polls showing only 28% in favour of another referendum, Pauline Marois has lost the ability immediately to muster nationalist Québécois for a third attempt at sovereignty. But the issue is not dead. This minority government will not last long, and if Ms. Marois governs well, she has a good chance of securing her majority in the next election, likely next year. Her rancorous election speeches — which doubtless read better in the original German, as the late, great Texas columnist Mollie Ivins once said of another politician — will need to be stored away only until the next campaign.

The prospect of a referendum has implications for Canadian defence and foreign policy. The possibility of a Parti Québécois referendum victory has even more.

The PQ’s platform makes the right noises on defence and foreign policy, pledging to remain in NATO and NORAD and to enthusiastically support UN peacekeeping. But during the election campaign, Ms. Marois attacked the Harper government’s supposed “warrior” mentality, its support for the F-35 fighter, its defence spending that metaphorically takes bread from the mouths of Quebec’s children. The reality is that no one in Quebec, or outside it, believes that an independent Quebec would want anything but the most bare-bones of constabulary duties for its military. That translates into either Canada or the United States assuming de facto responsibility for the defence of Quebec, responsibilities in which Quebec would have almost no say. Certainly both Canada and the United States are unlikely to be willing to make Quebec a third member of NORAD. There might also be opposition to allowing Quebec to join NATO. None of this may matter very much if there is no military threat to North America or Europe, but these conditions cannot be guaranteed to last forever.

Possibly bereft of alliances, certainly with its defences under others’ stewardship, how Québécois could consider this independence is most unclear.

The impact of secession on the Canadian polity would also be severe. Some other provinces might decide that Canada no longer meets their long-term needs and seek statehood in the United States or independence. Whole industries — the aviation business in Quebec built with federal subsidies, for example — would be lost to Canada. Ottawa’s power and status would be greatly diminished in every international organization (while Quebec’s, of course, would be minimal in every case), and keeping the United States friendly to Canadian survival and trade would become even more critical than it now is.

Moreover, the implications of a separate Quebec for the Canadian Forces (CF) are also severe. First, every francophone in the military would face a difficult personal choice — to go with his or her heart or head. The only possibility of a serious career lies with the CF, but Canada’s post-secession military would likely be English-speaking. It would certainly be diminished in size and talent if many, or most, of the francophones who make up 28% of the present CF left for the new republic’s quasi-military. Moreover, much of the CF’s equipment and infrastructure in Quebec would accrue to the new nation, including bases at Bagotville, Montreal and Valcartier, and the Naval Reserve headquarters in Quebec City. The CF-18s at Bagotville — unless they were flown out before the referendum (as was done just before the vote in 1995) would fall into Quebec hands, as would the equipment and most of the personnel of the Ve Brigade — some one-third of the Army’s combat strength — at Valcartier.
More on link


----------



## fraserdw (7 Sep 2012)

Yeah, its all been said before.  Hopefully, the next time we will prepare more openly instead of secretly flying aircraft out at the last minute.


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Sep 2012)

> Whole industries — the aviation business in Quebec built with federal subsidies, for example — would be lost to Canada.



Note really. Canada could emulate the Russians who moved entire factories East as the Germans advanced, and did the same from occupied Germany after WWII.


Joking.


----------



## xo31@711ret (8 Sep 2012)

not all francophones in our military come form Quebec....


----------



## aesop081 (8 Sep 2012)

xo31@711ret said:
			
		

> not all francophones in our military come form Quebec....



And not every francophone from Quebec gives a crap about the place...........


----------



## a_majoor (9 Sep 2012)

Is there any possibility of the Liberals and CAQ forming a coalition to prevent the PQ from forming the government?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Sep 2012)

That would probably go over about as well as the reaction to the Lib/Bloc/NDP coalition attempt in 2008.

I would let it go and allow the PQ to minority govern.

It is a different Canada this time around.  Threats to separate by the PQ may well result in all sorts of intended consequences for Quebec.


----------



## dimsum (9 Sep 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That would probably go over about as well as the reaction to the Lib/Bloc/NDP coalition attempt in 2008.
> 
> I would let it go and allow the PQ to minority govern.
> 
> It is a different Canada this time around.  Threats to separate by the PQ may well result in all sorts of intended consequences for Quebec.



Straight from my Civics OPME prof today:

"No, the PQ cannot [legally separate], with or without a majority. The Supreme Court of Canada and the Clarity Act have made it clear that Quebec could not separate from Canada without meeting certain specific requirements."

He didn't get into any more detail, but as a provincial party, I don't believe the PQ can just decide to leave.  If it could, what was the point of the BQ?


----------



## Old Sweat (9 Sep 2012)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Straight from my Civics OPME prof today:
> 
> "No, the PQ cannot [legally separate], with or without a majority. The Supreme Court of Canada and the Clarity Act have made it clear that Quebec could not separate from Canada without meeting certain specific requirements."
> 
> He didn't get into any more detail, but as a provincial party, I don't believe the PQ can just decide to leave.  If it could, what was the point of the BQ?



Your prof is correct in the legal and constitutional realm. I submit there also is an emotional realm and there are people in Quebec who would press for a unilateral decloration of independence (UDI) once a referendum cleared the fifty percent plus one threshold. (That threshold is the position of the Federal NDP, by the way.) The UDI might or might not enjoy widespread international support except for the usual suspects, but it would create a real crisis in the country, and not just of constitutionality. I would not wish to predict how it would all turn out, except badly.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Is there any possibility of the Liberals and CAQ forming a coalition to prevent the PQ from forming the government?




Given the result, the first option, *constitutionally*, rested with Jean Charest; he was the Premier and he had a *constitutional right* to meet the National Assembly and try to win a vote of confidence. He assessed the *political* situation and decided, very properly and in accordance with custom, to accept that Mme. Marois had won the right to (try to) govern (but see King in 1925 - Meighan won more seats but King decided to stay on by, effectively, buying J.S. Woodsworth's support ~ there was, *constitutionally*, nothing wrong with that decision and Byng, the GG, very properly, said nothing).


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2012)

Given the _Clarity Act_, which will likely be cited as a legal precedent in any _Scottish_ bid for secession, it is very unlikely that any _respectable_ country, including France, would recognize a Quebec political entity that claimed sovereignty as a result of a UDI.


----------



## Old Sweat (9 Sep 2012)

Agreed, but then there are such pillars of international respectability like Iran and Venezuela and a few others.  :irony:



Whether there is any recognition or not, we would end up with a very real crisis on our hands. How does the Federal government assert its authorty in a large piece of its territory that refuses to accept it as legitimate?


----------



## GAP (9 Sep 2012)

Isn't it funny how, when you grow up, the boogeyman no longer frightens you.......

Quebec might just find out that the rest of Canada isn't shaking in it's boots anymore. Moreover, I think the initial reaction will be one of anger and contempt....cooler heads would prevail eventually, but QC has not garnered much in the way of sympathy......

 :2c:


----------



## GAP (9 Sep 2012)

I think Rex Murphy sums it up nicely....

Enough with the neverendum referendum
Article Link
 Rex Murphy | Sep 8, 2012

It’s the same thing every time. In our benignly patriotic fantasies, we see Quebec separatism off to the churchyard, attend the lowering of the flower-spotted casket and picture the priest murmuring the lovely farewell prayers for the departed — then the reverie suddenly collapses. The bubble bursts, and this comforting tableau over a finally finished separatist movement is revealed to be all wish, no reality.

We realize that Quebec separatism is a durable entity — has a new guise every time it comes back — and that our fantasies about its vanishing are but self-comforting deceptions practised on ourselves.

Quebec separatism, like its odd twin the neverendum-referendum, has more lives than a sack of cats. This week, as if to illustrate the point, we saw yet another return of the lumbering beast, the victory of a Quebec minority government for the latest separatist avatar Pauline Marois. Naturally the victory, even though premised on a rather thin and meagre 30-plus percent of the popular vote, started the whole conversation around separatism and Quebec independence all over again. The dragon returns.

But I also sense something important and quite different from our last encounters with the beast. For the first time since Quebec separation became a real issue for all Canadians — which was, I suggest, as long ago as the turbulent ’60s, and the launch of the (then famous) Bi and Bi Commission — the threat of Quebec walking out of the federation does not send chills up the spines of people outside Quebec.

I cannot speak for the dynamics within Quebec, but outside, the feeling is more and more clear. The game of threat, campaign and referendum is worn out. The emotions stirred in so many Canadians early on in this process — the strong, reflexive urge to prevent something as horrible as the breakup of the country — have greatly decayed. Separatism is no longer seen as a legitimate yearning for recognition or respect. People believe Quebec has received both in good measure.

Separatism is more often seen now as a tactical way to lever goodies from weak federal governments, or to claim special privileges within Quebec. A tool in the political box, not a cry from the heart.

Outside Quebec, the mood on Quebec separatism is not so much indifference, as low-boil annoyance. If Ms. Marois were to reach a level of popular support within her minority that enabled her to try once more for a Yes in a referendum, I very much suspect the general citizenry outside Quebec would stifle a yawn, profess annoyance and urge them to “get on with it.” The endless ping-pong of “we’re going, no, we’re staying” has become very flat, weary and stale. No Quebec separatist politician can count on some huge rally of non-Canadians to raise a storm of “don’t go” should there be a next time.

Call it what you will. After a generation of separatist politics, after enduring the presence of a separatist party (the Bloc Québécois) in the House of Commons, after all the strains and emotions of fighting referendum campaigns, most people are quite tired of it all. And the federalist elements within Quebec — particularly those great long-sufferers, Quebec anglos — must surely by now have come to a point of utter, frustrated exhaustion.

So if Ms. Marios’ new government intends to pick up the old game of “demanding” everything from Ottawa, as she simultaneously denounces the federalism that has routinely given Quebec’s demands so high a priority, the current Prime Minister will not jump to deliver. Her game will be seen as the feeble, out-of-date act it is. Harper may even, with justice, turn the request around and ask her what Quebec is bringing to the federation in exchange.

Ms. Marois’ government might contemplate the following as an axiom: A separatist provincial government should never demand more than what is requested by the provincial governments that actually support, believe in and want to remain in Canada.
end


----------



## Journeyman (9 Sep 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> A separatist provincial government should never demand more than what is requested by the provincial governments that actually support, believe in and want to remain in Canada.


While such an axiom may be valid, it's not likely to be followed. I can't see the "we're oppressed; give us more money" crowd ever backing away from the Federal feed trough.


----------



## secondchance (9 Sep 2012)

Is it fake or real?
 http://www.milice.qc.ca/







> La Milice Patriotique Québécoise, aussi appelée MPQ, est une organisation de défense territoriale, chargée de servir et de protéger l'ensemble du peuple du Québec ainsi que l'ensemble de son territoire. L'objectif de base est d'offrir une force d'intervention structurée qui pourra, avec un maximum d'effectifs, fournir les secours d'ordre matériel et moral en cas de désastre causé par une catastrophe naturelle, des troubles internes comme la rupture des services essentiels, ou protéger contre un agresseur ou un envahisseur qui voudrait assimiler le peuple ou dérober ses richesses et celles de son territoire.


Why they still exist ? Why CSIS didn't close this if MPQ even published phone number and use qc.ca domain?
I think it is against Canada and it must be closed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0l3E8_FuFc


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Sep 2012)

They're real, and we've seen them here before. I'm sure they're being watched. Better to give them their own rope...


----------



## secondchance (9 Sep 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> They're real, and we've seen them here before. I'm sure they're being watched. Better to give them their own rope...


I was really scared to see this information and specially video on youtube.
It is interesting that they use the same phone number  for recruiting and  business  for selling military things "MPQ Surplus". On logo they wrote "Surplus militaire pur militans Quebecois"


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Sep 2012)

Rex Murphy's Cross Canada Checkup on the CBC should be interesting today.


----------



## Monsoon (9 Sep 2012)

secondchance said:
			
		

> Why they still exist ? Why CSIS didn't close this if MPQ even published phone number and use qc.ca domain?


Because it's easier to keep tabs on the fruitbars when they publish their activities and contact details on the web. Better to watch them operate in plain site than to drive them underground.


----------



## Journeyman (9 Sep 2012)

secondchance said:
			
		

> I was really scared to see this...


Me too. I was afraid I'd be on sick leave after busting a gut, laughing at the paintball posers.   :nod:


----------



## Remius (9 Sep 2012)

I'm curious about the fact that some people think that if Quebec seperated that all CF assets and bases would automatically belong to them.  If anything that property, and those assets still belong to the crown, not the province.  I could see negociations happening for those things but i can't see a Quebec flag flying on those bases until negociations are completed.  as far as I know, soldiers, airmen and sailors that are from Quebec could switch to a Quebec militia/army or whatever, but they would still be obligated within the CF until they chose to release (pensions and salaries would be stake).  Those people took oaths and are obligated by those oaths until they release. 

I'm not sure what the numbers are like but I am willing to bet that the proportion of military ressources in Quebec is way higher than whatever proportion they would be able to claim.  For example if they are a quarter of our population but have one third of our military ressources.  I think it would be unrealistic for them to think they would get a third of all that.

Plus, as pointed out not all francophones are from Quebec (I happen to be franco-ontarien) so would have no right to citizenship there, not to mention the many Quebecers that would opt to stay in the CF either because they are canadians first or don't want to risk their futures.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Sep 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I'm curious about the fact that some people think that if Quebec seperated that all CF assets and bases would automatically belong to them.  If anything that property, and those assets still belong to the crown, not the province.  I could see negociations happening for those things but i can't see a Quebec fag flag flying on those bases until negociations are completed.  as far as I know, soldiers, airmen and sailors that are from Quebec could switch to a Quebec militia/army or whatever, but they would still be obligated within the CF until they chose to release (pensions and salaries would be stake).  Those people took oaths and are obligated by those oaths until they release.
> 
> I'm not sure what the numbers are like but I am willing to bet that the proportion of military ressources in Quebec is way higher than whatever proportion they would be able to claim.  For example if they are a quarter of our population but have one third of our military ressources.  I think it would be unrealistic for them to think they would get a third of all that.
> 
> Plus, as pointed out not all francophones are from Quebec (I happen to be franco-ontarien) so would have no right to citizenship there, not to mention the many Quebecers that would opt to stay in the CF either because they are canadians first or don't want to risk their futures.



There ftfy.  I honestly don't know how many members from there would go or stay.  As for the goodies, what's there in the province might be a fight to get out.  They might see it as possession is 9/10ths of the law.


----------



## Remius (9 Sep 2012)

Than ks. Corrected that  :bowing:


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I'm curious about the fact that some people think that if Quebec seperated that all CF assets and bases would automatically belong to them.  If anything that property, and those assets still belong to the crown, not the province.  I could see negociations happening for those things but i can't see a Quebec fag flying on those bases until negociations are completed.  as far as I know, soldiers, airmen and sailors that are from Quebec could switch to a Quebec militia/army or whatever, but they would still be obligated within the CF until they chose to release (pensions and salaries would be stake).  Those people took oaths and are obligated by those oaths until they release.
> 
> I'm not sure what the numbers are like but I am willing to bet that the proportion of military ressources in Quebec is way higher than whatever proportion they would be able to claim.  For example if they are a quarter of our population but have one third of our military ressources.  I think it would be unrealistic for them to think they would get a third of all that.
> 
> Plus, as pointed out not all francophones are from Quebec (I happen to be franco-ontarien) so would have no right to citizenship there, not to mention the many Quebecers that would opt to stay in the CF either because they are canadians first or don't want to risk their futures.




Quite frankly the fate of a few aircraft and a few thousand CF members is going to be very, very small potatoes indeed.

The _Supremes_ have directed that IF a majority of Quebecers vote _Oui_, on a *clear* (fair, honest) question, to secede, then the Government of Canada must enter into "good faith" negotiations which aim, honestly, to achieve that end.

It is mt belief that those negotiations, which will be conducted in good faith, by both sides, will bog down and, eventually fail.

My guess is that Canada and Quebec will agree to a multinational *arbitration* panel of distinguished jurists, one selected by Canada, one selected by Quebec and one selected by the Secretary General of the UN, to decide the issues.

(Parenthetically, I think that the prospect of the panel will convince Canada and Quebec to agree on several compromises - in most compromises each side _gains_ something; in arbitration one side get everything and the other nothing. Thus, I expect the panel to deal only with a (still fairly large) slate of really difficult issues - one by one. I have no idea which side will win most.)

My guess is that military facilities and equipment will be easy. Quebec will not want a front line fighter fleet, but it will want to join NORAD and it will offer a fighter base as its "fair share." But it is likely that USAF not RCAF fighters will be based in Bagotville. I expect that Quebec will also eschew a deep sea fleet - but they might, almost certainly will want some Coast Guard vessels and some MCDVs. Quebec will want some C-130s and tactical helicopters and it will want a small, very small army. My other guess is that the new Quebec army will be short of experience ~ I expect many (most?) young Quebec officers and soldiers, mostly below the ranks of major and sergeant, will want to go to Quebec while their older, more senior counterparts will want to finish out their service in the CF.

My final guess is that an independent Quebec will be much, much smaller than today's province of Quebec - it will not have the HUGE Ungava Peninsula and it will be missing parts of West Quebec, too. It will leave Canada with zero debt; Canada will be responsible for ALL of the national debt that exists on the day before separation; but Quebec will be a poor country ~ its bonds will have _junk_ status requiring the people of Quebec to borrow less than they want and, thus, surrender many of the public services they hold very dear.

BUT: I am certain that:

1. *Both* Canada and Quebec will be poorer and "weaker" in the world, thanks to the _separation_ exercise; and

2. French Canadians in Canada will curse their Quebec confreres as they watch Canada toss the French language and the French Canadian culture on to the bonfires of hatred.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Sep 2012)

Yes, E.R., you're spot on.  I agree we'll both be poorer for the loss of the other, however much each side makes the other pull it's hair at times.  But then family members are like that are they not.  And I especially agree on your last point that there will be bad blood for those of the other equation that remain, on both sides of the border I fear.  I for one would not wish to be either a Anglo in post-PQ as much as a Franco in post-CA.  Lots of stink eye to go around to each group.


----------



## Remius (9 Sep 2012)

Interesting take.

About the debt, I assume you are speaking iof its share of the national debt.  Would it be safe to assume they would be leaving with their provincial debt?

I agree about some of the military assets they would want.  But also, given they would want a much smaller military, and many Canadians serving in Quebec would leave (some anglo reserve units for example as well) many small towns like St-Jean, Farnham, Valcartier, Bagotville would see significant reductions of personel  that would have devestating consequences on their economies.  The same goes for any town that has a federal footprint (CRA for example in Shawinigan).

They might offer up bagotville in exchange for NORAD membership.  Or trade it.  Canada would keep it but it would be something akin to Guantanamo base or Gibraltar or the Falklands.

I could see western Quebec remaining.  But the Ungava?  That will probably be the biggest hot potatoe.

I can see most reserve units becoming or being turned over to a QF.

I'm not so sure about the bad blood though.  At least where I live.  A lot of francophones outside Quebec already don't identify with that province. I'd be more worried about being a fracophone hors-Quebec  travelling or visiting Quebec after seperation or worse, a francophone Quebecois who opts to stay in Canada
A lot of what ifs.  But less worrying given the current mood.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Interesting take.
> 
> About the debt, I assume you are speaking iof its share of the national debt.  Would it be safe to assume they would be leaving with their provincial debt?
> 
> ...




Yes, you assume correctly: I assume that Canada retains 100% of its _national_ debt, including Quebec's "fair share."

Quebec will,  those "good faith" negotiations, suggest that some(substantial) share of their provincial debt was incurred because they had to conform to Canadians laws and standards ~ it's a weak argument and I doubt it will carry the day but I also expect that Canada will end up owning some (10%, 15% even 25%) of Quebec's provincial debt for a whole host of reasons, none of them particularly "good," but all of them *politically* necessary, including pacifying our trading partners.


----------



## Bass ackwards (9 Sep 2012)

I was always curious if we would have something along the lines of an easement wrt the Trans Canada Highway, the St Lawrence River and even some air routes in Quebec airspace.


----------



## Remius (9 Sep 2012)

Likely.  While Quebec might have a claim to a good chunk of the St-lawrence seaway, it would be in their best interest to allow traffic to flow freely.  We might have a beef with them over it but more so our and their mutual trading partners.  Plus, I am sure that most ships would still have to enter and leave through Canadian waters.  I don't think that would be too big of an issue.  Enforcement along their stretch might become one though.

Same with Quebec's New England border.  Canada would likely pull all border staff, RCMP etc etc from that part of the border.  The US would would likely beef up their precense there, likely not trusting Quebec to maintain proper border control for at least several years.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Sep 2012)

If Quebec wanted to play hardball with the seaway we could do the same with the Gulf of St. Lawrence like you mentioned. I think they'd have bigger fish to fry (so to speak) than screwing around with the seaway.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Sep 2012)

Since it is a Canadian/US International seaway, I doubt the Americans will take very kindly to a third party trying to assert control of the seaway. Quebec might discover the Americans play hardball with a much bigger team and many more bats on that and a host of other issues (attempting to enter NAFTA, especially with the United States still either in recession or recovering will expose a lot of Quebec's protectionist economic regime to irresistible pressure both from the United States and Canada, for example).

Even the debt issue might end up being subjected to a form of repatriations via tariffs, fees and other trade barriers to recoup the Quebec portion of the National Debt (unless we consider Ungava, the Eastern Townships and Montreal to be fair trade) by vengeful governments and voters.

All this assumes the government and voters of Quebec act in a calm rational manner. Gripped by internal dissention as parts of Quebec separate, continuing economic crisis and spiraling decline in standards of living, panic stricken Quebec voters and politicians will flail about with things like economic "stimulus" programs and takeover of companies and business sectors; compounding the problem and turning Quebec from the "Greece of North America" to the "Bangladesh of North America"

All in all, a scenario they should best avoid.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Since it is a Canadian/US International seaway, I doubt the Americans will take very kindly to a third party trying to assert control of the seaway. Quebec might discover the Americans play hardball with a much bigger team and many more bats on that and a host of other issues (attempting to enter NAFTA, especially with the United States still either in recession or recovering will expose a lot of Quebec's protectionist economic regime to irresistible pressure both from the United States and Canada, for example).
> 
> Even the debt issue might end up being subjected to a form of repatriations via tariffs, fees and other trade barriers to recoup the Quebec portion of the National Debt (unless we consider Ungava, the Eastern Townships and Montreal to be fair trade) by vengeful governments and voters.
> 
> ...




All in all, a scenario both Canada and Quebec should avoid. There is no, not one good or even just pretty good reason why Quebecers should want to separate; it is a stupid idea. But: it is equally stupid for Canadians to wish to break up their own, first rate country by pushing Quebec out the door just because it is a weak sister.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Sep 2012)

Edward,

No rational Canadian wants Quebec to leave.

With that said,  out west, I am detecting a pretty big disinclination amongst many people to do Quebec any more favors.  I think he mood is beginning to be one of "why am I paying (through transfer payments) for daycare and low university tuition in Quebec that I cannot get in my own province and, on top of that, get dumped on for having a prosperous resource based economy by the very people benefiting from it?"


----------



## Jed (10 Sep 2012)

If you love it (them) let it go. If they come back everything is as it should be; if not they were never yours in the first place.  ;D I couldn't find the flower child smiley.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Sep 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> With that said,  out west, I am detecting a pretty big disinclination amongst many people to do Quebec any more favors.  I think he mood is beginning to be one of "why am I paying (through transfer payments) for daycare and low university tuition in Quebec that I cannot get in my own province and, on top of that, get dumped on for having a prosperous resource based economy by the very people benefiting from it?"



+1

Having lived in Western Canada for most of my life, I can say this is true.


----------



## Remius (10 Sep 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Edward,
> 
> No rational Canadian wants Quebec to leave.
> 
> With that said,  out west, I am detecting a pretty big disinclination amongst many people to do Quebec any more favors.  I think he mood is beginning to be one of "why am I paying (through transfer payments) for daycare and low university tuition in Quebec that I cannot get in my own province and, on top of that, get dumped on for having a prosperous resource based economy by the very people benefiting from it?"



This is what irks me a bit.  I'm all for criticizing Quebec for actual things but comments about the daycare thing are mostly myth.  It pays for itself.  Transfer payments do not pay for it.  Also a lot of Quebecers do not get the subsidy, either due to long waits or teh provider they are pointed to is less than desirable and people would rather pay more than risk screwing with their child's education.  If we want to get tired about Quebec's situation, cool, but let's use concrete examples, not the tired and false daycare thing.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Sep 2012)

Are you making the net economic benefit argument or are you arguing that daycare, at 7/ day, pays for itself?


----------



## xo31@711ret (10 Sep 2012)

as for one who  lived on the lower north shore when niner-dom did a 4 year RSS posting at HMCS JOLLIET ( I retired from the regs to follow her & did reserves there). Yes, they have cheap daycare etc, but (to me anyway) provincial taxes were just .freakin'. horrendus... Unreal. ..I've been chatting lately on fb etc with inlaws (ninerdom et family are Acadians from the north shore of NB) & friends  I met in Chatham, Gagetown, etc now posted to Quebec. Most are francophones & all are proud Quebecers - Quebecois. The underlying theme I get from them is: once posting is done or ready to retire, theyr'e done & heading west or east; anywhere but Quebec....


----------



## Remius (10 Sep 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Are you making the net economic benefit argument or are you arguing that daycare, at 7/ day, pays for itself?



I'm arguing that transfer payments do not go at all towards Quebec's daycare program.  It costs you and the feds 0$.

Quebec is also one of the most taxed geopolitacal areas in the northern hemisphere as well.  And once again, not everyone gets 7$ a day daycare.


----------



## Remius (10 Sep 2012)

http://thoughtundermined.com/2012/04/24/equalization-misconceptions/

This is actually a pretty good and simple breakdown of how equalization payments work.  And how the 7$ daycare argument is irrelevant.  A good explanation of why Ontario is in the situation that it is in as well, an explanation that I had wrong too.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Sep 2012)

What an interesting blog - thanks for the link Crantor.

It appears that the statement that Alberta funds Quebec's social programs isn't necessarily true.  However, the question still remains - how does a province with a much larger population and a great resource base not pay for its own programs?  Seems like the formula of lots of public benefits and high taxes isn't working?


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Sep 2012)

Micro or Macro.

Line item analysis would indeed bolster the position that Quebec doesn't use Alberta dollars to fund baby sitters.

Equally, regardless of how money is routed,  Quebec receives funds.  Alberta doesn't.  If Quebec did not exist then one of two things would happen:

1 Alberta would pay less in taxes to the federal government because it had fewer fiduciary responsibilities
2 Alberta would receive more in services because the federal government had fewer fiduciary responsibilities.

Also, with respect to daycare:

Daycare costs money.  Without the equalization payment then Quebec would have less money.  With less money the decision about repairing overpasses in Montreal or funding Daycare would become harder.


Lawyers, accountants and clerics............


----------



## Remius (10 Sep 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What an interesting blog - thanks for the link Crantor.
> 
> It appears that the statement that Alberta funds Quebec's social programs isn't necessarily true.  However, the question still remains - how does a province with a much larger population and a great resource base not pay for its own programs?  Seems like the formula of lots of public benefits and high taxes isn't working?



Because its economic output is terrible.  Population size does not matter, the income per capita does.  Rather than attcking Quebec for its provincial social programs, we should be attacking its protectionist policies, strong union meddling and poor trade policies.  The language laws don't help either since they discourage businesses as well.  Quebec could have and has potential but it isn't using it.

While Quebec gets the biggest amount of cash, it is not the biggest recipiant on a per capita basis.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Sep 2012)

I think you are right, and I believe Edward made a similar observation a while back.

However, even with bad policies not costing the provinces anything, equalization is still an issue.  As Kirkhill said, Western Canada is right to feel a bit put out as bad policies and protectionism can be masked by equalization payments - a luxury a Republique would not have.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Sep 2012)

>Transfer payments do not pay for it.

Money is highly fungible, and as the article at thoughtundermined.com helpfully points out, there are no conditions attached to equalization transfers.  Equalization transfers contribute to paying for everything.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2012)

The _Canadian_ "push-back" begins with asbestos according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-to-cease-defending-asbestos-mining/article4545704/


> Canada to cease defending asbestos mining
> 
> STEVEN CHASE
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




This is a repeat of the health care funding decision: no discussions, no federal-provincial meetings, no negotiations ... just a clear, simple announcement. It is classic Stephen Harper.

I don't want to sound like CD _'What's a Million?'_ Howe, but _"up to $50-million in assistance for towns dependent on the industry"_ is chickenfeed in the 21st century.

I'm guessing that Mme. Marois is spitting mad about this but I suspect it is the shape of things to come for Quebec.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Sep 2012)

Quebec should be happy that they were supported for so long with this mining. They should have started years ago to diversify, but in typical fashion have stuck their heads in the sand and pretended everything would be ok. If Marois wanted to prohibit the extraction, then she can find some money to pony up to help the communities as well, its not the Federal government's job alone.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Sep 2012)

A look at the long term strategy of the PQ; inflaming the culture of entitlement. Like many posters here, I see this as a losing strategy since there is no upside for either the Government of Canada to engage, and no longer the pressing need to "have" Quebec in order to win elections. Prime Minister Harper has already demonstrated his approach to the Premiers with a series of "take it or leave it" initiatives; the PQ will come in looking for a fight and discovering they are in an empty room.

The longer term issue of how willing the ROC is to pay for Quebec is also going to hit the agenda sooner or later as provinces are hard pressed to cover their own needs. There is only so much wealth available at any given any time, and the producers of wealth have a very vested interest in its management and stewardship. If monies such as transfer payments are seen as being squandered, then the people providing these monies will start voting for whoever promises to shut the tap. As some have speculated, the PQ might achieve its aim by accident and discover they are at the helm of a "nation" that is bankrupt and adrift in a hostile environment at birth...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/18/matt-gurney-the-last-thing-marois-wants-is-a-proud-confident-quebec/



> *Matt Gurney: The last thing Marois wants is a proud, confident Quebec*
> 
> Matt Gurney | Sep 18, 2012 10:36 AM ET
> More from Matt Gurney | @mattgurney
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Sep 2012)

Starting out by fulfilling campaign promises is good, but since these promises are very similar to those policies followed by the current US administration, we can expect similar results. Big question should be, "when is the Quebec economy going to implode?". Secondary question is "When are Canada's "Have" provinces going to refuse to continue paying for the "Have not" provinces"? We can see the dynamic playing out in Europe, where Germans are resisting efforts to saddle them with the bailout payments for the PIIGS; this is probably going to become the flashpoint in Canadian politics for the next generation (it could take decades to fill in a half trillion dollar hole for Quebec alone, and if the McGuinty government remains on course, there will be another $400 billion debt weighing down Ontario. Between these two provinces alone we have a debt equal to the Federal Debt (and this does not count unfunded liabilities like pensions either)).

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/21/matt-gurney-on-marois-vision-of-an-independent-quebec-that-someone-else-pays-for/



> *Matt Gurney on Marois’ vision of an independent Quebec, that someone else pays for*
> 
> Matt Gurney | Sep 21, 2012 11:57 AM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Sep 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Starting out by fulfilling campaign promises is good, but since these promises are very similar to those policies followed by the current US administration, we can expect similar results. Big question should be, "when is the Quebec economy going to implode?". Secondary question is "When are Canada's "Have" provinces going to refuse to continue paying for the "Have not" provinces"? We can see the dynamic playing out in Europe, where Germans are resisting efforts to saddle them with the bailout payments for the PIIGS; this is probably going to become the flashpoint in Canadian politics for the next generation (it could take decades to fill in a half trillion dollar hole for Quebec alone, and if the McGuinty government remains on course, there will be another $400 billion debt weighing down Ontario. Between these two provinces alone we have a debt equal to the Federal Debt (and this does not count unfunded liabilities like pensions either)).
> 
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/21/matt-gurney-on-marois-vision-of-an-independent-quebec-that-someone-else-pays-for/




The short answer is: never. The idea of inter-provincial transfers lies at the very heart of all federations. The whole point of a _*United* States of America_ or a _*Federal* Republic of Germany_ or, indeed of a Dominion of Canada is to share the wealth, to some degree. Some federal states, like Australia, Germany and India do it a little more smoothly than does Canada, in large part because their constitutions were written with the benefit of our experiences. As I recall, maybe imperfectly, the Federal-Provincial Conferences that led us towards the 1982 Constitution dealt, formally, with equalization, concluding that it was a full part of the federal system; the _Supremes_ eventually confirmed that.

If (when?) Europe, parts of the Eurozone, anyway, moves towards a federation - which is what De Gasperi, Monnet, Schuman and Spaak probably had in mind in 1950 - it too will have to include a formal equalization mechanism.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Sep 2012)

Political arrangements tend to break down when one party feels they are being exploited by the other party (parties in the sense of people with contractual obligations towards each other, not political parties). Like I mentioned upthread, and has been mentioned in the Europe thread, the people being asked to pay are increasingly resentful of that, and in the case of Europe, they can indeed break the EUzone along the lines of those who can pay (but don't want to anymore) and those who can't pay (but still want all the goodies).

While the Premier of Alberta might not be able to put a "stop payment" order on cheques for equalization, the have provinces do have considerable leverage (since they do have the money, after all), and we should consider how they will be pressuring the Federal government or the have not provinces directly to reduce the equalization burden. (Of course the only real way is to make have not provinces adopt economic policies that spur saving, investment and economic growth so no one needs to be a "have not" province anymore, but that would be common sense...)


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Sep 2012)

But, Thucydides, there is no appreciable discontent in Canada, _hors de Quebec_, and _la belle province_ has a unique set of (almost totally imaginary) grievances. In fact Alberta and Quebec often share a desire for greater autonomy.

Even in the USA we do not see any moves by e.g. Governor Perry in Texas to kick California out of the Union.

I agree that regional discontent will slow (but, I suspect, not stop) _unification_ in Europe.


----------



## Remius (21 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Canadian_ "push-back" begins with asbestos according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-to-cease-defending-asbestos-mining/article4545704/
> 
> ...



I don't think Marois is spitting mad at all.  Yes she was obviously picking a fight she didn't get but she accomplished plenty of secondary objectives.  For one she torpedoed the efforts the conservatives put into keeping asbestos mining.  She makes herself look good by looking like she got what she wanted.  She also made a portion of the population unemployed and disenfranchised, which is one of the PQ's goals to stir seperatist feelings.  Really this was win win for her.

The shape of things to come?  Well yes you nailed it.  the PQ doesn't care what Canada thinks one way or the other.  They care about what french quebeckers think.  She appoints a rabid anti-anglo as her minister of anglophone affairs.  Basically she wants to sow discord between both groups.  The anglos in quebec will be up in arms, likely making constitutional challenges to protect their rights.  It does not matter if Harper and Canada stay out of it.  An Anglo from Quebec might as well be an Anglo from Alberta.  And the PQ will frame it that way (anglo=Canada, franco=Quebec).  The PQ will just use the anglos in Quebec to get the fight they know Harper won't be baited into.  Again win win for the PQ.

Tuition freeze?  Discussions on free tuition?  How much do you want to bet they have that summit and the conclusion is that free tuition is only possible in a free and independant Quebec?  and that it gets added to their framework?  Never mind that's it isn't true, they'll just use it to get what they want.

The PQ aren't concerned about economics or prosperity.  They want out, even if it means turning Quebec into a bigger economic toilet


----------



## a_majoor (21 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, Thucydides, there is no appreciable discontent in Canada,



Did you forget the <sarc> smiley?  

BTW Governor Perry has a message for big spenders as well:


----------



## Maxadia (23 Sep 2012)

Hoo-boy...here we go:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/quebec-student-group-wants-free-tuition-now-that-hike-is-off-the-table-1.967633



> QUEBEC -- One Quebec student group says that with tuition hikes officially off the table, it will now champion the idea of free education.
> The new Parti Quebecois government scrapped a controversial increase in post-secondary tuition fees this week and a hardline student group is now turning to free education as its long-term goal.
> CLASSE, which speaks for 100,000 Quebec students, says free education is entirely achievable and used a march attended by several hundred people on Saturday to highlight the issue.
> "Our struggle for accessibility to higher education is not yet over," said Jeremie Bedard-Wien, a spokesman for CLASSE.
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (23 Sep 2012)

How communist of them.


----------



## GAP (23 Sep 2012)

PQ plans to tax rich to pay for health care
By Judith Plamondon, QMI Agency 
Article Link

MONTREAL - The Parti Quebecois government said it will tax businesses and the rich in order to cover money lost due to an expensive campaign pledge.

After promising to cut the $200 yearly, Liberal-imposed health care tax, the PQ government said businesses and the rich will cover the $845 million shortfall.

Shirley Bishop, spokeswoman for the Premier`s office, told QMI Agency Saturday that the government plans to create two personal income tax brackets to pay for the cuts, one for those making over $130,000 and the second for incomes higher than $250,000. Businesses will also be taxed higher to help pay for health care.

The PQ wants personal and commercial incomes made since last January to be taxable. However, Bishop said the tax shouldn't be considered "retroactive" since it will only apply when Quebecers file their taxes in 2013.

Bishop said the government hasn't decided how much the new tax will be, nor how it will impose it. The PQ could raise taxes by ministerial decree or bring its plan to a vote at the legislature.

However, the minority government must get the support of opposition parties, which could be difficult.


The Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ), Quebec's third party, also promised to abolish the health care tax but told QMI Agency Saturday that it was against imposing new taxes.

"Quebecers are overtaxed," said CAQ spokesman Christian Dube. "We have already stated that we are against the creation of (new taxes)." 
end


----------



## armyvern (23 Sep 2012)

Sigh. Hey career shop ... post my old man out of this province already would ya!!


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> PQ plans to tax rich to pay for health care
> ...
> the government plans to create two personal income tax brackets to pay for the cuts, one for those making over $130,000 and the second for incomes higher than $250,000. Businesses will also be taxed higher to help pay for health care.
> ...
> end




Thucydides often comments of the idea of the most _productive_ people fleeing high tax jurisdictions. The last _flight_ of Quebec's highest achievers was over language but this, too, could do it.

To put things in perspective: $130,000 per year includes most Navy captains and Army/RCAF colonels ~ they are not exactly "rich" by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Sep 2012)

I'm not sure that anyone could come up with a more effective way to encourage investors and business to move out of Quebec if they tried.  I don't know of a single case where "tax the rich and business" resulted in any lasting increase to revenues.  Short-term increases perhaps, but at the price of long-term sustainability of increased revenue stream.

I think there is more to this than revenue.  If I put on my  :Tin-Foil-Hat:, I might think that it is a deliberate move to drive anglo/allophones and non-francophone-based business out of the province.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that anyone could come up with a more effective way to encourage investors and business to move out of Quebec if they tried.  I don't know of a single case where "tax the rich and business" resulted in any lasting increase to revenues.  Short-term increases perhaps, but at the price of long-term sustainability of increased revenue stream.
> 
> I think there is more to this than revenue.  If I put on my  :Tin-Foil-Hat:, I might think that it is a deliberate move to drive anglo/allophones and non-francophone-based business out of the province.
> 
> ...




I'm inclined to agree G2G: the policy is so dumb, notwithstanding the need to raise money, that one must suspect one of two things: 

1. Premier Marois, Ms Bishop, _et al_ are terminally stupid; or

2. There is more to it ~ and _ethnic cleansing_ fits well within the PQ's recent musings about Quebec society.


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Sep 2012)

Considering how rapidly health cares expenses are rising, I suspect this is being done for cosmetic reasons. Even if they taxed the wealthy at 50 or 60 or 75 or even 110%, the additional amount the provincial treasury would raise would probably be a drop in the bucket. The next step would be to raise taxes, probably consumption or sin taxes because these are harder to avoid.

Mind you, one must never discount stupidity (economic and otherwise) combined with a vindictive streak when dealing with politicians with a messianic agenda that is not supported by a majority of the population.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Sep 2012)

Just tabling the bill, and having it fall to a combined opposition, will give her the opportunity she needs to start pleading for a majority when her minority government inevitably falls.

I suspect we'll see many more whacko ideads like this one, coming from her government, that are doomed to failure intentionally, just to push a message for a majority next time around.


----------



## GAP (23 Sep 2012)

I suspect that if they play it right the new third party CAUC? will have a decent shot in the next go around.....the PQ are playing right into their hands...


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Sep 2012)

If she is astute enough and does not govern as if she had a majority (can you spell Joe Clark,) she may be able to hold on for a year or so. By then the enquiry will have dragged the Liberals through the mud from several directions and the PQ will have manufactured a host of humiliations at the hand of the Feds. In the meantime, good, prudent government will be nowhere to be seen. This mob is just loonie enough to opt for free education, and then to demand the Feds fund it. Humiliation, anyone?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Sep 2012)

It is a bit too clever by half of the PQ.

I think they may be counting on the tax increase to drive out the " rich Anglos" (this assumes they can  even get it through a National Assembly, in which they do not hold the majority) while the " rich" Francos will be unable to leave (what other French speaking jurisdiction in the world is in good economic shape?  Perhaps a telling fact..)

The problem is that even the "rich" Francos may hit a point where the wallet means more than nationalism.  Most of them are actually bilingual and have options, too.

Interesting times.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Sep 2012)

This could also go under "Deconstructing Progressive thought", but it is a pretty good look at what the program of the PQ actually is (given it is a National Socialist party, this is no big surprise). I think it is pretty fair to say that most people reading the thread are already of the informed opinion that this economic program will only lead to disaster. Sadly, empirical evidence from the 20th century (and comparative evidence going back to antiquity) has yet to change people's minds; when Quebec goes down in flames you will _still_ have people insisting that they just didn't do it right...:

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=15688



> *The Great Quebec Experiment, Or: The Canadian Left’s Last Chance*
> Posted on 23 September 2012 by PhantomObserver
> 
> Let’s say, for the sake of thought experimentation, that the current Quebec minority government decides to put the sovereignty idea on the back burner and get serious — and I mean, no-spit, nuts-and-bolts-level, boring-to-everyone-but-public-administrators serious — about governance. Could they make it work?
> ...



I don't think this is the proper "standard", we should be looking at such things as net immigration/emigration, employment, GDP growth/decline and GDP/Capita (I'm sure you can think of other metrics). After all, California has routinely elected Democrat Governors and legislatures (the blogger's standard for success) yet fails horribly using the various economic metrics listed above.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Sep 2012)

Please stop criticizing the PQ.  Please endorse their taxation proposals and laud them as fiscal geniuses.  Do so frequently, loudly, and openly.


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Sep 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Please stop criticizing the PQ.  Please endorse their taxation proposals and laud them as fiscal geniuses (like Forrest Gump).  Do so frequently, loudly, and openly.



emphasis mine.   ;D


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Sep 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Please stop criticizing the PQ.  Please endorse their taxation proposals and laud them as fiscal geniuses.  Do so frequently, loudly, and openly.



Indeed! Why with a bit of encouragement they could easily surpass the fiscal achievements of the Bob Rae government in Ontario. I still shake my head in wonder at the statement of his finance minister that people do not mind paying higher taxes as long as the money goes for social programs. With a bit of effort the PQ could create a spending boom in the westbound rest stops on the 401.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Sep 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ...With a bit of effort the PQ could create a spending boom in the westbound rest stops on the 401.



300 MilPoints inbound, sir!


----------



## Retired AF Guy (23 Sep 2012)

RDJP said:
			
		

> Hoo-boy...here we go:
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/quebec-student-group-wants-free-tuition-now-that-hike-is-off-the-table-1.967633





> "I think it's a stark transition, I'm for it personally," says Jason Ghikadis, 30, a Univerisite of Montreal student in the faculty of music, who attended Saturday's protest.
> "I think that realistically putting it in place ... will take a bit of time."



Sigh. Thirty years old and still a music student. I suppose it could be worse, he could be in basket weaving 101.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Sep 2012)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Sigh. Thirty years old and still a music student. I suppose it could be worse, he could be in basket weaving 101.



Well, perhaps he could do busking on those westbound 401 stops...


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Sep 2012)

A predictable item from the Sun News site re the apprehension of the business community. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.


BRIAN DALY | QMI AGENCY


MONTREAL — Gas-exploration firms are mulling a massive lawsuit after Quebec's new separatist government suggested there will be no shale-gas drilling on its watch.

Sources tell QMI Agency the firms will demand compensation for the $250 million they have already spent exploring Quebec's significant gas reserves, should the Parti Quebecois impose a moratorium.

The industry was thrown for a loop last Thursday when Natural Resources Minister Martine Ouellet — on her first full day on the job — shut the door on further exploration.

"I don't see the day when there will be technology that will allow safe exploitation," she told reporters before entering her first cabinet meeting.

It's one of several moves from the Parti Quebecois that critics say will hurt Quebec's already slumping economy.

Earlier this month, even before Pauline Marois took office as premier, the Conference Board of Canada said economic growth in Quebec is well below the national average.

The think-tank blamed high debt, taxes and fees coupled with weak investment, low productivity and stagnant labour growth.

That hasn't deterred the PQ, a staunchly leftist party, from preparing the following measures:

- Income-tax hikes for Quebecers who earn more than $130,000 a year.
- Increased corporate taxes, plus capital gains taxes that would skyrocket to 75% from the current 50%.
- No economic development minister, with Marois choosing instead to split the file between three ministers.

The Quebec Employers Council, the largest business group in the province, expressed "deep concern about the negative impacts" of the PQ tax hikes, and economist Brigitte Alepin warns Marois could chase away the richest taxpayers.

"I am extremely worried," Alepin said this week. "The PQ does not realize that taxpayers are already sick of paying taxes. History shows that renegotiating the fiscal pact leads to deep crises."

Ouellet denied her government will be hostile to the business community.

"I would tell them not to worry," the former Hydro-Quebec manager said. "We want to develop natural resources in Quebec in the public interest and for that, we will work in collaboration with businesses."


----------



## Rifleman62 (26 Sep 2012)

Bob Rae and the consortium of BC Premiers better watch out. Their records for destroying a province are about to fall.

The Parti Quebecois will soon be in first place.

The ROC must not be forced by the federal government to pay for the Parti Quebecois' ineptitude, nor Ontario's. Enough is enough

Surely you can't run a province into the ground with no consequences? Hold the equalization payments at the levels they were when the Parti Quebecois and the Ontatio Liberals were first elected. No increase, not even for inflation.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Sep 2012)

Perhaps the looming disasters will provide the opening to change the equalization "formula" to specify what is being paid for, what metrics constitute "success" and look to the provinces with the lowest cost/person for delivering a successful program as a means of calculating how much any province will get. Of course, using a 5 year average is probably a smart move as well, providing less opportunity to cook the books.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2012)

I almost hesitate to post this and I do so without comment because I don't live in Quebec and haven't even visited - not even across the river - in years; in fact, over the past ten years I've spent more time in any of Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore and Penang than in Montreal or Gatineau; but I wonder how well founded Barbara Kay's (obvious) fear and outrage, expressed in this article which is Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, really are:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/28/barbara-kay-in-marois-montreal-the-sound-of-english-becomes-an-offence/


> In Marois’ Montreal, the sound of English becomes an offence
> 
> Barbara Kay
> 
> ...


----------



## Jungle (28 Sep 2012)

Thank you for this article Mr Campbell. I am disgusted by what I read in this article, and can't help but feel depressed by recent events.
I was born and raised in Québec, and spent most of my life here; I did spend almost a decade living outside the province. Unfortunately, there are idiots in both communities; some of us have been told to "speak white" or "speak Canadian" in the past.  Nobody has a monopoly on stupid. There are plenty of francophobe comments even on this forum.
The problem is intolerance, on both sides.

I am tired of being painted with the same brush as separatists; the majority of Québec citizens are not separatists. The majority of us are happy in Canada, some (me included) think Québec is trying too hard to be different.

As long as we will give importance to the intolerants, we will not move ahead. And they are given a lot of exposure.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Sep 2012)

Good post Jungle.  Je suis d'accord.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Oct 2012)

The lead edge of the wave?

Quebecers flocking to Ontario, real estate agents say

LINK

02/10/2012 3:45:49 PM
CBC News
Some real estate agents in Ontario say many Quebecers have been eager to leave the province since the Parti Québécois was elected in the last provincial election.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2012)

Is there any significance in the fact that neither _Le Devoir_ nor _le Journal de Montréal_ even mentioned the death of James Coyne? Are Canadian history and the lives and deaths of eminent Canadians so unimportant that they cannot even manage a short _obit_ for Coyne?

"Two solitudes," indeed.


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Is there any significance in the fact that neither _Le Devoir_ nor _le Journal de Montréal_ even mentioned the death of James Coyne? Are Canadian history and the lives and deaths of eminent Canadians so unimportant that they cannot even manage a short _obit_ for Coyne?
> 
> "Two solitudes," indeed.



Mr Coyne came through my ER as part of his last illness. At the time I didn't know who he was until it was pointed out to me. Now having researched the man, we are poorer for his loss.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Oct 2012)

Here is a different vision of Quebec; a "Big Quebec" that aspires to be all it can be rather than the current petulant, whiny "Little Quebec" of today. I wonder if any political party would step up and offer a vision like this to the voters as an alternative? The results might be very interesting indeed:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/10/24/the-next-alberta/



> *The next Alberta*
> 
> Ted Morton, Special to Financial Post | Oct 24, 2012 9:08 PM ET | Last Updated: Oct 24, 2012 9:10 PM ET
> More from Special to Financial Post
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2012)

Quebec will never escape its current _Little Quebec_ straitjacket until the politicians Quebecers elect grow up. This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act illustrates part of the problem - picking winners just because they are _provincial_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/ceos-exit-thrusts-rona-back-into-quebecs-political-spotlight/article5176434/
My *emphasis* added


> CEO’s exit thrusts Rona back into Quebec’s political spotlight
> 
> SOPHIE COUSINEAU
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




*Picking winners*, which is what this is all about, is a mug's game - especially when done by bureaucrats or, even worse, politicians. We did it for too long at the federal level and although the Feds and most provinces have broken the habit Quebec is still a major practitioner.



Edit: forgot to highlight the important parts ...


----------



## foresterab (15 Nov 2012)

http://gold.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/GI/20121115/escenic_5337929/stocks/news/&back_url=yes

NAFTA challenge launched over Quebec fracking ban
JEFF GRAY Law Reporter
14:17 EST Thursday, Nov 15, 2012
  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Energy firm Lone Pine Resources Inc. is taking on Quebec’s fracking moratorium, saying it violates the firm’s rights under the North American free-trade agreement and demanding more than $250-million in compensation.

The company disclosed in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission this week that it has filed a notice of intent to sue the Canadian government under NAFTA’s controversial Chapter 11.

Those provisions of the treaty allow U.S. and Mexican companies to sue Ottawa if they feel they have been wronged by a government policy or action.

The company is just one of many affected by Quebec’s moratorium on the extraction of natural gas using hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which involves injecting liquids deep into the ground. It has been controversial for its potential effects on the environment and drinking water.

According to Lone Pine, Quebec’s legislation passed last June also cancelled permits for oil and gas activity in areas directly below the waters of the St. Lawrence River – including the cancellation of a permit held by Lone Pine covering 33,460 acres.

Company spokesman Shane Abel said in an interview that under Quebec’s legislation, the company received nothing for the loss of the permit. “We think that the expropriation is arbitrary and without merit ... We think that’s a clear violation of the NAFTA agreement.”

The NAFTA challenge, levelled at a major environmental policy, could encourage critics of trade deals as they now question Canada’s proposed investor-protection agreement with China, which would extend similar rights to Chinese investors in Canada.

Lone Pine, which also has assets elsewhere in Canada, is headquartered in Calgary but is incorporated in Delaware. It trades on the New York Stock Exchange and Toronto Stock Exchange. The company was created in 2011, spun off from Denver-based Forest Oil Corp. in an initial public offering.

Quebec’s moratorium is meant to stay in place at least until the province completes an environmental review of fracking, expected in 2014.

and 

http://gold.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/GI/20121115/escenic_5328498/stocks/news/&back_url=yes

Stornoway, Quebec resolve mine road impasse
BERTRAND MAROTTE
11:05 EST Thursday, Nov 15, 2012
  

Stornoway Diamond Corp. has struck an agreement with the Quebec government that breaks the logjam over completion of a 240-kilometre stretch of road leading to the company’s diamond mine project.

The project, an all-season two-lane gravel highway extending Route 167 further north to Stornoway’s Renard property in the remote James Bay area, ran into major cost overruns.

The newly installed Parti Québécois government, which is footing most of the bill, ordered a review of the infrastructure project, which ballooned to about $470-million from the initial 2009 budget of $260-million.

The delay threatened Stornoway’s target of starting mine construction in July 2013 and getting to production by 2015.

Meanwhile, critics slammed the project as a glaring example of the previous Liberal government’s largesse towards the private sector by assuming hefty infrastructure and electric-power costs for new mining and forestry developments in the north.

The original terms of the agreement between Quebec and Stornoway were for the company to contribute $44-million over a 10-year period – financed by a loan from the province -- to the highway extension, as well as pay out up to $1.2-million a year in maintenance costs.

Quebec, which also holds a significant stake in the company, was to pay the rest of the construction cost as well as cover overruns.

Construction on the road began in February.

Under new terms negotiated between the province and the company, Stornoway will take over responsibility for building the final 97 kilometres of the 240-kilometre long highway, but as a lower-cost “mining grade” single-lane road.

The government will pay for the first 143 kilometres of the road.

Quebec will also provide Stornoway with an unsecured credit facility of up to $77-million to complete the work.

The government says the new deal represents a $124-million reduction in its share of the construction cost.

Total costs for the entire road extension will come in at no more than $304-million, it said in a news release Thursday.

“We sat down with Quebec and negotiated a new framework. The obvious thing to do was for us to take over management of the process,” Stornoway president and chief executive officer Matt Manson said in an interview.

“We’ll be in full control of the development schedule for the first time.”

The Renard diamond property – Quebec’s first diamond mine -- is located about 250 kilometres north of the Cree community of Mistassini and 350 kilometres north of Chibougamau in north-central Quebec.

Pre-production capital costs are in the $800-million range.

“We view this agreement positively as it represents an important milestone in derisking the Renard diamond project and is indicative of the government’s ongoing support for the project,” Desjardins Securities analyst Brian Christie said in a research note Thursday.


Although these are two different resource industries working in different parts of the province there are severe implications with both articles due to political decisions made within in Quebec.   Plan Nord appears to be running into funding issues with reduced infrastructure being constructed now (while still an improvement also has ripple effects for other users in the area) while the oil and gas sector is starting to fight back over the fracking ban.   For comparision sake the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan in north east Alberta is a major policy management plan that superceeds other resource rights and compensation will be paid eventually to a number of industries due to the lands involved going from development lands to protected lands.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Dec 2012)

It's pretty hilarious when the various "nationalist" provisions of the law come back and bite their supporters in the a**:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/12/pauline-marois-mansion-sale/



> *Marois wants to sell $6M Montreal home to European businessman, but law prohibits sale of agricultural land to foreigners*
> Tristin Hopper | Dec 12, 2012 10:36 PM ET | Last Updated: Dec 13, 2012 10:04 AM ET
> More from Tristin Hopper | @TristinHopper
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Dec 2012)

Fiscal reality has a nasty habit of surfacing and kicking dunderheads ~ by which I mean (mainly) _Francophone_ Quebec university students and the (many) professors who supported them* ~ as demonstrated in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/18/chris-selley-quebec-student-strikers-utopian-vision-crashes-to-earth/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


> Quebec student strikers’ utopian vision crashes to Earth
> 
> Chris Selley
> 
> ...




The upshot of all this, I suspect, is that, perhaps even in my lifetime, McGill University will move to Calgary.


-----
* The _Anglo_ universities, even normally radical Concordia sat on the sidelines in the "students' strike" which was, essentially, a _Francophone_ phenomenon.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jan 2013)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Thank you for this article Mr Campbell. I am disgusted by what I read in this article, and can't help but feel depressed by recent events.
> I was born and raised in Québec, and spent most of my life here; I did spend almost a decade living outside the province. Unfortunately, there are idiots in both communities; some of us have been told to "speak white" or "speak Canadian" in the past.  Nobody has a monopoly on stupid. There are plenty of francophobe comments even on this forum.
> The problem is intolerance, on both sides.
> 
> ...




Speaking of trying too hard ...

I missed the original story but this _Globe and Mail_ editorial, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper, makes me more sad than usual when I contemplate Quebec within Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/quebecs-language-laws-reach-a-new-low-in-sainte-agathe/article7460761/


> Quebec’s language laws reach a new low in Sainte-Agathe
> 
> The Globe and Mail
> 
> ...




This is ample demonstration of the fact, and I believe it is a fact, that PQ and its language police are making a concerted effort to bully and degrade their fellow citizens who happen to be of the _wrong_ heritage. If this sort of thing happened in another country our national government in Ottawa would express its outrage and this abuse of simple civility. It speaks poorly for the moral standards of every single person who supports the PQ and even kore poorly of those who try to appease the separatists. It tells me that many Quebecers are unfit to be Canadians.

I am ashamed to be part of a _bilingual and bicultural_ country that provides safe haven for institutionalized hatred based on race, culture, creed or language.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Feb 2013)

More on how elections have consequences. Personally, I would have continued to ask the disturbed individual to repeat herself ("I'm sorry, I don't understand what you just said. Can you please repeat it?") until her vocal cords gave out or she had an aneurysm (the ideal solution). Once I asked for assistance to give first aid I'll bet lots of people would "suddenly" remember their English....

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/14/dan-delmar-quebec-language-zealots-anti-anglo-message-has-a-trickle-down-effect/



> *Dan Delmar: Quebec language zealots’ anti-anglo message has a trickle-down effect*
> 
> Dan Delmar | Feb 14, 2013 8:57 AM ET | Last Updated: Feb 14, 2013 11:17 AM ET
> More from Dan Delmar
> ...


----------



## foresterab (18 Feb 2013)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2013/02/18/quebec-anglophones-leaving-living-english.html


I've heard lots of discussion but this is the first time I've seen some poll numbers




Anglophones wary of PQ government, poll suggests
Living English: Anglos consider leaving Quebec41:29
The election of the minority Parti Québécois government last September has many anglophones questioning their future in Quebec, a new poll commissioned by the CBC suggests.

Forty-two per cent of those surveyed in the EKOS research poll said they have considered leaving the province in the wake of the PQ victory.

 FEATURELiving English
In particular, the PQ's stance on language restrictions has raised eyebrows in the English-speaking community.

On Sunday, a crowd gathered in front of Premier Pauline Marois' Montreal office to protest Bill 14, which proposes amendments to Quebec's language laws.

Marc Stamos, who participated in the demonstration, grew up in Montreal. After living in Toronto, he moved back home to start a family. Now he's thinking of leaving again.

"We were starting to plant our roots here," he said.

'The environment in Quebec is hostile'
—Richard Yufe, CRITIQ
"For the first time in 17 years, all of a sudden, we're starting to think of leaving again."

Real estate 'surge' in eastern Ontario
Jackie Smith, an Ontario Real Estate Broker, said she has noticed an increase in business since the election.

"We tend to notice a surge when the PQ gets into power," she said.

Smith, works for the Lancaster Royal LePage and sells homes just minutes from the Quebec border.

She estimated her business has gone up by about 25 per cent since the PQ's election.

Many of her clients are English-speaking Quebecers who are wary of the government's language policies. Some of them are also francophone parents who want their children to learn English in school.

'Tired of linguistic roadblocks,' Quebec City resident says
Ginny Roy and her family are pulling up stakes in Quebec City and moving to Toronto this summer, after having agonized over what they should do for the past several years.

Roy moved to Quebec from the United States 15 years ago, settling down in her francophone husband's hometown to raise her daughter, who is now in high school.

She said her daughter is reluctant to leave, but she and her husband have decided it's a question of survival for their family.

"I'm tired of the linguistic roadblocks," Roy told Bernard St-Laurent, host of Quebec's Radio Noon.

Roy said her job history is spotty because her French is not considered good enough by many Quebec City employers.

However, she said it was the difficulty in getting health care in her native language that was the final straw.

Roy has had cancer three times, and she said that last summer one of the specialists who had always been willing to speak to her in English in the past suddenly refused to.

She said this happened shortly after the start of the provincial election campaign.

"It was very telling — her political affilation," Roy said. "I was out the door as fast as she could get me… She looked like she didn't even want me in her office."

'Glass ceiling' for non-francophones, activist says
Richard Yufe is a member of the executive committee of Canadian Rights in Quebec (CRITIQ), a newly formed organization that aims to defend the rights of Quebecers to live in both French and English.

Yufe says there is a glass ceiling in Quebec for those who don't have a French-language background.

"The environment in Quebec is hostile," he said.

"[In] the law firms, the accounting firms, the marketing firms, there's a perceived notion that you can't have too much of an English face," Yufe said. "You have to have a French character and flavour because we're in Quebec."

Yufe said this creates an environment that is particularly difficult for English speakers.

Quebec brain drain
The Quebec Community Groups Network (QCGN), an organization that works to defend the rights of anglophones, said it's not surprised people are crossing the border.

Sylvia Martin-Laforge, director general of the QCGN, said the poll results suggest a significant percentage of the English-speaking population is unhappy about their place in Quebec.

'There's an enormous brain drain'
—Sylvia Martin-Laforge, QCGN
"Forty-two per cent is a pretty big number," she said.

Martin-Laforge said the PQ's stance on language laws has created concern among anglophones since the election.

Since the PQ's first election win in 1976 and the subsequent 1980 sovereignty referendum, Quebec's English speaking population has declined by thousands of people.

"By their leaving, there is a brain drain, there's an enormous brain drain," Martin-Laforge said.

In 1971, before the PQ's first election, the anglophone population sat at 788,833. By 2011, the total had dropped to 599,230.

The EKOS poll results are based on a telephone survey conducted between Jan. 15 and Jan. 23 with a random sample of 1,001 anglophone Quebecers.

The margin of error is +/- 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Apr 2013)

And here is a bit of "fallout," reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from Montreal talk radio station _CJAD_:

http://www.cjad.com/CJADLocalNews/entry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10525546


> Quebec ramps up war of words with Ottawa
> 
> Posted By: Andrew Peplowski
> 
> ...




Some wag has already noted that Ottawa will not notice as Quebec never said "thank you," in either official language, for all the pork that flows its way.


----------



## krimynal (3 Apr 2013)

to be honest , since she got elected im kinda ashamed to be living in Quebec ....... Shes doing so many wrong things that are making the Quebec province look like complete idiots ...... it's really sad ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Apr 2013)

Actually, she's just using the national _Official Languages_ rules as they were originally intended: Canadians, including Quebecers, should be able to deal with Ottawa in the official language of their (not Ottawa's) choice. A Quebec minister should be able to deal with the federal government in French as long and as often as (s)he wishes, regardless of the language profile of the Ottawa folks across the table.


----------



## krimynal (3 Apr 2013)

well its not about the language she want's to use in the chamber in ottawa , i hate the fact that she is trying to get rid of the laws about army kids beeing able to attend english school because of the parents jobs .... I hate the fact that she tryes to close the option to go to an english CEPGEP if you want to ( if you parents are french ).  I don't know why she keeps on bringing Canada down and hoping for a quebec seperation , but hey , I can't do much then vote against her at the election and hope that everyone will do the same ....


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Apr 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually, she's just using the national _Official Languages_ rules as they were originally intended: Canadians, including Quebecers, should be able to deal with Ottawa in the official language of their (not Ottawa's) choice. A Quebec minister should be able to deal with the federal government in French as long and as often as (s)he wishes, regardless of the language profile of the Ottawa folks across the table.



I agree with all you've said here Edward, but that's not what's happening. Minister are being TOLD what language to speak. It is beyond the scope of governments to require people speak one language over another.


----------



## foresterab (8 May 2013)

http://gold.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/GAM/20130508/RBCOUSINEAUCOLUMNPRINTATL/stocks/news?back_url=yes

A Quebec mining plan that pleases no one
SOPHIE COUSINEAU
00:00 EST Wednesday, May 08, 2013
  

MONTREAL -- scousineau@globeandmail.com

Premier Pauline Marois is going to great lengths to put the Parti Québécois's imprint on the development of Quebec's North.

Ms. Marois and three of her ministers travelled all the way to Chibougamau on Tuesday to meet the press in the small mining and forestry town that sits north of the 49th parallel, in what used to be Plan Nord territory.

But now it's out with Plan Nord, Jean Charest's signature economic project, and in with the "Nord pour tous" - North for everybody - as the PQ's program is now called.

In a blind taste test, however, you would be hard pressed to tell the two plans apart. The government now says it will invest $868-million in infrastructure and social housing over the next five years, almost exactly what the Liberals had allocated to the roads and parks in the North. The only change is that private developers will have to assume a bigger share of the risk when they are the sole users of roads and railways - a flaw the PQ rightly corrected.

In essence, the Quebec government is barely rebranding a program so tainted in bright Liberal red that Ms. Marois's eyes would hurt just looking at it. But there are some striking differences between the then and the now.

The PQ's plan has garnered none of the enthusiasm Plan Nord sparked when Mr. Charest unveiled it almost two years ago to the day alongside native leaders and mining executives. And its new mining regime is now pilloried by both environmentalists and mining companies alike.

In the spring of 2011, there was no end in sight for the mining boom, and talk of the expected $80-billion in investments that would create or maintain 20,000 jobs a year barely raised eyebrows. Now, everyone is wondering if the resource economy will simply carry on at a less hectic pace, or if it will fall more precipitously - as all the recent project cancellations seem to point to. And they're wondering if the new royalties regime unveiled by Finance Minister Nicolas Marceau could knock Quebec out of the mining race.

You couldn't find a mining executive anywhere near Mr. Marceau on Monday - nor an environmentalist for that matter. Even Quebec's Natural Resources Minister, Martine Ouellet, a hardliner on mining companies who was coaxed into attending the press conference, couldn't bring herself to say anything nice about the new royalties regime when asked by reporters.

Just about every interested party criticized the new mining rules by which all companies operating a mine in the province will be forced to pay royalties, be they profitable or not. Common wisdom would say this is a sign that a fair solution has been found. But some compromises are hurtful.

On the plus side, the rules of the game are spelled out, which puts an end to eight months of uncertainty. And the regime, which the Liberals amended only three years ago, should not change any time soon, although that doesn't say much coming from a minority government.

The supertax on profits, which rises progressively, and the minimum mining tax, which is calculated on the output value at the mine shaft head less expenses, are much milder than what the PQ campaigned on. Also, in a surprise reminiscent of the retroactive tax hikes, Mr. Marceau revealed that mining companies will only have to pay the highest of the two taxes, not both, which was news to all.

You cannot blame Mr. Marceau for taking the changing macroeconomic environment into account. But one cannot help but wonder if the changes, which were made to honour a campaign pledge, are worth all the trouble given how little extra revenue the province will take in. In 2015, the government predicts it will earn $370-million in royalties, as opposed to $320-million with the current regime, a mere 15 per cent more. For environmentalists (and PQ allies) that were hoping for more cash to clean up the abandoned mines, this is a slap in the face.

The tax on profits, whose rate increases when the profit margin exceeds 35 per cent, is a good idea. It will allow Quebeckers to partake into any mining bonanza when the prices of their non-renewable resources skyrocket, as the price of gold had done in the past decade.

The minimum mining tax on production is a bad idea, even if its impact was softened for smaller producers. Under an annual output value of $80-million, the tax rate stands at 1 per cent as opposed to 4 per cent above that threshold.

A tax on production will discourage investment or encourage miners to idle Quebec mines first, at a time when rising costs, harder-to-find financing and falling commodity prices have forced many producers to postpone or cancel projects.

Rio Tinto may well pursue its $5-billion (U.S.) iron ore expansion in Western Australia. But Northern Quebec is no Pilbara. Quebec's mineral concentration is much lower. Its exploration and exploitation costs are higher because of its harsh winters and difficult access. And the province is further away from China and other major clients than Australia or South America.

With its royalties reform, Quebec has become the costliest jurisdiction in Canada. As the province stands out unfavorably, the Quebec government is jeopardizing an industry that gives highly paid work to some 34,000 Quebeckers, a huge risk that could translate into crumbs for everybody.



While this is tied to the Quebec election promises the lessons here are similar to what happened in Alberta a couple of years ago when teh government of the day changed the royalty regime just in time to see the bottom fall out of the natural gas market and BC's shale gas play exploded.


----------

