Independence for Quebec
- Thread starter Aliksander
- Start date
Really. How did converting to bilingualism help BC when the Francophone population is something like 1.5%?
Packaging cost more in order to make room for two languages, prescription meds are a lot harder to read the instructions because 2/3 of it is in French (and the print wasn't all that large to begin with before bilingualism), it costs the gov't and companies more to have things printed in two languages, etc. I don't see a net benefit.
The aboriginal population in BC is about 5%, why aren't we speaking Okanagan or Haida instead of French? lol
On the other hand, BC would be a lot better off if it split rather than if Quebec split.
Actually you have it backwards, JLM. It is Alaska that has BC in the way. Canada doesn't have another country separating its provinces.
No, one can fly or sail from Anchorage to Seattle without encroaching on B.C. It would if Quebec became a separate country.
If Quebec separated it would prevent people from flying or sailing from AK to WA? How do you figure?
Or do you mean that if Quebec separated it'd be the entire province that separated? I really don't think that'd be the case. They'd probably end up with the "Lower Canada" portion of Quebec only. Besides, I doubt Quebec would be in any position to stop people from flying over it anyway.
Any way you want, but if you want the most expensive, tedious and time consuming way you could drive through the Yukon and B.C. or Alta. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
If Quebec separated it would prevent people from flying or sailing from AK to WA? How do you figure?
Or do you mean that if Quebec separated it'd be the entire province that separated? I really don't think that'd be the case. They'd probably end up with the "Lower Canada" portion of Quebec only. Besides, I doubt Quebec would be in any position to stop people from flying over it anyway.
Now you've totally lost me. Travelling from AK to WA has nothing to do with driving across Canada. All I was trying to point out was that AK and HW being separated by water, is not the same as having an obstacle in the way. Quebec would be an obstacle if it separates. How much static do you think we'd get from them at the border. I wouldn't count on just automatically being able to get a pass through to Newfie. Unless you spoke French you likely wouldn't qualify for being "processed" at the border.
Can go by rail or road. It's always nice to see countryside that way. It's not so easy from 10,000 ' and at 250 MPH or whatever.
Not much of one, because if the separatists actually managed to separate, they wouldn't get the entire province. They'd only get Lower Canada portion of Quebec, most likely. That'd be easy to go around. That's what I was saying in the first place.
It'd be irrelevant what they'd do at the border between Canada and Quebec.
Many Canadians do not know it, but Canada had bilingual packaging before it became law. Why? Simple economics. It is cheaper to package a product in a single bilingual box rather than produce one box for French Canada and another for English Canada. You may have noticed that in the US many companies package boxes in more than one language, such as English and Spanish, in spite of there being no bilingual policy in the USA. And if you have ever opened a package containing electronic components what do you make of the fact that the instructions are presented in as many as eight different languages? To me the bilingual packaging is a complete non-issue. Such packaging is the way of the world in the 21st Century.
Please notify me if you can find an example anywhere in the world of a nation that became stronger or wealthier when a portion of it seceded.
I agree with you about the multi-lingual packaging issue. Matters of capitalist economics are not to be confused with matters of politics. Companies that operate outside of a governments control have a business incentive to market their product to anyone and everyone, and it is often in their best interest to cater to the needs of the consumer. This is nothing new, and has been going on for a very long time in other places than Canada. I'm not exactly sure why so many people have found it to be prudent to argue the menial and petty "gray matter" issues in between the real governmental and structural changes that will have to take place. As I said before, this is more than a matter of language, and addressing only the language-based issues will not solve any of the real needs that Quebec will face if it ever gains its independence.
As for your challenge to find a nation that has become stronger after a portion of it separated itself from its political borders, I find the question to be a moot one. Quebec's motives for separation do not necessarily involve Canada retaining it's original "strengh" as you put it, and neither was it America's prerogative to maintain the might of England when it separated. Not to put it coldly, but it's simply not a concern, and shouldn't be.
Last edited:
This may be true in a broader international sense but the reality is Quebecers and residents of other areas that break away from Confederation will compare their quality of life pre- and post break up. I don't think that most of the regions will be able to sustain the same quality of life, based on their inability to function now without aid from other regions, and this especially will apply to an independent Quebec.
If the provinces each stand alone, I believe only Alberta, BC and Ontario stand a chance of maintaining that standard (most scenarios I've ever seen/heard discussed have of a break-up don't necessarily of the provinces standing alone but rather have Manitoba and Saskatchewan partnering with Alberta or have all 4 western provinces forming one country, in which case I think it would be more economically viable).
As for the discussions about the country being one continuous body that can be driven through by car or rail vs not, the issue would be largely irrelevant except for the fact that ground transportation (truck or rail) is far cheaper than air or sea transportation, thus the creation of border checkpoints for highways going into Quebec would create extra cost and delay of shipping products east-west. Access to the St. Lawrence River might be subject to some negotiations but I think those would be modeled on the existing agreements between Canada and the US for access (I'm not sure how this works right now but there is a lot of shipping that goes down the river and through the Great Lakes).
I can see the logic in this, but while the "strength of Canada" may not be a concern to an independent Quebec, the question is can Quebec sustain the same quality of life for its citizens as Canada can, and I have seen no evidence to suggest it can.
Also, should Quebecers take this view, why should the rest of Canada take one any different? Seperatists almost always talk of "sovereignty association" between Canada and an independent Quebec, but where is the impetus for the rest of Canada to accept that, especially given that Quebec doesn't care that its actions do weaken the rest of the federation? The reality is that Quebec benefits more from its association with the rest of the country than we do from having Quebec as a part of the nation.
Selon moi, la meilleure solution serait que les francophones unilingues et les anglophones unilingues se réunissent pour se consulter sur ce sujet.
I'd love to get an average Calgarian and an average resident of Roberval together to discuss the question of separation, with no intermediary present. The conversation would start off with one of them making a comment, the other pulling out a dictionary and passing it on to the first sending the message to please communicate through the dictionary. After a few minutes of jumbled communication attempts on both sides, the discussion would be incredibly tranquil for the rest of the hour long programme.
Alternatively, we have an average Calgarian, an average resident of Roberval, and an average Montrealer. The Montrealer wold essentially be conducting two simultaneous discussions with each of the other two, and who do you think would likely win that discussion?
My guess is, most unilingual English-speakers watching that programme would it was the unilingual English-speaker, because they couldn't understand the unilingual French-speaker and the bilingual seemed oblivious to the plight of English-speakers in French-speaking regions of the country. Unilingual french-speakers would say the same relative to their own side. And of course most bilinguals would say that the two monolinguals are just too lazy to learn a second language and that the bilingual Montrealer was right.
Granted there may be exceptions, but I think that's essentially how the debate is going on now on a national scale. There truly are two solitudes among Canada's monolinguals, with two separate debates going on in two separate closed rooms, with neither side fully understanding what's going on in the other room, except for bilinguals who have the keys to both rooms. And then of course they can be resented for their privileged legal position in Canadian society. So how do we end this talking to the brick wall in each room when the vast majority of Canadians in either room don't have the key to the other?
I'd love to get an average Calgarian and an average resident of Roberval together to discuss the question of separation, with no intermediary present. The conversation would start off with one of them making a comment, the other pulling out a dictionary and passing it on to the first sending the message to please communicate through the dictionary. After a few minutes of jumbled communication attempts on both sides, the discussion would be incredibly tranquil for the rest of the hour long programme.
Alternatively, we have an average Calgarian, an average resident of Roberval, and an average Montrealer. The Montrealer wold essentially be conducting two simultaneous discussions with each of the other two, and who do you think would likely win that discussion?
My guess is, most unilingual English-speakers watching that programme would it was the unilingual English-speaker, because they couldn't understand the unilingual French-speaker and the bilingual seemed oblivious to the plight of English-speakers in French-speaking regions of the country. Unilingual french-speakers would say the same relative to their own side. And of course most bilinguals would say that the two monolinguals are just too lazy to learn a second language and that the bilingual Montrealer was right.
Granted there may be exceptions, but I think that's essentially how the debate is going on now on a national scale. There truly are two solitudes among Canada's monolinguals, with two separate debates going on in two separate closed rooms, with neither side fully understanding what's going on in the other room, except for bilinguals who have the keys to both rooms. And then of course they can be resented for their privileged legal position in Canadian society. So how do we end this talking to the brick wall in each room when the vast majority of Canadians in either room don't have the key to the other?
I don't agree with much here. Quebec can very well stand on it's own. Not that I am advocating it. The biggest problem Quebec has is it's government, be it Liberal or Parti Quebecois. They nearly have the same view economic wise. Money here is down right wasted and mis-managed period !
The biggest draw back to Quebecs intention to seperate (the 49 point something in the 95 referendum maybe much less now) is the seperatists themselves!
Lucien Bouchard , a strong advocate for it and the creater of the Block Quebecois is now against the idea. It is not feasable.
You look at where it is going, from seperation to soverignty association to down right internal party bickering and winning conditions.
So far all I see in this thread is a whole lot of speculation feuled by bitterness and probably a good lack of love for this country!
The separation of Canada in and of itself would not necessarily have any economic impact. It would be the nature of the separation that would cause such an impact. If the separation is totally amicable, there would likely be little to no impact.
On the other hand, if emotions run high and it pushes the country to the brink of civil war, then of course we'd quickly become a second-rate power over night.
Those are the two ends of the spectrum, and of course any separation could fall anywhere in between, with the economic impact being directly proportional to the friendly intentions on both sides at separation.
In the end, it's not separation itself that would would be to blame for any woes caused, but rather hate on either side for the other.
Having said that though, of course how we treat legal treaty obligations would likely play a significant role in how friendly relations are between First Nations too, and so any kind of animosity interfering with any possible friendly relations will certainly tear the country down more than any the administrative restructuring itself would, which technically is all separation would be at the political level at least.
Or to put it simply, economic health, though influenced by the top, is mostly determined by the grassroots.
Or to take another example, Harper's attitude demonstrated in his berating of the 'separatists' las year over the proposed coalition (which was not even to include the bloc anyway) will prove much more harmful to a post-separation economy than the separation itself, not to mention that such an attitude actually feeds sovereigntist sentiments as it denigrates the genuine democratic wishes of the people.
On the other hand, if emotions run high and it pushes the country to the brink of civil war, then of course we'd quickly become a second-rate power over night.
Those are the two ends of the spectrum, and of course any separation could fall anywhere in between, with the economic impact being directly proportional to the friendly intentions on both sides at separation.
In the end, it's not separation itself that would would be to blame for any woes caused, but rather hate on either side for the other.
Having said that though, of course how we treat legal treaty obligations would likely play a significant role in how friendly relations are between First Nations too, and so any kind of animosity interfering with any possible friendly relations will certainly tear the country down more than any the administrative restructuring itself would, which technically is all separation would be at the political level at least.
Or to put it simply, economic health, though influenced by the top, is mostly determined by the grassroots.
Or to take another example, Harper's attitude demonstrated in his berating of the 'separatists' las year over the proposed coalition (which was not even to include the bloc anyway) will prove much more harmful to a post-separation economy than the separation itself, not to mention that such an attitude actually feeds sovereigntist sentiments as it denigrates the genuine democratic wishes of the people.
There is a very strong link between politics and capitalism in Western democracies, one cannot exist without the other. Do not fool yourself in believing otherwise.
While your statement that a business' incentive to market to all is entirely accurate, that principle is off-set by the reality that business also seeks to develop and take advantage of the path of least resistance. The point here is that while business will still market/supply to any/all that are interested, however from a governmental point of view, the goal is not to have a group remove cash/capital from an area without reinvesting in the jurisdiction. Quebec, as community, will need to have a net influx of capital in order to develop their economy.
If the current political philosophy is any indication of the future, Quebecers will have a very small pool of business/investors to draw upon to develop that economy.
Wulfie hit the nail on the head. The strength of a nation is relative not only to other nations, but also relative to a time frame upon which it is measured.
Quebec will - and should - make their own decisions, however, there is a very real consequence(s) to such actions. The question is not "should" Quebec separate, but "can they successfully" make the transition. Making the decision and passing the legislation is the easy part. The challenge lies in the capacity to do so without suffering a major alteration (negative) in terms of society, quality of life and economy.
Based on Quebec's historical reliance on Canada, I'd suggest that the province has a very long way to go prior to being anywhere close to considering separation.
Captain Moran,
I'd actually met some Quebecers who are aware that Quebec could potentially suffer economically in the event of separation yet still support it. The idea on their part was that sacrificing a little wealth in exchange for sovereignty was a small price to pay. I'm not saying I agree with their positin, but can understand it. Some Canadians too, for instance, are opposed to certain kinds of international agreements that could benefit Canada economically solely out of fear of losing some sovereignty for Canada. I usually don't agree with them either by the way since I don't believe absolute sovereignty is even possible in this day and age anymore anyway. We need common rules and regulations for aeronautical and maritime communications just to take but one of many examples of where totally sovereignty is just no longer possible in the modern era. The best we can hope for now is decentralized federalism of some sort.
I'd actually met some Quebecers who are aware that Quebec could potentially suffer economically in the event of separation yet still support it. The idea on their part was that sacrificing a little wealth in exchange for sovereignty was a small price to pay. I'm not saying I agree with their positin, but can understand it. Some Canadians too, for instance, are opposed to certain kinds of international agreements that could benefit Canada economically solely out of fear of losing some sovereignty for Canada. I usually don't agree with them either by the way since I don't believe absolute sovereignty is even possible in this day and age anymore anyway. We need common rules and regulations for aeronautical and maritime communications just to take but one of many examples of where totally sovereignty is just no longer possible in the modern era. The best we can hope for now is decentralized federalism of some sort.
Oh, I agree that in some circumstances having instructions in multiple languages is fine. But as Anna said, the demographics in BC is that 1.5% of the population of BC speaks French, 5% speak indigenous languages, and the majority speaks English. Having English + French is illogical. The situation in Ontario or Quebec is different than here.
I'd suggest that quite a few countries benefited from the break up of the USSR. But that's just my opinion.
The USSR is a bad example . Wasn't that union created by force in the first place?
It doesn't matter. Countries are better off without the USSR. Russia itself will straighten out eventually and become better.