Quebec, the Country

[Haggis McBagpipe]

I do not think that Quebec is trying to thumb her nose at the rest of Canada in her desire to separate, she simply does not feel part of a country so steeped in English traditions. The culture, the people, all so different than English Canada.

Often, when English-speaking Canadians refer to Quebec, they do so with the same slightly condescending tone that Americans often use when they speak of Canadians... the 'aren't-they-nice-and-really-they-are-just-like-us' tone.

I suspect Quebec would be our best ally, should she separate, and the ties with the rest of Canada would be far closer than they are now. I see that it would be mutually beneficial.

Why, then, are English-speaking Canadians so reluctant to see an independent Quebec? The ones who say 'go for it' say it in a vindictive sense, not a supportive sense. I would hate to see one of the finest provinces leave Canada, but I hate more to see a distinct province remain an uneasy square peg in a round hole country instead of standing alone as a country in her own right.

 

[American Voice]

Very briefly here, Haggis, speaking as an American, especially here in the Northeast part of the country, having a maverick government controlling Hydro Quebec could make me a little nervous. It was like when the Confederate States seceded from the Union, and seized control of the lower Mississippi. Would they be likely to impose a ruinous rate of taxation on commerce from the North? Likewise, what would a "rogue" state in Quebec do with the rate of electrical power provided to the U.S.? Like the Saudis and OPEC, gouging the West to provide a free lunch to every citizen, would an independent Quebecois regime--which are traditionally socialist--gouge America, as a lure to garner support? The prospect is far too radical and too disruptive to consider.

(He pauses to draw a breath.)

That was more than I had intended to say.

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

I don't see the correlation, why the assumption of a maverick government? When the US claimed its independence, was it a maverick government?

The government of Quebec controls Hydro Quebec already, what would change? If Quebec were to become an independent country, they would naturally seek good relations with Canada and the US for the very obvious reason that it would be in their best interest.

 

[researchok]

I can't (and I don't think anyone can) foresee what an idependent Quebec would look like, but in the end the people have spoken.

I suspect there will be more referenda with more of the same results.

In any event, to use well worn phraeseology, the divorce would have to be negotiated and ratified.

To simply say that an independent Quebec would continue to use a Canadian dollar, for example, assumes Canada would go along. Same goes for federal assets (airports, shipping ports, etc.). There would be the matter of transfer payments (can you see THAT debate?!), postal service, etc. Treaties would have to be negotiated, trade agreements ratified, and so on.

Then there is the matter of Montreal secession....

 

[American Voice]

Not to mention, navigation on the Saint Lawrence Seaway.

 

[Numure]

The Montreal francophone community is very sepratist. The Haitiens as well, support our cause. Only the Anglophones, don't. As for our infrastracture, we would keep it to ourselves. Even what is funded by the Federal goverment. The only thing we would keep in common, is the currency. For obvious reasons. Also a free trade agreement and close economic ties.

Haggis; That is what most seperatist also think. We would be negotiation with Canada, as equals. No longer, as the Black sheep.

Hydro, belongs to our Goverment. Its been that way since the 60's. An Independant québec, would be no différent. We could spike our rates at any time, under Canada or not. The fact is, Canada has no say at this time, in our energy policies. Its our natural ressource(water), and we have full rights to control it. Lets say the US decided to pull a "hike soft wood lumber" on us, then we can just pull a "hike electricity rates" on you. Right now, soft wood lumber is out of our hands... And between Ottawa and Washington.

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

Of course it would be complicated, but that doesn't make it wrong, and the country which would emerge would be good, I have no doubt about this.

Again I say, I believe the connection between Canada and Quebec would be all the stronger for the separation, especially if Canada stops viewing it as some kind of slap in the face.

As for the United States it is absolutely none of their affair what happens. It might be interesting to them, and might be a concern, but it is certainly not their place to interfere in any way.

 

[Numure]

Not to mention, navigation on the Saint Lawrence Seaway.

I would rather see it completly blocked. Its been straping our port economy here, ever since the US, decided it was in their intrest to create "la voie Maritime".

Well, I don't mind keeping it the way it is... But in no way, should it be enlarged.

Do you know how much pollution does big ships drop into our waters every year? I'll try and find the stats right away, and show you.

 

[Numure]

http://www.startribune.com/stories/122/4824994.html

Effects caused because of the Saint-Lawrence Seaway.

 

[Numure]

http://eces.org/archive/ec/ecosystems/greatlakes.shtml

Filled with articles on this subject as well. See my point?

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

That is what most seperatist also think. We would be negotiation with Canada, as equals. No longer, as the Black sheep.

Exactly, no longer as the black sheep. The idea that English Canada just 'tolerates' Quebec is, in fact, intolerable. A strong, free and independent Quebec will be a wonderful neighbour, a worthy ally, an excellent trading partner.

 

[researchok]

The Montreal francophone community is very sepratist. The Haitiens as well, support our cause. Only the Anglophones, don't. As for our infrastracture, we would keep it to ourselves. Even what is funded by the Federal goverment. The only thing we would keep in common, is the currency. For obvious reasons. Also a free trade agreement and close economic ties.

To that the Francophones are seperatiste flies in the face of reality. Francophones outnumber all minority groups combined.

Also, Hydro Quebec does NOT belong to the government-- it was paid for and maintained by taxpayers.

Again, as to the Canadian dollar, that is not a given. That too, would have to be negotiated-- and I suspect a referendum on the matter would take place in the rest of Canada.

As an aside, there is no way a NAFTA, for example, would be ratified by the US Congress. That would mean an huge exodus of Quebec industries- or they would face a collapse (eg, furniture, automobiles, just to name a few.).

The lure of new business to other provinces would be in the best interest of Canada. Without a new NAFTA, the handwriting is on the wall.

Also, you offer no reason for saying federal installations would be turned over to Quebec. On what grounds should that occur?

 

[Numure]

Exactly my view. You could compare this to, the US and Britain. They have become great friends and allies with time. The same would be true between us. It would be not only for the good of Québec, but for the good of Canada.

 

[researchok]

By the way, i'm not advocating one way or the other, re Quebec seperation.

Just posting some points that merit discussion.

 

[researchok]

The analogy to the UK and even Europe are not exactly realistic.

The vast majority of Quebecs exports go to the US.

As I said, there is no way NAFTA would pass Congress.

 

[Numure]

To that the Francophones are seperatiste flies in the face of reality. Francophones outnumber all minority groups combined.

82% of the population to be exact. The ones voting no, are the older generations. Every new generation, is in majority seperatist. The majority of the post-secondary diploma holders, are also seperatist. I suspect, a succesful referendum can take place in 5-15 years.

Also, Hydro Quebec does NOT belong to the government-- it was paid for and maintained by taxpayers.

Not anymore. Its been brining in 2 billion$$ of profits every year for awhile now. 2/3 of that, goes into the goverments pockets. Thus at some point, back to the taxpayer.

Again, as to the Canadian dollar, that is not a given. That too, would have to be negotiated-- and I suspect a referendum on the matter would take place in the rest of Canada.

It would be in Their intrest that we do. If they do not want to, then we could adopt any other currency.

As an aside, there is no way a NAFTA, for example, would be ratified by the US Congress. That would mean an huge exodus of Quebec industries- or they would face a collapse (eg, furniture, automobiles, just to name a few.).

We, wouldnt ratify a NAFTA as well. NAFTA, is pretty much "export all your natural ressources to America". Like oil and natural gas. We have to exported it all, or the majority of it, to the US. As for the Automobile industry, no longer exists in Québec. Its dead. Thanks to Ottawa.

The lure of new business to other provinces would be in the best interest of Canada. Without a new NAFTA, the handwriting is on the wall.

All the compagnies that didnt like the idea of an independant Québec, have already moved to Ontario. Why do you think Ontario is now the economic power house of Canada? The ones still here, have no intentions of leaving.

Also, you offer no reason for saying federal installations would be turned over to Quebec. On what grounds should that occur?

They would no longer have any juristiction in Québec. Law, is my domain. And does installations could be easily seased in any court of law by the new, independant Québec Goverment.

 

[Numure]

The analogy to the UK and even Europe are not exactly realistic.

The vast majority of Quebecs exports go to the US.

As I said, there is no way NAFTA would pass Congress.

I never spoke of the UK and Europe. And as said previously, we wouldnt want a NAFTA either.

 

[researchok]

Regardless of the reasons, the voters have spoken. At the momnet, there is no reason to think voting patterns will change.

As for the referance to the UK, I though you made referance to Great Britain.

I'm not sure I understand you're referance to NAFTA. After all, it is an agreement in place. Quebec industries have benefited greatly. They would stand to lose a lot in an environment surrounded by NAFTA signees.

Your statement on currencies is correct, of course, though I suspect the US dollar would become the currency of choice. I base that on historical precedent. No new currency has met with immediate acceptance or confidence. Couple that with even a potential of economic uncertainty, a new currency would face serious challenge.

Your remarks re HQ were interesting. I was under the impression HQ operates as a seperate entity. Does HQ actually kick back money to the Gouvernement? I'd like to research that (occupational hazard!).

By the way, I forgot that GM had left-- my apologies. Still, there are other industries, furniture in particular that would be hard hit (I suspect that would be good news in North Carolina-- what was once one of the largest industries here has been replaced by Quebec manufacturers). I can't imagine the furniture industry folding up.

As for federal installations, I have to cede your expertise. I do wonder though, how the new infrastructures would be incorporated. Seems to me the duplication of services would be very expensive.

Also, what would happen to federal pensions and other federal programs?

 

[Numure]

Regardless of the reasons, the voters have spoken. At the momnet, there is no reason to think voting patterns will change.

Atm, you are correct. But every major pollster agency agrees here, if the current trend in younger generations continues, a succesful referendum (60-80% yes) is more then forseable within 5-15 years. But of course, you have to count in, what kind of referendum. It could be, complet seperation, souvrainté-association or even a renegotiation of the "marriage-contract".
Who knows....

As for the referance to the UK, I though you made referance to Great Britain.

Yes, but it was between the US and the UK. Nothing to do with Europe (even though arguably, the UK is apart of Europe).

I'm not sure I understand you're referance to NAFTA. After all, it is an agreement in place. Quebec industries have benefited greatly. They would stand to lose a lot in an environment surrounded by NAFTA signees.

I agree, we have. But our economy has shifted quite alot, and sems to be growing alot, in the consumer type economy. Something, less then likely to dissapear.

Your statement on currencies is correct, of course, though I suspect the US dollar would become the currency of choice. I base that on historical precedent. No new currency has met with immediate acceptance or confidence. Couple that with even a potential of economic uncertainty, a new currency would face serious challenge.

The Euro stands more of a chance to be adopted then the US dollar. If the Euro was adopted, we could op for an association with the EU, and have some say in it. If we adopt the US dollard, we have no say at all.

Your remarks re HQ were interesting. I was under the impression HQ operates as a seperate entity. Does HQ actually kick back money to the Gouvernement? I'd like to research that (occupational hazard!).

Its a state owned compagny. The Goverment, appoints the Directors of HQ. Usually, for 4 years. If he does well, they keep him in place (no matter the party in power). The goverment, is the board of directors if you wish. And yes, like all state owned compagnies, they give 3/4 of their profites to the goverment. The HQ, with what it sells to the exterior, racks in alot of money. I suggest you look at their site. TRheir financial books should be available somewhere, as its publicly owned.

By the way, I forgot that GM had left-- my apologies. Still, there are other industries, furniture in particular that would be hard hit (I suspect that would be good news in North Carolina-- what was once one of the largest industries here has been replaced by Quebec manufacturers). I can't imagine the furniture industry folding up.

They would most likely stay here, as long as its more profitable. Remember how a consumer market works, high quality for low costs. The benefits out do the negatives even if Québec seperates.

As for federal installations, I have to cede your expertise. I do wonder though, how the new infrastructures would be incorporated. Seems to me the duplication of services would be very expensive.

It would pretty much run the same. Why would it change? The costs would be the same... I just don't see how anything would be different.

Also, what would happen to federal pensions and other federal programs?

Picked up by our goverment. It would cost more in the short term, but long term, everything would be back order.


Also, remember that we only get an estimated 60% return on the money we give to Ottawa (threw Taxes). For alot of programs that they don't even offer in Québec. That extra 40%, would help balance things out... and we could then pay off the debt with time.

 

[researchok]

Your remarks on the Euro are interesting-- though to date, the Euro is hardly on steady ground-- too much 'propping up'. Also, the whole point of a 'second currency' is the ease of use. Neither Canada nor the US make it easy to spend Euros, so by sheer expedience, the US dollar would become the de facto 'second' currency, due to it's acceptanc and ease of use.

You seem to concur re NAFTA.

My question then becomes, howe long before Quebec develops a 'new' economy-- and will the population put up with a realistic 10-15 year transition?

AS for HQ, if they're giving back 3/4 of their profits, well, good for them. I suspect with a track record like that, soon enough someone will suggest an Alaska like program, with residents getting a direct dividend (ah, to dream!).

Lastly, with an aging population and longer life spans, it would seem to me that the pension and program issues are more than 'short term'. In addition, in order to maintain those programs, Quebec would have to embark on large scale immigration of younger populations (I did run accross something interesting last week. It seems le Gouvernement is quietly pursuing Jewish immigration from France. They are under tremendous pressure there. They highly educated, skilled, prosperous-- and thus not be a drain on provincial coffers-- and could potentially employ many. Obviously, the language and economic benefits to both Quebec and French Jews are immediately apparent.)

Anyway, its a fascinating topic.