54 replies to this topic

[TheLastBestWest]

Das Racist, on 02 February 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

Mackenzie King... The guy who praised Hitler and called him a 'patriot' after meeting him in the 1930s, only to declare war on him years later? The guy who turned away Jews trying to flee to Canada to escape Nazi Germany? The guy who interned Japanese Canadians and stripped them of their property during the war? The guy who regularly consulted his dead mother through a crystal ball? I know he was Canada's longest-serving Prime Minister, an astute politician, and could coin a phrase, but I don't think he's worthy of the "#1" designation on the basis of those things alone.

It is accepted that King's spirituality clouded his view of Hitler. Additionally, he did have a slight racsist streak in him. However, the evacuation and seazure of property from the Japanese cannot be wholy blammed on him. Furthermore, it is well known that his occult and spiritualist beliefs did not direct his political career. To suggest that he should be admonished for such beleifs is quite prejudicial.

[lecavaleur]

TheLastBestWest, on 04 February 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

The anecdotes and studies are all well and good, but as far as I'm concerned the best evidence can be found in the last election. What was it? 4 BQ seats returned? I do beileve that there are many (Quebec) nationalists in the NDP party and electorate, but I think the wholehearted evacuation from the BQ is good evidence that sovergnety is not Quebec's #1 priority.

I would hate to see Quebec seperate. They represent a unique cultural part of Canada. Canadian history has been profoundly influenced by the French fact and the loss of our most vocal and distinct province would be a bitter one as far as I'm concerned.

I also don't see how sovergnty would be good for Quebec. Its economy has been in a consistant decline with few bright spots (the video-game industry?). Quebec is subsidized by billions of dollars of equalization payments from Saskatchewan, Alberta, and B.C. How will the province maintain its strong, popular and expansive welfare state without transfers from the West?

The so-called 'vague orange' that swept through Québec in the last federal election was a media creation. My MP is a 19 year-old who had barely finished CÉGEP when he signed up on a whim to be the NDP candidate thinking there was no chance he could win (and they let him be the candidate because they literally didn't have anyone else). Now he's making $120,000 public dollars a year, plus expenses, until at least the next election. No one can possibly think those who voted for this guy informed themselves on what voting NDP means or on who would be their MP if they did vote orange.

Those results are quite far from a resounding cry for federalism.

Support for the NDP has tumbled ever since the election, with the Bloc and the Libs picking up the rebound. Within the NDP there are several openly sovereignist MPs. It is perfectly normal for someone who votes Bloc on the federal level to vote liberal at the provincial level, or for someone who votes NDP or Conservative on the federal level to vote PQ on the provincial level.

The political struggle for sovereignty is something that is primarily a provincial matter, so even if the Bloc were to disappear tomorrow, the sovereignty project wouldn't. Québec, though not an independent country, is a distinct nation and it is normal for a large portion of its population to aspire to independence. With support steadily hovering around 40% (sometimes as much as 51%, though admittedly not when it mattered), it is one of the most widely shared political views in Québec and support for it transcends traditional left-right political distinctions.

As for the Québec economy, it is not as bad as most of the world (or the country for that matter). I think that public spending should certainly be curtailed, and in an independence situation, I think it would have to be and I welcome that.

If support is in a slump at the moment, it is not because people are suddenly realising how awesome Canada is, or how Trudeau was right about everything after all. Far from it. It's because people, though ultimately dissatisfied with the status quo, still feel safe within it in times of uncertainty. The devil you know versus the devil you don't know...

It took me a long time to come around to sovereignty, but I now fully support the idea (and I'm an anglophone). It would be pathetic for Quebecers to give up and settle for the 1982 constitution they've spent 30 years either trying to change or get out of altogether. It would be one of the most losery moments in human history, in my book. A nation that would accept such a thing when it has never been easier for it to take control of its own destiny (just put the X on the box that reads OUI) deserves to disappear. And disappear it will, albeit slowly, if it chooses to remain a federated state as things currently stand.

[SaulGoodman]

lecavaleur, on 04 February 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

As for the Québec economy, it is not as bad as most of the world (or the country for that matter). I think that public spending should certainly be curtailed, and in an independence situation, I think it would have to be and I welcome that.

Why do you think this? Quebec is set to receive $7.3 billion in equalization payments for the 2011/2012 year which is over twice the amount given to any other province (http://www.fin.gc.ca...rov/eqp-eng.asp). Since equalization payments are based on a province's ability to raise tax revenue, this would indicate to me that
Quebec has less economic activity than the rest of the country to tax. Additionally, their unemployment rate is at 8.4% which is among the highest in the country (http://www.statcan.g...lfs-epa-eng.htm). So the numbers I have indicate that Quebec's economy is noticeably worse off than the most of the rest of the country.

[dan1010]

There has never been a good, rational reason for Quebec to separate. As SaulGoodman pointed out, Quebec does not have a strong enough economy and to add to this, it's one of the highest taxed provinces (if not the highest) already.

The only somewhat convincing arguments I have heard regarding separation are ones suggesting a need to protect its distinct heritage. Guess what? Separation will not help in the least. Quebec being a part of Canada is not the only barrier it faces in protecting its unique culture (globalization????). Quebec is not doing itself (or its citizens) any favours by continually looking inward and trying to protect itself from outside influences. This is a matter of adapting to survive, and so far Quebec has done a piss-poor job of achieving this. Rather, it has prioritized a xenophobic attitude over a progressive one focused on some of its more pressing concerns, such as its economy.

I don't think it's fair for Quebec to limit its citizens' opportunities because of language barriers. I also would like to work in Quebec rather than driving halfway across the country. To sum up, Quebec needs to fix all of its other problems before it even thinks of separation.

[lecavaleur]

SaulGoodman, on 05 February 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

Why do you think this? Quebec is set to receive $7.3 billion in equalization payments for the 2011/2012 year which is over twice the amount given to any other province (http://www.fin.gc.ca...rov/eqp-eng.asp). Since equalization payments are based on a province's ability to raise tax revenue, this would indicate to me that
Quebec has less economic activity than the rest of the country to tax. Additionally, their unemployment rate is at 8.4% which is among the highest in the country (http://www.statcan.g...lfs-epa-eng.htm). So the numbers I have indicate that Quebec's economy is noticeably worse off than the most of the rest of the country.

Quebec recieves far less money per capita than do the Eastern provinces. With the recent exception of Newfoundland, the Eastern economies are far worse off than Quebec's. Based on the figure you've provided, Quebec will receive $912.50 per inhabitant, whereas Nova Scotia will receive $1339.81 per inhabitant (app. 68% more per capita than Québec).

Also, that 7.3 billion is the gross amount which does not take into account the amount Quebecers pay in federal taxes. It would be interesting to see how much Quebec actually nets. The only numbers I can find are from 2004, where the feds collected over 5.5 billion from Quebecers in various taxes, which means that if the numbers were similar this year, Quebec would only be netting 2.1 billion or $262.50 per inhabitant. If that is the only gap an independent Quebec would have to close, it's far from impossible.

Furthermore, Quebec has long-term economic infrastructure and industry - unlike Alberta or other priovinces whose "bubble" economies are dependent on non-renewable ressource like oil. We also have Hydro-Québec which makes us better debtors than States without such enormous capital.

An independent Quebec would be free to control industries currently under federal jurisdiction such as transportation, maritime affairs, telecommunications, banking, etc... All these industries are potential avenues for Quebecers to innovate in and be competitive in with its neighbours at the legislative level.

With competent governance and the right attitude, Quebec is far better equipped to be an independent country than aremost countries currently independent. It won't be G8, but then again neither will Canada be once Quebec leaves.

There is no reason to hyperbolise over the economic calamity that an independent Quebec would be. Québec is an educated, affluent, multi-ethnic society with lots to offer both culturally and economically.

As for 'good arguments', how about the constitutional double standard which makes it possible to install and impose a new Constitution on Québec in 1982 with the support of the 9 other provinces but, in order to bring any fundamental change to said Constitution, it requires unanimity... ? Unanimity to alter the powers of the Queen, but only 9 out of 10 to adopt the damn thing inthe first place and then shove it down Quebec's throat, using it to gut the Charter of the French Language, using its judicial application to marginalise the francophone majority in Québec by making it damn near impossible to integrate newcomers into said majority...

And Quebec has not promoted xenophobia in any way. No State on this planet would allow the things you people expect Quebecers to accept in the name of your constitution. No country would subsidise the marginalisation of its own national language the way Quebecers are expected to do. Over 140 States on this planet have enacted linguistic legislation in order to favour the survival of their official language(s).

Quebec is the jurisdiction with the most bilingual and TRILINGUAL citizens in all of the Americas. And you call us xenophobic? Please.

Our defence of the French language has been a contribution to global diversity, not a detriment to it.

Sovereignty will ensure the perennity of French as the common language of Quebecers of all origins. There is not an independent State in existence that has experienced a decline in its national language shared by the majority of its citizens while the nation was independent.

The danger of anglicisation does not come from television, it comes from institutional bilingualism which only exists by virtue of the federal government.

Anyway, I could go on and on but suffice to say than the debate over sovereignty is far more nuanced that most on either side of the divide would like to believe (or than what you will read in National Post and Montreal Gazette editorials).

Edited by lecavaleur, 05 February 2012 - 09:08 PM.

[staffer]

lecavaleur, on 04 February 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

My MP is a 19 year-old who had barely finished CÉGEP when he signed up on a whim to be the NDP candidate thinking there was no chance he could win (and they let him be the candidate because they literally didn't have anyone else). Now he's making $120,000 public dollars a year, plus expenses, until at least the next election.

$158,000 actually. Plus you have practically no expenses because the House covers (separate from pay): weekly transportation to and from your riding, accommodations in Ottawa, most food while you're on the Hill (free in the Gov/Opp lobby, heavily subsidized in the cafeteria and parliamentary restaurant), most personal electronics (including your phone, laptop, home computer, and tablet) and other perks like a free gym & spa membership (yes, there is a gym and spa on Parliament Hill - it's on the 9th floor of the Confederation Building and they have an in-house masseuse), free mail and shipping of anything to anywhere in Canada, and others that I can't remember. Not to mention a staff of 3-5 people who do everything for you.

[lecavaleur]

dan1010, on 05 February 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

I don't think it's fair for Quebec to limit its citizens' opportunities because of language barriers. I also would like to work in Quebec rather than driving halfway across the country. To sum up, Quebec needs to fix all of its other problems before it even thinks of separation.

I think sovereignty is a lot like having children: it's never exactly the right moment; there is always some other matter that seems more pressing. But at some point you have to squeeze one out before it's too late.

Nobody claims that becoming a sovereign country is easy; independence is never easy. The status quo is always easier and safer than change. Niccolo Macchiavelli wrote that people are almost never willing to do anything unless the threat of a greater problem forces them to. In this sense, because Canada is not hell on earth, it is an uphill climb to convince voters to choose the road less travelled. Nonetheless, around 40% of the population remain convinced. We only need 11% more. This in and of itself should show you that a significant portion of the Quebec population means business about this whole sovereignty thing and sees a greater problem in remaining part of Canada than in the uncertainty of breaking off.

What, pray tell, would keep you from working in Quebec? I simply do not follow. Do you live in Quebec currently or do you plan on moving here to work? In either case, it is not sovereignty that would keep you from working here. Like anywhere else, if you want to work in Québec you need the required skills pertainging to your field and an ability to speak the language.

I address your nonsensical xenophobia remarks in my last post. There is not a single policy enacted by the Québec State that can be described as xenophobic. If you are referring to the Charter of the French Language, then you will have to do better than that. Quebec wants and needs immigrants, and we want them to integrate into the francophone majority. We do not want them to become Anglo-Canadians or to isolate themselves in ghettos, we want them to become Québécois. There are now, thanks to immigration and to the Charter of the French Language, Québécois people of all colours and backgrounds who share French as a common language as well as being able to speak English and their native tongues or parents' native tongue.

The problem is that this integration is emperiled by institutional bilingualism on the federal level and allegiances to conflicting political message. One message is the Québec message of SPEAK FRENCH, the other is the federal message saying ENGLISH IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR US. The feds spend tons of dough reinforcing both its presence in the Montréal area and reinforcing the legitimacy of the English language as not just a language limited to a minority of native speakers in the area, but as a parallel alternative to French, and just under half of all immigrants to Quebec arriving in Montréal have subscribed to that message and integrated into the English element.

In a Quebec Republic, this would not be possible. It would be one country with one language. No more diglossia. Immigrating to Quebec at that point would mean adopting French as one's main language and learning English only as a secondary language, not the other way around. This is the normal existence of any independent people. It is asking for nothing more than what exists in other countries. When you go to Germany, you speak German. When you go to Sweden, you speak Swedish, etc. There is nothing xenophobic about it. It is the established norm around the globe in every single country except this one right now.

We can exist as a modern, multi-ethnic, democratic republic with one common language just as others do. There is nothing that inherently deprives Quebec of this capability other than its continued membership in the Canadian federation.

[jmcazabon]

lecavaleur, on 06 February 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

Truth

Keep the arguments coming, Im always glad to see this sort of stuff. Even as an anglophone—non-quebecer—pro-federalist I still feel that a lot of the problems of Quebec are normally horribly misunderstood and the degree to which they have given English Canada the benefit of the doubt and accommodation is mis-understood. I think it also stems from the fact that English Canada doesn't see itself as a nation but just calls itself Canada, not realizing that there are a few nations within Canada.

[fisherman888]

Quebec's will share 1/3 of Canada's debt
Have a choice of using US$, loonie or print their
Own currency. But their rating may not be AAAJust hope the Big Boys in NY don't call their loan

Edited by fisherman888, 06 February 2012 - 12:28 PM.

[dan1010]

lecavaleur, on 06 February 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

I think sovereignty is a lot like having children: it's never exactly the right moment; there is always some other matter that seems more pressing. But at some point you have to squeeze one out before it's too late.

Nobody claims that becoming a sovereign country is easy; independence is never easy. The status quo is always easier and safer than change. Niccolo Macchiavelli wrote that people are almost never willing to do anything unless the threat of a greater problem forces them to. In this sense, because Canada is not hell on earth, it is an uphill climb to convince voters to choose the road less travelled. Nonetheless, around 40% of the population remain convinced. We only need 11% more. This in and of itself should show you that a significant portion of the Quebec population means business about this whole sovereignty thing and sees a greater problem in remaining part of Canada than in the uncertainty of breaking off.

I never claimed that there wasn't a large proportion of Quebecers that wanted to separate. Regardless, in itself I don't find that a very compelling reason for sovereignty. I must remind you that the uncertainty is not the only factor keeping Quebec a part of Canada. Although you brushed it off, there are economic considerations that have to be taken into account as well as aboriginal issues in Northern Quebec. I apologize if I don't share your optimism regarding an independent Quebec, but a 'now or never' argument is not enough to convince me that it's the best way to go.

What, pray tell, would keep you from working in Quebec? I simply do not follow. Do you live in Quebec currently or do you plan on moving here to work? In either case, it is not sovereignty that would keep you from working here. Like anywhere else, if you want to work in Québec you need the required skills pertainging to your field and an ability to speak the language.


Are you kidding me? The lack of jobs is what keeps me from working in Quebec, or at least the lack of decent paying jobs. I live in Quebec but work in Saskatchewan during the summer.


I address your nonsensical xenophobia remarks in my last post. There is not a single policy enacted by the Québec State that can be described as xenophobic. If you are referring to the Charter of the French Language, then you will have to do better than that. Quebec wants and needs immigrants, and we want them to integrate into the francophone majority. We do not want them to become Anglo-Canadians or to isolate themselves in ghettos, we want them to become Québécois. There are now, thanks to immigration and to the Charter of the French Language, Québécois people of all colours and backgrounds who share French as a common language as well as being able to speak English and their native tongues or parents' native tongue.

The problem is that this integration is emperiled by institutional bilingualism on the federal level and allegiances to conflicting political message. One message is the Québec message of SPEAK FRENCH, the other is the federal message saying ENGLISH IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR US. The feds spend tons of dough reinforcing both its presence in the Montréal area and reinforcing the legitimacy of the English language as not just a language limited to a minority of native speakers in the area, but as a parallel alternative to French, and just under half of all immigrants to Quebec arriving in Montréal have subscribed to that message and integrated into the English element.

Congratulations on speaking English lecavaleur, has it opened many doors for you? The thing is, Quebec is only bilingual and trilingual because of immigration and my statements were directed at the unilingual francophones of Quebec. Learning English in today's society is a NECESSITY, even in Quebec. And denying a vast majority of its citizens the right to gain the opportunities associated with that because of a fear (xenophobia) of losing the French language and culture is ridiculous. The fear of all of this is unfounded because the reality is that cultures change and adapt to changing social realities, yet Quebec refuses to accept this truth- much to the detriment of those born and raised there.

In a Quebec Republic, this would not be possible. It would be one country with one language. No more diglossia. Immigrating to Quebec at that point would mean adopting French as one's main language and learning English only as a secondary language, not the other way around. This is the normal existence of any independent people. It is asking for nothing more than what exists in other countries. When you go to Germany, you speak German. When you go to Sweden, you speak Swedish, etc. There is nothing xenophobic about it. It is the established norm around the globe in every single country except this one right now.


What exactly is so horrid in your view about diglossia? Germany, France, etc. are the exceptions not the rule and it's not something we should aspire to emulate. In my opinion, the issues relating to the protection of the French language are always blown out of proportion. Aside from Montreal, the majority of cities are unilingual French and other languages do not pose a threat, real or imagined.

We can exist as a modern, multi-ethnic, democratic republic with one common language just as others do. There is nothing that inherently deprives Quebec of this capability other than its continued membership in the Canadian federation.

I understand where you're coming from, really I do, I just don't feel that it's worth it given the risk involved. I'd rather all that time and energy be redirected towards more important, pressing concerns.

Edited by dan1010, 06 February 2012 - 12:27 PM.

[TheLastBestWest]

jmcazabon, on 06 February 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

Keep the arguments coming, Im always glad to see this sort of stuff. Even as an anglophone—non-quebecer—pro-federalist I still feel that a lot of the problems of Quebec are normally horribly misunderstood and the degree to which they have given English Canada the benefit of the doubt and accommodation is mis-understood. I think it also stems from the fact that English Canada doesn't see itself as a nation but just calls itself Canada, not realizing that there are a few nations within Canada.

Really? Canada not a nation. I think our shared history, culture, and political traditions consitute a nation. Sure, we're a multicultural nation, but a nation nonetheless. Unless one takes a very narrow view of what constitutes a nation (i.e. homogeneous culture, language, and ethnicity), but than the US would also not be a 'nation.'

I would submit that Quebec is a 'nation' within a nation, but I don't agree that Canada is made up several nations. There are distict regions (Maritimes, Prairies), but I don't think they constitute a nation in the way Quebec does.

[SaulGoodman]

lecavaleur, on 05 February 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

Quebec recieves far less money per capita than do the Eastern provinces. With the recent exception of Newfoundland, the Eastern economies are far worse off than Quebec's. Based on the figure you've provided, Quebec will receive $912.50 per inhabitant, whereas Nova Scotia will receive $1339.81 per inhabitant (app. 68% more per capita than Québec).

If the minimum standard of a healthy provincial economy is to be better off than the traditional have not provinces of the East Coast then I think you're setting the bar pretty low. Given the geographical size of Quebec (largest province in Canada) and the population (second largest in Canada) I would be more inclined to ask why Quebec has half the GDP of its most comparable province (Ontario). To me, that's a rough indicator that there is less economic activity in Quebec than one would like/expect.

lecavaleur, on 05 February 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

Also, that 7.3 billion is the gross amount which does not take into account the amount Quebecers pay in federal taxes. It would be interesting to see how much Quebec actually nets. The only numbers I can find are from 2004, where the feds collected over 5.5 billion from Quebecers in various taxes, which means that if the numbers were similar this year, Quebec would only be netting 2.1 billion or $262.50 per inhabitant. If that is the only gap an independent Quebec would have to close, it's far from impossible.

If you want to figure out net equalization payments by subtracting federal taxation that's fine, but then the same methodology would have to be applied to the other provinces. I briefly looked around on the internet for some figures in this regard, but as you allude to, they're tough to find for some reason.

lecavaleur, on 05 February 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

Furthermore, Quebec has long-term economic infrastructure and industry - unlike Alberta or other priovinces whose "bubble" economies are dependent on non-renewable ressource like oil. We also have Hydro-Québec which makes us better debtors than States without such enormous capital.

I don't really think Alberta is best classified as a bubble economy that's about to burst. Alberta has the most oil reserves in the world behind Saudi Arabia and Venezuela (http://www.energy.al...ilSands/791.asp). Sure, eventually the oil will run out (assuming the world still uses oil before the reserves are gone), but it's not imminent and the demand for oil is not likely to take any steep declines any time soon. If/when the world economy improves an increase in oil demand is highly probable.

I agree with you that Quebec's economy has room to grow, but given the that the GDP/capita of Quebec is lower than the national average, the net beneficiary of equalization payments it is, the size and population of Quebec, I don't think the Quebec economy is better than the rest of the country's (on average) as you suggest in post 32. And yes, the economy/wealth of Quebec is better than a large portion of the countries in the world, but most of the world outside of Western Europe and North America is a bit of a crapsack, so really that's not saying much.

lecavaleur, on 05 February 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

An independent Quebec would be free to control industries currently under federal jurisdiction such as transportation, maritime affairs, telecommunications, banking, etc... All these industries are potential avenues for Quebecers to innovate in and be competitive in with its neighbours at the legislative level.

Maybe. This is too speculative for me to really care that much about, but an alternative possibility is an incompetent national Quebec government which runs its industries into the ground. I'm not saying this is more likely, but it could happen.

lecavaleur, on 05 February 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

With competent governance and the right attitude, Quebec is far better equipped to be an independent country than aremost countries currently independent. It won't be G8, but then again neither will Canada be once Quebec leaves.

Actually, I think Canada would still be a G8 nation as we're actually not a top eight economy in the world anymore, so inclusion in the G8 would seem to be based more on historical membership at this point. I'm not sure why a sovereign Quebec would cause Canada to get kicked out of the G8.

lecavaleur, on 05 February 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

There is no reason to hyperbolise over the economic calamity that an independent Quebec would be. Québec is an educated, affluent, multi-ethnic society with lots to offer both culturally and economically.

Maybe, maybe not. I mostly disagree with the part of post 32 where you say that Quebec is currently better off than most of the rest of the country.

lecavaleur, on 05 February 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

As for 'good arguments', how about the constitutional double standard which makes it possible to install and impose a new Constitution on Québec in 1982 with the support of the 9 other provinces but, in order to bring any fundamental change to said Constitution, it requires unanimity... ? Unanimity to alter the powers of the Queen, but only 9 out of 10 to adopt the damn thing inthe first place and then shove it down Quebec's throat, using it to gut the Charter of the French Language, using its judicial application to marginalise the francophone majority in Québec by making it damn near impossible to integrate newcomers into said majority...

And Quebec has not promoted xenophobia in any way. No State on this planet would allow the things you people expect Quebecers to accept in the name of your constitution. No country would subsidise the marginalisation of its own national language the way Quebecers are expected to do. Over 140 States on this planet have enacted linguistic legislation in order to favour the survival of their official language(s).

Quebec is the jurisdiction with the most bilingual and TRILINGUAL citizens in all of the Americas. And you call us xenophobic? Please.

Our defence of the French language has been a contribution to global diversity, not a detriment to it.

Sovereignty will ensure the perennity of French as the common language of Quebecers of all origins. There is not an independent State in existence that has experienced a decline in its national language shared by the majority of its citizens while the nation was independent.

The danger of anglicisation does not come from television, it comes from institutional bilingualism which only exists by virtue of the federal government.

Anyway, I could go on and on but suffice to say than the debate over sovereignty is far more nuanced that most on either side of the divide would like to believe (or than what you will read in National Post and Montreal Gazette editorials).

Personally, I think if a province/state/whatever wants to be sovereign then they should be permitted to be so by the rest of the country. Velvet divorce ftw. But the SCC has said unilateral separation is not legal, and apparently what they think counts for more than what I think.

[rglasgow]

As the son of an anglo and a francophone Canadian - I really can't stand someone that would say bilingualism is a bad thing. Both English and French are important parts of Canada's shared history and culture; to discount either is bigoted. I'd also note that the historic and cultural impact of French in Canada is not limited to Quebec, and as someone whose mother is a Franco-Canadian from Manitoba I'm rather insulted when I hear it discussed as if Quebec has some sacred right to French in Canada or that they're the special ones. Quebec isn't special - the unique role French ancestry and culture has played in our national history is what is special.

I also have no problem with the Federal Government supporting Bilingualism - that should be the goal of the government. In areas where French is the majority language it SHOULD be promoting English. In areas where English is the majority language it should be promoting French. My complaint is that I don't think the Federal government, the Provincial governments, or our school systems are doing enough to promote the French language. The solution is not to act like Eric Cartman and to say "screw you guys, I'm going home". The solution is to work hard to change attitudes.

[jmcazabon]

TheLastBestWest, on 06 February 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

Really? Canada not a nation. I think our shared history, culture, and political traditions consitute a nation. Sure, we're a multicultural nation, but a nation nonetheless. Unless one takes a very narrow view of what constitutes a nation (i.e. homogeneous culture, language, and ethnicity), but than the US would also not be a 'nation.'

I would submit that Quebec is a 'nation' within a nation, but I don't agree that Canada is made up several nations. There are distict regions (Maritimes, Prairies), but I don't think they constitute a nation in the way Quebec does.

Well, to begin, I didn't say that Canada was not a nation, so let's put that aside. There most certainly is a Canadian nation, but its the larger (and less descriptive identity that holds in a few other identities [the good ol' Anglo, Franco, First-Nations]). However, the English majority, unwilling to recognize that they are not all that there is to Canada just sort of super-imposes it's culture onto the idea of what Canada is, and doesn't stop for a moment to say, "nope, the identity of Canada is a lot looser than we think and isn't just a carbon copy of English Canada."

For instance, ever taken a Canadian lit class, or listened to a top 50 Canadian list of music, tell me how many groups/authors are on there that are francophone (like real francophone not "Mordecai Richler and Arcade Fire are from Montreal!)? Very few, if none, despite the wads of stuff coming out of Quebec. We (English Canada) sort of just impose our idea of Canada onto the idea of Canada, and then french-Canada is sort of left with an imposed identity that it can't identify with, hence, a lot of the alienation, and what have you. Or at least so my line of thinking goes

And if you don't think English Canada is a nation, then what are we? We aren't strictly Canadian, because Canada includes french, and first-nations culture, and you're average person from SW Ontario or Vancoiver is not that. Just gotta realize, yes, we have different mannerisms and ways of acting around people, we've inherited all those cold british mannerisms and philosophies, we're sort of like America. . . but not really, there's something different there. We're english Canada, and that's okay.

As to Saul Goodman, money ain't everything. I think LeCavaleur was just trying to point out that Quebec would not instantly turn into some economic waste-land upon sovereignty- Quebec could survive, but it wouldn't be the same. Sure it may be hurt (and so will Canada to a much much lesser degree) but sometimes money ain't all.

[TheLastBestWest]

jmcazabon, on 07 February 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

For instance, ever taken a Canadian lit class, or listened to a top 50 Canadian list of music, tell me how many groups/authors are on there that are francophone (like real francophone not "Mordecai Richler and Arcade Fire are from Montreal!)? Very few, if none, despite the wads of stuff coming out of Quebec. We (English Canada) sort of just impose our idea of Canada onto the idea of Canada, and then french-Canada is sort of left with an imposed identity that it can't identify with, hence, a lot of the alienation, and what have you. Or at least so my line of thinking goes

It seems obvious why English Canadian music and lit would be more popular. There are 23 million English-speaking Canadians as opposed to 8 million French-speaking (not to mention the millions of possible fans in the US). I think this is a better explaination than some Anglo-Canadian conspiracy to subvert Quebecois culture.

The idea that Canada is an equal partnership between French and English, which was true historically and is a noble ideal, simply does not conform to demographic reality.

Edited by TheLastBestWest, 07 February 2012 - 05:29 PM.

[thelastsultan]

TheLastBestWest, on 07 February 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

It seems obvious why English Canadian music and lit would be more popular. There are 23 million English-speaking Canadians as opposed to 8 million French-speaking (not to mention the millions of possible fans in the US). I think this is a better explaination than some Anglo-Canadian conspiracy to subvert Quebecois culture.

According to that logic it would seem obvious that 25% (8/31) of the songs and books should still be Francophone.

[dan1010]

That would be true if a large proportion of the population of Quebec didn't listen to the same music as everyone else. But they do. However, most of English Canada does not listen to French music. So TheLastBestWest's point still stands: it's not some conspiracy it's simply that francophone music from Quebec doesn't gain widespread popularity.

[lecavaleur]

Respnse to Dan

I must remind you that the uncertainty is not the only factor keeping Quebec a part of Canada. Although you brushed it off, there are economic considerations that have to be taken into account as well as aboriginal issues in Northern Quebec.


These all sound like uncertainty factors to me. Nobody can be certain about economic considerations or aboriginal affairs, but I think it is in EXTREME bad faith that some so flippantly allude to the idea, as though it were a given, that Quebecers are not capable of handling such things for themselves. It's paternalistic. Quebec has itself produced some of the most competent and memorable Canadian statesmen, so I do not think that competent governance is far out of an independent Quebec's reach. Quebec is just as capable of handling economic and aboriginal affairs as is the Canadian federal government.

The lack of jobs is what keeps me from working in Quebec, or at least the lack of decent paying jobs. I live in Quebec but work in Saskatchewan during the summer.

Depending on what kind of work you're looking for, maybe Saskatchewan is the right place for you. People have to make their own decisions in life. Incidentally, nothing bars a free trade agreement guaranteeing worker mobility between an independent Quebec and Canada. The idea of sovereignty is not economic isolationism, it is to secure political independence and give the ensemble of legislative authority to the National Assembly. It is not to burn bridges or to change physical geography.

Secondly, as long as we're recounting personal anecdotes to support our ideas, I would mention that I don't know a single person in my immediate entourage that has trouble getting summer employment. I'm a law-school student, as you probably hope to be, so I'm surrounded by highly motiveated people.

In another post of yours in another topic you admitted: "my french isn't up to par with the standards necessary to be successful in a french university." Perhaps this is also the challenge you face in trying to secure gainful employment in a French-speaking province.

Congratulations on speaking English lecavaleur, has it opened many doors for you? The thing is, Quebec is only bilingual and trilingual because of immigration and my statements were directed at the unilingual francophones of Quebec. Learning English in today's society is a NECESSITY, even in Quebec. And denying a vast majority of its citizens the right to gain the opportunities associated with that because of a fear (xenophobia) of losing the French language and culture is ridiculous. The fear of all of this is unfounded because the reality is that cultures change and adapt to changing social realities, yet Quebec refuses to accept this truth- much to the detriment of those born and raised there.

How condescending it is to congratulate someone on their ability to speak your language, as though it were somehow a sign of sophistication unexpected of those lowly types with the bad luck of being born with a different native tongue... As a side-note, my native language is English but I'm fluently bilingual. Learning French has certainly opened a great many doors for me. As I said before, succeeding in a French-speaking territory requires first and foremost a mastry of the language. This is probably the underlying cause of not only your limited law school choices (McGill or nothing), but also your employment issues and your warped opinion of so-called unilingual French speakers. I'd be surprised if you knew very many. seeing as how you aren't able to speak their language any better than they are able to speak yours.


You expect every single person on the planet, especially Quebecers, to have a fluency in English that you yourself lack in French (the majority language of the territory you inhabit). To reinforce your prejudice, you rely on the false notion that any French-speaker who isn't all to happy to indulge your own English unilingualism is nothing but an ignorant product of the xenophobic educational system that formed him. WRONG!

Quebec doesn't deny anybody the opportunity to learn English. English is compulsory from elementary school through CÉGEP and most people who go to univsersity continue to take English courses. Opportunities to learn English in Québec abound, whether it's by taking courses in school, taking private lessons, joining conversation groups, watching American television and films, reading English novels (available at any Quebec bookstore), reading English newspapers. It's no surprise that over 40% of Quebecers consider themselves to be bilingual. In reality, the number of people who are functional in English probably attains a much higher percentage, as Quebecers tend to underestimate their English skills.

Nobody here is denied the opportunity to learn English, so you better reevaluate your prejudices.

What exactly is so horrid in your view about diglossia? Germany, France, etc. are the exceptions not the rule and it's not something we should aspire to emulate. In my opinion, the issues relating to the protection of the French language are always blown out of proportion. Aside from Montreal, the majority of cities are unilingual French and other languages do not pose a threat, real or imagined.

Funny how diglossia isn't a problem when you are suggesting it apply to someone other than yourself. There is nothing wrong with personal bilingualism. It is a constructive expression of one's own free will to learn. What I oppose is institutional bilingualism, which in a place like Montreal sends the message loud and clear that it is not important to learn French since everything here can be done in English. Institutional bilingualism in Québec marginalises the French language by making it optional.

Montreal is the Quebec metropolis and is a world capital of the Francophonie. Its population counts for about half of the Quebec population, so all those so-called unilingual French cities outside of Montreal are almost meaningless if we allow the Metropolis to be re-anglicised. The real threat (and reality) of French marginalisation and decline in Montreal concerns the Province as a whole. The future of the French language in all of Quebec starts there. Montreal is the welcome spot for the vast majority of Quebec's immigrants. These people will define the linguistic future of Quebec, so that is why we are determined to francisise them before you anglicise them. Under the current Constitutional constraints rammed down our throats in 1982, this has proven to be a Sysiphean task.

I understand where you're coming from, really I do, I just don't feel that it's worth it given the risk involved. I'd rather all that time and energy be redirected towards more important, pressing concerns.

As someone who exists on the margins of Quebec society by linguistically enclaving himself in not learning to speak, read and write French correctly, I can hardly take seriously your apprehensions nor apply them to the average Quebec citizen for whom the real risk of dissolving into the Anglo-American sameness shared by the rest of the Continent is a pressing concern.

The economy will never be perfect, unemployment will never be at 0, etc, etc. These more pressing concerns plague all countries and territories and they are not obstacles to sovereignty as far as I am concerned. They are a cheap excuse to avoid the constitutional chicanery at the root of the problem in the first place.

Edited by lecavaleur, 08 February 2012 - 09:50 AM.

[lecavaleur]

SaulGoodman, on 06 February 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

If the minimum standard of a healthy provincial economy is to be better off than the traditional have not provinces of the East Coast then I think you're setting the bar pretty low. Given the geographical size of Quebec (largest province in Canada) and the population (second largest in Canada) I would be more inclined to ask why Quebec has half the GDP of its most comparable province (Ontario). To me, that's a rough indicator that there is less economic activity in Quebec than one would like/expect.

Umm, Ontario has nearly double the population of Quebec. It's not a surprise that they have nearly double the GDP, and for all that is worth, they are still receiving equalisation.

I mostly disagree with the part of post 32 where you say that Quebec is currently better off than most of the rest of the country.

Quebec is in a stronger position to survive a post-equalisation situation than are most other provinces currently benefitting from the program. I showed you the gap Quebec would have to fill without equalisation, and as you can see it is not insurmountable. We have more resources and infrastructure than most provinces benefitting from the program and, as we have seen with Newfoundland and Ontario, it is far from impossible to go from have-not to have or vice versa.


Personally, I think if a province/state/whatever wants to be sovereign then they should be permitted to be so by the rest of the country. Velvet divorce ftw. But the SCC has said unilateral separation is not legal, and apparently what they think counts for more than what I think.


Unilateral separation is not constitutional, of course, but in the event where a referendum gave a positive result yet lacking the undefined, unknown 'clear' majority they speak of in the Renvoi sur la sécession du Québec and in the Clarity Act, thus giving the Feds an excuse to not negotiate in good faith, the SCC admit themselves that a unilateral secession, though unconstitutional, would not be necessarily without effect. The SCC cannot stop the international community from recognising a new country, unilateral secession or not.

Edited by lecavaleur, 08 February 2012 - 10:07 AM.

[jmcazabon]

dan1010, on 08 February 2012 - 06:34 AM, said:

That would be true if a large proportion of the population of Quebec didn't listen to the same music as everyone else. But they do. However, most of English Canada does not listen to French music. So TheLastBestWest's point still stands: it's not some conspiracy it's simply that francophone music from Quebec doesn't gain widespread popularity.

It appears my main point is still being missed. I don't speak of how popular something is, but rather the conception of Canada that English-Canadians have, is vastly different, and more importantly exlcusionary, compared to the conception of Canada that Francophones have. This is due to seeing Canada through an English culture only lens, whereas Francophones, due to their minority status, are more aware of the multi-cultural nature of Canada and thus have a looser and more accepting definition. I tried to highlight this point through the example of the general ignorance of francophone culture by anglophones compared to the relative understanding of anglophone culture by francophones and how this ignorance is imposed onto national ideas of Canada. True there are more of us so our culture is more easily distributed but, I think that is only part of the story, the other part being a lack of a desire to actually bring the idea of acceptance and understanding to fruition. At times, it appears as though the effort is lacking.

Perhaps not a conspiracy, but a collective "im too lazy and don't give a fuck" seems to be the atmosphere; though this is a cause of the fact that there's 300 some odd million english speakers in N. America. That said, if we are a bilingual country that cares about our identity, history and culture, you'd think we could put in some effort, no?

Edited by jmcazabon, 08 February 2012 - 10:35 AM.

[dan1010]

lecavaleur, on 08 February 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

Respnse to Dan

I must remind you that the uncertainty is not the only factor keeping Quebec a part of Canada. Although you brushed it off, there are economic considerations that have to be taken into account as well as aboriginal issues in Northern Quebec.


These all sound like uncertainty factors to me. Nobody can be certain about economic considerations or aboriginal affairs, but I think it is in EXTREME bad faith that some so flippantly allude to the idea, as though it were a given, that Quebecers are not capable of handling such things for themselves. It's paternalistic. Quebec has itself produced some of the most competent and memorable Canadian statesmen, so I do not think that competent governance is far out of an independent Quebec's reach. Quebec is just as capable of handling economic and aboriginal affairs as is the Canadian federal government.

The lack of jobs is what keeps me from working in Quebec, or at least the lack of decent paying jobs. I live in Quebec but work in Saskatchewan during the summer.

Depending on what kind of work you're looking for, maybe Saskatchewan is the right place for you. People have to make their own decisions in life. Incidentally, nothing bars a free trade agreement guaranteeing worker mobility between an independent Quebec and Canada. The idea of sovereignty is not economic isolationism, it is to secure political independence and give the ensemble of legislative authority to the National Assembly. It is not to burn bridges or to change physical geography.

Secondly, as long as we're recounting personal anecdotes to support our ideas, I would mention that I don't know a single person in my immediate entourage that has trouble getting summer employment. I'm a law-school student, as you probably hope to be, so I'm surrounded by highly motiveated people.

In another post of yours in another topic you admitted: "my french isn't up to par with the standards necessary to be successful in a french university." Perhaps this is also the challenge you face in trying to secure gainful employment in a French-speaking province.

Congratulations on speaking English lecavaleur, has it opened many doors for you? The thing is, Quebec is only bilingual and trilingual because of immigration and my statements were directed at the unilingual francophones of Quebec. Learning English in today's society is a NECESSITY, even in Quebec. And denying a vast majority of its citizens the right to gain the opportunities associated with that because of a fear (xenophobia) of losing the French language and culture is ridiculous. The fear of all of this is unfounded because the reality is that cultures change and adapt to changing social realities, yet Quebec refuses to accept this truth- much to the detriment of those born and raised there.

How condescending it is to congratulate someone on their ability to speak your language, as though it were somehow a sign of sophistication unexpected of those lowly types with the bad luck of being born with a different native tongue... As a side-note, my native language is English but I'm fluently bilingual. Learning French has certainly opened a great many doors for me. As I said before, succeeding in a French-speaking territory requires first and foremost a mastry of the language. This is probably the underlying cause of not only your limited law school choices (McGill or nothing), but also your employment issues and your warped opinion of so-called unilingual French speakers. I'd be surprised if you knew very many. seeing as how you aren't able to speak their language any better than they are able to speak yours.


You expect every single person on the planet, especially Quebecers, to have a fluency in English that you yourself lack in French (the majority language of the territory you inhabit). To reinforce your prejudice, you rely on the false notion that any French-speaker who isn't all to happy to indulge your own English unilingualism is nothing but an ignorant product of the xenophobic educational system that formed him. WRONG!

Quebec doesn't deny anybody the opportunity to learn English. English is compulsory from elementary school through CÉGEP and most people who go to univsersity continue to take English courses. Opportunities to learn English in Québec abound, whether it's by taking courses in school, taking private lessons, joining conversation groups, watching American television and films, reading English novels (available at any Quebec bookstore), reading English newspapers. It's no surprise that over 40% of Quebecers consider themselves to be bilingual. In reality, the number of people who are functional in English probably attains a much higher percentage, as Quebecers tend to underestimate their English skills.

Nobody here is denied the opportunity to learn English, so you better reevaluate your prejudices.

What exactly is so horrid in your view about diglossia? Germany, France, etc. are the exceptions not the rule and it's not something we should aspire to emulate. In my opinion, the issues relating to the protection of the French language are always blown out of proportion. Aside from Montreal, the majority of cities are unilingual French and other languages do not pose a threat, real or imagined.

Funny how diglossia isn't a problem when you are suggesting it apply to someone other than yourself. There is nothing wrong with personal bilingualism. It is a constructive expression of one's own free will to learn. What I oppose is institutional bilingualism, which in a place like Montreal sends the message loud and clear that it is not important to learn French since everything here can be done in English. Institutional bilingualism in Québec marginalises the French language by making it optional.

Montreal is the Quebec metropolis and is a world capital of the Francophonie. Its population counts for about half of the Quebec population, so all those so-called unilingual French cities outside of Montreal are almost meaningless if we allow the Metropolis to be re-anglicised. The real threat (and reality) of French marginalisation and decline in Montreal concerns the Province as a whole. The future of the French language in all of Quebec starts there. Montreal is the welcome spot for the vast majority of Quebec's immigrants. These people will define the linguistic future of Quebec, so that is why we are determined to francisise them before you anglicise them. Under the current Constitutional constraints rammed down our throats in 1982, this has proven to be a Sysiphean task.

I understand where you're coming from, really I do, I just don't feel that it's worth it given the risk involved. I'd rather all that time and energy be redirected towards more important, pressing concerns.

As someone who exists on the margins of Quebec society by linguistically enclaving himself in not learning to speak, read and write French correctly, I can hardly take seriously your apprehensions nor apply them to the average Quebec citizen for whom the real risk of dissolving into the Anglo-American sameness shared by the rest of the Continent is a pressing concern.

The economy will never be perfect, unemployment will never be at 0, etc, etc. These more pressing concerns plague all countries and territories and they are not obstacles to sovereignty as far as I am concerned. They are a cheap excuse to avoid the constitutional chicanery at the root of the problem in the first place.

You seem to be missing my point entirely, so I'll clarify it for you.

First off, I completely agree with you that Quebec could potentially be a successful independent nation. However, my objection to this point is that I believe the cons of separation outweigh the pros, and as I've mentioned, I simply do not think it's worth the risk. Perhaps this is simply because I'm quite satisfied with Quebec being a part of Canada. I identify as a Quebecer as well as a Canadian, and I don't believe the two have to be mutually exclusive.

In regards to the employment issue, I never claimed that I was unable to find employment in Quebec, I said decent paying employment in Quebec. I have had several jobs in Quebec and my language skills have never been a detriment to securing employment.

I appreciate your concern regarding my French level, however, you took that completely out of context. I consider myself fluently bilingual. I was born and raised in Quebec, yet I have always attended English schools. As such I don't consider my writing skills to be "up to par" for the University level, I never mentioned speaking or reading. In fact, I never even said that I couldn't write in French. All I said was that I never have written at the University level and was looking for advice about how much of an issue that would be.

Although my reply was definitely condescending, it wasn't for the reasons you listed. The English classes in elementary and high school are a joke (yes, no, toaster??) similar to the French classes offered in English schools. I agree with you that there are other options out there for someone interested in learning English, but I don't think this should mean that unilingual French parents cannot send their children to English school (which is the issue my initial comments were directed towards). I know plenty of people that wish they had been able to go to English school for high school or elementary. I don't see this as favouring one language over the other nor do I see English as "a sign of sophistication", but rather as a practical necessity. All in all I think we disagree about whether the French language is realistically in danger, and I think claiming it is stems from a fear and not from any reality.

"Funny how diglossia isn't a problem when you are suggesting it apply to someone other than yourself."

I'm not quite certain whether this is an attack on my personal character or not, but if it is I've responded to your concerns about my quality of French above.

"As someone who exists on the margins of Quebec society by linguistically enclaving himself in not learning to speak, read and write French correctly, I can hardly take seriously your apprehensions nor apply them to the average Quebec citizen for whom the real risk of dissolving into the Anglo-American sameness shared by the rest of the Continent is a pressing concern."

So, I'm assuming you associate the "average Quebec citizen" with that 41% that agree with you? Anyways, I've addressed this perceived "pressing concern" of yours above.

[dan1010]

jmcazabon, on 08 February 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

It appears my main point is still being missed. I don't speak of how popular something is, but rather the conception of Canada that English-Canadians have, is vastly different, and more importantly exlcusionary, compared to the conception of Canada that Francophones have. This is due to seeing Canada through an English culture only lens, whereas Francophones, due to their minority status, are more aware of the multi-cultural nature of Canada and thus have a looser and more accepting definition. I tried to highlight this point through the example of the general ignorance of francophone culture by anglophones compared to the relative understanding of anglophone culture by francophones and how this ignorance is imposed onto national ideas of Canada. True there are more of us so our culture is more easily distributed but, I think that is only part of the story, the other part being a lack of a desire to actually bring the idea of acceptance and understanding to fruition. At times, it appears as though the effort is lacking.

Perhaps not a conspiracy, but a collective "im too lazy and don't give a fuck" seems to be the atmosphere; though this is a cause of the fact that there's 300 some odd million english speakers in N. America. That said, if we are a bilingual country that cares about our identity, history and culture, you'd think we could put in some effort, no?

I see what you're saying and to a large extent I agree with you. I don't think Francophones are more accepting as a result of their minority status though. Wherever I go in Canada it seems to be the same attitude and no where is this an inclusive attitude. Though you're quite right to point out the fact that it's less of an issue in English Canada, this isn't because of a laziness but more so a point of practicality as you mention at the end of your post.

[SaulGoodman]

lecavaleur, on 08 February 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

Umm, Ontario has nearly double the population of Quebec. It's not a surprise that they have nearly double the GDP, and for all that is worth, they are still receiving equalisation.

I didn't say Ontario shouldn't be expected to have a greater GDP than Quebec. I said based on the geographical size and population of Quebec we would expect it's GDP to be higher based on how similar provinces are performing.

Quebec has a population 59.6% that the size of Ontario. BC, the next closest in population size to Quebec, has 57.3% of the population of Quebec.

Quebec has a GDP 52.1% the size of Ontario's GDP. BC has a GDP 63.6% the size of Quebec's GDP.

Given that BCs population is roughly as proportional to Quebec's population as Quebec's is to Ontario's, it might not be unreasonable to expect the the GDPs of the provinces to be equally proportional, but they're not. Quebec under performs using this as a measure. I realize that GDP is not simply a function of population and that this is at best a very rough estimate of what economic performance one would expect out of Quebec, but at the very least this indicates that Quebec is not doing comparatively better economically than BC. GDP per capita rankings also suggests this, where Quebec is ahead of only PEI, NS, and NB.

And yes, while Ontario has recently been receiving equalization payments this is more of an anomaly than a trend. Ontario has traditionally been a "have" province. The same is not true about Quebec.

Sources of numbers: http://www40.statcan...demo02a-eng.htm http://www40.statcan.../econ15-eng.htm http://en.wikipedia....omestic_product (I'm assuming the Wikipedia chart is accurate but it could be easily checked by using the numbers from Stats Canada)

lecavaleur, on 08 February 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

Quebec is in a stronger position to survive a post-equalisation situation than are most other provinces currently benefitting from the program.

Fine. But this is a change in what you've said back in post 32, where you compare the Quebec economy to the rest of the country instead of comparing it only to net beneficiaries of the equalization payments as you do here. I don't take issue with what you've said here, but with what you said back in post #32. And really, saying you're in a position to do better than the poorest provinces in the country isn't really setting the bar that high for what should be perceived as success.

[TheLastBestWest]

lecavaleur, on 08 February 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

Depending on what kind of work you're looking for, maybe Saskatchewan is the right place for you. People have to make their own decisions in life. Incidentally, nothing bars a free trade agreement guaranteeing worker mobility between an independent Quebec and Canada. The idea of sovereignty is not economic isolationism, it is to secure political independence and give the ensemble of legislative authority to the National Assembly. It is not to burn bridges or to change physical geography.

If the motivation for seperation is protection of the French Language in North America, I don't see how political independance will be of much help. Sure, French could eb made the only language for new immigrants, but arn't cultural factors more important? You say that a independant Quebec should see economic ties with the rest of North America, but this would open the province up to English intrusion. English will still be the language of trade and Quebeckers will still be exposed to English through the media.

The Canadian Federation is so decentralized I don't think full independance will make much difference. Quebec already has a lot of control over immigration (something the other provinces do not enjoy). What else do they want? A Quebec currency? A Quebec military?

Economically, seperation can only hurt the province: http://news.national...orest-province/

Quebec is well on its way to being on the same economic footing as the Maritimes. Do the seperatists still expect equalization payments even after they leave Confederation?

Edited by TheLastBestWest, 08 February 2012 - 01:00 PM.

[PredictablyDarwin]

There's a difference between the price of a resource being volatile and the price of a resource being artificially high for a sustained period; Alberta is not a bubble or "bubble" economy.