Now it seems that the separitists have come up with yet ANOTHER financial reason to leave Canada.
They say they will make more not being in Canada. How?
They are already the largest recepient of equalization in the country. Percapita they are amongst the highes in debt. Atleast 500,000 will leave Quebec most of whom are higher income suchas Hull civil servants who would all lose their jobs or wealthier people on the west island. Also a lot of allophones would leave as well as many new Quebecers.
Quebec already has the oldest population in the country backed up with the lowest birth rate which spells a demographic time bomb.

I guess they know all this but don't care...ok.
But where the hell do they come up with leaving with just 18% of the national debt? They represent 24% of the population and 21% of the economy and if they think Canada will not play hard ball they are saidly mistaken.

Someone tell me, do most people in Quebec actually beleive this stuff? I really would like to know.

Someone tell me, do most people in Quebec actually beleive this stuff? I really would like to know.
I guess you would have to personally ask most of the Quebecers what they think about this stuff ;)

I have been taking some interest in the current PQ leadership race. During last weeks debate, one of the Candidate, Jean-Claude St-André proposed a solution to financing an independent Quebec. His solution was to tax business and the wealthy to the tune of $100 Billion extra per year. The bizarre thing about this is that this point was not soundly condemned. As we all know Quebec is already the highest taxed jurisdiction in NA. How can a party that wants to leads Quebec to sovereignty can truly be this financially incompetent?

On another point, the current front runner in the race is André Boisclair, a man who has acknowledged cocaine abuse during his time as a cabinet minister. In order to buy cocaine, one must, I assume, deal with criminals and other undesirables. How can this man, who was elected by the people and placed in a position of huge responsibility continue to keep his job? If you or I had admitted to taking cocaine to our employer, I can guarantee you they would not be asking us to apply for the CEO position.

It is sad to see the low quality of candidates that could in a few years time, be the President of a sovereign Quebec. It appears that common sense has well and truly take a back seat in this never ending debate.
:eek2:

I hope its not a never ending debate.
I wish they would have a vote right away.
Very specific and concise. On what they want from independent Quebec and what they don't {not that Ottawa or ROC would neddesarrily agree} and case closed.
Make it very known that if they want to go they can but it will be a VERY fast process. No bedroom privelges.

But let it be known at that time with the Bloc and PartiQuebecos that that is it.
Its now or never.
Increasingly Canadians are starting to feel that the only way to keep the country together to to let Quebec go because if they don't then the rest will.

I'll tell you now, many Quebecers will suffer if the Parti dream of an independant Quebec comes true. Many businesses will leave and with them all their employees.

Many Quebecers believe what they are told by the idiotic Parti Quebecois leadership. They think that they'll have an easy time of it and Canada will welcome them as good neighbours. I LIVE in Quebec and I hope both Canada and the US turn their backs on us if we destroy the unity of North America.

The only reason that the Feds in Canada will want to speak with the new Federal Government of Quebec, is to get the full amount of the National Debt paid back. It really floors me how the PQ tries to manipulate and descive Quebecers into thinking that a independant Quebec will just be able to walk away and start fresh and new. They assume that Quebec will enjoy all the benefits they have being part of Canada, such as NATO, being a member of the UN, and being part of all the trade aggreements that Canada has signed. But this isnt the case. The US will want to renegoitate all aggreements they have with Canada, Quebec will have to build a military before they are even looked at by NATO....Kyoto, well its all good to want to reach the targets, but why bother when you havnt even signed onto the agreement. Plus they will have to come up with currency, because I certainly wont want to have my Canadian Dollar being used by the people that split up the greatest country on earth.

Another thing is that Quebec offsets some of Ontario's political power, and if they separate the whole country will in essence be run by Ontario because of representation by population. And if Quebec does ever separate, the Canadian Government would have to VERY quickly rethink the political system, because the western provinces most likely would not accept such a situation.

Another thing is that Quebec offsets some of Ontario's political power, and if they separate the whole country will in essence be run by Ontario because of representation by population.
It's right too. But I recently heard something about Alberta...and it's oil benefits.

^The oil and other natural resources are under provincial jurisdiction now, but if ever were to change you can bet that Alberta would most likely be stronger that Quebec in a separatist movement.

whats the population of the area that would seperate if they were to do it? And how large is the area? Would it be the whole province?

whats the population of the area that would seperate if they were to do it? And how large is the area? Would it be the whole province?

It may not be the whole province. The idea of keeping the "Canadian" part of Quebec in Canada has been floated numerous times. That include all territory west of Montreal. There has even been discussion of Montreal staying part of Canada.
Following a decision for Quebec to seperate there would have to be individual referendums to decide which areas would stay in Quebec and which would seperate. This is because Quebec has no national borders per se and it's actual borders were decided by the government. It has no national identity so it will have an uphill battle to define itself.

8. Certains avancent que le gouvernement canadien pourrait modifier les frontières du territoire québécois, voire l'occuper militairement. Est-ce possible?

La modification renvoie à une partition que plusieurs souhaitent, mais qui n'est possible qu'avec l'accord du Québec. Rappelons certains points d'histoire pour mieux saisir la question. En 1774, le territoire du Québec est redevenu ce qu'il était avant les événements de 1759-1760 et cela pour divers motifs, dont l'agitation qui avait cours au sud de la province, qui était alors une colonie britannique.

Après l'indépendance des États-Unis, des Loyalistes, fraîchement établis dans les colonies britanniques de la Nouvelle-Écosse, du Nouveau-Brunswick et du Québec, ont revendiqué des modifications. Leurs demandes furent en partie exaucées par la création du Bas-Canada et du Haut-Canada en 1791. Après les affrontements de 1837 et 1838, leurs descendants et leurs alliés ont voulu refaire ces deux colonies sur des bases permettant d'encercler les francophones, ce qui leur fut refusé. Fut plutôt mis en place un gouvernement d'Union en 1840. Ils revinrent en force en 1867 et furent les principaux promoteurs de la création du Canada de 1867. Ils reçurent l'appui des forces conservatrices du Québec. L'aval du Parlement de Londres suivit.

De cette période à 1960 environ, les thèses faisant la promotion de la partition du territoire québécois eurent peu d'écho, exception faite de la décision du Parlement britannique de transmettre à Terre-Neuve une partie importante du Labrador. Au cours de cette période, le territoire québécois s'est agrandi et le Québec s'est engagé à l'occuper. En fait, c'est depuis qu'il existe un mouvement favorable à l'indépendance du Québec que les idées de partition refont surface. Le but recherché : créer un état de panique et renforcer le mouvement d'opposition.

Ici d'autres précisions s'imposent. Le Parlement canadien ne peut agir unilatéralement en cette matière. Comme province, le Québec doit donner son aval à une partition éventuelle.

Lorsque les Québécois décideront de se donner un pays, ce sera aussi le cas. En matière de droit international, le territoire propre à une nation devient de facto son territoire lorsque cette nation est reconnue sur la scène internationale . Seule une entente entre la nouvelle nation et la nation dont celle-ci est issue peut conduire à des modifications de territoire.

Dernière précision. Les " partitionnistes " avancent que le territoire québécois pourrait être morcelé à la demande des Autochtones et avec l'accord du gouvernement canadien. Leurs lectures font fi du droit international et de l'approche que pourrait faire valoir le gouvernement du Québec. Voir la deuxième question ci-dessus.

Pourquoi de tels propos de la part des " partitionnistes "? Il est difficile d'y voir autre chose qu'un acharnement à refuser de vivre au Québec sans la protection de la " mère-patrie " par l'intermédiaire de celui qui la représente au Canada, le président du Conseil privé de sa Majesté.

Quant à une intervention militaire en sol québécois, il faut d'abord se rendre compte que si elle se fait après que les Québécois auront affirmé qu'ils désirent avoir leur pays, elle aurait tout d'une démarche d'intimidation. Le Québec pourrait alors demander la protection des Nations unies. Par contre, pour qu'une intervention se fasse avant la décision des Québécois, il faut l'accord du Québec.

Quel que soit le cas, il s'agira d'une intervention unilatérale du Canada. Si ce pays se prête à de tels gestes, il devra en répondre sur la scène internationale. Il lui faudra de bons arguments. Les promoteurs de l'indépendance du Québec prônent une démarche démocratique et rejettent le recours à la violence. Bien sûr, le gouvernement canadien peut déployer des forces secrètes transformées en cellules terroristes comme il l'a fait peu après les événements d'octobre 1970. Mais encore, de telles pratiques seraient vite démasquées et discréditées.





The population of Québec is about 7.6 million people. It's the largest province in Canada. About 1.667 million square KM.

To resume what i posted, according to international law, once a territory democratically decides to separate, it's provincial borders automatically become it's national borders. Therefore, Canada wouldn't have a word in what goes on inside Québec's borders.

I hate to disappoint so many of my English cousins in english Canada, but in case you didn't know, The western part of Montreal, more commonly known as West-Island has about 250,000 residents. Considering that the entire island has close to 1.9 million people, their chances of separating aren't very good!

Why wouldn't the U.S. allow us into Nafta? They want to continue trading with us. Why would they make it harder for them to make money? It just doesn't make sense. Sounds like a scare tactic to me!

Obviously, the U.S. position when it comes to separating Québec from Canada is gonna be a "pro united Canada" stance. They don'T wanna disturb commerce. But once a yes vote were to occur, i don't think they'd make it harder for the thousands of businesses in New-York, New-Hampshire, Vermont, Massachussets, Connecticut, Maine to continue trading with Québec and Montreal.

I love how many english Canadians try to make us look like the bad guys here. I guess they feel a little frustrated that they can'T do anything about the situation here. Most separatists don't wanna separate because we "hate" Canada, or because we dislike english Canadians. The reason we want a country is because we want a place to call home. We want to separate because every nation on this planet aspires to govern itself and have its voice heard throughout the world.

How would americans feel if they were still a british colony? In the past 20 years, there are 30 new countries on this planet. Why does that happen? People want to live in their countries, and sorry if this may offend English Canadians, but Canada is not my country. I don't feel any attachement to it. It may be a good country, in fact I know it is, but it'S just not MY country.

Here'S an article that explains a bit more why we want to separate. It's in French, i'd translate, but it's way too long!


Pourquoi la souveraineté ?



Parce que toutes les nations du monde aspirent à gérer elles-mêmes leurs affaires, et à faire directement entendre leur voix au reste du monde.

La souveraineté c'est l'état normal d'une nation.

Le Canada nous dit que la souveraineté est un replis sur soi. C'est exactement le contraire. Eux l'ont compris et le Canada est un pays souverain. Beaucoup d'autres nations l'ont compris aussi. Au cours des vingt dernières années une trentaine de nations ont choisi la liberté, et s'expriment désormais au sein des Nations-Unis.

Pourquoi les Québécois et les Québécoises, qui constituent sans l'ombre d'un doute une nation, accepteraient-ils d'être un peuple minoritaire, non-reconnu par le Canada ? Au sein de cette fédération britannique, nous ne sommes qu'une minorité linguistique de plus en plus marginalisée. L'idée des deux peuples fondateurs est morte depuis déjà longtemps. Ce n'était qu'un hochet pour gagner du temps et endormir nos désirs de liberté.

D'autres minorités linguistiques émergent, notamment dans l'ouest du Canada, et nous ne serons bientôt qu'une minorité parmi d'autres….

Bien sûr, d'aucuns diront que les Québécois et les Québécoises peuvent s'épanouir pleinement comme individu au sein du Canada. Mais n'est-ce pas là une situation qui s'applique pour tous les membres d'une minorité vivant dans un pays développé, du moment qu'ils acceptent sagement les règles du jeu de la majorité ?

Il n'est pas ici question de la survie des individus, mais de la capacité qu'ont ces individus à pouvoir faire les choix qu'ils désirent en tant que nation. Bien sûr les individus survivront, mais notre nation sera de plus en plus atrophiée, sans voix réelle, insignifiante….

En 1840, les Québécois, représentaient 59,0% de la population du Canada. Trente-et-une années plus tard, en 1871, nous n'étions plus que 43,7%. Ce chiffre tomba à 27,7% en 1931. Et aujourd'hui nous ne sommes plus que 23,7%. Nous passerons bientôt sous la barre symbolique des 20%.......

À la lumière de ces chiffres, qui peut affirmer sérieusement que notre influence à Ottawa ira en s'accroissant au cours des prochaines années, des prochaines décennies, du prochain siècle ? Est-ce là l'héritage que nous lègueront à nos enfants ?

Tout au long de notre histoire, nous avons été à la remorque des choix d'un autre peuple et les choses iront en s'aggravant. Des Québécois sont allés faire la guerre, ont perdu la vie, parce que le parlement fédéral qu'ils ne contrôlaient pas avait décidé qu'ils iraient au front. Plus récemment, en 1970, des centaines de Québécois et de Québécoises innocents furent emprisonnés injustement par la seule décision du Parlement fédéral. Chaque année, ce parlement fédéral, dans lequel nous serons de plus en plus minoritaires, décide de ce qui est bon et de ce qui est mauvais pour nous. Parfois ces choix nous conviennent, parfois ils ne nous conviennent pas. Pourtant, ils affectent directement notre capacité à construire la société que nous voulons nous donner. Pourquoi alors se contenter du choix des autres en espérant qu'il sera aussi le nôtre ?

Pourquoi devons-nous batailler constamment pour tenter d'influencer la nation majoritaire alors que nous pourrions tout simplement faire les choses chez nous, comme nous le désirons en récupérant tous nos impôts ?

Le temps est venu pour la nation québécoise de s'assumer pleinement et de se tenir debout, sans idées revanchardes. Nous avons pour nous une géographie qui donne accès au monde, les ressources naturelles et humaines, les compétences, et un attachement profond à notre culture.

Bâtissons ici, chez nous, en Amérique, une société francophone, démocratique, laïque, et ouverte sur le monde.

Here'S an article that explains a bit more why we want to separate. It's in French, i'd translate, but it's way too long!


Pourquoi la souveraineté ?



Parce que toutes les nations du monde aspirent à gérer elles-mêmes leurs affaires, et à faire directement entendre leur voix au reste du monde.

La souveraineté c'est l'état normal d'une nation.

Le Canada nous dit que la souveraineté est un replis sur soi. C'est exactement le contraire. Eux l'ont compris et le Canada est un pays souverain. Beaucoup d'autres nations l'ont compris aussi. Au cours des vingt dernières années une trentaine de nations ont choisi la liberté, et s'expriment désormais au sein des Nations-Unis.

Pourquoi les Québécois et les Québécoises, qui constituent sans l'ombre d'un doute une nation, accepteraient-ils d'être un peuple minoritaire, non-reconnu par le Canada ? Au sein de cette fédération britannique, nous ne sommes qu'une minorité linguistique de plus en plus marginalisée. L'idée des deux peuples fondateurs est morte depuis déjà longtemps. Ce n'était qu'un hochet pour gagner du temps et endormir nos désirs de liberté.

D'autres minorités linguistiques émergent, notamment dans l'ouest du Canada, et nous ne serons bientôt qu'une minorité parmi d'autres….

Bien sûr, d'aucuns diront que les Québécois et les Québécoises peuvent s'épanouir pleinement comme individu au sein du Canada. Mais n'est-ce pas là une situation qui s'applique pour tous les membres d'une minorité vivant dans un pays développé, du moment qu'ils acceptent sagement les règles du jeu de la majorité ?

Il n'est pas ici question de la survie des individus, mais de la capacité qu'ont ces individus à pouvoir faire les choix qu'ils désirent en tant que nation. Bien sûr les individus survivront, mais notre nation sera de plus en plus atrophiée, sans voix réelle, insignifiante….

En 1840, les Québécois, représentaient 59,0% de la population du Canada. Trente-et-une années plus tard, en 1871, nous n'étions plus que 43,7%. Ce chiffre tomba à 27,7% en 1931. Et aujourd'hui nous ne sommes plus que 23,7%. Nous passerons bientôt sous la barre symbolique des 20%.......

À la lumière de ces chiffres, qui peut affirmer sérieusement que notre influence à Ottawa ira en s'accroissant au cours des prochaines années, des prochaines décennies, du prochain siècle ? Est-ce là l'héritage que nous lègueront à nos enfants ?

Tout au long de notre histoire, nous avons été à la remorque des choix d'un autre peuple et les choses iront en s'aggravant. Des Québécois sont allés faire la guerre, ont perdu la vie, parce que le parlement fédéral qu'ils ne contrôlaient pas avait décidé qu'ils iraient au front. Plus récemment, en 1970, des centaines de Québécois et de Québécoises innocents furent emprisonnés injustement par la seule décision du Parlement fédéral. Chaque année, ce parlement fédéral, dans lequel nous serons de plus en plus minoritaires, décide de ce qui est bon et de ce qui est mauvais pour nous. Parfois ces choix nous conviennent, parfois ils ne nous conviennent pas. Pourtant, ils affectent directement notre capacité à construire la société que nous voulons nous donner. Pourquoi alors se contenter du choix des autres en espérant qu'il sera aussi le nôtre ?

Pourquoi devons-nous batailler constamment pour tenter d'influencer la nation majoritaire alors que nous pourrions tout simplement faire les choses chez nous, comme nous le désirons en récupérant tous nos impôts ?

Le temps est venu pour la nation québécoise de s'assumer pleinement et de se tenir debout, sans idées revanchardes. Nous avons pour nous une géographie qui donne accès au monde, les ressources naturelles et humaines, les compétences, et un attachement profond à notre culture.

Bâtissons ici, chez nous, en Amérique, une société francophone, démocratique, laïque, et ouverte sur le monde.


Tu as peut-être raison, mais la vrai question est d'abord la suivante:
Le Quebec est-il réellement une nation?

C'est vrai que l'Québec est très différent au reste du Canada, mais la ville de Montréal n'est-elle pas aussi très différente comparé au reste de la province?

Si la majorité des québecois veulent l'indépendance, c'est correct, on se séparera. Le problème est que la majorité ne le veulent pas (2 référendum le prouvent, non?)

The population of Québec is about 7.6 million people. It's the largest province in Canada. About 1.5 million square KM.

To resume what i posted, according to international law, once a territory democratically decides to separate, it's provincial borders automatically become it's national borders. Therefore, Canada wouldn't have a word in what goes on inside Québec's borders.

I hate to disappoint so many of my English cousins in english Canada, but in case you didn't know, The western part of Montreal, more commonly known as West-Island has about 250,000 residents. Considering that the entire island has close to 1.9 million people, their chances of separating aren't very good!

Why wouldn't the U.S. allow us into Nafta? They want to continue trading with us. Why would they make it harder for them to make money? It just doesn't make sense. Sounds like a scare tactic to me!

Obviously, the U.S. position when it comes to separating Québec from Canada is gonna be a "pro united Canada" stance. They don'T wanna disturb commerce. But once a yes vote were to occur, i don't think they'd make it harder for the thousands of businesses in New-York, New-Hampshire, Vermont, Massachussets, Connecticut, Maine to continue trading with Québec and Montreal.

I love how many english Canadians try to make us look like the bad guys here. I guess they feel a little frustrated that they can'T do anything about the situation here. Most separatists don't wanna separate because we "hate" Canada, or because we dislike english Canadians. The reason we want a country is because we want a place to call home. We want to separate because every nation on this planet aspires to govern itself and have its voice heard throughout the world.

How would americans feel if they were still a british colony? In the past 20 years, there are 30 new countries on this planet. Why does that happen? People want to live in their countries, and sorry if this may offend English Canadians, but Canada is not my country. I don't feel any attachement to it. It may be a good country, in fact I know it is, but it'S just not MY country.
Look I understand where you are coming from. But is 50% + 1 enough of a consensus to destroy a country and most probably destroy our standard of living for probably a generation? You would have to agree that if Quebec separates we will be hit hard economically and it will take many years, if ever, before the standard of living will get back to what it is now.

Here'S an article that explains a bit more why we want to separate. It's in French, i'd translate, but it's way too long!


Pourquoi la souveraineté ?



Parce que toutes les nations du monde aspirent à gérer elles-mêmes leurs affaires, et à faire directement entendre leur voix au reste du monde.

La souveraineté c'est l'état normal d'une nation.

Le Canada nous dit que la souveraineté est un replis sur soi. C'est exactement le contraire. Eux l'ont compris et le Canada est un pays souverain. Beaucoup d'autres nations l'ont compris aussi. Au cours des vingt dernières années une trentaine de nations ont choisi la liberté, et s'expriment désormais au sein des Nations-Unis.

Pourquoi les Québécois et les Québécoises, qui constituent sans l'ombre d'un doute une nation, accepteraient-ils d'être un peuple minoritaire, non-reconnu par le Canada ? Au sein de cette fédération britannique, nous ne sommes qu'une minorité linguistique de plus en plus marginalisée. L'idée des deux peuples fondateurs est morte depuis déjà longtemps. Ce n'était qu'un hochet pour gagner du temps et endormir nos désirs de liberté.

D'autres minorités linguistiques émergent, notamment dans l'ouest du Canada, et nous ne serons bientôt qu'une minorité parmi d'autres….

Bien sûr, d'aucuns diront que les Québécois et les Québécoises peuvent s'épanouir pleinement comme individu au sein du Canada. Mais n'est-ce pas là une situation qui s'applique pour tous les membres d'une minorité vivant dans un pays développé, du moment qu'ils acceptent sagement les règles du jeu de la majorité ?

Il n'est pas ici question de la survie des individus, mais de la capacité qu'ont ces individus à pouvoir faire les choix qu'ils désirent en tant que nation. Bien sûr les individus survivront, mais notre nation sera de plus en plus atrophiée, sans voix réelle, insignifiante….

En 1840, les Québécois, représentaient 59,0% de la population du Canada. Trente-et-une années plus tard, en 1871, nous n'étions plus que 43,7%. Ce chiffre tomba à 27,7% en 1931. Et aujourd'hui nous ne sommes plus que 23,7%. Nous passerons bientôt sous la barre symbolique des 20%.......

À la lumière de ces chiffres, qui peut affirmer sérieusement que notre influence à Ottawa ira en s'accroissant au cours des prochaines années, des prochaines décennies, du prochain siècle ? Est-ce là l'héritage que nous lègueront à nos enfants ?

Tout au long de notre histoire, nous avons été à la remorque des choix d'un autre peuple et les choses iront en s'aggravant. Des Québécois sont allés faire la guerre, ont perdu la vie, parce que le parlement fédéral qu'ils ne contrôlaient pas avait décidé qu'ils iraient au front. Plus récemment, en 1970, des centaines de Québécois et de Québécoises innocents furent emprisonnés injustement par la seule décision du Parlement fédéral. Chaque année, ce parlement fédéral, dans lequel nous serons de plus en plus minoritaires, décide de ce qui est bon et de ce qui est mauvais pour nous. Parfois ces choix nous conviennent, parfois ils ne nous conviennent pas. Pourtant, ils affectent directement notre capacité à construire la société que nous voulons nous donner. Pourquoi alors se contenter du choix des autres en espérant qu'il sera aussi le nôtre ?

Pourquoi devons-nous batailler constamment pour tenter d'influencer la nation majoritaire alors que nous pourrions tout simplement faire les choses chez nous, comme nous le désirons en récupérant tous nos impôts ?

Le temps est venu pour la nation québécoise de s'assumer pleinement et de se tenir debout, sans idées revanchardes. Nous avons pour nous une géographie qui donne accès au monde, les ressources naturelles et humaines, les compétences, et un attachement profond à notre culture.

Bâtissons ici, chez nous, en Amérique, une société francophone, démocratique, laïque, et ouverte sur le monde.
I must say this is a pretty slim argument. Why has the population of Quebec continued to be a smaller percentage of Canada since 1840? Why do most immigrants choose not to come to Quebec? Do you think this situation would be reversed if Quebec was a separate nation? Currently there is still significant numbers of Anglophone and allophone migrants that come to Montreal, do you think they would continue to come here after separation? Look at Quebec City and the rest of Quebec, it is virtually an all white unilingual population, there are reasons for this.

And of course in any democracy there are going to some part of the population that disagree with government decisions? So based on the logic presented here, If there was a separatist government in Quebec City making laws that the population of Montreal did not agree with, then we too could separate?

Si l'on se fit à la définition du mot nation:

> nation
(nom féminin)
Réunion d'êtres humains habitant la plupart du temps sur un même territoire et unis par les traditions, l'origine, la langue et les intérêts économiques.• Etat indépendant.

Je croix qu'il est évident assez rapidement que le Québec constitu effectivement une nation.

Le dernier referendum a été très serré et ma generation n'a pas eu la chance d'y participer, mais le prochain on ira voter en force. Je soupconne fortement que ma generation est majoritairement souvereniste, donc il y a d'après moi de très bonnes chances que le résultat du prochain referendum penche en faveur du oui. Faut également pas oublier le vieillissement de la population des baby boomers qui sont eu generalement federalistes, ils vont certainement être moins nombreux à voter qu'au dernier referendum. Tout ca pour dire que le résultat des 2 premier referendum importe peu maintenant.

Le dernier referendum a été très serré et ma generation n'a pas eu la chance d'y participer, mais le prochain on ira voter en force
La dernière fois, on a demandé à une chanteuse, une certaine Céline D, de voter "Oui" ou "Non". Elle a écrit "je ne sais pas".

La dernière fois, on a demandé à une chanteuse, une certaine Céline D, de voter "Oui" ou "Non". Elle a écrit "je ne sais pas".

Cette fois on pourrais s'arranger pour que son mari, un certain dénommé René A, l'accompagne et lui souffle la bonne réponse à l'oreil.

NAFTA will not automatically cover Quebec once it leaves Canada. Quebecs signature is not on the document, Mexico and the USA, plus this new country of Canada will not allow Quebec to automatically become part of NAFTA. Quebecs contribuition to the US economy is miniscule on its own. Their economy wont collaps because Quebec isnt apart of NAFTA. The business people of the border states will want to make sure that their interests are being protected when dealing with this new country, that will have different priorities than the old country of Canada.

The population of Québec is about 7.6 million people. It's the largest province in Canada. About 1.5 million square KM.

To resume what i posted, according to international law, once a territory democratically decides to separate, it's provincial borders automatically become it's national borders. Therefore, Canada wouldn't have a word in what goes on inside Québec's borders.

I hate to disappoint so many of my English cousins in english Canada, but in case you didn't know, The western part of Montreal, more commonly known as West-Island has about 250,000 residents. Considering that the entire island has close to 1.9 million people, their chances of separating aren't very good!

Why wouldn't the U.S. allow us into Nafta? They want to continue trading with us. Why would they make it harder for them to make money? It just doesn't make sense. Sounds like a scare tactic to me!

Obviously, the U.S. position when it comes to separating Québec from Canada is gonna be a "pro united Canada" stance. They don'T wanna disturb commerce. But once a yes vote were to occur, i don't think they'd make it harder for the thousands of businesses in New-York, New-Hampshire, Vermont, Massachussets, Connecticut, Maine to continue trading with Québec and Montreal.

I love how many english Canadians try to make us look like the bad guys here. I guess they feel a little frustrated that they can'T do anything about the situation here. Most separatists don't wanna separate because we "hate" Canada, or because we dislike english Canadians. The reason we want a country is because we want a place to call home. We want to separate because every nation on this planet aspires to govern itself and have its voice heard throughout the world.

How would americans feel if they were still a british colony? In the past 20 years, there are 30 new countries on this planet. Why does that happen? People want to live in their countries, and sorry if this may offend English Canadians, but Canada is not my country. I don't feel any attachement to it. It may be a good country, in fact I know it is, but it'S just not MY country.


So how is this process of seperation proceeding? Where is it currently at? If the majority of the population of the Quebec province is for seperation, then shouldn't there just be a vote on it, and let the referendum decide the future of quebec province. If there is a vote, when is it? And is the seperation movement the majority or the minority?

Sorry for all the questions. I just don't know that much about this movement.

It’s seems the separatist have no knowledge of the FIRST NATIONS.
The separatists see themselves as victims and thus can only see themselves.
Don’t the First Nations aspire to govern themselves and have a voice heard throughout the world?
Is not Quebec the HOMELAND of many First Nations?
The language, religion and culture of almost all First Nations are in fact endangered.

Do the separatist believe the First Nations have the right to separate from Quebec
or do they believe the First Nations are just animals to throw rocks at?

I have good news for the separatist; they have a nation and its called France.

So how is this process of seperation proceeding? Where is it currently at? If the majority of the population of the Quebec province is for seperation, then shouldn't there just be a vote on it, and let the referendum decide the future of quebec province. If there is a vote, when is it? And is the seperation movement the majority or the minority?

Sorry for all the questions. I just don't know that much about this movement.

That's all right, no need to apologize.

Well, the process is at a stand still right now, the Province of Québec has two major parties...actually there's a third party(Action Démocratique du Québec[ADQ]), but they only get about 18% of the vote.

The two major provincial parties are the Provincial Liberals [PLQ](Parti Liberal du Québec) who are federalists and don't want Québec to separate, and there's the Parti Québecois[PQ](who are pushing for Separation).

As we speak, the Provincial Liberals are in Power(Since April 2003) so there won't be any referendum until the Parti Québecois can come back to power, which most likely will be within the next two years, as the provincial Liberals have an approval rating of under 30% right now(it's been like this for over a year now).

The PArti Québecois first came to power in 1976(lead by René Lévesque), and at the end of their first mandate, they held a referendum in May 1980, which the NO side won (No:59.5% YES:40.5%)

The PQ came back to power in 1993, and held a second referendum in October 1995, it was much closer but the NO side won again(YES:49.5% NO 50.5%) there was a difference of less than 50,000 votes)

Today approval ratings for separation in Québec are at about 50%
Jan. 2005: 46% yes, 54% no
Feb. 2005: 45% yes, 55% no
Mar. 2005: 45% yes, 55% no
Apr. 2005: 47% yes, 53% no
May 2005: 53% Yes, 47% no
Jun. 2005: 56% yes, 44% no
Aug. 2005: 50% yes, 50% no
Sep. 2005: 51% yes, 49% no

These numbers were taken by CROP.

The PQ have said that if they get a third mandate, they would hold a referendum within the Four years of their Mandate.

I hope this helped!

It’s seems the separatist have no knowledge of the FIRST NATIONS.
The separatists see themselves as victims and thus can only see themselves.
Don’t the First Nations aspire to govern themselves and have a voice heard throughout the world?
Is not Quebec the HOMELAND of many First Nations?
The language, religion and culture of almost all First Nations are in fact endangered.

Do the separatist believe the First Nations have the right to separate from Quebec
or do they believe the First Nations are just animals to throw rocks at?

I have good news for the separatist; they have a nation and its called France.

Why do yoiu insist on saying things of which you have no knowledge of?

what will happen to the first nations?

First Nations of Quebec currently fall under the "care" of the Canadian government, which does not recognize the International Convention adopted by the International Labour Organization in 1989. This convention takes note of the aspiration of First nations to being Masters of their institutions and preserving their identity as their languages within the framework of the States in which they are found.

The project of Declaration of the rights of the First Nations of 1993, which was not ratified by the united Nations, rather granted rights to people rather than to the individuals belonging to these people. The Canadian government opposed it.

On the other hand, since 1985, Québec has recognized the presence of the First Nations on it's territory and appeared ready to negotiate installations which would ensure to them the control of their institutions within the framework of the prerogatives of the Québec State. If Québec ever becomes a country, it will continue in this direction, as the last agreement with the Cries has proven. There is nevertheless a precondition to that. It must have the whole jurisdiction on the First Nations territories. That will be able to be concretized in two ways.

The first, more probable, will consist of a transfer of the responsibilities from the Canadian government to the government of Quebec. The second, less probable, would imply the active presence of First Nations in the negotiation of the transfers.

According to the first possibility, Quebec would be able to engage the First nations, by a law or differently, to respect its engagements of 1985 in the direction of the Declaration of 1993 and the Convention of 1989. This law could even indicate that the disagreements will be arbitrated by an international court created at the request of the parts, that is to say the State of Quebec and the First nations of Quebec. It would result from this that the transfer of the responsibilities could materialize. That could be also made without this law if the negotiations with the First Nations is led to an agreement before even the transfer of the responsibilities.

On the second assumption, the process will be longer. The Canadian government indeed recognizes neither the Declaration of 1993, nor the Convention of 1989. In addition, this same government wouldn't be as open to the aspirations of the First Nations because of the reserves coming from several other areas in the country. Also it will have difficulties in signing an agreement of the type of that which Quebec would be willing to sign.

Taking into account what has preceded, the situation of the First nations would improve in an independent Quebec. Quebec would recognize their rights associated with the maintenance of their identity. In addition, always in continuity with the practices of the province of Québec on the matter, they would be invited to set up regional governments at democratic bases. The people of the First Nations would become thus citizens of Quebec to which Quebec would recognize rights which differentiate them the rest of the citizens.

In independent Quebec, the people of the First Nations could be released from the Law on the Indians of Canada, which is racist and segregationist.

Concerning the territories, those would become the concern of the Government of Québec. If they concerned the Canadian government, they would constitute enclaves. In such a case, Quebec would not have any obligations with regards to the First Nations people, except to enable them to live in these enclaves and to have access following an agreement to this end.


On the contrary, once recognized Québécois territory, the territories on which the First nations exert their current rights and prerogatives would have an equivalent status to the rest of Québec. This could be modified only following an agreement between the First Nations of Quebec and the State of Québec. Accordingly, the creation of regional governments should ensure the maintenance of the rights inherent to the First Nations, while supporting the disappearance of the reserves, to the profit of an institution which would enable them to affirm their specificity, while being members of the Québec nation.

It is thus for an extremely simple reason. The claims of the Firsty Nations fall under a logic of recognition of a national minority. This type of claim does not lead to the creation of a Sovereign state. If the First Nations of Quebec aspired to such a status, they should then say it and make the demonstration which they answer the criteria from which the United Nations admit a new member.

One last remark. If the First Nations of Québec seem to often be critical of Quebec and seem to be better off with the Canadian government, it arises from the current division of capacities. The Canadian government acts as a tutor whereas the provinces have jurisdiction on the resources and fields related to the identity like education and health.

In Quebec ever becomes a country, these reports/ratios will be completely transformed. By letting an international court rule on the possible litigations, Quebec, would make be a pioneer on an international scale. At once, it would discredit the Canadian claims with the effect which the First Nations question must be solved before the "tutor" of the First Nations gives its approval to the independence of Quebec.




I'm sorry if the translation sucks, but I'm trying to watch the hockey game(The habs are kicking the Bruins asses 3-0 in the first period!!!) and i'm not in the mood to put much more effort into this translation.

^^On that topic would the habs have to change their name? Because obviously Monteal Canadiens would no longer work :tongue2: :D

Si l'on se fit à la définition du mot nation:

> nation
(nom féminin)
Réunion d'êtres humains habitant la plupart du temps sur un même territoire et unis par les traditions, l'origine, la langue et les intérêts économiques.• Etat indépendant.

Je croix qu'il est évident assez rapidement que le Québec constitu effectivement une nation.

Le dernier referendum a été très serré et ma generation n'a pas eu la chance d'y participer, mais le prochain on ira voter en force. Je soupconne fortement que ma generation est majoritairement souvereniste, donc il y a d'après moi de très bonnes chances que le résultat du prochain referendum penche en faveur du oui. Faut également pas oublier le vieillissement de la population des baby boomers qui sont eu generalement federalistes, ils vont certainement être moins nombreux à voter qu'au dernier referendum. Tout ca pour dire que le résultat des 2 premier referendum importe peu maintenant.
LP_Verdun, Can you explain to me what you believe are the benefits to me and the younger generation if Quebec separates?

I was not born here so I honestly don't really care if Quebec separates or not, my concerns are purely economical. I work for an English speaking multi-national company, I have investments in both the Canadian and US stock markets, I own a house. I can not for the life of me see how I would be financially better of if Quebec separates. Most likely on separation the Canadian share market would plunge, House prices would drop and my English speaking company would be forced to adopt new regulations and probably be hit with additional taxes. So in all likely hood the may relocate to Toronto. Also my income tax would most likely increase to cover the cost of separation and to make up for the loss of Federal equalization payments.

Now you may say that I am being overly pessimistic, and presenting the worse case scenario, but I have worked hard and smart during my life to be come somewhat financial independent so the stakes are very high for me. Now on the other hand if you are still a student living with Mom & Dad you obviously have a different perspective and a lot less to lose.

"Also my income tax would most likely increase to cover the cost of separation and to make up for the loss of Federal equalization payments."

Not necessarily because the income taxes we send to Ottawa would be sent to Q.C., also we would save money by cutting on expenses related to too many different ministers. We have two Finance departments, two agriculture departments, etc.etc...that's moeny were throwing away. WE wouldn'T have to pay for the Lieutenant Governor General(which i believe to be a COLOSSAL waste of money)

Look, i'm not saying everything is gonna be rosy. I'm fully aware that things will slow down for a while, but after a few years things would come back to normal, and in the long run(within 10 years) the situation most likely get better.

"Tu as peut-être raison, mais la vrai question est d'abord la suivante:
Le Quebec est-il réellement une nation?"

Aucuns doutes que le Québec est une Nation!

Why do yoiu insist on saying things of which you have no knowledge of?

what will happen to the first nations?

First Nations of Quebec currently fall under the "care" of the Canadian government, which does not recognize the International Convention adopted by the International Labour Organization in 1989. This convention takes note of the aspiration of First nations to being Masters of their institutions and preserving their identity as their languages within the framework of the States in which they are found.

The project of Declaration of the rights of the First Nations of 1993, which was not ratified by the united Nations, rather granted rights to people rather than to the individuals belonging to these people. The Canadian government opposed it.

On the other hand, since 1985, Québec has recognized the presence of the First Nations on it's territory and appeared ready to negotiate installations which would ensure to them the control of their institutions within the framework of the prerogatives of the Québec State. If Québec ever becomes a country, it will continue in this direction, as the last agreement with the Cries has proven. There is nevertheless a precondition to that. It must have the whole jurisdiction on the First Nations territories. That will be able to be concretized in two ways.

The first, more probable, will consist of a transfer of the responsibilities from the Canadian government to the government of Quebec. The second, less probable, would imply the active presence of First Nations in the negotiation of the transfers.

According to the first possibility, Quebec would be able to engage the First nations, by a law or differently, to respect its engagements of 1985 in the direction of the Declaration of 1993 and the Convention of 1989. This law could even indicate that the disagreements will be arbitrated by an international court created at the request of the parts, that is to say the State of Quebec and the First nations of Quebec. It would result from this that the transfer of the responsibilities could materialize. That could be also made without this law if the negotiations with the First Nations is led to an agreement before even the transfer of the responsibilities.

On the second assumption, the process will be longer. The Canadian government indeed recognizes neither the Declaration of 1993, nor the Convention of 1989. In addition, this same government wouldn't be as open to the aspirations of the First Nations because of the reserves coming from several other areas in the country. Also it will have difficulties in signing an agreement of the type of that which Quebec would be willing to sign.

Taking into account what has preceded, the situation of the First nations would improve in an independent Quebec. Quebec would recognize their rights associated with the maintenance of their identity. In addition, always in continuity with the practices of the province of Québec on the matter, they would be invited to set up regional governments at democratic bases. The people of the First Nations would become thus citizens of Quebec to which Quebec would recognize rights which differentiate them the rest of the citizens.

In independent Quebec, the people of the First Nations could be released from the Law on the Indians of Canada, which is racist and segregationist.

Concerning the territories, those would become the concern of the Government of Québec. If they concerned the Canadian government, they would constitute enclaves. In such a case, Quebec would not have any obligations with regards to the First Nations people, except to enable them to live in these enclaves and to have access following an agreement to this end.


On the contrary, once recognized Québécois territory, the territories on which the First nations exert their current rights and prerogatives would have an equivalent status to the rest of Québec. This could be modified only following an agreement between the First Nations of Quebec and the State of Québec. Accordingly, the creation of regional governments should ensure the maintenance of the rights inherent to the First Nations, while supporting the disappearance of the reserves, to the profit of an institution which would enable them to affirm their specificity, while being members of the Québec nation.

It is thus for an extremely simple reason. The claims of the Firsty Nations fall under a logic of recognition of a national minority. This type of claim does not lead to the creation of a Sovereign state. If the First Nations of Quebec aspired to such a status, they should then say it and make the demonstration which they answer the criteria from which the United Nations admit a new member.

One last remark. If the First Nations of Québec seem to often be critical of Quebec and seem to be better off with the Canadian government, it arises from the current division of capacities. The Canadian government acts as a tutor whereas the provinces have jurisdiction on the resources and fields related to the identity like education and health.

In Quebec ever becomes a country, these reports/ratios will be completely transformed. By letting an international court rule on the possible litigations, Quebec, would make be a pioneer on an international scale. At once, it would discredit the Canadian claims with the effect which the First Nations question must be solved before the "tutor" of the First Nations gives its approval to the independence of Quebec.




I'm sorry if the translation sucks, but I'm trying to watch the hockey game(The habs are kicking the Bruins asses 3-0 in the first period!!!) and i'm not in the mood to put much more effort into this translation.

This is not a legal argument. The Canadian constitution recognizes native treaties and also recognizes the Royal Proclamation. Both deal with the Canadian government, not with Quebec. Quebec has absolutely no unilateral power to break this relationship between First Nations and the Government of Canada, nor to simply subsume the meaning of these treaties under a new sovereign body.

"Quebecs contribuition to the US economy is miniscule on its own. Their economy wont collaps because Quebec isnt apart of NAFTA."

SOrry to say this but your wrong. The border crossing at Lacolle is the second most important border crossing between the US and CAnada. Billions of dollards worth of goods cross that border.

"C'est vrai que l'Québec est très différent au reste du Canada, mais la ville de Montréal n'est-elle pas aussi très différente comparé au reste de la province?"

Oui il ya des différences entre la métropole et le reste de la province. C'est souvent le cas entre une métropole et le reste d'un pays!

MAis ça ne change pas le fait que les différences entre Montréal et le reste du Québec sont loin d'être aussi prononcé que celles entre le Québec et le Canada!

65% de la région métropolitaine sont quand même francophones.

"Do you think this situation would be reversed if Quebec was a separate nation? Currently there is still significant numbers of Anglophone and allophone migrants that come to Montreal, do you think they would continue to come here after separation?"

Well, if Québec were to be its own country, there wouldn'T be any misgivings about the language.

People come here, and think that its an english country. When they are sworn in, the swear allegiance to the QUEEN of ENGLAND.

If Québec were a country, people around the world would know that the Language of this country is not english, but French!

Habsfan,

I agree with you completly. I have NEVER met a separitist that does not love Canada, except Pariseau. I had a friend and he said he loved Canada but simply thought Canada and Quebec would make better best friends than lovers. An interesting way to put it.
There is a real problem here now. People in Hull would not want to leave and yes most of greater Montreal are, of course, francophone. That said they are the LEAST likely of all francophones to want to leave as polls have continually shown. Aslos, the WestIsland is English and definatly doen't want to go but the overwhelming majority of the ethnic and immigrant population doesn't want to either.
I really could see them severing ties with Quebec and not go by quickly creating their own province which is VERY easy to do. There is NOTHING the separatists could do about it, absolutly nothing.
Quebec would walk away with its population % of the debt { they are truly dilussional if they think they can't} but then in a year find out that a million fewr people live in Quebec resulting in a massive increase in per capita debt to say nothing of no transfer payment, downgrading of the credit to say nothing about a currency which will not be very potent.
As far as NAFTA, you are completly wrong. The US may want to have Quebec but it means NOTHING. Why? Because all 3 countires must approve a new member nation.
I don't think Canadians will be in a particularily giving mood.
There will be no bedroom priveleges. You will find that Quebec under Canada is by far the spoiled province of confederation and that after all the years of disporoportionatly high influence on the national scene, Canada will not be Mr.Niceguy in any negotiations.
As far as myself? I love Quebec, infact I even lived in Hull for a few months while going to Carleton but I must say that the idea of Quebec leaving doesn't seem quite upsetting as it once did.
Have you ever noticed that there are constant polls about how many Quebecers want to leave but NEVER have I EVER heard about a poll asking what the rest of Canada feels about it.
I am more and more starting to think that the only way to keep Canada together would be to let Quebec go.
Quebecers?........they will find out fast enough that its a big bad world out there and that maybe having the protection {and money} of Ottawa wasn't so bad afterall.

That's all right, no need to apologize.

Well, the process is at a stand still right now, the Province of Québec has two major parties...actually there's a third party(Action Démocratique du Québec[ADQ]), but they only get about 18% of the vote.

The two major provincial parties are the Provincial Liberals [PLQ](Parti Liberal du Québec) who are federalists and don't want Québec to separate, and there's the Parti Québecois[PQ](who are pushing for Separation).

As we speak, the Provincial Liberals are in Power(Since April 2003) so there won't be any referendum until the Parti Québecois can come back to power, which most likely will be within the next two years, as the provincial Liberals have an approval rating of under 30% right now(it's been like this for over a year now).

The PArti Québecois first came to power in 1976(lead by René Lévesque), and at the end of their first mandate, they held a referendum in May 1980, which the NO side won (No:59.5% YES:40.5%)

The PQ came back to power in 1993, and held a second referendum in October 1995, it was much closer but the NO side won again(YES:49.5% NO 50.5%) there was a difference of less than 50,000 votes)

Today approval ratings for separation in Québec are at about 50%
Jan. 2005: 46% yes, 54% no
Feb. 2005: 45% yes, 55% no
Mar. 2005: 45% yes, 55% no
Apr. 2005: 47% yes, 53% no
May 2005: 53% Yes, 47% no
Jun. 2005: 56% yes, 44% no
Aug. 2005: 50% yes, 50% no
Sep. 2005: 51% yes, 49% no

These numbers were taken by CROP.

The PQ have said that if they get a third mandate, they would hold a referendum within the Four years of their Mandate.

I hope this helped!



Thanks a lot!!

This really game me an idea of what is going on. I didn't know that the movement had such large support. I guess we'll have to see how this all turns out. Thanks for the information. :)

Look at Quebec City, it is virtually an all white unilingual population, there are reasons for this.

J'ai visité la ville de Quebec il y a deux semaines environ et les guides touristiques la décrivaient comme "une ville Française en Amérique" très différente de Montréal (qui est plutôt une "ville Américaine où l'on parle Français"). Et bien, je dois dire que si j'ai vraiment adoré la ville, le cadre et l'ambiance, j'ai ressenti un sentiment assez bizarre: les gens était acceuillants et parlait Français, tout semblait marcher comme sur des roulettes mais quelque chose me semblait anormal...et je ne savais pas quoi.

Maintenant que tu le dit, je comprend mieux: la population de Quebec-ville est blanche à près de 100 %...c'est donc l'anti-Toronto considéréé comme "la ville la plus cosmopolite du monde". On est très éloigné de Montréal et aucune ville européenne, même très au nord comme Glasgow, Dublin, Oslo ou Stockholm ne connait cette situation...et naturellement, je ne parle pas de Londres, Paris, Bruxelles, Marseille ou Madrid.

A Québec-ville, contrairement à Montreal, je n'ai pas vu:
- de chauffeurs de taxi, de vigiles, de policiers ou d'étudiants Noirs
- d'assembleurs d'ordinateurs Vietnamiens
- d'épiciers Arabes
- de restaurants Chinois
- de barmen Indiens, Pakistanais ou Indonésiens
- ....

Les seuls personnes colorées que j'ai croisées étaient des touristes: bcp de Japonais bardés d'appareils photos et de camescopes, des Américains noirs et quelques Français originaires de Martinique et de Guadeloupe.

Faut il comprendre que Quebec-ville est si peu attractive qu'elle n'attire pas les nombreux immigrants qui arrivent chaque année au Canada et dans la province du Quebec ? Tous s'installent ils dans la zone métropolitaine de Montreal ? Est-ce finalement un manque de dynamisme et d'opportunité ?

What I'm concerned about is that the Rest of Canada will end up footing some of Quebec's costs on some areas.. most notably National Defence. And of course the national debt. The fair way to split it according to % of population.

Clearly, if Quebec seperates, I don't see the harm, as long as I don't end up subsidizing it. Those PQ numbers are quite skewed, and definitely don't reflect reality. If they're trying to prove a point, at least use estimates that are more reasonable.

And once Quebec separates, the pro-Quebec federalists should immediately be removed from office, since they do not represent the best interests of English Canada.

***

Quebec's $17B fallacy of separation

GRAHAM FRASER
NATIONAL AFFAIRS WRITER
Toronto Star

OTTAWA—It has become the latest mantra in the Parti Québécois, and a staple in the party's leadership race: there will be an additional $17 billion available over five years for the government of an independent Quebec.

No asterisks, ifs, providings or maybes — just take the $17 billion to the bank and tell PQ members how it should be spent.

Richard Legendre, a former PQ cabinet minister, even asked the audience at the party's leadership debate on Wednesday night: "Which would you rather Quebec to have — a budget of $55 billion, or a budget of $72 billion?"

Not surprisingly, the largely student audience of 1,500 chose $72 billion.

The $17 billion figure comes from a report done by PQ MNA François Legault, called Finances of a Sovereign Quebec, that was published last May.

Legault and the PQ researchers who worked on the report calculated Quebec would keep the $41 billion that Quebecers pay in federal taxes, and that that would cover the cost of social security, Quebec's share of the national debt, employment insurance, defence and other services. Savings would be found in efficiencies and elimination of duplication.

"On a horizon of five years, the financial gains of a sovereign Quebec would rise to more than $17 billion," the report concludes.

The report assumes that despite having more than 24 per cent of the population of Canada, an independent Quebec would have to pay only 14 per cent of what Canada pays for its armed forces, 9 per cent of what Canada pays toward aboriginals and 6 per cent of what Canada spends on fisheries and oceans.In addition, the report assumes that Quebec would have to take responsibility for only 18.2 per cent of the national debt, despite the fact Quebec generates 21 per cent of Canada's GNP and has 24.3 per cent of the population.

Alain Noël of the Université de Montréal said the Legault report shows, in the context of a budgetary surplus in Ottawa and balanced budgets in Quebec, that financial considerations would not be the obstacle they were when governments were deeply in the red. "I would say that the hypotheses are no more unrealistic than those that suggest that everything would go badly," he said.

Five economists looked at the calculations and validated the arithmetic. But, as Laval economist Jean-Yves Duclos points out, they were not asked to look at the assumptions of the report.

"I think the report is an insult to the intelligence," he told the Toronto Star yesterday.

In an article analyzing the report, published last May, Duclos accused the authors of three accounting tricks: claiming Quebec would have to pay only 17 per cent of federal program spending to maintain the same level of services; arguing there would be a saving of 25 per cent by eliminating inefficiency costs, and low-balling the amount of the debt Quebec would have to pay.

Yesterday, Duclos identified two fundamental flaws in the study. The first is that Quebec is a have-not province, and receives more in equalization payments than it contributes. The second, he said, is that there is no recognition of economies of scale for activities carried on by departments like Foreign Affairs, National Defence, Transportation and International Trade.

"In Mr. Legault's analysis, they not only do not take account of that, but they claim there would be economies in functioning province by province."

Duclos points out there is no acknowledgment of any costs from separation itself: political instability, conflict over the division of the debt, an exodus of part of the population, a drop in investment, depreciation of the dollar and increased interest rates.

The debt — Quebec's share of $499 billion — would be the hardest element to negotiate if Quebec were to become independent.

"I argued for (Quebec's proportion of) the population as an appropriate way of splitting it," said economist and consultant Patrick Grady. "Otherwise, what you're doing is saying we're going to continue to subsidize them after they split."

As an indication of what a difference that calculation would make, Quebec would be responsible for $33.4 billion more debt if Quebec's share of the population (24.3 per cent) were used to calculate it instead of the Legault figure (18.2 per cent).

^^QUEBEC better pay its fair share of 24.3% of National Debt, or I'll be more than fumed. :mad2: :bleep: :mad2:

J'ai visité la ville de Quebec il y a deux semaines environ et les guides touristiques la décrivaient comme "une ville Française en Amérique" très différente de Montréal (qui est plutôt une "ville Américaine où l'on parle Français"). Et bien, je dois dire que si j'ai vraiment adoré la ville, le cadre et l'ambiance, j'ai ressenti un sentiment assez bizarre: les gens était acceuillants et parlait Français, tout semblait marcher comme sur des roulettes mais quelque chose me semblait anormal...et je ne savais pas quoi.

Maintenant que tu le dit, je comprend mieux: la population de Quebec-ville est blanche à près de 100 %...c'est donc l'anti-Toronto considéréé comme "la ville la plus cosmopolite du monde". On est très éloigné de Montréal et aucune ville européenne, même très au nord comme Glasgow, Dublin, Oslo ou Stockholm ne connait cette situation...et naturellement, je ne parle pas de Londres, Paris, Bruxelles, Marseille ou Madrid.

A Québec-ville, contrairement à Montreal, je n'ai pas vu:
- de chauffeurs de taxi, de vigiles, de policiers ou d'étudiants Noirs
- d'assembleurs d'ordinateurs Vietnamiens
- d'épiciers Arabes
- de restaurants Chinois
- de barmen Indiens, Pakistanais ou Indonésiens
- ....

Les seuls personnes colorées que j'ai croisées étaient des touristes: bcp de Japonais bardés d'appareils photos et de camescopes, des Américains noirs et quelques Français originaires de Martinique et de Guadeloupe.

Faut il comprendre que Quebec-ville est si peu attractive qu'elle n'attire pas les nombreux immigrants qui arrivent chaque année au Canada et dans la province du Quebec ? Tous s'installent ils dans la zone métropolitaine de Montreal ? Est-ce finalement un manque de dynamisme et d'opportunité ?
Excusez-moi pour répondre en anglais, j’espère que vous comprenez.

I agree, Quebec City is a beautiful city and I always enjoy going up there.

Faut il comprendre que Quebec-ville est si peu attractive qu'elle n'attire pas les nombreux immigrants qui arrivent chaque année au Canada et dans la province du Quebec ?
I not exactly sure why Quebec City receives a very small number of non-white immigrants, but this is my theory. Quebec as a province also receives a small number of immigrants compared to Ontario and BC. Obviously the language pays a big part, immigrants who choose to move to NA would most likely want to speak the language of the majority. The ongoing separation debate also would be a factor, people do not want to move to a new home where there is political uncertainty. Winter weather is extreme, it is even worse in Quebec City as compared to Montréal. There is IMO, un undertow of racism among the White Francophone's, this is more pronounced in Quebec City. There is also a lack of business opportunity due to the close proximity to Montréal.

Tous s'installent ils dans la zone métropolitaine de Montréal?
I would say that yes, the overwhelming majority of immigrants, especially non-white, move to Montréal.

Est-ce finalement un manque de dynamisme et d'opportunité ?
I would think so, Quebec City is very much a Government city, with a high number of public servants. It is also more of a regional city when it comes to business and finance.

LP_Verdun, Can you explain to me what you believe are the benefits to me and the younger generation if Quebec separates?.

Pordonne moi TooFar, ca ne me tente pas vraiment de perdre mon temps à assayer de t'expliquer les beinfaits de la souveraineté pour le peuple Quebecois. Peut-être qu'un jour tu pourras faire preuve d'une plus grande ouverture d'esprit ce qui te permettrait de mieux nous comprendre, mais ca me surprendrait...

I was not born here so I honestly don't really care if Quebec separates or not

Mais pourtant, tu vas surement trouver le temps d'aller voter non au prochain referendum.

Pordonne moi TooFar, ca ne me tente pas vraiment de perdre mon temps à assayer de t'expliquer les beinfaits de la souveraineté pour le peuple Quebecois. Peut-être qu'un jour tu pourras faire preuve d'une plus grande ouverture d'esprit ce qui te permettrait de mieux nous comprendre, mais ca me surprendrait...

I understand your emotional reasons for wanting sovereignty, but I can not see many benefits. How would your or my life change for the better? What impact would it have in your day to day life? Are you not already a proud Quebecker? I'm not saying the status quo is the perfect solution either, but to risk such a high standard of living for the unknown does not sit well with me

Mais pourtant, tu vas surement trouver le temps d'aller voter non au prochain referendum.
Well why not, you cant be bothered explaining to me to benefits and I have never read any independent report detailing how I would be better off, and all I can see is huge financial impact. Why should I risk all that I have work hard for, for the unknown?

Last referendum's result was 51%-49%.

Maybe next referendum will be the opposite: 49%-51%.

A lot of quebequers don't know what they would vote in a next possible referendum.

In last two referenda, the question wasn't clear: It wasn't as simple as:
Would you wan't Quebec to separate from the rest of Canada and become and independent country?



What i'm trying to say, is that it's very hard to build a country in this situation.
To become a country, first the question would have to be clear. Then a big majority would have to agree (not a tiny aprox 51%). There's too many quebecers that don't really know what they want.

There's too many quebecers that don't really know what they want.
That's normal: this is not a country...it's winter.

Habsfan,

I agree with you completly. I have NEVER met a separitist that does not love Canada, except Pariseau. I had a friend and he said he loved Canada but simply thought Canada and Quebec would make better best friends than lovers. An interesting way to put it.
There is a real problem here now. People in Hull would not want to leave and yes most of greater Montreal are, of course, francophone. That said they are the LEAST likely of all francophones to want to leave as polls have continually shown. Aslos, the WestIsland is English and definatly doen't want to go but the overwhelming majority of the ethnic and immigrant population doesn't want to either.
I really could see them severing ties with Quebec and not go by quickly creating their own province which is VERY easy to do. There is NOTHING the separatists could do about it, absolutly nothing.
Quebec would walk away with its population % of the debt { they are truly dilussional if they think they can't} but then in a year find out that a million fewr people live in Quebec resulting in a massive increase in per capita debt to say nothing of no transfer payment, downgrading of the credit to say nothing about a currency which will not be very potent.
As far as NAFTA, you are completly wrong. The US may want to have Quebec but it means NOTHING. Why? Because all 3 countires must approve a new member nation.
I don't think Canadians will be in a particularily giving mood.
There will be no bedroom priveleges. You will find that Quebec under Canada is by far the spoiled province of confederation and that after all the years of disporoportionatly high influence on the national scene, Canada will not be Mr.Niceguy in any negotiations.
As far as myself? I love Quebec, infact I even lived in Hull for a few months while going to Carleton but I must say that the idea of Quebec leaving doesn't seem quite upsetting as it once did.
Have you ever noticed that there are constant polls about how many Quebecers want to leave but NEVER have I EVER heard about a poll asking what the rest of Canada feels about it.
I am more and more starting to think that the only way to keep Canada together would be to let Quebec go.
Quebecers?........they will find out fast enough that its a big bad world out there and that maybe having the protection {and money} of Ottawa wasn't so bad afterall.

It's nice to finally be able to discuss this with someone who seems to be level headed about this topic.

Concerning the Immigrant populations...well it is true that in the past, the VAST majority of the immigrants voted against separation. But I'd Like to point out that the Bloc and the PQ have been making real efforts to try to include the newly arrived imigrants into the party. In my riding of St-Lambert(on the south shore of montreal) which has always been a federalist riding, Maka Kotto(who's originally from Cameroon) of the Bloc won last year. Hard to believe but it happenned. Also, more and more children of people who arrived here 20, 30 and 40 years ago, are feeling increasingly included within our society. Now I'm not saying that this is the case for the majority of first and second generation of immigrants, but the situation is improving.

Concerning NAFTA, Even if many Canadians would be bitter after a split, I still think they'd chose to accept Québec within Nafta. Why? Because Québec trades alot with Ontario(almost as much as it trades with the northeastern U.S. States.) We're talking about dozens of Billions of dollars, not just a few hundred Million$.

If Canada doesn't allow Québec to enter NAFTA out of Spite, it's just not a very sound business practice.(and i'd even say it would a littel childish)It would come back to bite them in the ass. It would make things in Ontario(economically speaking) very difficult. Plus we know that if Québec leaves Canada, Ontario would make up 55% of the Canadian population. If their economy would be threatened by not letting Québec into Nafta, i think they'd do everything possible to lessen this threat(in this case, they would push Québec to be accepted within NAFTA).

I also have noticed that they never have these types of polls in Canada.

The answer is actually quite simple.

If they were to have a Canada wide poll(without Québec) about what their thoughts are on Québec separation, i wouldn't be surpriseed to find out that more and more people would say: "The Hell with them, let's kick them out!" (obviously i'm being facetious here, but i'm sure you get what i mean!) If this question was asked 30 years ago, the vast majority of English Canadians would have said that they would want Québec to remain in Canada, but as the years go by, that percenteage is going down. People are frustrated, and i wouldn't be surprised if 50% of English Canada would say that they wouldn't mind seeing Québec leave confederation.

The consequence of this type of Poll would be devastating for the federalists in Québec. Most people who are on the fence about separation, would get a rude awakening! And this might send them voting for the P.Q.

And finally to respond to your last sentence...I've always said that It most probably wouldn't as rosy as some might think Separation would be. BUt I have also said that not everything in life is about money.

I would be willing to pay a little more taxes or give up on a few of life's little pleasures to have my own country.

I'm glad we can have this discussion.
I find in the West there is a lot of ignorance about Quebec, and Ontario for that matter.
I find that most separatists I have met really love Canada. The problem is is that when they think of PartiQuebois they often think of Pariseau. He is a foul individual.
I know most separatists are quite embarrassed by him.
In terms of NAFTA, ya Canada would let Quebec in but use it as a bargaining chip. There would, of course, be an open border.
Some have this idea that they woould still use the CDN$.......out of the question.

One thing that REALLY pisses of Canadians off is when they have these referendums on "soverenty association"..........what the hell is that?

I think Quebec will go and as far as I'm concerned the sooner the better. Not because I want Quebec to go but the country can't keep going thru this every ten years. It is upsetting to the rest of Canada and very divisive to the people in Quebec.
I respect you for having your views and being honest about them and being willing to put your money where your mouth is. I can't stand these "part-time separatists who want to leavee but are only sticking around for the money. I find that shallow, offensive, and self-centered.

So tell me, what should happen if Hull/westIsland overwhelmingly vote no and also what about the natives in the northern half of the province where support for separation is less than 6%.
What do you propose?

Habsfan
Also what do think of this 50% + 1?
Also when the economy tanks and the Liberals in Quebec hold a refendum to join Canada again {assuming Canada will let them} would 50% + 1 be OK in that situation?

I also don't mean to be rude when I say the Quebec economy in the tank but lets face it, Quebec's ecomony will take a pounding and unemployment would probably triple as most economist have stated due to an approx drop in GDP of 10% in the first 2 years.

I wonder how Pierre Mailloux voted in the referendum?

I wonder how Pierre Mailloux voted in the referendum?

He votes for his mother.

"Some have this idea that they woould still use the CDN$.......out of the question. "

Separatist leaders have said on more than one occasion that they would most likely use the American Dollar, not the Canadian Dollar.

"I think Quebec will go and as far as I'm concerned the sooner the better. Not because I want Quebec to go but the country can't keep going thru this every ten years. It is upsetting to the rest of Canada and very divisive to the people in Quebec. "

Ideally, i'd like it if we could put Separation on the backburner for 10 or 12 years. During this time we should work on repaying some of our debt and make sure the economy is stronger, once that would be accomplished, then you push for it.

AS far as the Doomsday predictions by SOME experts, i don't believe it'll be as bad as some say it'll be. Back in 1995, Parizeau had over 40 billlion dollars ready to stabilize the markets in case things went sour. AS much as I hate to say it, Parizeau was and still is a financial Genius of some sorts. He may be a biggot, but he knows what he knows what to do with money.

With the current leadership race going on in the P.Q. I'm not very optimistic. None of the leaders inspire me very much. The only one i'd consider voting for is Richard Legendre(who is currently 3rd) but even he isn't that great.

"So tell me, what should happen if Hull/westIsland overwhelmingly vote no"

Hull and the West island ARE NOT distinct Societies. The french to english split in the West island is about 50/50.

As for the natives...i don't know what to do about them. I'd offer them better incentives than what they get from the Federal Government. Make it so that their situation would improve in a Québec State. There are about 50,000 crees and inuits living in the northern parts of Québec(this is an Approximation, as I'm not sure of their exact numbers)...how much could it cost us to make them Happy?

I have no problems with 50% +1 when the no side won in 1995 with 50.5% we accepted defeat. If the yes side were ever to win, obviously, it would be essential to win with a clear majority, and for me a clear majority would be a win with 53%. but i'd accept a 50.4% win also!

"Also when the economy tanks and the Liberals in Quebec hold a refendum to join Canada again {assuming Canada will let them} would 50% + 1 be OK in that situation?"

Of course it would. Assuming canada would let us back in...but once that Big step of actually separating would occur, i seriously doubt we would look back. We would have to work harder and improve our situation.

"I also don't mean to be rude when I say the Quebec economy in the tank but lets face it, Quebec's ecomony will take a pounding and unemployment would probably triple as most economist have stated due to an approx drop in GDP of 10% in the first 2 years."

There are so many economists who have predictied different things, when the truth is Nobody can predict accurately what will happen. Now, i'm not saying that the economy won't take a hit. I'm fully aware of the fact that it will, but all these so called specialists like to pronounce the doom and gloom projections.

There's an expression in french that i like to use, it goes like this: "Il faut en prendre et en laisser."

Which roughly means you gotta take some and you gotta leave some. I don'T believe everything the P.Q. tells me, but i also don'T believe everything the Federal gov't tells me!

I wonder how Pierre Mailloux voted in the referendum?

I'm assuming Pierre Mailloux is also nown as Doc Mailloux?

If that's the case, he's a fcuking moron who should be shot!

There are about 3000 nations in the world, there are about 200 countries.

What exactly does the Qébécois "nation" expect from independence? A higher standard of living? More rights? What?!

The French language would disappear in Quebec after half a century of independence. A poor country dealing with wealthier and more powerful foreign entities such as Canada and the US... it will have to be in English. Canda protects the French language in Québec. Were it not for Ottawa, the status of the language in Québec would be in a very bad situation.

What I fail to understand is the idea set out by many separatists that the Canada-Québec problem should take the EU as an example. What?! The EU is made up of TRUE nation-states giving political, economic, social and cultural power to a gigantic bureucratic and heavily centralised machinery located in Brussels. It's something other countires should aspire to... in a globalizing world homogenization does not come with integration, cultural identities are protected by it. Isolationism à la Québec is a thing of the past, a thing of Duplessis. Xenophobia, racism and nationalism are all the same, can the progressive forces of the Bloc/PQ not see this?

"The French language would disappear in Quebec after half a century of independence."

I hope you can read in french, cause that's the language i'm gonna use. Just for you Mr. BadBoy!

Au lieu de raconter des bêtises, ne pourrait tu pas essayer de continuer la discussion d'une manière moins insultante!?!

"Were it not for Ottawa, the status of the language in Québec would be in a very bad situation."

Justement, c'est le contraire. Une fois que le Québec sera devenu une nation, TOUTE la planète saura que c'est un pays francophone et non anglophone. Si tu avais pris la peine de lire ce que j'ai écrit plus tôt, tu saurais que quand les immigrants arrivent ici, ils croient qu'ils arrivent dans un pays anglophone. Ils débarquent au Québec et se demande pourquoi les gens parlent Français ici? Une fois rendu un pays, les immigrants qui viendraient au Québec le sauraient d'avance que c'est un pays Francophne et se prépareront en conséquence.

Un autre manière de savoir que ce que tu mentionnes ne fait aucuns sens, tu n'a qu'a regarder ce qui s'est passé en Louisiane. Il n'y a plus un chat qui parle le français dans cet état Américain. Une fois devenu un pays, le Québec pourra proteger sa culture et sa langue comme il le voudra.

"Xenophobia, racism and nationalism are all the same, can the progressive forces of the Bloc/PQ not see this?"

Je suis un séparatiste(moderate separatist) et je ne suis ni Xénophobe, ni rasciste. La quasi totalitée des séparatistes que je cotois au Québec et ailleurs sont ni des Rascistes ni des xénophobes. Les temps ont changés. La nouvelle génération de séparatiste a été élevée avec toutes sortes de gens dans leurs milieu. Arrête d'essayer de nous faire passer pour une gang de pauvre ignorants(et xénophobes) qui ne sont pas capable de déterminer leurs propre avenir.

Well why not, you cant be bothered explaining to me to benefits and I have never read any independent report detailing how I would be better off, and all I can see is huge financial impact. Why should I risk all that I have work hard for, for the unknown?

Excuse moi encore Toofar, c'est juste que tu avais dit que tu t'en foutait donc je croyais que tu t'en foutait ?!

Si tu désir savoir c'est quoi mes motivations personelles pour aspirer à la souveraineté d'un état Québecois, et bien voici. Ma réponse serait principalement pour la sauvegarde de la culture Québecoise. J'ai également une très grande méfiance envers le gouvernement fédéral, accentué dernièrement par le fameux scandale des commandites. Pourquoi suis-je méfiant envers le fédéral ? Un coup d'oeil rapide sur l'histoire du Québec et des agissement du fédéral au Québec peut répondre cette question assez rapidement. Dans le même ordre d'idée, je croix que le fédéral a un très mauvais "track record" pour ce qui est de la protection de la langue et culture Québecoise, donc de me faire dire par le fédéral qu'ils feraient un meilleur travail que notre gouvernement provincial , pour sauvegarder la culture Québecoise, ca me laisse un peu perplexe.

Entk, j'immagine que c'est d'ailleurs là la principale raison de la divergence de nos opinions. Moi je suis un Québecois fier qui ne veut pas voir son peuple et sa culture disparaitre, alors que toi tu en a probablement pas grand chose à foutre.

Je suis également conscient que l'économie est un aspect très important de ce débat, et que celle-ci se retrouverait probablement en moins bonne état à court terme. Par contre, d'après moi à moyen et à long terme je croix qu'on serait capable de s'en sortir sans trop de problème. Après tout, même si l'économie occupe une place pépondérante dans toutes nos vies, ce n'est tout de même pas la seule chose qui compte. Il est question ici de valeurs et priorités.

/\ :applause: :applause: :applause: :okay:

Au lieu de raconter des bêtises, ne pourrait tu pas essayer de continuer la discussion d'une manière moins insultante!?!

Je vais m'engager dans ce debat que j'avais evite des le debut. Je sais que rien va changer ton avis, comme toi tu changeras JAMAIS le mien. Mais bon, c'est la vie, peut-etre le temps des "deux solitudes" n'est pas encore fini.

Je n'ai rien dit d'insultante. J'ai dit ce que toi et la moitie du Quebec n'aime pas entendre. Dans le contexte actuel. un Quebec independent est une tres, TRES grande betise. Il faut juste regarder la surface de ce debat pour comprendre cela.

Une fois que le Québec sera devenu une nation, TOUTE la planète saura que c'est un pays francophone et non anglophone. Si tu avais pris la peine de lire ce que j'ai écrit plus tôt, tu saurais que quand les immigrants arrivent ici, ils croient qu'ils arrivent dans un pays anglophone. Ils débarquent au Québec et se demande pourquoi les gens parlent Français ici? Une fois rendu un pays, les immigrants qui viendraient au Québec le sauraient d'avance que c'est un pays Francophne et se prépareront en conséquence.

Je suis un séparatiste(moderate separatist) et je ne suis ni Xénophobe, ni rasciste. La quasi totalitée des séparatistes que je cotois au Québec et ailleurs sont ni des Rascistes ni des xénophobes. Les temps ont changés. La nouvelle génération de séparatiste a été élevée avec toutes sortes de gens dans leurs milieu. Arrête d'essayer de nous faire passer pour une gang de pauvre ignorants(et xénophobes) qui ne sont pas capable de déterminer leurs propre avenir.

Il faut sortir un peur du Quebec mon vieux, quand tu feras ,ca tu pourras voir comme la premier question qu'on te pose quand tu dis que t'es Canadien c'est: "Est-tu de la partie 'fran,caise' ou 'anglaise.'" La plus part du monde qui se dit cultive sait que le Canada est un pays riche, prospere, democrate ou on mene une vie qui rend las plus part de la planete jalouse, mais ils savent aussi qu'on parle deux langues. Ils savent q'une partie du Canada, peu-importe laquelle parle la langue de Moliere. Penses-tu que les milliers d'immigrnats de l'Inde ou de la Chine qui s'instalent chaque mois a Vancouver parlent un mot d'anglais? Ce sont-ils "prepare en consequence?"

Voici ou le dossier immigration prend de l'importance dans le debat. Vous, en tant que "nation" conservatrice (de votre identite linguistique) voulez vous proteger de l'exterieur comme des moines boudhistes, tandis que le reste du monde s'ouvre comme jamais. C'est bien Parizeau qui l'a dit, c'est l'argent des liberaux et les etnies qui ont fait la defaite du referendum de 95.

J'adore la langue fra,ncaise. Lire, parler et ecouter cette langue me rend tres heureux, c'est pour ,ca d'ailleurs que je me suis instale dans cette glorieuse metropole. Je ne veux pas faire partie d'un Canada ou on n'entend pas parler cette belle langue. Le Canada est ce qu'il est aujourd'hui grace au Quebec. La richesse culturelle du Canada et du Quebec vienent de cette symbiose Anglo-Fran,caise. Les eforts qu'ont ete faits depuis le gouvernement Trudeau pour porteger la langue fran,caise, la loi 101 (meme si c'est une loi pequiste), tout ,ca est grace au fait que le Quebec fait partie de cette federation Canadienne.

Imagine-toi donc un Quebec independent. Tout le mode parle fran,cais (parce que maintenant PERSONNE a le droit de s'exprimer dans sa langue maternelle;) ). Relations avec le ROC, les Etats-Unis et le reste du monde. En quelle langue? ANGLAIS. L'Amerique du nord Francophone est comprise de 5 millions, tandis que le reste de l'Amerique du nord est peuple par un tiers d'un milliard d'Anglophones. 25 million de ces Anglophones DEFENDENT le fran,cais de l'exterieur, parce que on le veut en tant que pays bilingue et diverse.

Un autre manière de savoir que ce que tu mentionnes ne fait aucuns sens, tu n'a qu'a regarder ce qui s'est passé en Louisiane. Il n'y a plus un chat qui parle le français dans cet état Américain. Une fois devenu un pays, le Québec pourra proteger sa culture et sa langue comme il le voudra.

Le cas de la Louisiane est TOTALEMENT different a celui du Quebec. Le gouvernement american n'a jamais pris ume mesure pour proteger le francais en Louisiane. En plus, le gouvernement de la Louisine n'a jamais eu le pouvoir que les gouvernements des provinces canadiennes ont. Les etats americans ont quaisment le meme pouvoir que les municipalites ont au Canada. Le Canada est la federation la plus fragmente' au monde grace au Quebec.

Thanks a lot for letting me in on the conversation.

Habsfan
There is NO WAY Canada would allow Quebec a 10 or 12 year transition time until it gets some of its economy/finances in order. Quebec gets about $11billion in transfer payments. That means that the ROC would be helping Quebec to pay off her debts before she goes.
In terms of the economy, I truly think Quebec would get hammered. All the people, mostly monied, would leave as would all fed govt buildings {you can close down Hull}, AirCanada, CN, RoyalBank. These are just a tip of the iceburg that because they are Canadian companies they would be FORCED to leave. It wouldn't be optional.
I don't think it will be bad for the rest of Quebec but for Montreal and Hull it would be devestating.
To say nothing of the fact that Quebec already has the highest debt load and tax rate of any province and then would take on their 24% of the national debt but have atleast half a million people fewer to pay it off.
Frankly, I think Quebec economy and standard of living would plunge and couyld take decades to bring it back to where it was. That said if people know this {and most separists do but just choose to ignore it} then they get respect from me. They want to strike out on their own due to their convictions. Its the people who are just hanging on because of the money that really tick me off. I say kick them out.

You didn't answer my question, what if in a year someone wanted to hold a referendum to rejoin Canada {if Canada would let them} and they got 50% + 1 ?
Also you can try to "bribe" the natives as much as you want but I don't think they will ever want to go. What do you do?
Also in terms of WestIsland/ Hull..........what if they were to leave Quebec before Quebec itself left? Sound bizzare? Not at all, infact it is even in the constitution about adding provinces. All they have to do is get a majority of people in the area to agree to it and be passed by 7 of the 10 provinces representing more than 70% of the population.
The Constitution specifically states a process of adding new territories or provinces. Just look at Nunavut. There, of course, has always been talk of the Ottawa/Hull are becoming a territory or province like WashingtonDC or Australia Capitol Territory.
I could also see the natives in the north do the same thing.

Separation is such an ambiguous question. This is what the PQ and Bloq use. It could be open to anything which gives them a broad mandate of being in only Quebec's interests. What does a Yes mean really?

The biggest problem right now is there is really one party running a separation mandate. The One Party that builds a country is running it.

Where are the checks and balances?

What happens after separation and there's no opposition?

I dont think Quebec is ready for any separation until it matures politically.

Maybe not but Canadians are, I think, increasingly getting tired of the whole thing. This is especially true of Ontario. They use to be wealthy and the national cashcow but no longer and they recent their money heading straight to Quebec but Quebec still bitching they don't get enough.
I think the ROC is starting to just say, take your part of the debt and go. We are not going to keep bribing you into staying in the best country in the world.

^^

It's unbeliavable how many stupid separatists still think THEY subsidise the rest of Canada...

Merci Affed de répondre en Français, ça va me faire plaisir de te répondre ne anglais.

Il faut sortir un peur du Quebec mon vieux, quand tu feras ,ca tu pourras voir comme la premier question qu'on te pose quand tu dis que t'es Canadien c'est: "Est-tu de la partie 'fran,caise' ou 'anglaise.'" La plus part du monde qui se dit cultive sait que le Canada est un pays riche, prospere, democrate ou on mene une vie qui rend las plus part de la planete jalouse, mais ils savent aussi qu'on parle deux langues. Ils savent q'une partie du Canada, peu-importe laquelle parle la langue de Moliere. Penses-tu que les milliers d'immigrnats de l'Inde ou de la Chine qui s'instalent chaque mois a Vancouver parlent un mot d'anglais? Ce sont-ils "prepare en consequence?"

Please don't be condescending towards me. I've travelled plenty. I've been to and seen half of the U.S.. I've been to the bahamas, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Australia etc.etc.etc.

And No, most people i've talked to, had no idea there's a second language in Canada.

Voici ou le dossier immigration prend de l'importance dans le debat. Vous, en tant que "nation" conservatrice (de votre identite linguistique) voulez vous proteger de l'exterieur comme des moines boudhistes, tandis que le reste du monde s'ouvre comme jamais. C'est bien Parizeau qui l'a dit, c'est l'argent des liberaux et les etnies qui ont fait la defaite du referendum de 95

True that parizeau said those words, but it doesn't mean that he was right, and it certainly doesn't mean that i or the majority of Separatists agree with him! (notice how he resigned the next day!)We aren't trying to protect ourselves like Boudhist monks. We just want to make sure that our language and our culture will thrive and propser. If it were not for the P.Q, Bill 101 would have never been introduced, and it certainley isn't the federal gov't who would've introduced this bill. Another thing, if Québec were to separate, we wouldn't be telling everyone to speak french, people would know that this is a french country. Do you go to France and expect everyone on the street to speak to you in english? Do you go to Lima and expect people to talk to you in Arabic? No. I don't go to the Excited States thinking they'll answer me in French, just like I don't go to Toronto expecting people to talk to me in French. trust me, i've tried it and the person looked at me as If I was from Mars!

Imagine-toi donc un Quebec independent. Tout le mode parle fran,cais (parce que maintenant PERSONNE a le droit de s'exprimer dans sa langue maternelle ).

That's where you're wrong. Business with people outside Québec would still be done in English. It's not like they will try to learn French, so we'll just continue doing what we've been doing.

"Thanks a lot for letting me in on the conversation."

No need to thank me. It's my pleasure to discuss certain issues with other forumers, as long as it stays polite and respectful!


There is NO WAY Canada would allow Quebec a 10 or 12 year transition time until it gets some of its economy/finances in order. Quebec gets about $11billion in transfer payments.

Actually, since 2002, Québec has been receiving between 3 and 4 billion per year, Not 11 billion.

In any case, if you ask me, that's 3-4 billion too much.

You tal about 500,000 or 1 million people leaving Québec. I'm sorry, I just don't buy that. Those who wanted to leave because of separation have already left. Sure some would leave, but it wouldn'T be 1 million people. Royal Bank you say? You've got to be kidding right? Teh Royal Bak headquarters are in Montreal on PAPAR Only. Most of their operations were moved to Toronto in the 70's and 80's.

Also, you talk as if every Canadian Company would cease all operations in Québec (out of spite). You just as well as i do that Money talks, and if there's money to be made somewhere, companies will come.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'm fully aware that Québec would take a hit economically by separating, but unlike you, i don't believe we will become a third world country, and I certainly don't think it'll take us 30 years to get back to where we were before.

If they hold another referendum to see if we want to re-join Canada(assuming Canada would let us back in, which I highly doubt!) and if that vote were won by 50+1, I'd say let's do it) That's the Will of the people.

Also you can try to "bribe" the natives as much as you want but I don't think they will ever want to go. What do you do?

That's it, you "Think" they won't, but I doubt they'd turn down an offer that would improve their situation just to reamain in Canada!

All right boys, it's been fun, but I goota jet, my friend is gettin' hitched this week end, and i gotta be in St-Sauveur by 6 o'clock!

Have a good one! I know I will!(open bar baby,and lots of single chicks!)

I would not want Quebec to seperate. I lived nearly all my life in Quebec and went to english school, well private english school (thank you very much bill 101). I always considered myself Canadien before Quebecois. I always though Seperatism is a thing of the past, aleast for my generation, who soon will be entering the work force soon, and the last thing we want is to be short of jobs when the economy takes a hit.

^^

A lot of francophones don't see it that way (even, if not especially the young ones), because, well, they're brainwashed in school.

ILUVMTL

I am glad you are a federalist and I know that there are many like you, even francophones. That said, I don't like the idea of your argument.
People staying in Canada not for any real attachment but just to guarantee they have a job. What does that say about their allegiance to Canada?
Is Canada nothing more than a cashcow or just a better paying job?
I wish people like that would leave, the country would be far better off without such people.

Why would the country be far better off without people like me ? Its from the United England Loyalist to the millions and millions of imigrants that come to Canada, not Quebec, in hope of a better standard of living that make what Canada is today.

And no Canada is not cashcow or just a better paying job, its a country with different colored people and culture being under one roof.

any political uncertainty will be devastating to quebec as well as canada.the world has changed a lot since 1995 and business can quickly evaporate due to outsourcing.if business sees any uncertainty,there are plenty of other places like china,india,southern US ,mexico that are lobbying very hard to take jobs,once they get the opportunity,they will pounce on it.once business leaves,its very hard for it to come back. u are also under estimating Clarity Act that can be used by fed govt. if it sees its loosing

What about a loose federation? See CanadaUrbanIssues.