2014 Quebec General Election + General Separatism Discussion

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Fair enough, put Iceland is still fairly irrelevant internationally, and even within Europe.

It strikes me as bizarre that's even a concern. I'm entirely indifferent as to whether an independent Newfoundland would be irrelevant internationally (and it most certainly would be).

What's the benefit of being relevant?

I wonder how Quebec would feel about it - is international relevance a concern there?

[DLLB]

Originally Posted by freeweed

People outside of Calgary have a hard time grasping just how much of a draw this city and province are. See the entire thread about "the US has plenty of opportunities for people and any Canadian in a decent paying job will be better off there". Fact is, most Calgarians would take a significant cut in net pay if they moved to the US (never mind other things like healthcare/crime/etc). But most of Canada doesn't see things this way. We just live in 2 separate economies.

Calgary probably has 90% of all US expats at this point. Or so it seems. In general though, Americans are some of the least likely to leave their country, so yeah, in terms of their overall population it's a miniscule number. If today's numbers tell us anything, this would be similar to post-independence Quebec - most folks would just stay home, for the same reasons Americans do.

Good point!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Sorry, your original post lacked creepiness....

Hey! Isn't it against the rules to change people's quotes!

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

It strikes me as bizarre that's even a concern. I'm entirely indifferent as to whether an independent Newfoundland would be irrelevant internationally (and it most certainly would be).

What's the benefit of being relevant?

I wonder how Quebec would feel about it - is international relevance a concern there?

I love how that was the one thing you latched onto in that post.

One of the benefits of being relevant is some soft power to be able you're not bullied/held hostage/taken advantage of by other nations. Plus, within a larger federation or organization, there's less direct cost.

For example, patrol of the waters around Newfoundland (guarding against drug trafficking, over-fishing, etc.) happens as often and with the number of craft it does due to shared costs. People from across the country pay into the service, even though its only immediately felt in the North Atlantic. Plus, with the larger economy and scale of Canada behind it, Newfoundland can put more pressure on European trawlers as a part of Canada than it would on its own.

Just as a possible (and hopefully relevant) example.

[SignalHillHiker]

Oh, sorry - I didn't realize what just responding to that part looked like.

I didn't respond to the rest because I agree and/or appreciate the insight/position.

Yeah, it makes sense - economies of scale. A good example for Quebec is the dreaded equalization payment. I've no doubt they could work around that if need be, and probably with relatively little misery as a result, but that source of income, and the reasons behind it, are only possible as part of a larger federation.

But it all depends on the will of the larger federation. And Quebec is large enough to have some power in the federation. The equalization payments received by the Atlantic Provinces, for example... were they really large enough to offer a comparable level of government services as enjoyed in the big two provinces?

[kool maudit]

you know, conrad black's contribution to this discussion is not half-bad. it's a lot more historically informed than most.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ready-to-deal/

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

you know, conrad black's contribution to this discussion is not half-bad. it's a lot more historically informed than most.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ready-to-deal/

Agreed.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Agreed.

i mean, i am well aware that conrad black is a controversial figure at best (and a despised one at worst), but after this thread, a discussion that encompasses the rebellions, lord durham, the beginning of the railroad... it's very refreshing. it bespeaks someone trying to figure out why things are the way they are rather than how things should be but are not.

[kool maudit]

it's hard to get a handle on quebec if our historical terms of discussion start in the late 1960s.

[SignalHillHiker]

...they preserved the initial character of the country as requiring an English and a French majority for important decisions.

I love that. It perfectly exemplifies the disconnect between the "Shut up, separatists, we own you", and the historical reality.

The separatists can’t get to 50% on an independence referendum without a trick question, or seriously aspire to drag millions of federalists into a new, severely divided country.

This is find infuriating. If 50% + 1 was enough for us to get in, then 50% +1 should be enough for Quebec to get out. It is no worse to have federalists (Confederates here) having to find their place as part of another country than it is to have sovereigntists (Nationalists here) do the same.

Mercifully debunked is the Thomas Mulcair theory that the way to save Canada was to grovel to the separatists.

It's not the separatists I'm concerned about placating. It's the many Quebecois who are not necessarily separatist but want the party present to protect themselves from the federation. Those are the people who need to feel well and truly happy with the federation in order for this issue to subside to any significant degree.

...the partition of provinces that vote to secede where regions of secessionist provinces vote to remain in Canada...

That's a terrifying thought. I understand it, but it's a terrifying thought. It's a common joke in Labrador to say they voted for Confederation and dragged Newfoundland, unwilling, along. It's not true, obviously, Labrador's population is a minuscule fraction of that in Newfoundland and was not enough to sway the referendum - but they would definitely choose to remain in Canada, even if we did present a desirable package of reforms, such as declaring Labrador a separate province within an independent NL.

Accepting the partitioning of provinces will enables ROC Canadians to wreak havoc in Quebec and it will inevitably lead to the type of underhanded, shameful actions that can generate armed conflict anywhere in the world, even here.

Overall, though, interesting column. So, if Quebec is ready to deal, where do we start?

[kwoldtimer]

Whatever one thinks of Black, that is an interesting article, and not only for the straightforward presentation of relevant history. His thoughts on a new constitutional dispensation, including the formalization of mechanisms for the partition of seceding provinces, are the kind of thing that Canadians need to be discussing, although we may not be ready in which case the opportunity could be missed.

For as long as I can remember, the issue of Quebec independence has seemed like a one way street, which has served to generate increasing resentment and resistance in MOC, even to the point of dangerous "don't let the door hit you" attitudes during the recent Quebec election campaign. New thinking is required. Specifically, I'd like to see the country move on to "What is Quebec willing to give in order to achieve what it wants?". Black's suggestion of agreed mechanisms for the partition of seceding provinces strikes me as a very good one, as part of a broader package (just look back to comments on partition in this thread to see why). To that, I'd add explicit constitutional recognition of the federal mandate in international affairs (with a defined, limited provincial role if necessary) and a formal agreement on some federal role with respect to Canada's francophone culture. I actually don't find his comments about the Senate and Supreme Court very contentious (why not have the Feds appoint them from lists of qualified candidates provided by the provincial governments, for example?).

I have my doubts, however, that public opinion in Canada is prepared for that kind of thinking - the "oh no, not the Constitution" mentality seems to have a pretty firm hold.

Edit: Reading the comments in the NP (one should never do that!), it would seem that many are totally unprepared to shake off old ways of thinking. I wonder if the same wouldn't be true of Quebeckers' comments (coming from the opposite direction) if Le Devoir or La Presse were to pick up the Black piece?

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Black's article is good, but it should come as no surprise to anyone relatively familiar and comfortable with their knowledge of Canadian history. I do think it needs to be read by more people in order to "educate" them, for lack of a better term.

Being able to understand both sides of the argument and where they're coming from is key to making any kind of progress and/or reform.

[kwoldtimer]

Is it just me or have Couillard and the PLQ totally disappeared since the election? It's like "OMG, we won! Now what do we do?"

[jmt18325]

What are they supposed to do right now? They aren't the government yet.

[Dado]

And don't forget that Pierre Poilievre's elections bill and Flaherty's death have also occupied much of the media space for the rest of the week.

Speaking of Pierre Poilievre, can he speak French? I figure the PQ is using entirely the wrong strategy for getting elected: they should just keep pointing at him as an example of what happens to French Canada when it gets anglicised: "Est-ce que nous voulons tous devenir comme Pierre Poilievre?"

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Dado

And don't forget that Pierre Poilievre's elections bill and Flaherty's death have also occupied much of the media space for the rest of the week.

Speaking of Pierre Poilievre, can he speak French? I figure the PQ is using entirely the wrong strategy for getting elected: they should just keep pointing at him as an example of what happens to French Canada when it gets anglicised: "Est-ce que nous voulons tous devenir comme Pierre Poilievre?"

Poilievre speaks French like Stephen Harper speaks French. Which is to say pretty fluent but very heavily accented. I believe he did not speak French until he entered federal politics.

But I am not sure he is an example of French Canadians being assimilated. His bio says he was born in Calgary and I think he grew up in west end Ottawa, but I seem to have heard his parents were actually British. You know... these Brits who have French names. They do exist. William the Conqueror and all that jazz... Another tipoff is that Poilievre is not really a name that you find in French-speaking Canada. Most people can recognize a French Canadian name when they see one.

Anyway there are probably better targets for this than Poilievre. A few come to mind...

[Dado]

His Wikipedia entry lists him as having Franco-Albertan roots.

It's also highly unlikely that he would be given a decidedly French first name if his parents were both British, Norman origins or not.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Dado

His Wikipedia entry lists him as having Franco-Albertan roots.

It's also highly unlikely that he would be given a decidedly French first name if his parents were both British, Norman origins or not.

Wikipedia is Wikipedia. They list a lot of people as being of origin "X" and it's incorrect. For all we know this Franco-Albertan thing might simply be because he's from Alberta and has a French-sounding name, without any other checks.
In fact, that's probably it.

As for the name, well some people will give their kids names that they think go nicely with the last name even though they are not "of" that particular culture anymore. I know plenty of kids with names like Liam Quinn and Kevin Reid here in Quebec that don't speak any English.

Finally there are a grand total of 12 people with the name Poilievre in Canada. None of them are in Quebec and all are in the West. So it's either as I said (descendants of British people with Norman roots) or it could also be people who moved from France, Belgium or Switzerland long ago directly to the West and assimilated to wider society there.

Either way he's not a symbol of the assimilation of old-stock French Canadians with roots in the country going back 400 years.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Acajack

As for the name, well some people will give their kids names that they think go nicely with the last name even though they are not "of" that particular culture anymore. I know plenty of kids with names like Liam Quinn and Kevin Reid here in Quebec that don't speak any English.

But that's not going to apply to people who are direct from Britain. On top of that, I can't even find any evidence of the name Poilievre in Britain, at all. Even if someone by that name came to England with the Normans, chances are that it would have long ago been anglicised to something like Pulliver. So short of some actual evidence that his parents are from Britain, that theory is going to have to be discounted.

Finally there are a grand total of 12 people with the name Poilievre in Canada. None of them are in Quebec and all are in the West. So it's either as I said (descendants of British people with Norman roots) or it could also be people who moved from France, Belgium or Switzerland long ago directly to the West and assimilated to wider society there.

Either way he's not a symbol of the assimilation of old-stock French Canadians with roots in the country going back 400 years.

Him having ancestors direct from continental Europe going to the Canadian West does seem like the most probable origin at this point.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Dado

But that's not going to apply to people who are direct from Britain. On top of that, I can't even find any evidence of the name Poilievre in Britain, at all. Even if someone by that name came to England with the Normans, chances are that it would have long ago been anglicised to something like Pulliver. So short of some actual evidence that his parents are from Britain, that theory is going to have to be discounted.
t.

That's how his family pronounces it.