They’ve voted on it what… 3-4 times now?.. Each time deciding on their own not to leave. Even when it was a 51/49 decision to stay, had it been the other way around, it hardly constitutes an overwhelming desire to assert their own independence.
I’m really not sure of that. Why don’t you think that Quebec could be a independent country by itself at the present time? I’m pretty certain that Ontario could be, and a few other provinces too (Alberta and British Columbia, for example), so I’m quite certain that if Quebec separates from Canada, it won’t be dramatic for either country.
And would I vote to join Canada if we weren’t part of it right now? That’s hard to say. I guess not, for the reason I said earlier: I think that Quebec could be an independent country by itself, and if that’s true and we assume that it actually is right now, then there’s no reason to join another country that is culturally rather different, with a certain segment of their population who rather dislikes us. In fact, I’d say that if Quebec was to join Canada right now, there would probably be a lot of protests from inside Canada as well. So this is why my guess would be no.
Twice, in 1980 and 1995. Last time the vote was 50.6 % for the No side. What scares me, actually, is that if there is another referendum in the next few years, it is likely that it would finish with something around 55 % in favour. But can you really build an independent country with 55 % approval for its existence from its own citizens? Sure, a substantial percentage of No voters would accept the decision and work to build the new country anyway, but I don’t think it’s the best way to start.
Three words. Federal Transfer Payments.
Right now according to the Canadian government there are only 2 ‘have’ provinces - Alberta and Ontario. The rest are considered ‘have not’ provinces. I just read in the Globe, yesterday infact, that Ontario is the province that has never been in the ‘have not’ category since the transfer payment system was put in, in its current form. Alberta was a have not due to the NEP. I suppose that Quebec could go it alone, but I would imagine that they would have to raise taxes dramatically or cut services dramatically to stay afloat.
Every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
If the question is the one that Featherlou asked RickJay with “Ontario” changed for “Quebec,” I’d have to say no.
Now bear in mind I’m a federalist, and I believe that Canada is good for Quebec; however, a lot of that is so because French-Canadians have taken such a hand in shaping Canada. A Canada in which that had never taken place, I don’t see why Quebec would join.
Of course, the big question would be, what would Quebec look like if it had never joined Confederation, and considering it was half of the Province of Canada, how would that even have obtained? All I can think of is that it would never have been conquered or (if it had been) France would have retained it and given away the Caribbean islands (for some reason), and it had remained a French colony or possibly had become independent at some ulterior point. Or else, that Lord Durham had never made his report, the Province of Canada had never been formed, and Lower Canada never chose to join Confederation… but the Maritimes had decided to make a go of it with Upper Canada for some reason.
So many hypotheticals.
Interesting points of view from the Quebecers. We really haven’t heard from any non-Albertan prairie folk or Maritimers here - Gorsnak, Northern Piper, do you have any opinions here? I know we have some Maritimers on the board - sorry, I can’t think of your handles.
I believe this is incorrect. Saskatchewan is currently a “have” province, and will remain so as long as oil stays up at $45+/barrel.
Absolutely I’d vote to join Confederation. What, exactly, is the downside?
I am aware of the transfer payments. Indeed, Québec does receive more than it gives in this program. On the other hand, we’re far from the poorest province. Furthermore, with all the surpluses the federal government is racking in these days, it’s questionable whether or not they give the provinces what is due to them, given the federal taxes we pay. The provincial governments certainly claim that they don’t get their due. So if a province should leave the federation, they wouldn’t receive federal transfer payments anymore if they do right now, but on the other hand, they could patriate all taxes, and possibly getting their money that way.
Keep in mind that I’m not an economist and I haven’t studied in detail the economic consequences of any province leaving confederation. Anyway, different professional economists arrive to wildly different estimates with those kind of heavily political questions. I think it’s hard to predict with accuracy what would happen.
Except that the federal surpluses have been going to pay down the national debt. So if the provinces aren’t getting “what is due them” (whatever that means), the only consequence is that the provinces are involuntarily making payments on the national debt. If Quebec were to seperate, they’ll be taking their share of the debt with them. So Quebec’s share of the federal surplus is being used to pay down Quebec’s share of the federal debt. Quebec doesn’t end up at an economic disadvantage due to this.
Therefore, the loss of a couple billion annually in transfer payments would certainly be a kick in the teeth to an independent Quebec’s finances.
Remember, we’re not talking about what would happen if the province of Quebec were to separate; we’re talking about whether a Quebec that had never joined Canada in the first place would be economically sustainable, on the basis of whether it is today. It’s a question mark what part of present-day Canada’s debt an always-independent Quebec would have incurred.
It’s not clear to me that adam yax and severus were speaking of the always-independent version of Quebec rather than a hypothetically-seperating version.
Both, actually. adam yax introduced the question of an eventual separation of Québec, and that’s when I decided to jump in the conversation and follow him there. As I said, whether an always-independent Québec would join Canada is hard to say (since we’re not there and it requires many hypotheticals which matt_mcl mentioned), but I do think that the question probably wouldn’t even come up, and both Canadians and Quebecers would be opposed to such an union. Now, whether Québec should separate from Canada now is a different question. I don’t claim to know the answer, but I’m saying that I don’t think it would be the tragedy that some people are claiming.
To answer your objection, I have two things to say:
[ul]
[li]is it wise economically to try to pay back the debt right now? Some will say yes and some will say no. Sure, the provinces pay back their part of the debt with the surpluses the federal takes from them, but maybe they’d like to do something else with this money;[/li][li]we don’t have any choice but to consider that a province’s part of the federal debt is proportional to its population. But that isn’t necessarily the part of the federal debt accrued to expenses in the province in question. So if a province were to leave the federation, maybe their debt wouldn’t increase quite as fast without them really putting more money into paying it back.[/li][/ul]
It is quite possible to argue that it is preferable to leave the debt where it is and spend surpluses on other things. This will mark one as relatively to the left politically, but that’s where Quebec is. However, it is still the case that, including the portion of the federal surplus that goes to Quebec’s share of the debt, the federal government spends far more on Quebec than it receives from Quebeckers. Ergo, the government of a newly independent Quebec would be in a financially difficult position. I don’t think it would be the tragedy that some people claim either, but it’s undeniable that the PQ downplays the financial difficulties it would entail.
Back to this earlier question of yours, I see Saskatchewan and Manitoba as definitely on the bubble, joining Confederation-wise. There are disadvantages as well as advantages for both provinces, with both possibly equalling each other out.
Hey, how about this? Instead of joining Confederation, we split all the provinces more logically - BC and the Yukon can join Pacifica, AB, SK, MB, NWT and Nunavut* can form Prairieland, Ontario can be, well, Ontario, Quebec can be the Sovereign Nation du Quebec, and the Maritimes can be Maritimia.
*I included the northern territories with southern provinces because it didn’t seem fair to leave the northern folk all alone up there, with all that land and hardly any people. If they wanted it, they could certainly make their own country and do as they like.
A nation consisting of the prairie provinces would be skew much more socially conservative than I would be comfortable with. That alone would make it a dead cinch that I’d prefer to be in Confederation. I also suspect that Alberta would throw its weight around in such an entity even more than Ontario throws its around in Canada, another strike against. Nope. No thank you. I like the status quo just fine.
Pacifica? Dudes, it’s called Cascadia, and the movement’s been around for years. Sheesh 
As for Alberta joining now, don’t forget that such a hypothetical independent province would never have been subjected to the much-hated NEP, so don’t let that colour your views.
And Quebec? Being already independent, there would never have been a Parti Quebecois, no referendums, and no flight of anglo business to Toronto… (and that’s why I really hate that city: its current importance is due to the economic might of cowards afraid to stand up for themselves, the repercussions of which are still being felt today).
Overall, I think a strong, united Canada is good for the world, and I’d proudly vote to join Confederation.
Is it a key part of the movement that they have the ugliest flag in the entire history of the world?
I mean, wow. That sucker is hideous.
“Condescendence”? Why wouldn’t they include Alaska, which also has tons of oil?