And the fact of the matter is that Canada’s economy is in much better shape. We are resource rich and will probably be the envy of the US moving through this century. These are facts, not hyperbole.
You’re right. This ‘Canada joining the US’ is a purely hypothetical scenario, just as all the various ‘what will happen if Quebec separates?’ questions are purely hypothetical. I was only going to raise it to point out that for people outside Quebec, it is not always about the economy. There have been other times when it might have seemed (to some people) to have been a good idea, economically speaking, to have become part of the US.
I could also raise the point that by letting the economy dictate your cultural attitudes, one is showing a typically Anglo-Canadian cultural outlook. :):
“Night of the Long Knives” a Bouchardism? Perhaps in the context he said it in, but it was hardly his own invented term - the more common use and likely the one he was referencing*Nacht der langen Messer - * refers to the Nazi purge of the SA and political opponents in late June/early July 1934. The expression “night of long knives” was apparently a common expression in German referring to acts of vengeance.
Wiki does refer to previous uses of the term - a massacre of the Saxons in c. 460 and an assassination in 1841 in Kabul.
Sorry for the double post, but I missed the edit window:
I really find it hard to believe that people can’t see that “culture” can be different even within the same country - of course Québec, with it’s totally different language, news media, music, literary influences, even to some extent food/meal traditions is different. How can it not be? The very day-to-day existence is based upon a different structure than that of other people in other Canadian provinces. Though the perception that we think we are superior is false, and, IMHO, comes across only as a condescending attempt to diminish the values/concerns of Québec. It’s easy to dismiss someone when snidely commenting "oh, you just think you’re special". It’s much harder to try and understand.
Québec isn’t superior and doesn’t see herself as such. Just different, and that is, IMHO, undeniable. The desire for an independent Québec (which I disagree with) is based upon the concept of managing our affairs within the context of the culture and values we have. People have taken digs at our extensive social programs - those are, rightly or wrongly, part of our perception of our own culture and how we want to shape our lives. The existence of Québecois culture is, to me, the least difficult thing to grasp in all this. It exists. The question is what to do about it.
That being said, though, it’s not like it’s fair to say that all of English Canada is one culture - life is very different in PEI than it is in Toronto because of the economic, geographical, historical backgrounds of the two, and that’s a good thing. We can discuss the extent of the differences, but it’s crazy to say that these differences in culture don’t exist. It’s also crazy to suggest that what works for Toronto must work for PEI. And yet this kind of “you aren’t different, you are just like all other Canadians” is what gets trots out when Québec starts asking questions, as if that is some sort of appropriate answer. It doesn’t make sense to me.
I completely agree with this.
Thank you. 
We keep getting hung up on this either/or attitude for culture and economical considerations, and I keep saying that it isn’t one or the other, but in my opinion and my experience, you look after the economical considerations first, then you look after cultural ones. Going to movies and out for dinner is nice, but you pay your rent or mortgage first. This seems so obvious and basic to me that the fact we’re even discussing it is surprising to me, and if my attitude is typical of Western Canada, it’s no wonder we’re having trouble finding common ground with Quebecers.
When it comes to actual independence, I agree; I don’t believe it would be good for Québec from an economic standpoint (though I’m idly wondering what the impact would be on Canada as well…a quarter of the population and GDP lost would hurt, no? Not that I really want to get into discussion about it… it’s just that I’m sure there would be interesting repercussions in both ways).
But within Québec as it is now, a province within Canada, why shouldn’t culture matter? That’s a lot of what Québec asks for; to not have strings attached to federal money, to be more flexible with certain projects/portfolios where the line between federal/provincial responsibility is somewhat blurred, etc. As a totally made up simplified example, Québec may ask to be allowed to spend federal money on inexpensive daycare rather than something else, for example, because as a culture, daycare is something we (generally) value. Whether that is something people in other provinces value is - to a lot of people’s minds - irrelevant. We do.
Why is it not reasonable for people who believe/experience/identify with X,Y,Z to want to fund X, Y, Z? I know I just talk in generalization, because I admit I’m not well-versed enough to really give deep examples here. But that’s a lot of the philosophy of what Québec wants and part of the sentiment behind independence. You may disagree with it, but can you honestly not understand it?
The Quebec government can already spend equalization payments however they choose. It’s your money. 
Equalization tranfers, yes, but it’s my understanding that the Social Transfer and Health Transfer often have strings attached; that is, the money is earmarked for specific types of projects. If the province disagrees and feels that spending that money elsewhere is more beneficial, I don’t believe there’s much they can do other than complain, but I am more than willing to be corrected on this.
So in a complete hypothetical, if the federal government transfers money for, say, education, and a province wants to spend it on day care programs, there isn’t much the province can do. When this type of situation occurs, naturally different populations - different cultures - will want to choose different options, and part of the independence Québec wants is the freedom to do just that. Don’t transfer X million dollars for a specific program. Allow the province to spend X million dollars where it sees fit. These are they types of things I’m talking about, and how things were explained to me/the understanding I’ve come to over the years.
I really don’t have anything specific in mind at the moment; I’m just trying to address the mindset/philosophy/ideas that lead to the nationalistic movement in Québec. I guess I’m doing it poorly!
Ah, I see. Yes, I believe you are correct about specific earmarked funds like healthcare and education. I think the federal government has an obligation to see that those funds are used for their intended purpose though.
If I give my daughter lunch money, I don’t expect her to be buying cigarettes.
But what if you give her lunch money, and she uses it to pay for her friend to take a bus home one day because something happened and her usual ride fell through? Or she uses it to buy a new book she’d like to have? Or some other overall good - or at most neutral - thing? Maybe one of her friends always has way too much food, and she just eats some of that, or whatever, so she doesn’t need the money for food today. Or instead of spending $2 on juice or pop, she just drinks water, so she can buy a birthday card for you on the way home? Would you allow her to do that?
It’s silly to assume that by not having “strings”, people/provinces would automatically make harmful or otherwise bad choices. Naturally I support the concept of standards and regulation, but does that automatically mean that other options are bad, if the standards are met for your preferred choice even when entertaining the other option?
A couple of things:
I agree that there is a cultural difference between Quebecers and others. I just don’t think it is as big a difference as some try to make it to be. No one is stopping someone from putting their pants on two legs at a time if that is what they wish to do (nor even cares).
The other issue just brought up is about is about federal funding. Again no one cares what Quebec spends money on, ONLY that it uses its own money and not that of others to do so. You want public daycare? Great. Pay for it with your own portion of the federal monies, don’t expect us, who can’t afford it (without going into debt), to pay to support your choice.
Because Quebec pulls more money from the ROC than it gives. To ask for things when you on the plus side is one thing, to demand them when you come begging is another. That’s partly, imho, where the ‘special’ moniker comes from. We ‘deserve’ it so much you should pay for it.
There’s also a certain amount of federal control over the money that is transferred to provinces that I absolutely expect, that falls in line with Canadian values. Aren’t the conditions the same for all the provinces? Why should Quebec be excepted from what everyone is expected to do with federal money?
For the most part, no. It’s a blank cheque; federal transfers are effectively just giant bags of money.
Most federal transfer money is either just straight out equalization money, which is a pure blank cheque, or the Health Transfer, which may as well be. Yes, it’s supposed to be spent on health, but as money is fungible there is no practical way for the feds to argue that one $20 bill was spent on health and another was not.
Quebec in 2011-2012 will receive about $17 billion in transfer payments, which is about 41% of all transfer money (despite only having about 23% of the population, so it’s a pretty staggering inequality.) Technically about $5 billion of that is health-earmarked, but since the Quebec government spends FAR more than $5 billion on health, earmarking the money is meaningless. Quebec is going to spend way, way more than $5 billion on health care whether they get that transfer money or not, so it would be just as accurate to say the health transfer is being spent in the child care program as it is on health; it all goes into one big pile of money, and is spent from there.
41% of the federal transfer money for 23% of the population? How does that equation work?
If you dig deep enough. The complaints will eventually lead back to 1759.
Just say sorry I wasn’t there, and move on.
It’s interesting - when Saskatchewan and Manitoba have received equalization payments, I don’t remember people from the rest of the country telling them they ought to scrap SGI/Autopac. Same with the Maritimes and social programs designed to make up for the collapse of the fisheries; suddenly, now that it’s Québec, everybody’s got an opinion about the best day care system in the country.
Including Pierre Fortin, an economics professor at the University of Quebec at Montreal, whose report will be released later today. In a Toronto Star article, he is quoted as saying
The other thing that isn’t mentioned in the article is that in the scheme of Corporate Welfare benefits touted by cities trying to attract manufacturing plants, the day care plan is hugely attractive - it makes it easier to add women to your work force without your corporation having to do its own day care. When you locate your auto parts plant in Littletown, Ontario, your workers will need to pay $1,200. a month for day care. When you locate in Petiteville, Québec, they will pay $154. That’s one less benefit headache around the union negotiations…
It’s too late to do me any direct benefit, at least until some hypothetical grandchildren come along, but the guy delivering those grandkids in 30 years, or the lady scooping out my prostate in 40 years would benefit from some early childhood education, and some early socializing with other children. I’d much rather the rest of Canada wake up and start investing in universal day care rather than demanding Québec kill one of the best social programs it has.
Well the easy answer is that since equalization payments are basically tied back to population and distance from the mean per capita GDP a populous province with get more money than a small province.
Sask/Man combined have 2 million people compared to Quebec’s 8. Assuming all other things being equal, if Quebec receives 8 billion dollars, Manitoba’s 1.2 and Saskatchewan’s 1.0 billion it will obviously get less attention. If Manitoba/Saskatchewan have per capita GDP values closer to the mean then they would receive even less and so be even less of a target.
Still, it never ceases to amaze me that Quebec is a “have not” province and has been for as long as I can remember. I’ve never quite understood how it can be especially in light of it’s industrial/energy base. Likely this oddity drives resentment for other “contributor” provinces. Couple that with social programs not available in other provinces like $5 daycare and you have an ideal recipe for resentment - “Why am I send them money to have things I can’t afford to?”
Forgot to add…
The report you mention focuses only on Daycare and its relative impact economically on Quebec GDP - Growth of 1.7% due to the program. Now I can’t really tell if that’s 1.7% in a year or over the 10 years since the program’s introduction. If it’s over 10 years that’s…underwhelming. See if the province’s GDP grew at 1.5% for 10 years the difference between year 1 and year 10 would be 16% (shift this to 2% a year and you get 22%). So if the program contributed 1.7% over 10 years that’s only a 0.2% gain every year. Still a gain is a gain - the question is is it the most effective use of the money?
The way I see it, equalization payments are intended to get every province on the same level when it comes to being able to pay for the things they need to pay for. That is, to make sure that every Canadian is equal, with access to equal (equivalent?!) services.
It’s amusing that when it comes to the question of independence, people jump to “Québec is the same as everyone else, we’re all equal” but when it comes to the funding programs that have the goal of actually achieving that equality, suddenly “Québec is whiny, self-entitled, begging, [add other condescending insults here] and we don’t want to pay for them”.
So which is it - are we equal, or not?
Not that it changes your point, but it’s a $7 daycare, and I’ve heard it might go up to $9 (unless my SIL who is trying to get a spot for her son just misspoke). And I fail to see why other provinces couldn’t choose to develop a similar system, other than their existing choice of programs to offer and actual desire for it,
Maybe it’s an oversimplification, but a better educated population leads to a better workforce, increased productivity and expansion of the economic base and eventually - hopefully - to a “have” situation, no? That’s kind of what happened in Newfoundland and Labrador.
In a way, it doesn’t really surprise me that Québec is a “have not” province when you consider that not too long ago, most people barely had an elementary school education, the church directed most of the daily life of people, the majority of the province was treated as inferior within it’s own borders by a minority group that owned all the companies, the banks and controlled all the money. This is within living memory - only a couple of generations have been able to have access to higher education and to being allowed to speak their own language in the work place, though not all are taking advantage of it since Québec has one of the highest high school drop out rates in the country. My 60 year old father-in-law was part of the very first year of students to have access to Cégep. I know people who don’t actually think even finishing high school is necessary for them or their children, because they will only work in a factory or on a farm anyways. That is, unfortunately, a cultural shift that hasn’t happened yet, though it does seem to be changing slowly. It’s just going to take time. Add to that the cost of education - Cégep is cheap, but a weaker and increasingly less desirable degree than university - and consider that incomes are already low in Québec… even with access, you don’t necessarily have ability to go to school. This will slow industrial growth. The daycare system is in place to help women continue in school, get jobs and contribute economically as workers; all things that will help this province.
The language issue is also an issue and it’s a difficult one - you don’t want to tell people they can’t speak their own language, but there is the reality that the world is a global one, and English is necessary. I feel that that is holding this province back, but I don’t have a solution other than to promote more bilingualism, but I understand the fear of diluting the French culture as a consequence. The independence issue is, of course, affecting the growth of this province, as investors may be hesitant to invest here.
So despite a wealth of natural resources, a large population, cheaply available energy, etc, I don’t think it’s much of a surprise that we are “have nots” once you consider the historical (recent history!) and cultural realities of the province.
I - and most of us here - wish we were a “have” province (or rather, that the whole system was unnecessary for every province), because that would be a good thing for us, of course. I’d like to think we are moving towards that, but who knows? If we are, then I guess it will just take time. If we aren’t - it’s something we need to work towards.