Quebec Separation

[Segnosaur]

In my perspective, Quebec separating would be quite detrimental economically.

Consider this simple economic fact: Quebec is the province which receives, by far, the most total dollars in equalization payments: for 2007-08 that amounted to $7.16 billion (second place belonged to Manitoba which received $1.543 billion).

If Quebec secedes, it seems rather unlikely it's going to keep getting that money from the federal government.

And if I remember correctly, Quebec also receives more than it pays back in some other government programs, such as EI.

Not to mention the fact that a significant number of people live in Quebec but work in Ontario. If Quebec were a separate country, I doubt that Canada would allow that to continue. After all, we have our own work force who needs employment, and it would be an economic detriment to see salaries paid by Ontario companies being spent primarily in another country.

 

[D'rok]

The Gatineau region would be devastated by separation. Most of the industries there have died. The primary employer is the Federal Government.

 

[Segnosaur]

ETA: The clause about keeping the Canadian dollar is wishful thinking.

It will be gradual, maybe the first decade or so, to make the transition easier.

You know, you seem to use that argument over and over again as some sort of panacea for every possible trouble that Quebec could have... "Oh, the transition will be gradual".

Trouble is, it just doesn't work.

Regardless of how long you make the 'transition' period, you will still at one point have to face the reality of being an independent country, and in this case it involves having a currency based on an economy encompassing only a fraction of the population of Canada. Whether it happens the day after a 'yes' vote, or it happens a decade after, you still have to eventually deal with that.

As I said, this is a source of contention, surely we will respect the Native's rights for autonomy, but we won't deny ours either.

You see, this is the exact reason why I don't respect the separatist movement.

You claim that 'surely' Native rights will be respected. Perhaps you yourself believe it. Yet during the last referendum, the leaders of the separatist movement claimed that Quebec was 'indivisible'. Two different viewpoints within the separatist movement; if someone were trying to decide to vote yes or no, who do they believe? Separatists seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Segnosaur]

The Gatineau region would be devastated by separation.

You mean its not already?

But hey, the'll have all those wonderful government buildings such as Place du Portage, the archives and museums. Of course, those buildings won't hold any government workers. Maybe they can turn them all into casinos.

 

[drkitten]

You know, you seem to use that argument over and over again as some sort of panacea for every possible trouble that Quebec could have... "Oh, the transition will be gradual".

Trouble is, it just doesn't work.

Regardless of how long you make the 'transition' period, you will still at one point have to face the reality of being an independent country, and in this case it involves having a currency based on an economy encompassing only a fraction of the population of Canada. Whether it happens the day after a 'yes' vote, or it happens a decade after, you still have to eventually deal with that.

And, in fact, a "gradual separation" is likely to make economic matters substantially worse.

Let's assume, for a moment, that I'm a Russian businessman planning on building a large widget-manufacturing facility in Canada for the North American market. I can build it anywhere --- but I know that ten years from now, Quebec will be "independent" and have its own independently-run economy.

My understanding is that even most of the separatists expect the Quebec economy to go to hell in a handbasket, but are willing to pay that price for cultural autonomy. But I'm a businessman, and I don't give a damn about those silly Western European languages.

I'll build in Vancouver. Or Toronto. Or maybe the wilds of Manitoba. But I don't want to tie my factory to an economy I expect to fail ten years from now, so I'll build anywhere BUT Quebec.

So making independence "gradual" really just gives capital ten years to fly the hell away from Montreal and making the independent Quebec economy that much worse....

 

[ZouPrime]

Regardless of how long you make the 'transition' period, you will still at one point have to face the reality of being an independent country, and in this case it involves having a currency based on an economy encompassing only a fraction of the population of Canada. Whether it happens the day after a 'yes' vote, or it happens a decade after, you still have to eventually deal with that.

You are still working under the assumption that separation means complete separation with no possibility of keeping any relation whatsoever. Which is a strawman YOU ARE creating, not the separatists.

For example, why oh why would Quebec creates and manages its own currency? That's the worst case scenario. In practice, it doesn't benefit anyone. Quebec could continue using the Canadian dollar. Or switch to the US dollar. Or create its own money, but link it to the Canadian or US dollar, or a basket or both. Having a completely independant currency, with a central bank handling it, is awfully complicated, costly, and doesn't bring any benefit to anyone.

Do you think separatists want a country because they would like to have their own money? Do you think that's an important objective? Of course not. Then why assume they would make a move that goes against their own benefit (and Canada's benefit)? Just because they can?

 

[Segnosaur]

You are still working under the assumption that separation means complete separation with no possibility of keeping any relation whatsoever. Which is a strawman YOU ARE creating, not the separatists.

First of all, keep in mind that in the last referendum, the argument was (to paraphrase) "we will negotiate, but if no agreement is reached in a year we'll declare independence."

To me, that sounds rather, ahem, final.

And how exactly would such a situation work out? "Quebec will separate, but Canada will still send equalization payments"?

Of course, this goes back to the problem I mentioned earlier... we have a case where separatists want to argue both for a situation where Canada and Quebec are somehow linked, and a case where Quebec is a completely separate nation. Having their cake and eating it too.

And just what do you mean by 'no relation'? I'm sure there will be various treaties between the 2 countries on things like trade, the environment, etc. just as there are between Canada and the U.S.

For example, why oh why would Quebec creates and manages its own currency? That's the worst case scenario. In practice, it doesn't benefit anyone. Quebec could continue using the Canadian dollar. Or switch to the US dollar. Or create its own money, but link it to the Canadian or US dollar, or a basket or both.

Yes, setting up a free-floating currency is complex. And you are right in that Quebec could use the U.S. or Canadian dollar (or link the Quebec Peso to one of those currencies). I can think of a couple of reasons why they wouldn't:
- National pride. Personally, when I hear of a country that doesn't have its own currency, I think of some banana republic. A government in Quebec may want to avoid that stigma. (And given how separatists are complaining about such irrelevant events like the 'Plains of Abraham', they may not want to associate themselves with their former 'oppressors')
- Flexibility. If Quebec does not have its own currency it limits its ability to set its monetary policy. So, if it ever wants to (for example) lower the currency in order to encourage exports, it becomes difficult.

 

[Thanz]

For example, why oh why would Quebec creates and manages its own currency? That's the worst case scenario. In practice, it doesn't benefit anyone. Quebec could continue using the Canadian dollar. Or switch to the US dollar. Or create its own money, but link it to the Canadian or US dollar, or a basket or both. Having a completely independant currency, with a central bank handling it, is awfully complicated, costly, and doesn't bring any benefit to anyone.

I thought that separatists wanted to be "masters in their own house". How do you do that without assuming all of the responsibilities of it? Do you want to have control over stuff, but just as long as its not too hard? It doesn't work that way.

Do you think separatists want a country because they would like to have their own money? Do you think that's an important objective? Of course not. Then why assume they would make a move that goes against their own benefit (and Canada's benefit)? Just because they can?

I'm sure that having their own currency may not be a reason for separation - but it is one of the consequences of it. Similar to having your own army. I'm sure that separatists are not longing for a Quebec army - but it is one of the things that comes with being your own nation.

Some separatists need to learn that there are responsibilities that come with independence that they cannot avoid or expect the rest of Canada to just pick up. The "why would we have our own currency" crowd are like 30 year olds still living in their parents basement, but who want to do whatever they like, whenever they like it, eat their parents food, and not doing anything for the upkeep of the house or pay rent.

Or, as good ol' Uncle Ben says, with great power comes great responsibility. If you are not up for the responsibility, don't take the power.

 

[D'rok]

Last night I watched "Up the Yangztse" by the Montreal film-maker Yung Chang (great movie). There was a scene where the staff of the tour boat were instructed on how to talk to Canadians. There were 2 rules: 1. Don't compare Canada to the USA, and 2) Don't talk about Quebec independence.

Wise words.

 

[ZouPrime]

I have a hard time taking you guys seriously. It's "banana republic" to not have a national currency? I guess all these european countries are banana republics.

"Taking the responsabilities that come with independance"? Again, this assume one specific definition of independance, one that isn't even mainstream, and one that doesn't benefit Quebec nor Canada. Canada would certainly prefer we keep the same money and that we cooperate on the millitary level - since those points aren't contentious, why exactly would a sovereign Quebec go out of their way to complicate things?

"Not wanting a national currency being equal to a 30 years old staying with its parents"? Okaaay…

How I see the issue here, is that you've made your mind about the causes of Quebec separatism (an opinion certainly fuelled by the ROC media) and you've decide it's a black and white issue with no shades of grey. But now are completely confused when we tell you we wouldn't act like you expect us to, or that Quebec objectives aren't actually the objectives you believed we had.

It's like Republicans whining that Obama is a bad candidate because he's clearly a communist wanting to implement a centralized economy, and after he's elected, being all surprised because he isn't implementing the centralized economy like he wanted to during the election.

But in the end, you are responsible for believing your own hype. We're not going to shoot yourself in the foot just because you've convinced yourself that all we want is shoot ourself in the foot.

 

[Segnosaur]

There were 2 rules: 1. Don't compare Canada to the USA, and 2) Don't talk about Quebec independence.

Rule 3: don't talk about fight club.

 

[drkitten]

I thought that separatists wanted to be "masters in their own house". How do you do that without assuming all of the responsibilities of it? Do you want to have control over stuff, but just as long as its not too hard? It doesn't work that way.

I'm sure that having their own currency may not be a reason for separation - but it is one of the consequences of it. Similar to having your own army. I'm sure that separatists are not longing for a Quebec army - but it is one of the things that comes with being your own nation.

In particular --- I think that (British) Canada would be a better investment environment than Quebec, at least initially. Better infrastructure, more resources, et cetera. (There's a reason that Quebec gets the payments from the Canadian government, and it's not a good one.) A free Quebec with a freefloating Peso Quebecois would be able to address this by setting monetary policy, interest rates, and so forth appropriately. A semi-free Quebec still using the loony would be at Ottawa's mercy, and in fact, there would be every reason for Ottawa to set monetary policy to actively favor Vancouver and Toronto over an independent Montreal.

I think a separate currency would be an economic necessity, complex or not.

I also think it would be a political necessity ("masters of your own house").

And I think it would be a Bad Idea [tm].

 

[ZouPrime]

It's like when a couple decide they can't live together anymore. Maybe the woman needs some space and wants to move in a new appartment. She doesn't have any issue with the man per see, it's just that she needs some space. These things happen. But then the man gets all grumpy and say "Well, ok, but then you'll have to make your own kids - you can't have shared custody of those we currently have. And you'll buy your own set of clothes, you can't bring yours home. If you want to quit me you must quit me at 100%, no exception! And the house? Find your own house!" Except that the man doesn't really want to have sole custody of his kids - it benefits him for his ex to have them every other weekends. And he doesn't really want to keep his ex clothes either - he has no use for them. Why not negociate with his ex for her to buy them back (assuming the men bought them first)? And he can't pay the house by himself anyway, so why not again make a deal with her? Brakeup don't HAVE to be messy.

But of course, the man can't starts with the assumption that what the woman actually wants is a mess (instead of just some space and solitude).

 

[D'rok]

I actually quite like a lot of the governance suggestions on the constitution proposal that Pardalis posted. It's too bad our amendment process is so volatile that we can't do some of those things in Canada.

 

[D'rok]

It's like when a couple decide they can't live together anymore. Maybe the woman needs some space and wants to move in a new appartment. She doesn't have any issue with the man per see, it's just that she needs some space. These things happen. But then the man gets all grumpy and say "Well, ok, but then you'll have to make your own kids - you can't have shared custody of those we currently have. And you'll buy your own set of clothes, you can't bring yours home. If you want to quit me you must quit me at 100%, no exception! And the house? Find your own house!" Except that the man doesn't really want to have sole custody of his kids - it benefits him for his ex to have them every other weekends. And he doesn't really want to keep his ex clothes either - he has no use for them. Why not negociate with his ex for her to buy them back (assuming the men bought them first)? And he can't pay the house by himself anyway, so why not again make a deal with her? Brakeup don't HAVE to be messy.

But of course, the man can't starts with the assumption that what the woman actually wants is a mess (instead of just some space and solitude).

Most of us in the ROC identify ourselves primarily as Canadian and secondarily as Manitoban, Ontarian, etc. It's as much an emotional issue for us to think about our country being dismembered as it is for Quebecers to think about having their own country. Rational discussion is really, really hard.

 

[Segnosaur]

I have a hard time taking you guys seriously. It's "banana republic" to not have a national currency? I guess all these european countries are banana republics.

Those european countries (I'm assuming you mean those of the EU) that are using the Euro actually have a say in monetary policy. Not sure of all the details of how the EU works, but if (for example) Belgium has issues, they can address those issues through the European Central bank (of which I assume they would have membership on).

Simply adopting the Canadian or U.S. dollar would not necessarily give Quebec any say at all in how the Dollar is handled. If they used the US dollar, the U.S. wouldn't bother giving Quebec any say in it simply because their economy is too small. And Canada probably wouldn't want Quebec to have any influence because the basis of our economies would be different.

"Taking the responsabilities that come with independance"? Again, this assume one specific definition of independance, one that isn't even mainstream,...

Ummm... the last referendum actually said they might eventually unilaterally declare indendance. If the referendum question itself made such a bold claim, how can you say that its 'not mainstream'?

... and one that doesn't benefit Quebec nor Canada. Canada would certainly prefer we keep the same money...

Why are you speaking for Canada?

I would consider it irrelevant. If an independant Quebec wanted to use our Dollar fine, but because of the different state of our economies I would not give Quebec any say in how our dollar were actually managed.

... and that we cooperate on the millitary level.

How do you define 'cooperate on the military level'? Yeah, we might enter into agreements (like NATO or NORAD) with an independant Quebec, but Quebec would still have to have its own military.

How I see the issue here, is that you've made your mind about the causes of Quebec separatism (an opinion certainly fuelled by the ROC media) and you've decide it's a black and white issue with no shades of grey.

Hey, I've always stated that there are 'shades of grey'. And that's always been the problem... you get one group of people saying "we can vote yes and not be fully separate", and another group saying "We'll be our own country". The problem is, separatists don't seem to want to clarify things.

And if someone votes 'yes' without actually wanting independence, then what exactly was meant in the last referendum when they talked about the 'unilateral declaration of independence'?

 

[ZouPrime]

Most of us in the ROC identify ourselves primarily as Canadian and secondarily as Manitoban, Ontarian, etc. It's as much an emotional issue for us to think about our country being dismembered as it is for Quebecers to think about having their own country. Rational discussion is really, really hard.

Oh, I know that, trust me. And I'm not saying that separatists aren't emotional either, and that many would have problems with keeping links with Canada just on principle.

But on the other hand, I would tell you that many if not most separatists don't understand why it bothers so much the ROC that Quebec separates. In the typical nationalist perspective, the ROC don't really appreciate us very much anyway. They would prefer to have an all-english country. So why are they hell-bent in stoping Quebec from achieving sovereignty?

In the end... it's a complex issue. For all the actors.

 

[ZouPrime]

Those european countries (I'm assuming you mean those of the EU) that are using the Euro actually have a say in monetary policy. Not sure of all the details of how the EU works, but if (for example) Belgium has issues, they can address those issues through the European Central bank (of which I assume they would have membership on).

Simply adopting the Canadian or U.S. dollar would not necessarily give Quebec any say at all in how the Dollar is handled. If they used the US dollar, the U.S. wouldn't bother giving Quebec any say in it simply because their economy is too small. And Canada probably wouldn't want Quebec to have any influence because the basis of our economies would be different.

Why do you assume that the default position would be for Quebec to not have any say over the economic policy of the dollar? We are Canadians. We also partially "own" the dollar, just like we partially "own" the millitary. It's a two way street.

Ummm... the last referendum actually said they might eventually unilaterally declare indendance. If the referendum question itself made such a bold claim, how can you say that its 'not mainstream'?

It's all in the definition of "independance".

Why are you speaking for Canada?

Because I'm a Canadian?

How do you define 'cooperate on the military level'? Yeah, we might enter into agreements (like NATO or NORAD) with an independant Quebec, but Quebec would still have to have its own military.

There are millitary bases in Quebec that Canada would like access to. Same thing with all the millitary assets based in Quebec.

Hey, I've always stated that there are 'shades of grey'. And that's always been the problem... you get one group of people saying "we can vote yes and not be fully separate", and another group saying "We'll be our own country". The problem is, separatists don't seem to want to clarify things.

"Separatists" isn't a cohesive group. That's why you don't have a clear answer.

And if someone votes 'yes' without actually wanting independence, then what exactly was meant in the last referendum when they talked about the 'unilateral declaration of independence'?

Here's the actual text of the 1995 question. The bold is mine:

"Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"

As I said, it all depends on the definition of independance. For some reason, you assume that independance exclude dealing with Canada for economic and political partnership.

I have to get back to work, so I won't be around for a while.

 

[Segnosaur]

But on the other hand, I would tell you that many if not most separatists don't understand why it bothers so much the ROC that Quebec separates. In the typical nationalist perspective, the ROC don't really appreciate us very much anyway. They would prefer to have an all-english country. So why are they hell-bent in stoping Quebec from achieving sovereignty?

The ROC does benefit in several ways from the inclusion of Quebec within confederation. For example:
- Any trade between western and an eastern Canada becomes more complex if there were an independent Quebec in the middle, with perhaps its own customs/border control. (and yes, I am assuming that it would be an 'independent Quebec')
- Having a country with more than 30 million provides more weight in global affairs than a country with approximately 25% fewer people
- The whole act of separation would lead to instability and uncertainty. Even though it would only be temporary, we don't want to see our society and economy suffer while we negotiated terms of separation. (Not to mention all the problems that would occur if we were unable to reach any sort of negotiated settlement)

Oh, and I don't really think the majority of the ROC prefers to have an 'all English Canada'. There may be some resentment at French being 'forced' on people in areas of the country where they make up a very small minority of the population, but that doesn't mean we want to force any french from the country.

 

[Segnosaur]

Why do you assume that the default position would be for Quebec to not have any say over the economic policy of the dollar?

Ummm... I've already explained why Canada would not necessarily want Quebec to have influence on monetary policy... because the economies of Quebec and Canada would have significant differences and actions which benefit Quebec may not benefit Canada as a whole.

We are Canadians. We also partially "own" the dollar, just like we partially "own" the millitary. It's a two way street.

Yes, at the present time you are Canadians... I'm referring to some time in the future if/when Quebec becomes an independent state. At that time, Quebec's claims of partial ownership would be negated by several factors:
- It is Quebec which is attempting to separate, not the ROC, and the government of Quebec would be significantly different than that of the ROC. Since Quebec is the one taking the action to leave, they must be the ones taking responsibility (including the possibility of giving up some of the perks of being Canadian)
- Quebec makes up only about 1/4 of Canada's population.

Ummm... the last referendum actually said they might eventually unilaterally declare indendance. If the referendum question itself made such a bold claim, how can you say that its 'not mainstream'?

It's all in the definition of "independance".

Well, when our largest neighbour claimed 'independence' they did not maintain some sort of political connection with England. Frankly, I think the concept of a country declaring 'independence' is a pretty well defined concept. I can't think of any situations off the top of my head where independence didn't mean "setting up a fully separate country".

Can you point to any situation where a country declared 'independence', yet still remained a part of the original country? (Not just with a few treaties, but with actual government links.)

Why are you speaking for Canada?

Because I'm a Canadian?

You're right... I should have qualified that... I should have said "Why are you speaking for what the rest of Canada would want in a post-separation environment"?

There are millitary bases in Quebec that Canada would like access to. Same thing with all the millitary assets based in Quebec.

The distribution of military assets post-independence is only a minor issue. Quebec would still need its own military.

Post separation, I doubt Canada would require access to military bases in Quebec; I suspect that all equipment would be relocated to the ROC.

Here's the actual text of the 1995 question. The bold is mine:

"Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"

As I said, it all depends on the definition of independance. For some reason, you assume that independance exclude dealing with Canada for economic and political partnership.

Perhaps you should have bolded a slightly different word... the word 'sovereign'. The dictionary definition of the word 'sovereign' includes the words 'autonomous' and 'independent, self-governing'. I'm really not sure how you can have a country which is both independent and is linked to another country politically.

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/sovereign

It seems your redefining the words and concepts for 'sovereign' and 'independent', away from their dictionary and/or common usage into something that makes voting 'yes' a little easier to swallow.