Toronto as #2

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Doug

Agreed that Quebec definately coalesces around ideas more so than other provinces. The problem is the ideas are antiquated and tired and don't really resonate anywhere else. The political culture has stagnated since the 70s, which is why Montreal's political influence is declining as fast as its economic influence. The positive is that a more insular Montreal is a more unique Montreal.

Well, these days the things that are top-of-mind when it comes to Quebec coalescing around issues and other parts of the country (and Ottawa) either diametrically opposed or at least divided enough for Quebec's views to lose out are:

- the whole climate change, environment and Kyoto issue
- the gun registry
- get tough on crime legislation with more jails vs. rehab programs
- the appropriateness of increased military spending

I guess whether these are antiquated, tired issues that don't resonate anywhere else but Quebec really depends on your point of view.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

So where's this all headed, do you think? It's the weirdest balance.

I mean is Quebec I would say moderating just as the west (west of there) is more cocksure than ever?

Yes, Quebec today is less combative and less of a stick-in-the-mud that it has been in living memory. I think a lot of people in Quebec have grown weary of fighting the good fight.

The last federal election of May 2011 was clearly a move by the Québécois to throw their lot in with the progressives (federal NDP) of the rest of the country whose values are perceived to be most similar to theirs, as opposed to voting for the Quebec-centric, separatist Bloc Québécois as they had for two decades, and which represented the stick-in-the-mud approach.

We will have to stay tuned as to how this Québécois flirtation with the NDP will pan out.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Doug

Does it still work? Government and the electorate increasingly focus on reacting to global events (ex. sovereign debt crisis). Another Quebec sovereignty debate would be dead in the water as global forces would quash it almost instantly (ex. instant debt downgrades). Recent events in Europe have shown that economics trump politics. The world has changed.

This sounds a bit like a chapter from an (English) Canadian nationalist version of The End of History. I don't really think anyone knows where the current crisis will lead us. People may react by becoming super-selfish and retreating into their caves, and Quebec, Scotland, Catalonia, Western Canada, Texas, Santa Cruz in Bolivia and a whole bunch of other places might all end up as independent countries. Who knows?


I mean, at the collapse of the Iron Curtain most people were quite positive about a brave new world with more stability based on democracy (and triumphant capitalism). In the end we ended up with a lot of breakaway independent states, chaos, interethnic conflict and bloodshed in more than a few places, for quite a few years afterwards.

[Waterlooson]

I think the point was that if Quebec suddenly became an independent nation next week, with its huge national debt (provincial + its proportional share of Canada's) to GDP ratio, it would instantly be seen by investors around the world as not economically viable since it would have to pay extremely high government bond rates (if it even was lucky enough to have anyone buy them) that it simply couldn't afford... of this there no longer is any question.

The point regarding Quebec's deep concern about the environment has been noted several times in this thread. It true that it's very concerned about things like the detrimental effect of Alberta's oil sands and Ontario's coal plants on the environment and people's health...but when it comes to the asbestos mines in Quebec, they don't have much to say... and suddenly they aren't so green.

[Wooster]

I think it's also important to point out that the latest wave of political thought coming out of Calgary (leaders like Redford and Nenshi) is far different than the previous ones from the likes of Harper, Kenney, Manning and Klein. It's a brand of post-partisan politics that is far less isolationist/regionalistic as well as far less ideologically (conservative) driven that will gain prominence not only within Alberta but potentionally could become influential in Canadian politics longer term. Calgary/Alberta political thought is hardly monolithic.

[Wooster]

dp

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Waterlooson

The point regarding Quebec's deep concern about the environment has been noted several times in this thread. It true that it's very concerned about things like the detrimental effect of Alberta's oil sands and Ontario's coal plants on the environment and people's health...but when it comes to the asbestos mines in Quebec, they don't have much to say... and suddenly they aren't so green.

I never said that people in Quebec were virtuous than anybody else when it comes to the environment. I was only pointing out their opinions on the subject.

As for asbestos, it would appear that Quebec elected officials are out of touch with the general population of the province since two thirds to three quarters of people in Quebec according to polls do not support continued asbestos mining in the province.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Waterlooson

I think the point was that if Quebec suddenly became an independent nation next week, with its huge national debt (provincial + its proportional share of Canada's) to GDP ratio, it would instantly be seen by investors around the world as not economically viable since it would have to pay extremely high government bond rates (if it even was lucky enough to have anyone buy them) that it simply couldn't afford... of this there no longer is any question.

.

You speak of the current global financial system as if it was something immutable when in actuality it is seriously threatened by a number of factors, from credibility and confidence to contestation.

BTW I am not speaking here about scenarios that will happen, but about things that could happen. No one in 1986 could have predicted what happened between 1989 and say 2000.

Well, maybe except for Emmanuel Todd, but he's a Frenchman so what does he know, right?

[Waterlooson]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You speak of the current global financial system as if it was something immutable when in actuality it is seriously threatened by a number of factors, from credibility and confidence to contestation.

BTW I am not speaking here about scenarios that will happen, but about things that could happen. No one in 1986 could have predicted what happened between 1989 and say 2000.

Well, maybe except for Emmanuel Todd, but he's a Frenchman so what does he know, right?

I think you're engaging in wishful thinking if you feel that all options for Quebec (and by extension its largest city Montreal) are still on the table now, or ever will be during the foreseeable future unless it can get its financial/fiscal house in order... You may now be masters in your own house to a degree, but that house isn't where it needs to be financially for self determination.

BTW, it's not a matter of race as you would like to suggest. It's a matter of dollars and cents/sense... and where that comes from. And don't you forget it.

[Waterlooson]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I never said that people in Quebec were virtuous than anybody else when it comes to the environment. I was only pointing out their opinions on the subject.

As for asbestos, it would appear that Quebec elected officials are out of touch with the general population of the province since two thirds to three quarters of people in Quebec according to polls do not support continued asbestos mining in the province.

If the majority of Quebeckers were opposed to asbestos mining, certainly the government would be against it. It's a cope out just to purport that the majority in Quebec are opposed to it, but those silly politicians just continue to ignore them because they are so out of touch... it's more likely that they don't want to face the political consequences if they closed the mines.

[The Gibbroni]

Originally Posted by Doug

Agreed that Quebec definately coalesces around ideas more so than other provinces. The problem is the ideas are antiquated and tired and don't really resonate anywhere else. The political culture has stagnated since the 70s, which is why Montreal's political influence is declining as fast as its economic influence. The positive is that a more insular Montreal is a more unique Montreal.

Do you consider forestry, mining, agriculture, oil and gas extraction to be new and exciting? While they may be highly profitable I hardly consider them to be the result of any bold new way of thinking. Being hewers of wood and drawers of water is about as antiquated and stagnated as it gets. Ditto the reheated U.S. Republican Party policies.

[The Gibbroni]

Originally Posted by Waterlooson

If the majority of Quebeckers were opposed to asbestos mining, certainly the government would be against it. It's a cope out just to purport that the majority in Quebec are opposed to it, but those silly politicians just continue to ignore them because they are so out of touch... it's more likely that they don't want to face the political consequences if they closed the mines.

Is it also a cop out to purport that the majority of Canadians oppose asbestos? After all, they elected the Conservatives to a majority government - Quebec certainly didn't - despite the fact that asbestos has no bigger friend than Steven Harper. He fought extremely hard to keep it off the international list of hazardous chemicals at the Rotterdam Convention meeting this year.

Or maybe your line of reasoning applies only to Quebec? We agree with every policy of our elected government?

[The Gibbroni]

Originally Posted by Waterlooson

I think you're engaging in wishful thinking if you feel that all options for Quebec (and by extension its largest city Montreal) are still on the table now, or ever will be during the foreseeable future unless it can get its financial/fiscal house in order... You may now be masters in your own house to a degree, but that house isn't where it needs to be financially for self determination.

BTW, it's not a matter of race as you would like to suggest. It's a matter of dollars and cents/sense... and where that comes from. And don't you forget it.

There's always a lot of boastful talk about how Quebec couldn't make it if it were to leave the Federation but precious little about the real fear: the effect that the rupture would have on the remainder of Canada. How would the rest of the world view Canada if it were to suddenly lose over 20% of its population and over 15% of its land mass? Its reputation as a stable country would be shattered and it would certainly be even less of an international 'player' than it currently is. The loss of prestige alone would be enormous.

Despite all the bluster, Canada has more to fear from Quebec separating than Quebec does. That might explain the frantic reaction to the two referendums and why nobody has ever said "All right Quebec, we've had enough. Just leave." because if Canada were ever to say that, Quebec would leave.

The fear of Quebec actually leaving will always be greater in Canada than in Quebec itself, despite all the bravado and chest thumping. The massive financial losses would cut both ways. And don't you forget that.

[Waterlooson]

Originally Posted by The Gibbroni

Is it also a cop out to purport that the majority of Canadians oppose asbestos? After all, they elected the Conservatives to a majority government - Quebec certainly didn't - despite the fact that asbestos has no bigger friend than Steven Harper. He fought extremely hard to keep it off the international list of hazardous chemicals at the Rotterdam Convention meeting this year.

Or maybe your line of reasoning applies only to Quebec? We agree with every policy of our elected government?

Your point is not well made because no one on this thread has tried to portray Steven Harper, or the Conservative Party as ultra-green.... unlike the way Quebec has been portrayed here, and in the media.... and when it comes to Quebec, we all know that its hands-off telling them what to do. We all know that you wouldn't have it any other way, or are you actually complaining that the Feds aren't intervening in Quebec's policies enough?

Look that this: Quebec extends loan guarantees to an asbestos mining operation (just this year):

"The Quebec government will extend a financing deadline for one of Canada's last asbestos mines until the fall, giving more time for operators to restart production of the controversial mineral.

The owners of Jeffrey Mine had been given until Monday to raise $25 million in private financing that would allow them to secure a provincial loan guarantee. The government has now extended the deadline to Oct. 1."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...extension.html



Looks like those loan guarantees came from the government of Quebec rather than the Feds.

[Waterlooson]

dp

[sonysnob]

^ What is your involvement with the oil sands?

[Waterlooson]

Originally Posted by The Gibbroni

There's always a lot of boastful talk about how Quebec couldn't make it if it were to leave the Federation but precious little about the real fear: the effect that the rupture would have on the remainder of Canada. How would the rest of the world view Canada if it were to suddenly lose over 20% of its population and over 15% of its land mass? Its reputation as a stable country would be shattered and it would certainly be even less of an international 'player' than it currently is. The loss of prestige alone would be enormous.

The "fear" of which you speak is mostly confined to the east though. The Ottawa establishment would freak out, and the Atlantic provinces would feel isolated, but topping all fears would be the Francophone communities throughout the ROC, and the pro-Canada businesses and individuals within Quebec itself (many of which would leave)... you forgot to mention that side of the coin.

Canada would be diminished in some ways, but it's GDP per capita would soar to near the top of the list, so it would actually become wealthier in the eyes of the world... that wouldn't exactly hurt its reputation.

Despite all the bluster, Canada has more to fear from Quebec separating than Quebec does. That might explain the frantic reaction to the two referendums and why nobody has ever said "All right Quebec, we've had enough. Just leave." because if Canada were ever to say that, Quebec would leave.

The fear of Quebec actually leaving will always be greater in Canada than in Quebec itself, despite all the bravado and chest thumping. The massive financial losses would cut both ways. And don't you forget that.

Well, that's just what you would like to believe... comforting, isn't it? Quebec can afford to engage in saber rattling all it wants as long as it does so under the protection and benefits of the Federation. Become independent, and everything changes in an instant. It's like the 45-year old son living at home, periodically threatening to leave if he doesn't get his way. But who none the less, always manages to bite the bullet and stay... and for the benefit of the family, so he likes to claim after checking out the rent elsewhere.

Honestly, a lot of people I talk to (out west) would not be the slightest bit upset if Quebec were to leave.... and the odd person who would be only feel that way because the Atlantic provinces would be isolated.

And as far as "financial losses", you are completely wrong, they wouldn't cut both ways... You are evidence that some Quebeckers live in a fantasy world financed by the largess of the Federal Government.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Waterlooson

I think you're engaging in wishful thinking if you feel that all options for Quebec (and by extension its largest city Montreal) are still on the table now, or ever will be during the foreseeable future unless it can get its financial/fiscal house in order... You may now be masters in your own house to a degree, but that house isn't where it needs to be financially for self determination.

I am not wishing for anything to happen at all. I think Quebec independence is not the right way to go. But even if it is not the best idea, doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. Stuff like this happens all the time - anything is possible. Your acrimony for Quebec prevents you from acknowledging that its separation from Canada is a wholly plausible turn of events.

[Waterlooson]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

^ What is your involvement with the oil sands?

None whatsoever. I'm retired, and spend much of the year in Mexico... I don't even have any investments in the oil companies. I just get sick of the false propaganda regarding the oil sands.

[Centropolis]

'Cultural shift' made English more acceptable

By David Johnston, The Gazette

The easy answer to the question of why young anglos aren’t leaving Quebec like they did a generation ago is that they speak better French, and aren’t being chased away by political uncertainty.

But there’s more to it than that. By the 1990s, say observers, speaking English had become more acceptable in Quebec as firms came to see the need to improve the capacity of their workforces to operate in English.This created new opportunities for anglophones.

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/Life/...#ixzz1hBC352oE