Quebec Election: 4 Sep 12

[Edward Campbell]

Quebecers go to the polls on 4 Sep 12. I think it is fair to say that Quebec's politics has lost some of it's drama, specifically, Canadians are no onger paralyzed with fear by the separatist bogeyman.

But Quebec matters; it is a big "have not" province which, like Ontario, ought not to be.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is an opinion piece that I think sets the scene:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/age-collides-with-politics-in-todays-fractured-quebec/article4462141/?page=all

Age collides with politics in today's fractured Quebec

KONRAD YAKABUSKI
MONTREAL — The Globe and Mail

Published Saturday, Aug. 04 2012

Sitting on a stool at Caffe della Via, a hip student hangout on the fringes of Montreal’s fast-gentrifying Petite Italie, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois is remarkably composed.

Although he leads Quebec’s most radical student activists – known by the acronym CLASSE – he’s no scruffy agitator or starry-eyed dreamer. A study in Gallic elegance, the 22-year-old is poised, articulate, groomed to an almost preppy shine. The only outward sign of his militancy is a red square, a symbol of the student protests he’s sparked, pinned to his shirt.

And make no mistake. Whatever his personal style, Mr. Nadeau-Dubois is out to upend the existing order. Earlier this spring, he mobilized thousands of students and sympathizers to fight a proposed tuition hike and take to the streets.

The results included an effective shut-down of the province’s French-language colleges and universities (a full school term was lost). The sometimes violent protests also led Premier Jean Charest’s Liberal government to adopt unprecedented legislation to control the demonstrations – largely in vain. Just this week, the 100th nighttime march by activists led to the arrest of 17 people.

The students have had a broader impact as well: What started as a campus backlash soon ballooned into an all-out rebellion against a government that was perceived as favouring the rich – and jolted Quebec out of a longstanding political torpor. No one following the student cause could be indifferent. Suddenly, there was a revival of passionate debate about the future of the province not seen since the last sovereignty referendum in 1995.

If debate is healthy, it’s also messy: The student protests have spurred new discussions about what “our Quebec” should look like. It’s also revealed how splintered the answer to that question has become. Canadians may think of Quebec as a province with a strong collective identity – perhaps at times a herd mentality – but that group affiliation has been fractured.

Old regional and partisan divisions still exist. What’s new? Conflict along generational lines. In today’s Quebec, age is becoming a reliable (if imperfect) indicator of politics.

My work has taken me out of Quebec, my adopted home, in recent years. But I return regularly to Quebec. And each time I land in Montreal, I am struck by the stubborn signs of stasis.

Despite a rich architectural heritage, parts of the city seem to be in shambles; wire mesh runs along the sides and bottoms of freeway overpasses, lest a chunk of concrete break loose and annihilate drivers below. And while Quebeckers are among the world’s earliest adopters of new technologies, there’s no sense here of a place on the move.

There is a reason for this “time warp” feeling: Quebec’s share of the Canadian population and economy has been shrinking for decades. Its debt is now equal to 55 per cent of its gross domestic product, by far the highest in Canada. A reduction in federal transfer payments, a possibility when the current equalization formula expires in 2014, would be catastrophic for its finances.

Martin Coiteux, a professor at Montreal’s École des Hautes Études Commerciales business school, calculates that an independent Quebec (assuming its share of accumulated federal borrowing) would have a debt burden in between those of Italy and Portugal, two of Europe’s biggest basket cases.

“Quebec has experienced a relative decline since the 1960s,” says Prof. Coiteux. “There is a blatant lack of economic dynamism in Quebec. We are still in the club of have-not provinces. That Ontario has joined us there is not much of a consolation.”

Frustration over Quebec’s economic status is not new.

In 2005, a dozen influential Quebeckers led by former Premier Lucien Bouchard – known as “les lucides” – created a manifesto calling for urgent action to tackle the province’s spiralling debt and demographic decline. From there, the then-fledgling Action Démocratique du Québec took up the mantle.

But by the time the 2007 provincial election rolled around, the ADQ under Mario Dumont embraced an anti-immigration platform, playing down its proposed economic reforms. They succeeded in winning 41 of the National Assembly’s 125 seats, becoming the official opposition and reducing the Liberals to a minority government.

Mr. Charest took advantage of a weak ADQ caucus and the global financial meltdown to call a snap 2008 election. He won a slim majority.

Today, however, neither the Liberals nor Péquistes are rallying more than a third of the electorate (and even then much of their support comes grudgingly). The new Coalition Avenir Québec, which absorbed the ADQ, is polling at just above 20 per cent.

What all of this suggests is that no one has adequately addressed the brewing anger over Quebec’s economy – which is why the students have proved to be such a catalyst for wider debate.

The most vocal of Mr. Nadeau-Dubois’s cohort envision a social-democratic Quebec with free universities and more redistributive public policies.

It’s a familiar dream for older Quebeckers, particularly those in the Parti Quebecois, who came of age during the Quiet Revolution and who cling to their “project” of an independent Quebec that looks a lot more like Alsace than Alberta.

Many in the PQ have found the recent wave of student activism contagious. It’s re-energizing jaded Baby Boomers in the party, who are now eager to draft youngsters into the sovereigntist fold (indeed, one prominent student leader is running for the PQ).

“If this had just been about a new generation coming up, it would not have been a very important,” says Christian Dufour, 62, a political scientist at Montréal’s École nationale d’administration publique. “But among a lot of Baby Boomers, there is a total identification with these young people.”

Interesting infographic here.

Adds McGill University literature professor François Ricard, 65: “The people in my generation are disappointed and bitter because they have not realized their dream…. For those nostalgic for their own youth, [the student movement] has been extraordinary.”

As the author a definitive book on Quebec’s early boomers, 1994’s La Génération Lyrique (The Lyrical Generation), Prof. Ricard also sees distinctive parallels in the mood of today’s protest.

“Lyricism, is the sentiment that the world belongs to you. It is a sentiment of joy, that life is positive,” he says. “What struck me about the [spring protests] was the ‘party’ atmosphere.”

If the PQ needs to build an intergenerational coalition to recapture power, though, there’s no guarantee young Quebeckers will sign on.

PQ Leader Pauline Marois’s generation grew up in a cloistered Quebec. They threw off the shackles of the Catholic Church and the anglophone business establishment. But the Quiet Revolution institutions cherished by Ms. Marois and her ilk – from Hydro-Québec to the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec – have become symbols of crony capitalism for Mr. Nadeau-Dubois’s generation.

A sovereign Quebec that grandfathers such state-sponsored behemoths will not hold appeal for young Quebeckers in the student protest movement.

The same goes for those between 35 and 55, though for different reasons. Many among this cohort feel it’s time to rethink Quebec’s statist model and finally address the wealth gap with the rest of Canada.

These Generation Xers and tail-end boomers are more pragmatic than their elders. If they’re not ready to scrap $7-a-day daycare – as parents, they benefit most from it – they question whether it is worth paying the highest taxes in North America to keep it.

They did not fight the Quiet Revolution and, hence, have little stake in defending its sacred cows. They have no sympathy for the students’ quixotic quest for a free education.

At one time the Coalition Avenir Québec seemed to offer hope. Prof. Coiteux was among those welcomed the emergence of CAQ. The brainchild of former PQ cabinet minister and co-founder of Air Transat François Legault, 55, and businessman Charles Sirois, the CAQ subsumed the ADQ, promising a 10-year truce on the national question to fix Quebec’s public finances.

But as the CAQ’s platform took shape, Prof. Coiteux tuned out.

“They chose to emphasize the ownership of businesses rather than the development of businesses,” he says. “But where I really disconnected was on the CAQ’s [restrictive] immigration policy. I’m just not capable of defending those ideas.”

If he performs well on the campaign trail, Mr. Legault might still be able to capitalize on Quebeckers’ deep desire for regime change. His platform speaks to the province’s colossal debt and a weariness with both the student confrontations and corruption scandals engulfing the Liberals and a wariness towards the PQ’s sovereignty agenda.

But there’s always Mr. Nadeau-Dubois and his cohort to consider.

Born after 1990 or so, this generation came of age during a decade in which sovereigntist embers barely flickered. They are outward-looking and bursting with self-confidence, and have experienced none of the cultural insecurity or grievances that led their forbears to dream of creating a country.

Yet, these youngsters are viscerally Québécois.

“These young people want to re-appropriate the fleur-de-lys and give it meaning,” asserts Alain-G. Gagnon, a political science professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal.

So can all these ruptures be healed ?

Ironically, so far the most tangible impact of the student protests has been to breathe new life into the Liberals. The student protesters challenged the very tenets of representative democracy. Instead, they have given Mr. Charest a new sense of purpose.

Mr. Charest is all but counting on the radical student organization Mr. Nadeau-Dubois leads to create a ruckus when the province’s colleges and universities start classes this month. Another violent student uprising against his government might just drive fearful and fed up voters to back the federalist Liberals on Sept. 4. Of course, it also possible that Mr. Charest’s attempt to turn the election into a referendum on tuition fees could backfire if voters believe that he provoked the confrontation and prolonged the stand-off by refusing to negotiate with the students for months last spring.

And whether the students themselves, the ones who have proven so vital to a renewed debate about what Quebec should be, can get what they want is unclear: Regardless of the winner of this one election, Mr. Nadeau-Dubois is not harbouring inflated expectations about change. Regardless of the outcome of Sept 4., it is unlikely to end the unrest his generation has fomented.

“The malaise revealed by the student strike,” he offers, “is much too profound to be resolved in a single election.”

Konrad Yakabuski is the chief political writer in The Globe and Mail's Washington bureau.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Quebec swapped the patriarchy of the church for the patriarchy of the state and the protestors want to increase the patriarchy.  Such progress.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is a related opinion piece by a knowledgeable Quebec observer:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/quebecs-question-conomique/article4461174/

Quebec’s question économique

ANTONIA MAIONI
The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Aug. 06 2012

What issues could dominate voter choice in the current Quebec electoral contest? While Quebec politics are different due to the constant fault line of la question nationale, economic issues and the pocketbook vote do play a very large part.

Since the Quiet Revolution, economic issues have dominated the electoral landscape. The 1962 election was run on the maîtres chez nous slogan, which referred not so much to the relationship with Canada but rather to reducing foreign control of the Quebec economy by nationalizing electricity and, eventually, setting up the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec as an economic motor for investment. In the early 1970s, it was the launch of the James Bay project that attracted voter attention. In 1976, the Parti Québécois’s victory was propelled by the economic wreckage and corruption that many Quebeckers associated with Robert Bourassa’s leadership. In 1985, the PQ succumbed to a similar fate, having made enemies of public-sector unions.

In fact, Liberal Premier Jean Charest looked forward to running the 2012 race on the economy. This has been the constant theme of his leadership. Since he won the 2003 election, the province’s political debate has been dominated by the left-right divide: whether the “Quebec model,” with its emphasis on the state’s role, is still viable or whether there needs to be an overhaul of public finances and a new emphasis on the private sector. Even the recent brouhaha over the attempt by Lowe’s to take over Rona reaches to the heart of the Quebec Inc. model.

The central conflict over university tuition hikes derives from this divide, as do persistent concerns over employment, health care, daycare and natural resource development. Plan Nord, which was supposed to be Mr. Charest’s main campaign theme and legacy, is emblematic of this: a far-reaching plan for northern development based on extending hydroelectric production and creating new mining ventures, plus massive private-sector investment in infrastructure and transportation.

Where do economic issues leave the main Quebec political parties?

The Liberal Party has vacillated between its Quiet Revolution roots and a newfound private-sector fervour. Now, it faces direct competition on the right from the Coalition Avenir Québec, whose leader, François Legault, is a former PQ cabinet minister but is better known as a successful businessman and co-founder of Air Transat. His economic messages are front and centre in this campaign, particularly when added to the CAQ’s anti-corruption slogan: “Enough!”

On the left, the PQ has more economic clout than some may think. For one thing, the party has been in power with real governance experience that includes the fight against corruption. For another, leader Pauline Marois may not be a sovereigntist’s dream come true, but she does have the economic credentials to make her a realistic alternative as premier.

Still, even economic matters are tinged with the national question. Overall, Quebeckers are like any other voters; they prefer economic stability and prosperity. But most Quebec francophones also have nationalist sympathies on identity issues. If Ms. Marois can convince them that the PQ can deliver a responsible economic platform, she may well be the next premier. But if Mr. Charest can play on the economic fears associated with separatism and outflank Mr. Legault, then he may be able to eke out another bare victory.

Antonia Maioni is associate professor of political science at McGill University.

Another, related, Globe and Mail article says that a full 70% of Quebecers say that their current (Charest) government is corrupt. Reporter Daniel Leblanc, commenting on a Léger  Marketing poll says:

A large majority of Quebeckers feel their provincial government is corrupt ... the issue of corruption is at the heart of the ongoing election campaign, and will remain so with the arrival in the race of anti-corruption crusader Jacques Duchesneau as a candidate for the upstart Coalition Avenir Québec [but] it is too early to gauge the impact on voting intentions ...

Currently, the article says, the PQ s in the lead, the Liberals are in second place and the new CAQ (Coalition Avenir Québec) is running third.

 

[a_majoor]

A look at the historical background of Quebec spending and the Quiet Revolution. Regardless of which party is elected to office in Quebec, the uncomfortable reality is there is much less money for transfers and much less willingness to continue down the same path, much less expand spending on transfer payments and social programs by the Federal Government and the taxpayers of Canada. Perhaps the real measure of the electoral candidates will be how well they are prepared to function under a system of declining transfers and entitlements:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/08/08/cost-of-revolution/

Cost of revolution
Vincent Geloso, Special to Financial Post | Aug 8, 2012 12:06 PM ET
More from Special to Financial Post
Quebec’s generous welfare state would not be possible without funding from the rest of Canada

On June 22, Quebec celebrated the 52nd anniversary of the 1960 election that marked the beginning of its “Quiet Revolution” – a period marked by rapid modernization and the beginnings of a modern welfare state. Quebeckers feel pride at the mention of this period of their history, and rightfully so since they were no longer known as the “priest-ridden” province. In the current election in Quebec, this “landmark” date is hailed on all sides of the political spectrum to make their respective cases. However, few in Quebec will point out the extent to which the rest of Canada contributed to Quebec’s Quiet Revolution.

Between 1945 and 1955, the federal government opted to reduce its transfers to Quebec. Indeed, federal transfers to Quebec fell to $37 per person in 1955 from $101 in 1945. Relative to gross domestic product, federal transfers fell to 0.3% from 1.1%.

During that period, the provincial government opted to keep its spending under control at around 5.3% of GDP. Its total revenues also stayed stable at 5.5% of GDP. Each time the province ran a deficit, it compensated by a much larger surplus in following years, so the debt burden adjusted for inflation fell to $679 per person in 1955 from $1,245 in 1945. In this era of fiscal discipline, the provincial government opened up the economy to foreign investors and turned the province into one of Canada’s most fiscally competitive provinces. This was quite impressive, especially when contrasted to the pre-war period when expenditures rose to 8.95% of GDP in 1938, the highest point it would reach before 1961.

However, this would begin to change in the mid-1950s as federal transfers began to rise. During the 1950s the federal government began to multiply its interventions in the domain of welfare by attempting to fund numerous social programs for the provinces. This drive to ensure an equal basket of public services to Canadians – regardless of the fiscal capacity of the province they resided in – led to the creation of numerous federal transfers and ultimately to the equalization program. In spite of its virulent opposition to federal intrusion in areas of social welfare, the province of Quebec did benefit from a huge surge in federal transfers of all sorts. By 1960, federal transfers per person adjusted for inflation had risen to $172, or 1.5% of GDP.

Throwing fiscal discipline through the window, the provincial government embarked on a spending binge. Between 1955 and 1960, real expenditures per person increased by 51%, to 8.3% of GDP. In fact, 62% of the increase in spending per person for health care and education between 1945 and 1960 took place after 1955.

Revenues that did not come from federal sources did not rise during this period. Relative to GDP, the tax burden imposed by the provincial government essentially did not rise between 1955 and 1960 and stayed close to a 5.6% share of GDP.

Some argue that the foundations of Quebec’s Quiet Revolution were laid during the 1950s. Indeed, the vast surge of government spending between 1955 and 1960 for education, health care and social welfare became the foundation upon which Quebec’s modern welfare state would be built. What has been less emphasized in Quebec is the importance of federal transfers in funding those foundations.

The additional layers that were to be attached to Quebec’s welfare state in the 1960s were also funded in large part by other Canadian taxpayers. After 1960, federal transfers to Quebec kept rising without any limit. By 1969, real transfers per person had risen to $581, or 3.4% of GDP. In that same year, real spending per person reached $2,726, or 15.9% of GDP. This was the result of Quebec’s drive to build a modern welfare state (both corporate and individual).

In spite of numerous tax increases in Quebec, Canadian taxpayers had to pay a growing share of Quebec’s welfare state. In 1955, they had to fork out a mere 5.6% of Quebec’s revenues. In 1960 and 1969, 20.3% and 22.7%, respectively, of Quebec’s revenues came from Canadian taxpayers. According to a different data set from Quebec’s department of finances, that share had grown to 26.4% by the first year of the Parti Québécois’ stay in office.

Economically, Quebec has lagged behind the richest parts of Canada for many decades. Hence, its tax base is smaller but its welfare programs have been among the most generous in Canada since the 1960s. On its own, Quebec would never have been able to construct such a large welfare state. Thanks to federal transfers, Quebec has been able to live beyond its means for decades. That is something Quebeckers should bear in mind.

Vincent Geloso is a PhD candidate in economic history at the London School of Economics.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'll start off by saying that I don't follow, nor do I care about, Quebec politics.

I do however, though I'm not sure why, have a very bad dislike for John Charest and his Liberals.

No matter what happens if they lose, I just want to see them get their asses handed to them.

That's the extent of my care and convo on the subject.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I'll start off by saying that I don't follow, nor do I care about, Quebec politics.

I do however, though I'm not sure why, have a very bad dislike for John Charest and his Liberals.

No matter what happens if they lose, I just want to see them get their asses handed to them.

That's the extent of my care and convo on the subject.

This is where the old saying "Be careful what you wish for" comes into play.  Like you, I depise Charest and the Liberals and what they stand for. However, if the Liberals lose and the PQ take over the consequnces will be much, much more worse. Better the devil you know.

 

[a_majoor]

I'll start off by saying that I don't follow, nor do I care about, Quebec politics.

I do however, though I'm not sure why, have a very bad dislike for John Charest and his Liberals.

No matter what happens if they lose, I just want to see them get their asses handed to them.

That's the extent of my care and convo on the subject.

Sadly, Quebec has been the tail that wags the dog for decades now, and attempting to cater to the Quebec political classes sense of wounded pride has been the determining factor in modern Canadian politics since the PQ first burst onto the scene in the 1970's. This has also created major changes in Canada as well, including the shift in economic power away from Montreal to Toronto and quite probably the start of the shift in demographics from Eastern ("Old") Canada towards Western ("New") Canada.

I suspect the Quebec Liberals will be tossed because of their lackluster record and the links to organized crime and corruption. OTOH this may be the last hurrah for the PQ in its current form as well; Quebecers are beginning to wake up to the fact that the ROC no longer cares as much about what the Quebec political class wants, and that they no longer have the leverage they did, now that it is possible to elect majority governments without reference to Quebec. The Coalition Avenir Québec will need at least one more election cycle to either build and grow, or wither on the vine like so many other attempts to create third parties. Watch and shoot.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

This is where the old saying "Be careful what you wish for" comes into play.  Like you, I depise Charest and the Liberals and what they stand for. However, if the Liberals lose and the PQ take over the consequnces will be much, much more worse. Better the devil you know.

Nope. Like I say, I don't care.

They can all go to hell in a handbasket.

Can we do without Quebec?

I don't know.

However, just about every time they open their yip, I want to try.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A provincial election in Quebec is sometimes a Kobayashi Maru.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

A provincial election in Quebec is sometimes a Kobayashi Maru.

Then perhaps it's time to reprogram the computer

 

[Sythen]

However, just about every time they open their yip, I want to try.

I'm in the same boat as recceguy. Will doing without Quebec be good for Canada as a whole? Probably not. But I am willing to accept some pain now to save a lot more later.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm in the same boat as recceguy. Will doing without Quebec be good for Canada as a whole? Probably not. But I am willing to accept some pain now to save a lot more later.

It's worse than that: if Quebec wins a proper, legal referendum (fair question and all that) it will be bad, indeed very bad for Canada. Much as many of us might dislike Quebec we cannot afford to let it go. I'll repeat a couple of things I've said elsewhere:

1. If Quebec ever separates we (Canada minus Quebec) are still stuck with 100% of our national debt, Quebec will, for the first few seconds of its existence as an independent state, be debt free; the 27,000,000 of us who are left in Canada will be saddled with all the debt that all 34,000,000 of us (when Quebec was still "in") accumulated. Why? Because the global bond market will not buy bonds offered by Quebec to cover its fair share (or even an unfairly small share) of Canada's national debt - not matter what interest rates the agents offer; and

2. All Quebecers born up to the minute of Quebec's formal declaration of independence will be Canadian citizens, by birth, and will be entitled to all the rights and privileges that attach to that status: pensions, passports, and so on. So we gain nothing, not for about a generation, anyway, by casting off our least productive fellow citizens because they're still citizens and they're still unproductive.

That doesn't mean we have to give a damn about Quebec. It is, and we must make sure our politicians understand that this is our national will, a province just like all the others. It can be maitres chez eux all it wants can afford, but it is just another province - a big one, a poor one (as a result of its own people's mismanagement of their own political affairs) and an unproductive one (self inflicted wound, again) - like all the others, no "better" than PEI.

 

[Sythen]

2. All Quebecers born up to the minute of Quebec's formal declaration of independence will be Canadian citizens, by birth, and will be entitled to all the rights and privileges that attach to that status: pensions, passports, and so on. So we gain nothing, not for about a generation, anyway, by casting off our least productive fellow citizens because they're still citizens and they're still unproductive.

Something I hadn't considered, tbh. Maybe we should demand that in any referendum that it is to be made clear that anyone who holds a Quebec passport after a 6 month grace period relinquishes any and all rights they would be afforded as a Canadian citizen? Seems like something that can be easily rectified.

EDIT: Also wanted to mention something else I thought of.. People on this board like to say that now a majority can be won without Quebec. That is really only true for Conservatives. Liberals/NDP will never make any real gains in Western Canada. They will need to continue to pander to Quebec and offer them everything they ask for to buy votes. We may need to adopt their "share" of the debt, which would could recoup by charging them to export things in to Canada, but in the end I'd rather get it over and done with now rather than later.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Something I hadn't considered, tbh. Maybe we should demand that in any referendum that it is to be made clear that anyone who holds a Quebec passport after a 6 month grace period relinquishes any and all rights they would be afforded as a Canadian citizen? Seems like something that can be easily rectified.

Works for me if, and it's a big IF:

1. We do the same for every single Canadian who holds dual citizenship - something that is legal, now;

2. The Supreme Court says it's legal and proper - which is doubtful, in my opinion.

 

[Sythen]

Works for me if, and it's a big IF:

1. We do the same for every single Canadian who holds dual citizenship - something that is legal, now;

2. The Supreme Court says it's legal and proper - which is doubtful, in my opinion.

oh definitely. Though I remember this being the topic of another thread, so I won't derail this one, I will say that we are in total agreement on this.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

.....and me.

You're a Canadian or you're not.

Pretty simple.

Might sort out a whole bunch of other hyphenated Canadians around the country also.

 

[Infanteer]

If a declaration of independence is made and a big hole exists in map of Canada, what's to stop the other provinces from cashing out as well?  You think BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan would want to hang around, especially since they are fueling the engine these days?  How about the Maritimes?  What would geographic isolation mean for them?  An independent Newfoundland is in the memory of some of its older inhabitants.

My guess, you'd end up with a few new countries, a few additional states in the Union, and the end of one of the most successful liberal democratic states in history.

Can we live without Quebec?

Non.

Can we live without the separatist movement?

Oui.

 

[Haletown]

The original Quebec referendum, the real first one, was held in Arctic Quebec.  A young Inuk guy named Charlie Watt organized it and the vote was about 98 % to stay with Canada if Quebec leaves.  Trudeau made him a senator for that little operation.

I'f Quebec can leave Canda, parts of Quebec can leave it.

Without the federal transfer payments, Quebec would have a second  class economic system. If they repudiate their part of the national debt, the would be seen by lenders as huge credit risks, loan defaulters writ large and wouldn't be able to raise a penny at reasonable rates.  They would be French speaking Greeks.

Quebec  can't afford to leave and I doubt they will. But the blackmail will continue, the Federal  transfer $Billions will flow from Western Canada to Quebec and now Ontario.  Hard to write that - Ontario a have not province.

 

[Infanteer]

So, if Quebec has a referendum and leaves, shortly thereafter a referendum will be held by the rest of Canada to see if it will accept the lower St. Lawrence back into Confederation because the separatists are broke?

 

[Edward Campbell]

So, if Quebec has a referendum and leaves, shortly thereafter a referendum will be held by the rest of Canada to see if it will accept the lower St. Lawrence back into Confederation because the separatists are broke?

Interesting bit of speculation, isn't it?

It's in line with my contention that:

1. Canada needs to further decentralize its federation (and we are, already the most decentralized federation on the planet - see: Ronald Watts, Comparing Federal Systems, McGill-Queens University Press, 1999; and

2. Europe needs to further centralize - for at least some Eurozone members; until

3. Canada and the EU look remarkably alike in constitutional terms.