Quebec is headed for independence, Michael Ignatieff tells the BBC

[killer_carlson]

Well I also think this has another effect for Quebec. It shows that the rank and file understand that they aren't going to get a better deal outside of Canada. It also removes their best bargaining chip to hold Canada hostage.

I can only hope that we see some leadership on the Federal level to start looking politely at Quebec and tell them that they have to generate more economically and balance their budget. It's time.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Jacks

PQ made a huge miscalculation allowing the referendum talk to dominate the election. They should have come out on day #1 and said no referendum during this term, it's not like they couldn't flip flop later if the winds changed.

It was funny in the debate because Marois tried to get this through, but she is so caught in the web of the separatists that she failed.

Instead of saying that they weren't interested in a referendum she basically said that this wasn't a referendum because the people have stated that they're not ready for a referendum, but when they are . . .

also her discussions around the borders and tourism and the possible relationship with Canada was a huge misstep.

She probably lost most of Montreal at that point.

BTW on the HF political board there is a pretty fascinating debate going on about separation and the rules for separation, there are several Die Hard Sovereigntist battling with a poster named WetCoaster who has laid out and discussed most of the Supreme Court rulings when it comes to Quebec Independence.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Well I also think this has another effect for Quebec. It shows that the rank and file understand that they aren't going to get a better deal outside of Canada. It also removes their best bargaining chip to hold Canada hostage.

I can only hope that we see some leadership on the Federal level to start looking politely at Quebec and tell them that they have to generate more economically and balance their budget. It's time.

Well the feds can't force them to spend 'better' or contribute more. All they could do is take away some of the carrot that is equalization payment, which I'd wouldn't be against. And that may (or may not) cause Quebec to re-prioritize.

I do get a little bored with all the griping about the payments from the west though, it's not nearly the issue they make it out to be, and on a percentage basis, Quebec isn't always even the biggest benefactor, though you'd never know it in Calgary.

[MarchHare]

I do get a little bored with all the griping about the payments from the west though, it's not nearly the issue they make it out to be, and on a percentage basis, Quebec isn't always even the biggest benefactor, though you'd never know it in Calgary.

Measured per capita, Quebec has never been the largest recipient of Equalization dollars. In most years, they actually receive the least or second-least per capita. Since the program's inception, Newfoundland (until the past few years), Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan (also until recently) all regularly received more per capita than Quebec. BC has been up and down, receiving more in some years and less in others.

Of the six provinces receiving equalization in 2012-13, Quebec does receive the most in terms of total equalization payment, $7.9-bn. However, on a per capita basis, Quebec actually receives the second least amount of equalization. Quebec, like all recipient provinces, receives equalization based on two factors: its population, and because its fiscal capacity is below the average fiscal capacity of all provinces – known as the “10 province standard”. However, while Quebec’s fiscal capacity is below the 10 province standard, it is not that as far below the standard as some of the other recipient provinces since it has a fairly diversified and large economy, as well as being quite populous. On a per capita basis, Quebec gets only $926 per citizen from equalization. Ontario gets $243 per citizen. Ontario’s fiscal capacity is better than Quebec’s, and so it receives less equalization overall ($3.2-bn) and it has a much larger population – 13,373,000. Prince Edward Island is actually the province which benefits the most from equalization. It receives the smallest overall amount, $337-mn, but with a population of only 146,000, that works out to $2,308 per Islander.

Source: http://thoughtundermined.com/2012/04...isconceptions/

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

BTW on the HF political board

There's a HF political board?

Good god, I can only imagine how ridiculous that is.

[CaptainCrunch]

yes, you have to filter through a lot of really terrible posts and some really ridiculous characters but there are some good nuggets there.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Well the feds can't force them to spend 'better' or contribute more. All they could do is take away some of the carrot that is equalization payment, which I'd wouldn't be against. And that may (or may not) cause Quebec to re-prioritize.

I do get a little bored with all the griping about the payments from the west though, it's not nearly the issue they make it out to be, and on a percentage basis, Quebec isn't always even the biggest benefactor, though you'd never know it in Calgary.

The biggest carrot that Canada can shake isn't the removal of equalization payments. But the isolation of Quebec in North America if they do separate. Their entry into any trade agreements would be conditional on Canada allowing them in.

Also the mass unemployment caused by the termination of all Quebec Federal Civil Servants.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Measured per capita, Quebec has never been the largest recipient of Equalization dollars. In most years, they actually receive the least or second-least per capita. Since the program's inception, Newfoundland (until the past few years), Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan (also until recently) all regularly received more per capita than Quebec. BC has been up and down, receiving more in some years and less in others.



Source: http://thoughtundermined.com/2012/04...isconceptions/

Well that's precisely what I was saying, I just gave the statement a bit of a blur in case some said 'oh yeah, there was this three year period where Quebec blah blah blah...'

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The biggest carrot that Canada can shake isn't the removal of equalization payments. But the isolation of Quebec in North America if they do separate. Their entry into any trade agreements would be conditional on Canada allowing them in.

Also the mass unemployment caused by the termination of all Quebec Federal Civil Servants.

Again, exactly the point I was moving towards. Equalization is one of the smallest problems of the Quebec issue. But its the one most Westerners complain about, and I was simply fending off the argument Killer_Carlson was setting up.

The most troubling of the situation is the stagnation of the Canadian economy, and as you said, the hit Quebec's own economy takes with seperation talk.

Thankfully the average Quebecor seems to be figuring this out.

I know equalization payments is thr biggest conservative/west talking point. I was saying I get bored by that as its really just that. A talking point.

[Daradon]

BTW, the 'representation' argument is much the same. I believe Quebec is only 1-2 percent over represented in the House of Commons. The biggest ones are the Maritimes (PEI anyone?) and the territories.

Just shutting down the usual Sun Media talking points ahead of time. All these posters that swear Quebec is some black hole we flush the nations wealth down.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Pauline is a rank amateur as a politician and she proved it by badly bungling this election. The only way they'll ever get seperation even worthy of the conversation is with another Lucien Bouchard type who can galvanize the separatists. And even then I think too many of the old people who want to seperate will be taking dirt naps and dilude their chances even more.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

BTW on the HF political board there is a pretty fascinating debate going on about separation and the rules for separation, there are several Die Hard Sovereigntist battling with a poster named WetCoaster who has laid out and discussed most of the Supreme Court rulings when it comes to Quebec Independence.

Well ####, Wetcoaster is still around? I haven't been to HF in years, but I remember him from the 2004-05 lockout. He was a lawyer, IIRC, and knew his stuff. I'll have to go read that thread.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Well that's precisely what I was saying, I just gave the statement a bit of a blur in case some said 'oh yeah, there was this three year period where Quebec blah blah blah...'

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I posted that to support your point and back it up with a citation for the benefit of other people reading the thread.

[CaptainCrunch]

It looks like things are getting worse instead of better.

PQ Candidates in polling stations with party brochures

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...ebec-1.2595326

5 people who were denied the right to vote

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04...cast-a-ballot/

Dis is gun be goot

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle17764080/

Corruption allegations against Marois

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/03...n_5056307.html

[CaptainCrunch]

Latest Poll results and it looks dire

[Resolute 14]

Not good when your campaign follows the same trajectory as a North Korean rocket.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The biggest carrot that Canada can shake isn't the removal of equalization payments. But the isolation of Quebec in North America if they do separate. Their entry into any trade agreements would be conditional on Canada allowing them in.

How much of the size of that carrot would depend on who the PM or government is at the time? A sympathetic PM/Government might rubber stamp such things..

[CaptainCrunch]

Maybe, but if a Prime Minister went soft on Quebec and rubber stamped it, it would have dire consequences on the Canadian economy.

At that point we would have to have a Prime Minister that would act in the remaining Canada first and not give a crap about Quebec.

If Canada doesn't get payment on Quebec's share of the national debt, negotiate the hand over of federal properties, ensure the security of Canadian water ways and ensure the integrity of Canadian territories, Canada would take a monstrous hit.

while in theory you could threaten all kinds of vile things. The biggest carrot for Quebec is an entry into NAFTA, something that can't happen without Canadian approval.

I've read that the negotiated fair share in theory of Canada's national debt is anywhere from 20 to 25%.

The interesting thing is if lets say down the road Quebec holds a referendum and decides to leave and the Prime Minister is from Quebec, does he have to resign his position due to a massive conflict of interest?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The interesting thing is if lets say down the road Quebec holds a referendum and decides to leave and the Prime Minister is from Quebec, does he have to resign his position due to a massive conflict of interest?

Worst excuse yet for keeping Harper in power

[CaptainCrunch]

Its not an excuse, I would have other reasons for voting for Harper, I'm not going to get into that though, because my momma told me that life was like a box of cho . . . no wait, treat others like . . . no that's not it oh yeah if you can't say something nice about someone don't say anything at all. but beyond that.

Its likely that Harper won't be around for a yes referendum fight.

But from an optics point of view having a Quebec born and bred prime minister negotiating Canada's future with Quebec would probably not be a good idea.

[Resolute 14]

May not be an excuse for keeping Harper, but the fact that the Liberals don't think anyone from outside Ontario or Quebec is fit to lead them is a reason why I don't support that party.