• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Its all Greek to Quebec

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jed
  • Start date Start date
WRT various groups & regions "opting" to stay in Canada in the event of separation, I'd be curious about the legality of that.  Would each legal or municipal jurisdiction have its own separate referendum?  What if the jurisdictions opting to stay in Canada weren't contiguous - would there be Canadian enclaves within Quebec?

I'd think a provincial referendum would end up being just that - everyone within the borders of the province, and a straight majority (or not) - but I really have no idea, and would be interested to hear from someone with expertise in international law about this.

And to pick up on a couple of earlier comments in this thread about "unaffordable " and "crazy" social benefits, I have a theory:  nifty things like affordable daycare, stable pensions and affordable post-secondary education actually benefit our society as a whole, in the long run, and it would be more costly NOT to have them. 

It seems to be a basic philosophical difference generating a constant tug-of-war in Canadian politics.  Just my  :2c:

 
bridges said:
And to pick up on a couple of earlier comments in this thread about "unaffordable " and "crazy" social benefits, I have a theory:  nifty things like affordable daycare, stable pensions and affordable post-secondary education actually benefit our society as a whole, in the long run, and it would be more costly NOT to have them. 

It seems to be a basic philosophical difference generating a constant tug-of-war in Canadian politics.  Just my  :2c:

I have a real problem with the current attitude of many people, at least people who seem to have the attention of the mainstream media, that can not comprehend some of the basic economic facts of life.  One quote I like is " There is no such thing as a free lunch".

Whether it is striking Quebec students, Occupy movement people, or upset Saskatchewan Filmboard and Actors' grant recipients, it just plain baffles me.

 
One quote I like is "privatizing the profits, socializing the losses."  Well, "like" isn't quite the right word, but the quote is an apt descriptor of a certain economic model that seems to be the subject of protest - at least in some of the media I've seen.  And some of those media sources are pretty far from mainstream. 

I have a hunch that our society has enough resources to make certain things available to everybody - and if we think we don't, then I wonder where the money is going-? 
 
"privatizing the profits, socializing the losses."

I get the profits, you pay the losses.


Meh, seems right... :)
 
I have been looking at this thread develop and must say that I have seldom seen so much ignorant, bigoted and yes, some times asinine commentary in such a short thread. And it all started with an article attacking the Quebec situation without any factual basis. My understanding was that these forums require us to deal with verifiable facts. I have noted that many times when Quebec issues come up, the responses are full of bile and must say that I do not know where this comes from in people that have worked in the field with Quebeckers.

Let me try to just input some facts in here.

First, lets deal with the crazy, unaffordable retirement at 62 scheme: First of all, it is not universal, it is optional. And if you elect to take this early retirement scheme, your monthly payments are REDUCED BY 12% for the rest of your life, so that basically, it has exactly the same actuarial cost to the scheme as if you took your full pension at the standard age (which is still 65 for everyone else - the plan being copied exactly on the CPP). Now, how much of this is paid for by the "Have" provinces? Nothing, zilch, zero, the big nada. The pension plan is ENTIRELY paid from the money collected as premium on every single quebecker's salary - just like your CPP contribution- and nowhere else. There is not a cent that comes  from the general revenues of the province - thus none from outside the province. These contributions are managed by the CDP (Caisse de dépot et placement) and currently, even though it took a hit when the market crashed a couple of years ago, it has no actuarial deficit nor is any such deficit forecasted. BTW, the measure was not adopted out of excess of largesse. It was adopted because about 20 years ago, three of Quebec's largest industrial sectors started to melt from the delocalisation connected with globalization and the soft wood lumber conflict. Quebec was canada's home to the textile and clothing industry. When that went to Asia and the forestry sector suffered at the same time, massive layoffs put elderly workers in the street. After unemployment stopped, the optional retirement at 62 (with lower payments) was meant to bridge the gap - at no extra cost (otherwise, these workers would have had to sell their home and possessions until left with no choice but to go on welfare).

Lets get to the "have" / "have not" provinces now. Haletown got them wrong. For the last few years, Ontario  has been a have not, while Newfoundland has been a have province. Basically, there are now (and for the next few years for sure) four "have" provinces: BC, AB, SK and NL. But is Quebec really a province in such bad economic order on the scale of Greece whilst the other "have not" are OK? The following table is taken from the Federal Government site on the latest round of equalization payments - made under the new Conservative government formula allegedly "fairer":

Province :         Equalization :         Per capita :
PEI                 337 M$                 $ 2,390.07
Nova Scotia 1,268 M$                 $ 1,351.52
New Brunswick 1,495 M$                 $ 1994.66
Québec         7,391 M$                 $ 944.07
Ontario         3,261 M$                 $ 249.52
Manitoba         1,671 M$                 $ 1,367.43

So if Quebeckers are living in luxury at the expenses of the "have provinces", what does that tell you about Manitobans and the residents of the "have not" Atlantic provinces?

And is Quebec a "greek" economy in canada?

Lets look at some current facts. They come from the following sources: Pop. figures: Federal government numbers for 2009; current provincial deficits, debt to GDP ratio, Federal transfers as % of province revenues: come from each province's latest budgets, as compiled by CBC, finally, net debts of provinces: TD Canada economic forecast figures.

                                                              Ontario Québec Manitoba Nova Scotia
Pop. (2009) (x 1000)                               13,029 7,829 1,222 938
Budget Deficit                                           15.3 B$ 1.5 B$ 460 M$ 211 M$
Net Debt                                                   260.4 B$    178.5 B$ 15.4 B$ 13.7 B$
Debt to GDP ratio                                     37.2 %    35.2 % 27.4 % 34.8 %
Federal transfers as % of provincial revenue  19.4 % 22.8 % 28.1 % 32.1 %

The federal transfer payments include ALL transfers to the province's revenue. It is interesting to add here that on that basis, Alberta gets 12% of its provincial general revenue from Federal transfers.

If Quebec is like Greece, with a small deficit of $1.5 B$ this year (and a forecasted return (Yes! return)  to balanced budget next year), what does that say of Manitoba at double the deficit in proportion, and Ontario at five times! And how could the Manitoba and Nova Scotia government fare - extravagant as they are - without the huge Federal transfer that buoy them up?

So, Loachman, which provincial governments are exercising fiscal responsibility in this country now?

Finally, here are a couple of little facts about the "$7-a-day daycare program in Quebec: 1) All economic studies so far (and there have been a few) have concluded that the program generates for the province's government approximately $1,5 B$ in revenue a year ABOVE the cost of the program. 2) the very existence of this program is cited in the annual UN Human Development Index as having helped Canada up two positions in the index, with a complaint that it had not been adopted by all provinces. Go figure, Alberta!


/RANT OFF

 
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Lets get to the "have" / "have not" provinces now. Haletown got them wrong. For the last few years, Ontario  has been a have not, while Newfoundland has been a have province. Basically, there are now (and for the next few years for sure) four "have" provinces: BC, AB, SK and NL. But is Quebec really a province in such bad economic order on the scale of Greece whilst the other "have not" are OK? The following table is taken from the Federal Government site on the latest round of equalization payments - made under the new Conservative government formula allegedly "fairer":

Province :         Equalization :         Per capita :
PEI                 337 M$                 $ 2,390.07
Nova Scotia 1,268 M$                 $ 1,351.52
New Brunswick 1,495 M$                 $ 1994.66
Québec         7,391 M$                 $ 944.07
Ontario         3,261 M$                 $ 249.52
Manitoba         1,671 M$                 $ 1,367.43

Funny thing about those have not provinces: Who is the political party running the shop? Are they the most fiscally responsible for managing business?
 
Jed said:
Funny thing about those have not provinces: Who is the political party running the shop? Are they the most fiscally responsible for managing business?

If memory serves, there's been a fairly steady variety of NDP/Tory/Liberal/PQ (as applicable) leadership for most, if not all, of those provinces - and for some of the "haves" as well.  So whom is their economic status pinned on, again?
 
Quebec is an economic disaster. Look for the rest of the province's infrastructure to crumble as proof. Its ok, the province will just whine some more to get Federal money to fix its own mess.

One good thing about those student protests is that the RoC gets a preview of what the province's future leaders will be like: More of the same self-entitled morons.


I'm from there and hope to never have to go back.
 
bridges said:
If memory serves, there's been a fairly steady variety of NDP/Tory/Liberal/PQ (as applicable) leadership for most, if not all, of those provinces - and for some of the "haves" as well.  So whom is their economic status pinned on, again?

If memory serves me, for the last 5 to 8 years for Manitoba and the East Coast, Quebec it has been predominately NDP / Liberal provincially and now it is Ont provincially.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Lets get to the "have" / "have not" provinces now. Haletown got them wrong. For the last few years, Ontario  has been a have not

Nice rant,  but nooooooo  . . .  I got them right. 

Go back, calm down, read what I wrote . . .

hint . . .  look at the quote marks around the first para.

I was pointing out the original text was incorrect.  Ontario's economy has suffered under the Dalton regime and Ontario now is a Have Not province.

Wonder how many factories you can power with solar panels and windmills.

Someone should ask Dalton for his windless nights solution.
 
Jed said:
bridges said:
If memory serves, there's been a fairly steady variety of NDP/Tory/Liberal/PQ (as applicable) leadership for most, if not all, of those provinces - and for some of the "haves" as well.  So whom is their economic status pinned on, again?
If memory serves me, for the last 5 to 8 years for Manitoba and the East Coast, Quebec it has been predominately NDP / Liberal provincially and now it is Ont provincially.

For the record:
MB - NDP since 1999
NB - PC 2003; Liberal, 2006; PC, 2010
NS - PC 1999-2006, NDP since 2009
ON - PC 1999; Liberal since 2003
PEI - Liberal since 2003
QC - Liberal since 2003
 
By  the way, I did like your rant and have a good degree of agreement.

Quebec has enormous levels of natural resources, especially energy.

The real test will come when Quebec turns the corner, just like NFLD did by exploiting their energy sources  and becomes self-sufficient and they start paying into the Transfer system.

I can just imagine the Montreal intellectual class getting all knicker twisted when they realize "their" money is back stopping Ontario programs.

 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Finally, here are a couple of little facts about the "$7-a-day daycare program in Quebec: 1) All economic studies so far (and there have been a few) have concluded that the program generates for the province's government approximately $1,5 B$ in revenue a year ABOVE the cost of the program. 2) the very existence of this program is cited in the annual UN Human Development Index as having helped Canada up two positions in the index, with a complaint that it had not been adopted by all provinces. Go figure, Alberta!


/RANT OFF

Really?  I'd LOVE to see that $7 daycare out here in AB.  $650 a month per kid is more like it... keeps people out of the workforce at a time when we are short workers.  Then again, nothing is free.  If its such a great program and injects $1.5B into the economy, why is it not universally adopted by the rest of Canada?  I'm guessing there is more to it. 

You can't get something for nothing.  I'd keep going, but I need to get out and buy lottery tickets.
 
exabedtech said:
Really?  I'd LOVE to see that $7 daycare out here in AB.  $650 a month per kid is more like it... keeps people out of the workforce at a time when we are short workers.  Then again, nothing is free.  If its such a great program and injects $1.5B into the economy, why is it not universally adopted by the rest of Canada?  I'm guessing there is more to it. 

You can't get something for nothing.  I'd keep going, but I need to get out and buy lottery tickets.

Ideology over reason.

Childcare is a fairly simple investment to figure out.
 
milnews.ca said:
From what little I know, a lot of Aboriginals and Aboriginal leaders see their relationship with "The Crown" going all the way back to the Queen.  Given that (and I don't know how the modern Treaties in northern QC work), I agree with those who've said they'd likely choose to stay with Canada/the Queen.


When it comes to independence, aboriginal peoples who have been colonized have a special place in the UN Charter; they have a prima facie right to self determination. This was debated, quite extensively, during both previous referenda debates - perhaps OldGateBoatDriver can elaborate, it involves legalistic bits that are beyond me - and it appears to me that Quebec cannot, automatically, expect to "take" e.g. the Ungava Peninsula with them if they were to vote to separate. My reading of the discussions is that, at the very least, the aboriginal peoples - those who are on their "own" land - must agree, through a second referendum, to either join a new, independent Quebec or "go it alone." It is not clear to me that they can decide to stay in Canada ... but I would be reluctant to say that they cannot.

My understanding is that aboriginal peoples occupying defined areas can invoke (and, indeed, during a separation negotiation, must be allowed to invoke) an inherent right to self determination. I'm not sure how many groups that involves: the Cree in James Bay and the Innu, certainly; the Mohawks on the South Shore, too, I suppose - but what about the Mohawks in Ontario? Would be not be obliged, during separation negotiations to allow them to decide for themselves, too? And, and, and ...?


Edit: typo
 
Interesting stuff...  thanks for your posts, E.R. Campbell.  Presumably the possibility of these subsequent referenda would be made known to all voters ahead of time, and the various potential sizes & shapes of an independent Quebec publicized. 

I'd imagine that some 'yes' voters might feel differently if their new country were to end up quite a bit smaller than the current province.  All speculation, of course. 

 
Crantor said:
Now in a “what if” scenario, Quebec were to separate it would likely be negotiated.  I think it would be naïve to think that Quebec wouldn’t keep its current borders.  Like anything it would be negotiated in exchange for certain things. 

For the last referendum there was a book that gave one what if scenario, its from 1995 but it is a what if that goes in detail.

http://global-economics.ca/dividing%20the%20house.pdf
 
E.R. Campbell said:
.... My reading of the discussions is that, at the very least, the aboriginal peoples - those who are on their "own" land - must agree, through a second referendum, to either join a new, independent Quebec or "go it alone." It is not clear to me that they can decide to stay in Canada ... but I would be reluctant to say that they cannot ....
Depending on the political organization of various Aboriginal organizations, it's not impossible that this sort of "we want to stay" intent could be invoked without a referendum of individual First Nation members.  I'd like to think it would be tough for Quebec to say "we, as a minority, feel it's fair that we be allowed to make our own way" while denying a minority within its borders exactly the same argument. 

Also, I'm guessing there's long memories of how Quebec has dealt with Aboriginals in the past, leading to more ammunition to the cause if Quebec separation from Canada were to happen.

 
Actually, Native Law is a fuzzy and ill defined area of law that is neither quite international law, nor quite domestic law. Canada and New Zealand are probably the two places where it is most advanced and developed. On the international side, the driving force often appears to be from the ex-colonial powers and aimed at making sure that their old colonies treat the natives better than they ever did: sort of an "ex post facto" guilty conscience imposed on us by the original invader.

This said, the undefined "right" to self-determination has never been interpreted anywhere in the world as a right to chose your "colonial" overseer. Otherwise, with what Canada gives natives compared to many countries, what would stop the "Tilapa" indians to chose to join Canada, for instance? And how would that force Canada to take them in? You can see where that would lead. No: the right does not even include (so far in the development of the law anyway) the right to all together "secede" from the country where they happen to be and create their own "country". The right is more clearly defined as encompassing the capacity for the various native groups to make their own decisions concerning their relationship with the "white" man and organize it as they  freely negotiate through treaties.

One such aspect that can be dealt with in treaties is a formal renunciation to territory or the recognition of the "country" within which the natives are located as the proper counterpart.

In the James Bay Agreement  (considered the world's first "modern" treaty), the Inuit and Cree completely renounced any right to any territory in the North and recognized formally the Quebec 1912 borders (the ones that incorporated the North).

The first operating article of the Agreement reads as follows:

"In consideration of the rights and benefits herein set forth in favour of the James Bay Crees and the Inuit of Québec, the James Bay Crees and the Inuit of Québec hereby cede, release, surrender and convey all their native claims,  rights, titles and interests, whatever they may be, in and to the land in the Territory and in Quebec, and Quebec and Canada accept such surrender."

This pretty exhaustive extinction of rights is quite likely to be given great weight by other countries in any case of secession of Quebec, so its far from clear that they would be able to do anything to "secede" from Quebec under the circumstances. All in all, it is a very complex matter and many legal papers have been published on the mater, on both side, I might add. If I am not mistaken, many can be gleaned on the internet, including on various sites of the Government of Quebec.

Just don't think it would be automatic.

Note of disclosure: It is difficult at the best of time to make any definitive statement concerning Native Law, so I do not claim that any of my representations above are anything but a quick summary of potential interpretations and may be inexact in many final aspects after a determination by courts. On the other hand, the Kativik (Inuit) school board is one of my clients and I have had to, on occasion, delve for them in matters of self-governance and self-determination, and have had to work extensively with the James Bay Agreement.
 
Ahhh, Great work for lawyers if then can get it. I wonder how much of this work will be 'productive' for the people of Canada.
 
Back
Top