Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Globe essay: THE OPPOSITE OF NATION-BUILDING

No, Kosovo is not on the St. Lawrence

EDDIE GOLDENBERG

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 12:27 AM EDT 01/03/08

Separatists do themselves a grave disservice in drawing any analogy. ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: I think that we should actually let Quebec go if they wish to go...

    It will save the Canadian taxpayer $8.028 billion in transfer payments annually...

    Atlantic Canada can also benefit from a greater share of its own oil and gas revenues and the Port of Halifax will once again become a major ice free, year round Post-Panamax port on the Atlantic Ocean capable of trading with the rest of the world... The Port of Montreal, however, would likely cease to exist...
  2. Tony D from Canada writes: Even though I don't entirely agree with Mr. Goldenberg, I must say that the article was objective, fair and balanced in describing the reality of the situation.

    Canada should recognize Kosovo without fearing anything. When 90% of Quebecers shall want to separate there's nothing in the world that would keep them from achieving it.
  3. steve allan from Welland, Ontario, Canada writes: Yes and federalists do themselves a great disservice, not to mention the disservice they do to the nation, by pretending that there is no parallels, in law and in practice, between Kosovo and Quebec.

    By the way, Mr. Goldenberg was Chretien's senior policy advisor in 1995 when Quebec's pequiste government came within a whisker of winning the referendum. He and his boss didn't even see it coming. I see the guy still hasn't learned his lesson.

    You know what they say about ignoring the lessons of history!
  4. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Correction to my last post:

    That $8.028 Billion is equalization payments alone... Total annual transfer payments to Quebec are currently 19.972 Billion.
  5. F Rioux from Canada writes: Look around, whos constantly bringing that parallel? Just shut up with your little 2 cents sensationalist. Just stop.
  6. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: 'Atlantic Canada can also benefit from a greater share of its own oil and gas revenues and the Port of Halifax will once again become a major ice free, year round Post-Panamax port on the Atlantic Ocean capable of trading with the rest of the world... The Port of Montreal, however, would likely cease to exist...'

    Don't take this the wrong way, but it is slightly hypocritical for an Atlantic Canadian to complain about Quebec's equalization payments given that Atlantic Canadians per-capita receive more than Quebec. There are reasons for that of course, but if we used the logic that 'have-not' provinces drain more than they contribute 'Canada' would just be Ontario, Alberta and BC.

    As for the Port of Halifax, I wouldn't hold you're breath on that any time soon. Population growth or levels aren't remotely close enough to justify a post-panamax ship. If we look at Canada, our population and infrastructure is overwhelmingly centered around QC-Windsor. In light of this, the Port of Montreal (despite ice-clearing) is the most logical candidate. Excess demand by Southern Ontario could more efficiently be met by shipping through New York, as the costs would be distributed across the entire BosWash corridor.

    If Quebec left, Port Halifax would be even less useful. Depending on the terms of the secession (free trade?), Halifax would be two border crossings and 500miles away from Canada's main population centers. Ignoring the most obvious geo-political problem of Atlantic Canada being totally amputated from the rest of Canada. From the perspective of Canada, no loss is a good loss.

    Although in the event of a successful Quebec Referendum, Canada should make all attempts to have Montreal rejoin Canada.
  7. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: steve allan from Welland, Ontario:

    Well --

    Since you asked, the four Atlantic provinces currently receive $7.765 Billion in transfer payments compared to the current combined $42 Billion in transfer payments currently going to Ontario and Quebec...

    Also, how much oil and gas do those two particular provinces have to trade and how would they do it if Quebec actually separated from Canada?
  8. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes:'Since you asked, the four Atlantic provinces currently receive $7.765 Billion in transfer payments compared to the current combined $42 Billion in transfer payments currently going to Ontario and Quebec...'

    I just crunched those numbers, if Quebec and Ontario have a population of 20 million, and Atlantic Canada a bit over 2 million, by you're own statistics, Atlantic Canada receives substantially more on a per-capita basis. Roughly 60% more...

    I am not part of the group of people that believe that no equalization is good equalization. Just that it is a bit hypocritical for Canadians to bash each other over it.
  9. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Steve Allan -- If you wish to check those transfer payments yourself, they are available at:

    http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/mtpe.html#Ontario

    Total transfer payments (Ontario) = 21, 760 Billion
    Total transfer payments (Quebec) = 19, 972 Billion

    In other words, those two provinces receive about 6X the transfer payments of the so-called 'economic basketcase...'

    These figures don't include billions in corporate welfare which largely goes to companies in Ontario and Quebec as well:

    http://www.taxpayer.com/pdf/Top100.pdf

    If I can answer any other questions for you, please do not hesitate to let me know...

    This article is about Quebec's desire to separate, however, which is upto Quebecers to decide.

    Getting late here, good night!
  10. John McCaffery from Australia writes: I would tend to agree with Robert Miller from Halifax - it makes more sense to reduce the shipping distance, since shipping is slow and arduous - Halifax is well located to get products onto land as soon as possible - moving more quickly to final destinations (unfortunately the rails have mostly been removed) - politics has stifled Halifax since 1867.

    Why spend millions, maybe billions over the years using icebreakers up the St. Lawrence? I think some Canadians have actually come to believe in some of these ridiculous decisions made in the past.

    Don't forget that Nova Scotia was the wealthiest member at the table in Charlottetown in the 1800s. It is precisely the kind of central Canada focus expressed in this column that changed that.
  11. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Wow, Australians actually know all that!

    I am extremely impressed, John McCaffery!

    The vast majority of Canadians don't even know that!
  12. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: John McCaffery from Australia writes: 'I would tend to agree with Robert Miller from Halifax - it makes more sense to reduce the shipping distance, since shipping is slow and arduous - Halifax is well located to get products onto land as soon as possible - moving more quickly to final destinations (unfortunately the rails have mostly been removed) - politics has stifled Halifax since 1867.'

    Shipping is the per-ton cheapest (ergo best) solution. Even a relatively small lake freighter is far more economical than shipping by rail. The goal in international multi-modal shipping is to maximize time on the boat, minimize rail and truck freight.

    The main redeeming quality of Halifax is it is exceptionally large. This would come in handy, if there was a local market to support it. Until then, it simply wont be able to compete with major east-cost ports like Boston and NY/NJ which service the MASSIVE BoshWash conglomeration and actually have populations high enough to support post-panamax shipping. Grow Nova Scotia to 4-5 million people and I will be the first to advocate investing billions in new port facilities and rail connections. Until then, Central Canada is better off with the (closer) port of New York.
  13. D Chiu from Victoria, Canada writes: UN Resolution 1224 (authorizing the UN to oversee Kosovo) specifically said that territorial integrity of Serbia would be maintained. One cannot choose only what one likes and throw away what one dislikes in the Resolution.
  14. Jo Ingblat from Canada writes: Robert Miller. What are you talking about? Nove Scotia receives considerably more PER CAPITA than Quebec--AND CERTAINLY MORE THEN ONTARIO!!!! who puts more into equalization than it recieves. Just look at the budget estimates for 2007-2008.

    http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc4e.html

    Frankly I think it's bizarre, and incredibly naive when people make the claim that there is economic gain to be had if Quebec were to go it alone. The political and economic uncertainty in the event of a Quebec declaration of independence would be HUGE--it certainly will be in the short term, and unless things so really smoothly (which I think unlikely) then it could have a susbtantial effect on our standard of living as the dollar tanks, foreign investment pulls out, etc. And the loss in national morale!!!!! You don't lose 25% of your country and not expect serious reprecussions. The gap in equalization is really minor when all the factors are considered.
  15. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: I would agree with Jo Ingblat on this one. If Quebec left Canada, why should Atlantic Canada stay? They receive more federal payments per capita and they would be separated from the ROC if Quebec split off.

    The whole idea that we can somehow make ourselves stronger by letting a quarter of our country, one of the historically richest at that, rot off is absurd. The reality is that if Quebec split off, Canada as we know it would cease to exist.
  16. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Look, I am not trying to steal the Quebec's nationalists thunder here, but what I am implying is that I really don't think that Quebec is really a risk of leaving the Canadian Confederation because that province would have too much to lose. Of course, Quebec nationalism seems to be the dog that growls but never bites -- eventually, others may say that enough is enough.

    I would also argue that the lack of new rail links to Halifax is as much a function of these rails are currently controlled by a single Montreal based monopoly. What interest could there really be in increasing port traffic in Halifax at the expense of the Port of Montreal under those circumstances?
  17. John McCaffery from Australia writes: Will Hoaccio from Toronto, true, shipping is the most efficient, but do these calculations consider the cost of icebreakers? The last I heard, those using Halifax Port would be charged a levy to subsidize icebreakers, even though Halifax is ice free year round.

    The reality is, Montreal is not a natural year round port - the cost to make it a year round port should be considered. Also, the Halifax Port is one of the best ports in the world for taking on the super container ships without the need for expensive dredging.
  18. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Some of you have obviously never considered the raw deals that Atlantic Canadians have accepted to keep Quebec nationalists happy...

    1. Subsidies for ice breakers to keep the Port of Montreal running year round when year round, Ice free Post-Panamax ports exist here.

    2. A Supreme Court decision to uphold a ridiculous contract on Hydroelectricity from Churchill Falls signed by Joey Smallwoood that many suspect was upheld as is to keep Quebec nationalists happy.

    3. The uneven split between provincial and Federal take on offshore oil and gas in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and the Federal governments refusal to allow fallow field legislation for these oil and gas fields as in Alberta.

    4. A single rail line connecting Halifax to Montreal under the control
    of a Montreal based monopoly.

    If Quebec actually went, I wouldn't be surprised if Nova Scotia (and other Atlantic Canadian provinces) may actually be better off as they were in the days before Confederation.

    Again, this is a thread about Quebec nationalism/separation... not Atlantic Canadian separation...

    Somebody talk about how tough Quebecers have it, please.
  19. John McCaffery from Australia writes: One more point, possibly different decisions since 1867, Nova Scotia may well have a population today of 4 million, but then is that so good?

    Another example, Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia - the oldest town in Canada - it has a bustling community of thousands in the 1600s - it was a centre of action - in 2008 it has a population of only hundreds - also, Nova Scotia led the world in the building of merchant sea vessels, and so on - obviously things have changed since then.

    Bottom-line, it does not help Canada by making regions weak.
  20. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: John McCaffery from Australia writes:

    'Bottom-line, it does not help Canada by making regions weak.'

    Well said! Hope the Canadian PM [and his people] were listening in.

    Cheers.
  21. Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: If it was possible for Quebec to unilaterally declare independence by a vote in the National Assembly they would have already done it.

    That of course ignores the fact they couldn't afford it.
  22. Sam G from Toronto, Canada writes: Great article. It shows some ignorance of the history of the Balkans. Instead of talking about '1000 year old conflict' on the Balkans, how about focusing on the conflict of the empires and political influences in the region? Recent conflict in the Balkans have been 'heated' in the salons of German, British and French and Russian political establishments. Balkan remains the fault line between empires and geopolitical interests. Making blanket statements which cannot be supported by facts only reinforces the stereotypes. For the first time in history, Balkan states have a chance of being integrated into broader regional (and European) economy and political system. Canada should support that and it should even step up the efforts to force Serbian government to finally hand over war criminals who are still hiding in its woods.
  23. Jo Ingblat from Canada writes: Robert Miller, if this is a thread about Quebec seperation, then why are you going on about Atlantic Canada grievances? Looking at your list: 1) do you have any hard evidence that the Port of Halifax would be more a efficient port than Montreal? Regardless of the ice, shipping is still cheaper than land transport. It is actually a PROFITABLE port. Therefore it's not just surviving on handouts--THERE IS A DEMAND from business. If you're sending freight to Chicago or Toronto, Montreal is clearly the economical way to go. Check it out: www.unb.ca/econ/acea/documents/Halifaxport.pdf
    2) Blame Joey Smallwood--or the fact that we have laws in Canada, where contracts are legally binding. 3) And your point regarding Quebec is? 4) CN is a fully privatized corporation. They're not sitting around thinking 'hey, how can we best serve Montreal's interest? ' Rather they seek to maximize profits, and there just isn't the big bucks to be made from Halifax compared to TO, Montreal, NY etc. It seems like the only (non) solution here is to have government involvment on behalf of Halifax's rail connections--i.e. who's asking for handouts now?
  24. Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes:

    'If Quebec actually went, I wouldn't be surprised if Nova Scotia (and other Atlantic Canadian provinces) may actually be better off as they were in the days before Confederation.'

    Robert if Quebec actually went the only province that would suffer would be Quebec.

    Simple reality in Canada. The western and atlantic provinces are used and abused to buy votes in Quebec and Ontario.
  25. Jo Ingblat from Canada writes: Go Oilers Go! to repeat myself: it's bizarre, and incredibly naive when people make the claim that there is economic gain to be had if Quebec were to go it alone. The political and economic uncertainty in the event of a Quebec declaration of independence would be HUGE--it certainly will be in the short term, and unless things so really smoothly (which I think unlikely) then it could have a susbtantial effect on our standard of living as the dollar tanks, foreign investment pulls out, etc. And the loss in national morale!!!!! You don't lose 25% of your country and not expect serious reprecussions.
  26. Jerry Kitich from Hamilton, Canada writes: What an incredibly nieve article from someone that should know better. It totally demonizes the Serbs and completely ignores the terrorist acts committed by the Albanians in Kosovo. Serbs have been fleeing Kosovo since at least 1980 because they have been targeted for terrorist attacks. The Albanians were not the majority in 1980 but they went on a bloody campaign to become a majority after Tito died. Tito was the one who brought them there as refugees from Albania to show that his brand of communism was better than Albania's. When they fought back & tried to restore peace Nato decided to intervene to split up the country. Not every casualty is a massacre and a couple of thousand cassualties on both sides is not a massacre by one side against the other. Anytime I read someone blaming everything on a thousand years of ethnic hatred, I know they really don't know anything about the region. Why don't we just say WW1 and WW2 and all the previous conflicts such as the hundred years war were caused by a thousand of years of ethnic hatred in Europe including Britain? Then we wouldn't have to look for the causes of any war, they can all be put down to ethnic hatred. It also doesn't mention that Montenegro separated by a slim majority, is that the way you want Quebec to go?
  27. Jerry Kitich from Hamilton, Canada writes: If only the FLQ had been more effective & more Anglophones had fled Quebec, including companies that moved & took their jobs out of Quebec, you would have got your wish for a Montenegro style separation of Quebec and Canada, in the last referendum. It wasn't by accident that Montenegro separated without any conflict, the Montenegrans did not attack the Serbs so the Serbs did not attack them, no one tried to force the Montenegrans to stay if they didn't want too. No attacks, no 'masacres', no ethnic hatred for the last 1000 years. That's the way the whole of Yugoslavia could have been separated and was headed towards that type of separation in negotiations in the last 80's until America offered to back up certain of the Republics and gave financial incentives such as wiping off all debts of Republics that separated unilaterally and saddling Serbia with all 'Yugoslavian' debts. By the way for the last 500 years of those '1000 years of ethnic hatred' the Serbs were occupied by the Ottoman Turks. So yes they we're not very happy about that. Montenegro was the home of Serbian resistance during this time. Ethnic cleansing? May one ask where all the Serbs that were living in Croatia before the conflict are today? They are definitely not in Croatia, Croatia is clean of those pesky Serbs. Kosovo has rid itself of the Roma as well, not sure if Mr Goldberg would say that's because the Roma massacred Albanians or how would he explain that. Do a little search on this website and you'll find a recent article about this, about how the Roma villages were burned in Kosovo by the Albanians. How do you explain that one? Something like Quebec separatists blaming immigrants for voting against separation in the referendums. Nothing like unwanted outsiders spoiling your party.
  28. Mike Charles from Canada writes: Good comments Jerry Kitich.
  29. pierre lefebvre from Brossard, Canada writes: Only a committed federalist like Goldenberg can imagine a scenario matching Kosovo and Quebec. What would be the interest of a sovereignist to match such a situation? Quebec has been a democratic society since 1791 under Constitutional Act. Conflict resolution has been in parliament. Kosovo knows totalitarianism and nothing else. Kosovar and Serbs resolve conflict with wars of extinction. Goldenberg, a committed Chretien Liberal, sees an opportunity to seed distrust and be the saviour. Don`t waste your time while attempting to diffuse the misfit behaviour of your Dion Liberal leader.
  30. dean spence from Canada writes: The main difference? Kosova did it, instead of whining about it and waiting for the other country to finance it. Quebec separatism is a product of a small cult, amplified by media and compliant federal governments.
  31. Dominique Cote from Montreal, Canada writes: Robert Miller,

    I am not challenging your transfer figures, but it only shows one side of the equation. Confronting these figures with Quebec's, or Ontario's, contribution to the 'federal economic basket' would make for a more complete picture. I usually read that Quebec gets a little bit more than what it chips in and that Ontario contributes more than what it gains. Do you have these figures?
  32. Dan Green from Palm Beach Gardens Florida, United States writes: If Quebec finally goes, send all the French ladies to Florida, they are an extremly stunning race. We will stock up on Molsons as well. Somebody will open a smoked meat deli.
  33. V. Prud'homme from Montreal, Canada writes: Comparing Quebec to Kosovo is like comparing Canada to Burkina Faso!...And don't worry about Quebec separation because it will never happen. The context for such a drama is not there anymore and I hope it will never be.
  34. Auroran Bear from Montreal, Canada writes: pierre lefebvre from Brossard, Canada writes: Only a committed federalist like Goldenberg can imagine a scenario matching Kosovo and Quebec. What would be the interest of a sovereignist to match such a situation?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pierre, are you calling Daniel Turp a committed federalist then because it is he who made the original comparison. The PQ and Bloc are quite happy with the comparison yet I don't see you decrying them for their actions.
  35. Kim Huynh from Montreal, Canada writes: The day after Quebec becomes independent, it will have to face the same problem Canada now faces: Montreal will declare independent from Quebec ( either remains part of Canada or as a 'new baby nation'), the Quebec's natives will do the same. Current national and international laws will not allow such thing like 'nation within nation' to exist. The separatists always paint Quebec as an oppressed or mistreated society within Canada. Reality shows Quebec is just another spoiled, spoon-fed kid in the family. The concept of 50 plus 1 as a majority is naive at best. But that's what people call democracy, and they have to face the ugly consequences of their own making.
  36. Jerry Kitich from Hamilton, Canada writes: Speaking of Quebec, does anyone remember that Canadian drama, I saw it on tv in mid-80's I think, Moses Znaimer played a part, he may even have produced it. Set at King Edward Hotel. The Canadian PM & his wife & the Quebec Premier are having a dinner type meeting, against the advise of their respective advisers. I think someone from the UN is there, maybe the UN secretary-general. Things are portrayed as very hot on the Ontario/Quebec border. Canadian troops have been deployed and are facing off with Quebec troops, likely the police and maybe some Quebecois army units. They are confronting each other and one misstep may lead to war. The Quebec Premier's wife gives a long impassioned speech about why Quebec wants to leave, why they are different, why they need to be maitres chez nous. The Quiet Revolution is not so quiet anymore. There are religious lines, Catholic Francophones, Ontario Protestants. At the end of the film, a waiter shoots the Canadian PM who just a moment ago arranged for the Quebec Premier to be falsely told that war had broken out on the border to shake him up and to shake us the viewer up too. The Canadian PM lives with only a flesh wound That a remarkable film like that would be made shows you the tenor of the times. If you don't remember watch the documentaries, watch the intensity of Rene Levesque and his party. Watch the FLQ crisis, watch the War Measurers Act being implemented. Watch how close the referendum votes were. Watch and remember.
  37. Dominique Cote from Montreal, Canada writes: Kim Huynh, I was not aware that 'separatists always paint Quebec as an oppressed or mistreated society within Canada'; I always thought that sovereignty was motivated by a desire to do things differently. I would like to know more about the perspective your are referring to. Would you be kind enough to direct me toward credible articles? Thanks.
  38. Auroran Bear from Montreal, Canada writes: Jerry Kitich from Hamilton, Canada writes: That a remarkable film like that would be made shows you the tenor of the times. If you don't remember watch the documentaries, watch the intensity of Rene Levesque and his party. Watch the FLQ crisis, watch the War Measurers Act being implemented. Watch how close the referendum votes were. Watch and remember. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No offense Jerry but the 1980 vote wasn't close and the 1995 vote is still the subject of voter fraud. The reference to fiction hardly helps in terms of an analysis. I could say that Canadian Bacon is an accurate depiction of how the US views Canada but it really isn't so I won't. If Quebec ever declared a UDI, it would then have a host of problems such as dealing with the UDI of local interests, renegotiating a host of international treaties, quelling potential violent uprisings and all those other fun things that come along with such events. The biggest danger for Quebec off the back of a UDI is from our good friends to the south. A nation that is infamous for its adventures abroad based on national self interest and security would look at the potential disruption of its hydroelectric supply as a real cause for concern. However, I don't think the comments of Daniel Turp and his misguided friends are anything more than crowing from rooftops. Someone said it correctly earlier when they wrote that if Quebec could declare a UDI, they would have done it already. Demographics and economics ensure, for better or worse, that Quebec and the ROC are stuck with each other for the forseeable future.
  39. Ryan Ginger from ottawa, Canada writes: A Quebec statement of secession will open the floodgate to the partitioning of the province, as Mr. Goldenberg rightly points out. The treaties which recognize and enshrine the rights of First Nations Peoples in Quebec rest predominantly with the Federal Government, the Crown, not the province. Native land use LONG predates the two 'Quebec Boundary Extension Acts' of 1898 and 1912, which tripled the province to its present size. These acts are relatively recent acts of the Federal Government and preserve the Federal Government's jurisdiction over Native Affairs: 'That the trusteeship of the Indians in the said territory, and the management of any lands now or hereafter reserved for their use, shall remain in the Government of Canada subject to the control of Parliament.' [1912 'Act']
  40. Dominique Cote from Montreal, Canada writes: Ryan Ginger, you are right about the partition of the province. Sovereigntists are betting that federal politicians would tend to preserve territorial integrity of the province to prevent similar situations in the ROC.
  41. Auroran Bear from Montreal, Canada writes: Dominique Cote from Montreal, Canada

    Dominique, have a read of this

    http://www.tamilnation.org/selfdetermination/countrystudies/quebec/quebec1.htm

    Specifically,

    In sum, international law gives Quebec the right to secede if Quebecers are oppressed. This gives rise to some fascinating arguments. The Bloc's Turp, for instance, has suggested that if Canada didn't co-operate with Quebec's attempt to secede, Quebecers would thus become oppressed - and therefore have the right to secede.

    That sure sounds like a seperatist painting Quebeckers as oppressed to me.
  42. Erika H from Montreal, Canada writes: I was born and raised in Alberta, attended university in Ontario and have since fallen in love with Montreal (so I like to pretend that I have a little experience on different parts of Canada).

    Having lived in Montreal for the time that I have, I've noticed that there is a culture here that actively protests and speaks up. For example, at one point a building I was trying to get into was blocked off due to protesters. A gentleman nearby stated 'we've all done our share of protesting over the years, but I'm not sure why they've decided to block this building' which shocked me having come from Alberta. There is definitely not a culture of having 'all done our share of protesting' there.

    This is also a culture that actually wants to pay taxes (yes, some Quebeckers don't, but there are more people happy to pay taxes here than elsewhere that I've discovered in Canada). They recognize that governments need funding to survive, and seemingly prefer a more socialist setup than elsewhere (though I am weirded out by it wanting to establish/recognize private health care, which won't solve anything. We - as a country - need more physicians, period).

    For example, Charest and numerous Quebeckers were actually opposed to some amount of funding, last summer, that Harper was wanting to give Quebec in the form of reduced taxes. Why? Because they all recognized that it would be a one-time deal and inconsequential in the long run.

    For example, there was an interesting article a few weeks back about Harper, having been raised in limited-government-involvement Alberta, adjusting to mindset of Quebeckers who want more government involvement.

    Quebec bothers to be a province that's interested in actively demanding the best for its citizens. At least from what I've experienced, it seems the other provinces ether don't know how to barter, or don't care to (which is fine if that's what they want).
  43. Erika H from Montreal, Canada writes: (Yes, it scares me when I encounter people that want Quebec to separate, because I like Quebec as a part of my definition of Canada. However, I'm certain that they would have severe issues at the very least with the vast majority of their province splitting up to return to Canada. All of the northern region - likely making up 90% of the province - as run by the natives, would probably attempt to vote to return to Canada.)
  44. Nick Wilson from Toronto, Canada writes: It's true that Quebec ad Kosovo are hardly comparable entities. However, in the case of Quebec, what play in their favour is the galopping rate of assimilation of the french speaking communities outside Quebec. Once the job is done in the ROC, Quebec will follow. The only way to assure the survival and predominance of the french language in Quebec is through independance. Canada has proven it can't enable its minorities to survive. Mr. Goldenberg in typical Liberal hypocrisy forget to mention that if the question was ambiguous, it was ambiguous for everybody. Does that mean that some people who voted NO in 1995 would have voted differently had the question been different ? Do the ethnic voters who failed the referendum really understood what was at stake? Was it legitimate to allow tens of thousands of voters who've have been in Canada for only a few months to participate in the referendum? If something, this is those who voted NO that didn't know what the stakes were. Mr.Goldenberg also talk about a clear majority. Mr.Goldenberg should know that Newfoundland joined Canada with a referendum won with 52% of the vote. As for the partition issue, I can't think of a recent secession in which partition was an issue. The constitution is clear: the border of a province can only be modified with its consent. After secession, international law forbid it. This is the federalist new fear mongering arguments since the 'you'll lose your pensions' no longer works. Should Canada breakup and become 10 new countries is Northern Ontario, Northern Manitoba return to the British Crown? If Quebec separates its borders remains intact for legal reasons but also because Quebec has an effective control on the territory. You'll need better arguments than that to scare someone like Parizeau.
  45. Ryan Ginger from ottawa, Canada writes: Nick Wilson says: 'Mr. Goldenberg in typical Liberal hypocrisy forget to mention that if the question was ambiguous, it was ambiguous for everybody.'

    Don't be silly, Nick. Who wrote the question in the first place?
  46. Garry Sugden from Richmond Hill, Canada writes: If the example of Kosovo is to be accepted as precident, then the circumstances of Kosovo are part of that president. Something like,

    ... if your place has been occupied by a foreign force for over 9 years, and there is still no ready solution, then with a popular vote of not less than 90% you can unilateraly declare an illegal independance that will be supported by far less than a majority of countries.'
  47. west slope from Greater Vancouver, Canada writes: Isn't Eddie Goldberg the powerful mandarin who allowed Canadians of Jewish origin to emigrate from Canada to the occupied Palestinian territories?

    Strikes me as showing no respect for international law. Thuggish if you ask me.
  48. k m from Washington DC, United States writes: 'D Chiu from Victoria, Canada writes: UN Resolution 1224 (authorizing the UN to oversee Kosovo) specifically said that territorial integrity of Serbia would be maintained. One cannot choose only what one likes and throw away what one dislikes in the Resolution'.

    This is a cheap shot.
    Don't try to lie those people who might not be informed on the subject. 1244 specifically says that Kosovo is part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, NOT Serbia just like it has never been part of Serbia.
    Yugoslavia ceased to exist in 2003 when it became Serbia and Montenegro Union. Unlike you, I can prove my point for other readers here. Just go to this link and read 1244: http://www.nato.int/Kosovo/docu/u990610a.htm

    By the way, I agree Canada should recognize without any delay the Republic of Kosovo.
  49. Nick Wilson from Toronto, Canada writes: To Ryan Ginger Did you follow the 1995 referendum campaign dude? The question really had very little impact as the stakes were crystal clear: A YES meant Quebec would have become a sovereign country whereas a NO vote meant the status quo. If you followed the campaign, you should remember that Jean Chretien and other federalists leaders were making that point very clear: Should Quebec vote Yes, Quebec is no longer part of Canada. Remember the pathetic Chretien aired speech in which he begged Quebecers to vote NO? You should know that it's something to take people for idiots, that doesn't necessarily mean they are idiot. It'a actually very insulting to tell somebody who voted Yes, that he voted yes solely because the question was ambiguous. As I said if the question was so ambiguous, then some who voted no may also have been misled to do so. It works both ways. As for the borders, are you aware that today' Ontario borders are very different than what it originally was? In your opinion if Ontario wants to secede, what happen with its borders? Is Northern Ontario return to the British Crown? Do the aboriginals separate and form their own country? The answer to these questions is NO. Why? Because Ontario like Quebec has effective control of its territory. Aboriginals whether in Ontario or Quebec do not have any legal control of any part of the territory and they don't have any form of recognized government. As for Northern Quebec, it has been developed by Quebec and what will happen should it leaves is the Federal Gvmt will simply transfer its fiduciary obligations with regard to natives to the new country of Quebec. You should read the book 'breakup point' as it will help you to separate fantasy and reality.
  50. Ted Andrews from Canada writes:
    Vive le Quebec libre!
  51. blow joe from québec city, writes: 60% of Québécois voted OUI in 1995; the OUI won in 80 of the 125 ridings. If it's not a clear majority what is it?

    90% of Kosovars are for the independance. Ok. But you forgot to mention they were the first to make ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, expulsing Serbs of their national territory. Easy after that to say 90% are for independance when the Serbs are not there anymore to vote!

    As for the other who is talking about transfert, in 03-04 Québec sent 41.2 billion in Ottawa. We received just 34.6 for a rip off of 6.6 billion (reference: Rapport Legault)

    For Indians for example, Ottawa spent 7 billion, Québec received only 600 million

    For Defense, Ottawa spent 13 billion, Québec received only 1.9

    For Agriculture, Ottawa spent 5 billion Québec receivend only 400 million
  52. Kim Huynh from Montreal, Canada writes: Dominique Cote from Montreal, Canada writes: Kim Huynh, I was not aware that 'separatists always paint Quebec as an oppressed or mistreated society within Canada'; I always thought that sovereignty was motivated by a desire to do things differently...
    Dominique,
    To understand the underlying arguments for Quebec independence, you have to go back beyond the October crisis, 1970, back to the the year 1759 when the French lost to the British in the final showdown when both leaders died in battle and in 1963, France gave up Quebec colony with the population of about 70,000 to the British. Since then, Quebec always considered themselves, especially under the rebels like Louis-Joseph Papineau who led the Parti Patriote (1837-1838) and failed as a conquered people, detached from mother land France and forcibly joined to the English Canada, a product of the British Empire. When Canada was born under the British North America Act with four first provinces: Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The Constitution followed, which restricted Quebec of some political rights etc.Even today, many Quebecois still have deep bitterness of Trudeau War Measure act. If you followed the histories of the two most charismatic separatist leaders Rene Levesque and Lucien Bouchard, you may find out the underlying sentiments of the movement.
  53. Semi Fully Censored from Bushland, Canada writes: With the latest referendum having been 'stolen' with the help of the sponsorship gang, after the latest Montreal love-in, Kosovo shows the way. How is it done: simply by doing it. Nothing like the 'fait accompli' (no accents needed...). Kosovo now, Nouvelle-France tomorrow... and with a net advantage: while being economically viable, Nouvelle-France never was in the hands of, and 'liberated' by, UCK gangsters. No need for that.
  54. Don M from Canada writes: Don't forget, Quebec leaves with what it came with. Everything resorts back to Canada that Canada gave Quebec. That small football sized piece of land would look good on a map. Knowing all the separatists are confined to that area would most likely please many in the world. Go whenever you're ready, but you will be on your own and next time you come back, you will get 1/14 of what Canada has, not 40%. I am sick of what Canada has done to try and keep Quebec in Canada.

  55. blow joe from québec city, writes: 'Don't forget, Quebec leaves with what it came with'
    We were just making half of North America, from Louisbourg to Nouvelle-Orléans! We want it back!

    As for pain Québecois have suffered:
    the deportation of Acadians, real ethnic cleansing
    the conquest, 60 days of bombing over Québec city
    the hanging of the Patriots
    the killing of Louis Riel
    the stealing of our name (we were les Canadiens, English steal our name)
    the rule 17 in Ontario
    the 2 crisis of conscription
    the suspension of human rights in October 1970; 500 persons arrested for nothing
    the Coup d'État of 1981
    the imposition of the Charter of rights, a charter make to kill collective rights
    the cheating of the refendum of 1995 (247,000 voted illegally)
    the scandal of the sponsorship
    and what else?
  56. Mark Mitchell from London, Canada writes: Perhaps the rest of Canada should have a vote about whether or not we want to keep Quebec -- our spoiled brat of a province.
  57. Lucien Pignon from ASHAMED TO BE CANADIAN (I ONLY USE MY PASSPORT), France writes: I am Quebecois, separatist, but at the same time I think life in Canada for Quebecois is much more entertaining. I prefer the option of Canadians showing us the door instead of leaving like Kosovo did.
  58. pierre lefebvre from Brossard, Canada writes: To Kim Huynh: You have such comprehension of Quebec history. Mind you I am puzzled that as a Vietnamese you had the courage to leave your country rather than accepting that Vietnam was unified under one government for both north and south. Your courage is well fed as you promote partition of Quebec. You are a Montrealer Canadian anti francophone. What a fair minded spirit masters you? There must be more accommodating skies?
  59. Nick Wilson from Toronto, Canada writes: All this discussion is very academic because it's not with leaders like Pauline Marois and Gilles Duceppe that Quebec will acheive sovereignty. Acheiving sovereignty is a more complicated enterprise than say run a daycare program. To acheive sovereignty you need very capable leaders like Parizeau and Bouchard. I don't even think Levesque was up to the task. Currently, there is no such capable leaders in the sovereigntists ranks and that's why the march for independance is currently on hold. The Parti Quebecois like any other political party in Canada is having problem to recruit top talent as successful people are less and less interested to enter the political arena. Still, I find it pathetic to see that my fellow Canadians are so afraid of Quebec independance that they need to resort to apocalyptic scenarios to comfort themselves. The rational truth is the quebec independance would simply amout to an accounting transaction i.e how to split the federal gvmt assets and liabilities. There is no need for it to be complicated. If we start trying to negociate borders, then we open a can of worns because every provinces borders will be on the balance and we will destabilize Canada's economy. In fact, it is in Canada's interest that should Quebec decide to separate that the process is as smooth as possible. Like we say, cooler heads will prevail.
  60. Lucien Pignon from ASHAMED TO BE CANADIAN (I ONLY USE MY PASSPORT), France writes: The only way to get to know another culture is to get to live with in. For instance, I have never lived in Canada. For me, I am not a French-Canadian, bt a Quebecois, and I will always be. I have travelled a lot and every time I was asked where I come from, I always said Quebec, which gives me the opportunity to do Canadian bashing.

    I do not really care about separating or not separating any more since I do not live in Canada any longer. I live abroad with an English-Canadian woman who also lived in Quebec with me and voted YES at the 1995 referendum. What she realised in Quebec is that although that about 50% of the population in Quebec voted NON in 1995, she thinks that less than 10% would say they are or feel Canadian.

    Most Quebeckers could not speak with an English Canadian because of a lack of English skills. I think that after the famous 'Nice weather today' the discussion would be quite finished.

    So, I agree, I do not know what is the Canadian culture, not at all, but I know that we do not speak the same language, that I preferred to learn English in the UK, that I am Canadian only when I show my passport at the customs, that I do not care about what Ottawa is doing in Afghanistan, as long as Quebec gets a lot of money back. For me, I learned English not to be able to communicate with the ROC, but to spy on, bully it, to travel around the globe and tell everyone that English Canadians have no culture, watch just American TV, listen only at American Music, are British loyalists and that the only thing they are proud of is to be a multicultural peaceful country who are for the war in Afghanistan and the assimilation of Quebeckers.
  61. blow joe from québec city, writes: @Kim Huynh
    Anglos now make less than 7% of Québec's population. Like they vote they will have to accept the result

    As for natives, they are just 1% and have gave up all the historical rights (for those who had ones)
  62. Jerry Kitich from Hamilton, Canada writes: Auroran Bear. You may think that films, arts, plays can all be dismissed as fiction but in fact they are very telling as to the psyche of the nation that crated them. However, if you are dismissive of the arts then you're probably not the type of person I want to discuss this with.
  63. nigel martin from Canada writes: Much ado about nothing. This is a non issue within Quebec. This is typical Goldenburg stirring up the fear pot as he did with Chretien for years.
  64. A Tucovic from Winnipeg, Canada writes: 'The [Supreme] court [of Canada] concluded that neither the legislature nor the government of Quebec has a right under international law to carry out secession from Canada unilaterally.' This lead to the clarity act under the context of Canada's situation but under international law.

    In Canada's situation it is three-fold because we have three founders of Canada: English, French and Aboriginal. If anyone suffered genocide and ethnic cleansing it is the aboriginal peoples but we don't see NATO coming in to choosing sides. In 1999, the NATO 'humanitarian intervention' escalated the human suffering and tensions which resulted in a stalemate and the UN resolution 1244 that confirmed that although the UN would be the supreme administrator of Kosovo province, Yugoslavia (Serbia being the successor state) would be the sovereign over it.

    These are the facts that can be verified.

    Now for the politicization of the situation. Pristina's declaration of secession should not be recognized by Canada since unilateral declarations are not universally accepted. Pristina cannot unilaterally overturn international laws and UN declarations.

    Then there is the argument that self-determination of a people trumps state affairs in the case of Albanians in Kosovo. ''So if one day Quebec decides to become a country and Canada objects . . . we'll remind other countries that an objection of a state should not have precedence over the will of the people.'' The only problem with that is that NATO (an alliance of states) chose to support one side by illegally bombing and targeting state and civilian targets throughout all of Yugoslavia. Canada is not justified to recognize Pristina's unilateral declaration of secession because it was the will of the people plus a coalition of states that supported the UID against another sovereign state's wishes.

    Kosovo will not smooth over international relations. It has in fact polarized the world.
  65. Ryan Ginger from ottawa, Canada writes: Nick Wilson: 'To Ryan Ginger...As for the borders, are you aware that today' Ontario borders are very different than what it originally was? In your opinion if Ontario wants to secede, what happen with its borders?'

    Nick - Ontario does not want to secede. Next point.

    'Do the aboriginals separate and form their own country? The answer to these questions is NO. Why? Because Ontario like Quebec has effective control of its territory.'

    ...are you so naive to think Provinces have no obligations with the Federal Government? This so-called 'effective control' you are talking about is only granted within the framework of the Federal Government. Moreover, modern treaties involve the respective Native Band, the Province (where applicable) and ALWAYS the Federal Government. Why? Ultimately, it is the Federal Government that must be responsible for a variety of obligations to Canadian Native, Metis and Inuit peoples according to historical treaties, which have been routinely reinforced and enlarged by Supreme Court decisions over the many decades. Next question.

    'Aboriginals whether in Ontario or Quebec do not have any legal control of any part of the territory and they don't have any form of recognized government.'

    Dude, you are sadly ignorant of native affairs in Canada. The original treaties signed by the British Crown (which form the legalistic framework of Canada) recognize Native governments. What do you think modern Land Claims and Self Government agreements are about?
  66. blow joe from québec city, writes: to A Tucovic

    there were 200,000 natives in Canada in 17the century. There are 1.3 million today. Where is the genocide?

    Franco-Manitobans make 50% of the population of Manitoba in 1870. They are down at 4% today

    French Canadians make 40% of Canada in 1867. We are down at 22%.

    What is a genocide?
  67. Dana Cruickshank from Canada writes: I think that it is understandable, and really probably beneficial to the US and many other western countries to recognize the independence of Kosovo. This is an easy way to minimize the Russian influence in the area, which has traditionally been very pro russia, as russia claims to be the protector of all slavs.

    But, the main reason I feel that it shouldn't happen, is that just because the people in Kosovo are Albanian, or muslim or whatever, doesn't give them a right to be a seperate state. We should, as a people, be moving towards greater cooperation. In many ways, voting to form a new state is an easy way out of their problems, and a short term solution. Now this hate will never be destroyed, and it will only lead to more killing later. Its a lot easier to run away from the problem than to actually do something to solve it, and thats what Kosovo is doing
  68. Vanja Tubin from Canada writes: ' k m from Washington DC, United States writes: 'D Chiu from Victoria, Canada writes: UN Resolution 1224 (authorizing the UN to oversee Kosovo) specifically said that territorial integrity of Serbia would be maintained. One cannot choose only what one likes and throw away what one dislikes in the Resolution'.

    This is a cheap shot.
    Don't try to lie those people who might not be informed on the subject. 1244 specifically says that Kosovo is part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, NOT Serbia just like it has never been part of Serbia.
    Yugoslavia ceased to exist in 2003 when it became Serbia and Montenegro Union. Unlike you, I can prove my point for other readers here. Just go to this link and read 1244: http://www.nato.int/Kosovo/docu/u990610a.htm '

    It's unfortunate this person doesn't realise that the successor state to Yugoslavia became S & M, and then in the successor state of the union between those two because Serbia (i.e. the same UN seat), ergo Kosovo is legally a part of Serbia under UNSC Res. 1244. I'd like to see this person try to argue that because the UN Charter doesn't say 'Russia' shouldn't have a veto (instead it's the USSR). If I proclaim a country called USSR is it mine then?

    This isn't even an argument put up by those who are educated and for independence, thus, I suggest you don't use it because it only makes your position all that more ridiculous.
  69. Auroran Bear from Montreal, Canada writes: Jerry Kitich from Hamilton, Canada writes: Auroran Bear. You may think that films, arts, plays can all be dismissed as fiction but in fact they are very telling as to the psyche of the nation that crated them. However, if you are dismissive of the arts then you're probably not the type of person I want to discuss this with.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Well Jerry I am hardly dismissive of the arts but that's obviously an achilles heel for you. After five decades of living here in Quebec, I have a degree of experience thats based in reality and not fiction. As to the psyche of a nation that creates the fiction, it's called entertainment.

    Here's a link to the movie you speak of. I think it's telling that it's described as a comedy.

    http://www.vh1.com/movies/movie/87955/details.jhtml
  70. steve allan from Welland, Ontario, Canada writes: This business of partioning a separate Quebec is nonsense promoted by the media and certain politicians. The fact is under international law a people or nation has the right of self-determination. Quebec has clearly defined borders, in other words it is a political entity with internationally recognized borders, as is every other province in Canada.

    Within Quebec there are no subsidiary parts. Quebec is an integral whole under international law and as such is indivisible. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a fool, a hypocrite or an ignoramus.

    As long as some of you allow yourselves to be brainwashed by the likes of Jean Chretien and Stephane Dion, not to mention the Canadian media and political establishment, you will be living a myth.

    Keep dreaming and one day you will wake up to a nightmare.
  71. Jerry Kitich from Hamilton, Canada writes: Sorry Auroran Bear keep guessing, that's not the movie I'm referring to. Nice try though. As I said it was filmed at the King Edward in Toronto not Quebec and it didn't have anything at all to do with the given plot synopsis.

    'In this drama, the province of Quebec tries to free all Canadian speakers of French. ~ Sandra Brennan, All Movie Guide'

    Strange site you've choosen, the movie details says comedy but the plot synopsis above says drama, which is it?

    It's not a sore point with me but I find those dismissive of the arts as having any bearing on anything are usually limited people that don't contribute much to discussions, except maybe incorrect web sites.
  72. steve allan from Welland, Ontario, Canada writes: Best post of the day goes to Nick Wilson. He has figured it out.

    The sovereignty movement is dead in Quebec, at least for the time being, because of the glaring lack of political talent in the movement. A major undertaking like attempting to remove yourself from the federation is not something that will be achieved by lightweights like Pauline Marois or Andre Boisclair. You need titans with great leadership qualities and frankly I don't see any on the horizon.

    Quebec is suffering from the same problem as most western societies - interest in politics is waning as people become consumed with material interests. The idea has been abandoned for the almighty dollar.
  73. Maritime Canuk from Canada writes: Steve Allan...kiss my Maritime A***.
  74. Ryan M from Gatineau, Canada writes: Some differences is that there was a major conflict and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Quebecers like myself, unfortunately have to live in one of the greatest, wealthiest, and most respected countries in the world. We also, unfortunately, have to listen to seperatist whiners who don't seem to have a clue how good we have it in Canada. I suppose when Mom and Dad grow up complaining about their great country, one might tend to get brainwashed to feel that way as well. There will always be ignorace wherever you go.
  75. Auroran Bear from Montreal, Canada writes: Your fellow French-Canadians are dying in Afghanistan while you learn English in the UK and call Canadians British loyalists. Jacques Parizeau would be proud of you.

    Your contradictions are laughable, having learned english not to communicate with the ROC yet you constantly troll the boards looking to engage the ROC.

    Lucien, we look forward to your posts from abroad. They truly are entertaining in the absence of juste pour rire!
  76. Auroran Bear from Montreal, Canada writes: Well Jerry, if you look back to your original post and synopsis, it is essentially the same as the following:

    1995 QUEBEC - CANADA * setting: Ont.
    (1983) Kenneth Welsh, Martha Henry, John Neville, Jackie Burroughs, Albert Millaire, Louise Marleau.....In the future, Canada and an independent Quebec are on the verge of war so the Secretary General of the U.N. (Neville) brings the P.M. (Welsh) and the Quebec president (Millaire) together, along with their wives, to try and solve their problems peacefully. Low-budget made-for-TV allegory raises some good points, but is simplistic, wordy, heavy-handed and not very interesting. Laudable intentions, but a boring movie. Sometimes billed as a comedy! a.k.a: Quebec - Canada 1995. sc: Richard Nielsen. dir: John McGreevy. 84 min.

    http://www.pulpanddagger.com/movies/n2b.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec    sovereigntymovement#Quebecsovereigntymovementin_fiction

    No other work of fiction comes remotely close to what you originally posted so I'll just assume I am right.
  77. lotusland maritimer from Sault Ste Marie, Canada writes: Sure Quebec was 50% of Canada 150 years ago now its 20%. I still have Franco-Ontarian women patients who had twenty children, the norm in Quebec was the same 10 to 20 children for every healthy woman. But now separatists have O children. Do the math you dont need a PhD in demographics as to which group will survive and prosper and which will go extinct. Not one hundred million unilingual signs will ever make one baby, I assume I dont have to explain how to do that? But the Quebecers were Roman Catholics which is now not even a quaint distant memory. Je me souviens? Vraiment? The French Canadian nation has invented a new notion suigenocide suicide genocide. Extermination by failure to reproduce. It was Quebec which gave us abortion on demand and public gangbags and gay pride. A sort of obverse revenge of the cradle, now revenge of degeneracy and reproductive failure. For all these acts are a perversion of the normal reproductive process, subvert it and you have subverted your future. On Kosovo the obvious difference is that Kosovo is contiguous with the mother country Albania whereas Quebec has no other French societies to ally with or join except the miniature Acadian community which it would selfishly abandon if independent. And of course the real mother country France is an ocean away, not contiguous as would be Wallonia or Franco Suisse with the Hexagon. Quebec is unique incomparable to other irredentist or separatist movements worldwide as most of these are in some geographical coninuity with related or identical ethnicities, Quebec is totally isolated in a sea of English North America, even Spanish S A is too far. So the issue of self determination is identical but the geopolitics is not. Back to the real issue, all Eastern Orthodox Catholic Protestant Europeans have stopped reproducing, except the Roma and the Muslims. The math says that two hundred years from now there will be only Roma Muslims left in Europe and Quebec has long since gone