foxxraven

In reply to Calgary dude. Yep, agree with all you said. You get less in transfer payments. Why? Because we have more federal infrastructure. Stuff the feds would have to buy. Port of Montreal. It is the outlet to the East. No, you wouldn't ship things through the U.S. because then all the little cities in Ontario would suffer, like Thunder Bay. And if you shipped things through lets say Halifax, you'd still have to pass through Quebec. you're only option would be to ship through Vancouver. However, the costs of circumnavigating the globe probably outweights the extra 12 cents you would have paid to go through the St. Lawrence Seaway. Which is another reason why Montreal is important. Canada would be paying for a seaway system to which Montreal is integral. For your information, there is a HUGE, HUGE nickel mine opening in Northern Quebec in the next couple of years that was prospected and financed on the assumption that China would be needing more (which it does). Now in a worldwide economy that is seeing natural resource prices skyrocket, I'd say it be a nice economic boon if Canada could keep that, especially after Paul Martin's little foreign policy document concerning new markets in China. Sure less than 12% comes from the GDP, but the resource market is booming, as you from Alberta should know. It's a market we should be looking into because India and China will want a ton of raw materials over the coming decades as they become consumer markets. Montreal is not a town full of business because of political reasons. The Federal Government does not prop up Montreal. I don't understand where you see all this manufacturing that would be shifted back to Canada, considering it never came from Canada in the first place. If you're talking about American companies that invested in Quebec, it wasn't because the Feds made them do it, it was because of our booming economy in the '60's after the Quiet Revolution. Places the Feds made companies invest are the Maritimes, B.C. and the North. Oh and national defence. Why would it suffer? Because now instead of just Canada's voice at the table with the Americans, you also have the Quebecois. Why else would it suffer? Can you imagine what the bill would be like in order to shift all those bases around? We can't even pay for uniforms, how in blazes is Canada going to pay Quebec to keep Valcartier open on top of the existing operating costs?

Ok new guy here, but being a Quebecois, I wish to dispell myths. 1) Should Quebec separate, those federal buildings would either remain in the hands of the feds, or be bought out by Quebec. 2) There is a very complicated series of events that would follow a succesful referendum, but if you want to understand somewhat of how Quebec intends to become independant, look no further than how Canada became independant of Britain. We didn't get out own citizenship until 1965. So that's roughly how they intend to spearate. Unless something goes wrong. 3) Unless the Albertans intend to pay more in taxes, Quebec separating is disastrous. First of all, you lose two huge ports, (Montreal is the biggest port on the East Coast after only Boston and New York City) a ton of manufacturing ability for Canada, which is mainly a primary resource nation (see West and their reliance on Wheat and Oil for cash) National Defence would suffer, not to mention that Canada would now have to compete against the titanic US for investment rights in Quebec, especially for those important natural resources like Nickel (something China desperately wants). 4) Culturally. How can Canada claim to be the best nation in the world if an entire section wants to leave? The hypocrisy would be intolerable. Finally, health care would go down the tubes. A large proportion of the nation lives in Quebec and you lose those individual and industrial taxpayers and you have problems with your economy. I may explain further, but it gets really technical after a while. If they call an election and the feds fall, Duceppe will jump to the Parti Quebecois, and it might take less than 5 years to separate. But I could be wrong, so don't hold me to that statement.