Canada-EU trade proposal

“Rivals scope of NAFTA” (here)

Holy cripes, twenty years ago we hitched ourselves to the US economy with the umbilical cord of NAFTA (though we’d always been each other’s biggest trading partners), and now it looks like the Tories want to turn our backs on a sinking ship and integrate more with the EU. This is actually quite exciting.

In another thread I posed the question; what it would take for me to vote Tory? I think this might be it. I am seriously considering voting conservative blue. I would be very happy to become part of Europe. Why, just today, for no reason at all, my wife and I decided to make a two-hour trip down the highway to Detroit and environs as a sort of sociological field trip. We had nothing better to do. Honestly.

She beheld how the USA is different from Canada, things like the platter-sized entrees big enough to feed a family of four, the 300-pound behemoths in sweat pants, the streets a mile wide, the cavernous disparites in wealth, the prickly and fake friendliness of the natives, the grand architectural gestures that are at once poignant in their decay and tiresome in their artless hubris, and on and on. Did she ever get it. And they can have it. Give me Europe. I’ll vote Tory for that and hold my nose at their objectionable social policies (which I’ll work against in whatever capacity I can, as a voter or what have you).

Sorry to the Americans on this list for gratuitous slagging, I could explain it in more detail but you aren’t really interested, so just take it in context (or don’t take it at all, whatever)
.

It would be especially good market for Canada’s resources. Europe is already too dependent on Russia’s oil. If we can sell some of our energy wealth to Europen countries , that’s a good thing. Again, Harper and Fortier should be commended for this. :bravo: :bravo: :bravo:

What I hope happens is that Canadians wake up and realize we’ve got a crack at a 500-million strong consumer market, and start innovating. You know, like making stuff and developing things. We rely too much on our resources for our own good.

Of course, the danger is that a great swath of 20-somethings will make a run for Barcelona and never look back. Which is something I might have done if this had happened twenty years ago! Barcelona m’agrada molt.

[quote=“rousseau”]What I hope happens is that Canadians wake up and realize we’ve got a crack at a 500-million strong consumer market, and start innovating. You know, like making stuff and developing things. We rely too much on our resources for our own good.

Of course, the danger is that a great swath of 20-somethings will make a run for Barcelona and never look back. Which is something I might have done if this had happened twenty years ago! Barcelona m’agrada molt.[/quote]

Of course I hope they start innovating too, but that won’t happen overnight. Canada recently got a “D” in innovation in a Federal Report. Compared with Taiwan, Japan and other countries that have spent a lot of moolah on R&D, Canada still has a long way to go. The country is still so overregulated in so many areas and has a workforce that doesn’t always see the global view on things. Anyways, this is a step in the right direction. Let’s hope SMEs can really take advantage of this along with the bigger players.
ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s … hub=Canada

Who does this fabled R&D in Taiwan? Surely not Taiwanese? Their whole education system is geared to produce the least creative, most risk-averse, most conformist people on the planet.

I don’t think you’ve worked in R&D too much–in Asia or anywhere else.

[quote=“DFAIT”]
According to the World Economic Forum’s “Global Competitiveness Report, 2001-2002”, Taiwan ranked third in terms of Growth Competitiveness Index; it also ranked second in the world (1st in Asia) in terms of technology, and second in innovation. Meanwhile, in a national competitiveness ranking report 2003 conducted by the International Institute for Management Development, Taiwan ranked sixth in terms of its overall competitiveness. [/quote]

infoexport.gc.ca/science/Taiwan_2003-en.htm

I’m guessing people from outside Taiwan come here to work in R&D, because, as mentioned, my experiences in the education system here have shown me that thinking outside the box is highly discouraged.

I think most of this can be explained by: When you think of R&D you think of creativeness, which your linking R&D to “I’m going to answer my essay question with a question” and belly-button lint sculptures in uni. So Canada -> spades, Taiwan -> doodoo.

But actually these indices [rightly] connect the dots of R&D to funding, competitive environment, and most importantly, business savy. Canada -> ZERO, Taiwan -> spades.

Doesn’t matter what great idea you have, an idiotic management team can screw it up. Doesn’t matter how bad an idea you have, a good management team can sell it.

Back on topic, hell yah for EU free trade deal. But I don’t see that happening soon, too many “issues” (like seals, GM food, etc) we disagree on. Maybe a limited trade pact, but no FTP.

I think most of this can be explained by: When you think of R&D you think of creativeness, which your linking R&D to “I’m going to answer my essay question with a question” and belly-button lint sculptures in uni. So Canada -> spades, Taiwan -> doodoo.

But actually these indices [rightly] connect the dots of R&D to funding, competitive environment, and most importantly, business savy. Canada -> ZERO, Taiwan -> spades.

Doesn’t matter what great idea you have, an idiotic management team can screw it up. Doesn’t matter how bad an idea you have, a good management team can sell it.

Back on topic, hell yah for EU free trade deal. But I don’t see that happening soon, too many “issues” (like seals, GM food, etc) we disagree on. Maybe a limited trade pact, but no FTP.[/quote]

Yeah, I see what you mean now. Point taken.

[quote=“rousseau”] “Rivals scope of NAFTA” (here)

Holy cripes, twenty years ago we hitched ourselves to the US economy with the umbilical cord of NAFTA (though we’d always been each other’s biggest trading partners), and now it looks like the Tories want to turn our backs on a sinking ship and integrate more with the EU. This is actually quite exciting.

In another thread I posed the question; what it would take for me to vote Tory? I think this might be it. I am seriously considering voting conservative blue. I would be very happy to become part of Europe. Why, just today, for no reason at all, my wife and I decided to make a two-hour trip down the highway to Detroit and environs as a sort of sociological field trip. We had nothing better to do. Honestly.
[/quote]

I’m sorry I came to this conversation late. But wow, never saw this comming. I was convinced that with a conservative gouvernment the great sell off of this nation, that began with Diefenbaker and the Arrow, would only be completed by Premier Minister Cowboy Pepsi of Canada.

I’m CanadiEN living in Europe. Die hard seperatist who jumped out of the Canada boat long ago. Not beacause of French vs English politics. But because I did not like the enviroment of canadien/canadian culture being only the ability to say “Well at least we aren’t american”

Add to that the Mulroney era of selling off everything we had to the United States… It became obvious that sooner or later thing I was going to be able to take pride in was that our McDonalds had the Maple Leaf in the middle of their golden arches and McFood addicts would be 20 kilos less than Americans.

Having said that,
I sincerly doubt we are going to become part of the European Union. But unlike the United States with their “screw you” approach to business. I can only see our ties getting strong over time. Because lets face it, at this point in time, culturally, we are just too damn similar to europeans.

The big issues at play here are

  1. our provinces. (Let’s face, Albertians tend to salut the American flag and complain they can’t vote in United States elections.)

  2. Our relationship and trade with the United states. Still over 80% of our product goes south. I forsee Europe wanting to occupy a much greater position than they do now. And having a bit of insight into Europeans, this over-reliance on the United States can’t go down too well with them.

Still we pretty much have the England, France, Germany and possibly Italy pulling for us.

  1. I really hate to say this next part. But perhaps it is the biggest factor.
    How easily will europe be able to access our natural resources ?

There is many many other factors… No question about it ! But Europe has pretty much a choice between Russian oil or nuclear power.

Being forced to always be friends with Russia puts much of Europe in difficult situation between the United States and Russia. And it doesn’t help matters much that England, an EU membre, isn’t very fond of Russia either.

As for the Nuclear power… Well, most of europe runs hot and cold on the issue. And as information on the American use of depleted uranium weapons gets out…Most europeans would just love to see the technology abandoned.

  1. How europeans view our nation.
    Ok, I’m not overly pleased with president Bling Blings (sarkozy) comments against the nation of Québec. But despite what I might think or believe. Unlike the violent and agressive Basques, we chose to go the route of the Tranquil Revolution. 2 questionable referendums later, we are still 1 unified nation. And that is extreamly impressive to many europeans.

[quote=“rousseau”]She beheld how the USA is different from Canada, things like the platter-sized entrees big enough to feed a family of four, the 300-pound behemoths in sweat pants, the streets a mile wide, the cavernous disparites in wealth, the prickly and fake friendliness of the natives, the grand architectural gestures that are at once poignant in their decay and tiresome in their artless hubris, and on and on. Did she ever get it. And they can have it. Give me Europe. I’ll vote Tory for that and hold my nose at their objectionable social policies (which I’ll work against in whatever capacity I can, as a voter or what have you).

Sorry to the Americans on this list for gratuitous slagging, I could explain it in more detail but you aren’t really interested, so just take it in context (or don’t take it at all, whatever)
.[/quote]

[color=#BF0000]There are always nice people in any nation. So to those nice and intelligent Americans I say, “you’re excluded from my following commentary.”[/color]

Tabarnack ! The United States people can go screw themselves!

They cheeseburgered themselves to the point that regular department stores have size 65 pants on their walls. And despite being having the world’s most obease nation, they refuse to have some sort of reliable medical care. Instead the would rather save 20 bucks a month on their taxes so they can make more purchase on their credit cards and fill up their giant SUVs with extra high performance gasoline.

They solve their problems with weapons and cowboy “kill’em all” ideologies. Arrogant to the point they believe they are “Gods shinning beacon of light” for the entire world. Then justify their 'godly actions" by bombing innocent people for their oil because France might have sold them a nuke.

They slander and talk garbage about everyone and anyone ! And even create this war on terror to stop the people they have pissed off from trying to get in a punch or two.

And now that their economy is going bad, they come crying to the world to save them ?

You know what… Like my mother once said to me, “when you were a baby I changed your diapers. But now your an adult and I expect you to take care of your own sh*t.”

America made their bed…Now they have to sleep in it.

[quote]Tabarnack ! The United States people can go screw themselves!

They cheeseburgered themselves to the point that regular department stores have size 65 pants on their walls. And despite being having the world’s most obease nation, they refuse to have some sort of reliable medical care. Instead the would rather save 20 bucks a month on their taxes so they can make more purchase on their credit cards and fill up their giant SUVs with extra high performance gasoline.

They solve their problems with weapons and cowboy “kill’em all” ideologies. Arrogant to the point they believe they are “Gods shinning beacon of light” for the entire world. Then justify their 'godly actions" by bombing innocent people for their oil because France might have sold them a nuke.

They slander and talk garbage about everyone and anyone ! And even create this war on terror to stop the people they have pissed off from trying to get in a punch or two.

And now that their economy is going bad, they come crying to the world to save them ?

You know what… Like my mother once said to me, “when you were a baby I changed your diapers. But now your an adult and I expect you to take care of your own sh*t.”

America made their bed…Now they have to sleep in it.[/quote]

You SAD CANADIANS! SAD, SADDER, SADDERMOST!

Don’t you realise how lucky you are to have the US next door? Canada has - for nearly two centuries - had the good fortune to live next to a prosperous and peaceful country. Would you rather have a developing country such as Mexico for a neighbour? Would you like to swap places with Poland or New Zealand?

[quote=“ms1”]
I’m CanadiEN living in Europe. [/quote]
I’m sure you’re a hit on the cocktail circuit in Moss Side or Peckham in England or in the northeast sections of Paris. :laughing:

And as a Quebecois separatist, how did you feel about the Liberal sponsorship scandals? Or about the complete ignorance of Duceppe on most economic matters. If Quebec ever does seperate, it will become a pretty weak “have not” entity in no time at all. The one separatist politician in Quebec who understood the economic ramifications for Quebec if it seceded was Lucien Bouchard. And it scared him big time. Harper should have attacked Duccepe much more aggressively during the election basically saying that “a vote for Duccepe is a vote for Quebec sovereignity and that would be a really bad economic disaster for Quebec.”

Whether it’s the tribalists within the DPP in Taiwan or within the BQ and PQ in Canada–the path leads to the same place. An economic catastrophe.

That’s really funny. My roomates in college were graduates of the grand school in France—L’Ecole Polytechnique. They viewed most Quebecers as being cowboys with “rough” 17th-Century middle France peasant accents. :laughing:

Considering America saved Europe twice in the 20th Century, I think some favours are owed. How many of these countries paid Uncle Sam back? :laughing: In any case, I think the banking systems in Europe are in trouble as well, aren’t they?

[quote=“Chewycorns”]

And as a Quebecois separatist, how did you feel about the Liberal sponsorship scandals? Or about the complete ignorance of Duceppe on most economic matters. If Quebec ever does separate, it will become a pretty weak “have not” entity in no time at all. The one separatist politician in Quebec who understood the economic ramifications for Quebec if it seceded was Lucien Bouchard. And it scared him big time. Harper should have attacked Duccepe much more aggressively during the election basically saying that “a vote for Duccepe is a vote for Quebec sovereignity and that would be a really bad economic disaster for Quebec.”

Whether it’s the tribalists within the DPP in Taiwan or within the BQ and PQ in Canada–the path leads to the same place. An economic catastrophe.[/quote]

The sponsorship scandle was nothing more than paying off many of our political leaders to 1) Keep quiet about the fact that immigrants were wrongfully given citizenship in order to swing the referendum vote. 2) To make them go away or detour the mouvement.

As a Québécois, from my nationalist pride point of my view. I feel that we were have been betrayed and our hopes and dreams is used to make rich people even more rich.

As for the economics debate…
At the end of this I will post a very long discours. If you have the interest, please read it.

But that suffices to say, it is always the doom and fear aproach that is used to keep the public doing what gouvernments want. Same to keep Québec in Canada. This is all propoganda and manipulation. In the last 10 years it is becomed obvious that this is propoganda of fear. (Terror alerts, save the banks or we will all die and much more) The result is less freedoms and billions given to rich people.

There is no proof that Québec will fail without canada. We are part of the manufacturing heartland of Canada and we pay more into Ottawa than we take out from it. A break from a society that depends on hinterland economies to inovation based economy will only see a nation prosper. Canada is not good place for new technologies or business projets that are not large.

If Canada economy could be related to a Zoo… Then the it would be only a zoo filled with elephants. Anything smaller is ignored.

But Without doubt there will be down time in the start… But it will not last.

As for the eu accord…
It is Québec that is the moteur that is driving the relationship between canada and Europe.
http://www.premier-ministre.gouv.qc.ca/salle-de-presse/discours/2005/mars/2005-03-03.shtm

[quote=“Chewycorns”]

Considering America saved Europe twice in the 20th Century, I think some favours are owed. How many of these countries paid Uncle Sam back? :laughing: In any case, I think the banking systems in Europe are in trouble as well, aren’t they?[/quote]

This is the new trend in gouverments… Do not fund education in order to keep the public ignorant about the truth.

America did not save anyone… The allies DID.
Furthermore when you get into the very deep politics of what caused world war 1 and 2…

You find find that Germany is the agressor… But england manipulated situations to cause the wars to start.

Much in the same way you discouver that the Bush family got very rich on Nazi extermination camps and Zylon gas…
That Rosevelt provoked the japanese to attacking Perl Harbour.
But that even Hitler was paid large sum of money by england to break the unions of the Weirhmar republic and later had acccess to British secret service to help his campaign.

The list is long and I am certain there is much fault with many. Include the French, et ceteria

[quote=“almas john”][

You SAD CANADIANS! SAD, SADDER, SADDERMOST!

Don’t you realise how lucky you are to have the US next door? Canada has - for nearly two centuries - had the good fortune to live next to a prosperous and peaceful country. Would you rather have a developing country such as Mexico for a neighbour? Would you like to swap places with Poland or New Zealand?[/quote]

(The banks are having some problems, but they do not appear to be as great. )

America has been living next door to mexico for a very long time. America is a rich nation so you seem to have benefited very well from living next door to Mexico. So why would not canada or Québec not equally benefit ? It is appearing to me that many rich nations are very happy to try and take over “poor nations” or at the least exploit them for their cheap goods.

In more, the union européene has let many “poor” nations into the Union. And europe continues to grow and prosper.
As for this dialogue about poor countries…

As for America being peaceful… I lived in the Gaspésie and I feeled really safe when americans came for their hunting trips. America, Canada and Québec are doomed to friendship because we live next door to each other. But that does not mean we like each other.

I think if you ask any Québécois or Canadian. that between the mad cow problems and softwood lumber problems and Hydro Québec being forced to sell cheaper to americans than we can buy it in Québec.

We are pretty sick and tired of the following american business attitude. " Yea I know what is written in the agreement. But this is how its going to be and if you got a problem with that… Call someone who cares."

[u]


[/u]

The discours on Québec

[quote][i]
[color=#BF0000]we must be aware of Canada’s customary view of economic life and its traditional approach to economic development. Canada exploits and exports resources, to the neglect of developing industries and services based on manufacturing or inventions requiring manufacturing. This is a profoundly colonial approach to economic life, but in Canada’s case economic colonialism is not something forced upon the country. Canada prefers colonialism.

The experience of Canada has been that the largest and most quickly obtained fortunes, whether public or private, come from resources: furs, timber, apples, coal, iron, nickel, gold, copper, silver, wheat, cobalt, fish, uranium, hydroelectric power, aluminum, potash, oil, natural gas -to name some of the most influential. Societies, like individuals, are shaped by their experiences. Canada’s get-rich-quick experience with resources has shaped all the country’s major institutions: the national government, the provincial government, the banks and all other financial establishments. It has shaped the way venture capital and subsidies are used, the types of development schemes contrived, and the assumptions of almost everyone in authority. These are not easy things to change.

When a single dominant approach to economic life and wealth has been pursued as consistently and as long as it has been here, the experience gets thoroughly built into how things work. It especially gets built into the uses of capital. Dazzling sums of money are available for resource exploitation and for vast construction projects associated with them, such as dams, pipelines, refineries, bulk storage and depots. When the attention of government does stray to manufacturing or innovation, as it does from time to time, the scale of effort does not adjust. Dazzling sums of money sunk into grandiose technological schemes. To put if figuratively, if the Canadian economy were a zoo, nothing would be purchased for it except elephants.

For various reasons, many of the essays at innovations come to nothing. Some prove unworkable, like the chemical cellulose plant in the northern Quebec wilderness on which ITT lost $600 million before closing it down virtually unused, and into which the Quebec and federal governments also poured $40 million for forest equipment, roads and other support systems. Some are economically unsuccessful, like the abandoned heavy-water plant in Laprade, Quebec, which cost the two governments, federal and provincial, about $485 million. Some are plagued by bad luck and unanticipated competition, like the nuclear power system called Candu, for which the federal government has paid out $2 billions, but for which it has not been able to find the export markets that were expected to justify the investment. Sometimes endeavors that actually do appear to be succeeding are abandoned because the government’s bureaucracies and political leaders become nonplussed at the intelligence and patience they require, as happened when Avro aviation design and manufacturing company was written off after $400 million had gone into it. Not only grandiose innovations but grandiose imitations sometimes fail as well, like the oil refinery in Come-by-Chance, Newfoundland, bankrupt with $600 million in debts; the Newfoundland government holds a second mortgage of $45 million. (The holder of the first mortgage, who is proposing that the almost unused refinery be sold for scrap , is a London bank whose investment was guaranteed by the British government’s Export Credits Guarantee Department.) The money that goes down the drain with each grand failure becomes a nine days’ wonder.

In contrast, pitifully little capital, and even that confined mainly to Ontario, goes into initially modest innovative work. A company capable of producing and improved solenoid valve for a chemical reactor plumbing systems or an efficient new type of windburning stove is not the kind of company likely to find the modest risk capital required for such ventures. And there is almost no capital for the many small producers of bits, pieces, tools and devices that the practical and economically successful development of an innovative and diverse economy requires.
All this has many consequences. One was summed up by J.J. Brown, the historian of Canadian technology, in 1967;

“Canadians have made contributions to world science and technology out of all proportion to their small numbers. Some Canadian inventions made possible world industries, but we have ended up importing from England, Belgium, Italy and the United Stated billion of dollars worth of equipment invented here. This is our basic problem as a nation… If not corrected soon, it will leave us unable to compete as an industrialized nation in the modern world.”
Canada is a heavy importer of humdrum and very simple consumer goods, things like hatchets, canoe paddles and waterproof match containers, and also of almost all kinds of basic industrial tools. “Orders Up, Backlogs Twice Normal for Machine Tool Industry,” proclaims a December 1979 news headline in a Toronto paper. The print below proceeds to tell that the information that “this is more or less a boom year” comes from the Canadian Machine Tool Distributors Association. “Since there are only a few Canadian machine tool manufactures,” the report explains, “it is the distributors who dominated the Canadian marker.”

To be sure, Canada does not lack manufacturing altogether. There are uses for those imported machine tools. But of such manufacturing as the country does have, almost half is undertaken in American-owned branch plants, and -increasingly- some of the rest in other foreign-owned branch plants.

When a Canadian manufacturer does manage to get started and become successful, capital can seldom be raised for expansion of the work. This impasse is typically solved by the company’s selling out to a foreign corporation. It becomes a subsidiary or a branch plant.

Most branch plants have been established, however, because of Canadian tariffs on manufactured goods. With its scanty development of producer’s goods and services, Canada is in poor position to replace wide ranges of imported goods and services with its own production, as developed economies do. Canadian tariffs are imposed not to encourage indigenous economic development, but to force foreign exporters of manufactured goods to set up branch plants within Canada. This profoundly parasitic approach to “development” was largely responsible for Toronto’s and Montreal’s economic growth during the 1950s and 1960s; that was largely branch-plant economic growth. Branch plants in Canada must be extremely profitable because the prices charged for their goods tend to equal the price of the equivalent imports plus the high tariffs; there are few or no Canadian producers to compete. The branch plants justify their high prices by setting their own book values on components they import from other subsidiaries. And, of course, a large share of profits leaves the country.

Since there are few indigenous Canadian manufacturing enterprises available to be transplanted -as they expand- out into towns and villages where work and wages are desperately needed, the federal and provincial governments offer dazzling sums of money to foreign branch plants for that purpose too.

Naturally, all this drives Canadian economic nationalists into a fury, but even they are so unfamiliar with the fact that many modestly started enterprises go into creations of a diverse and innovative economy that they define economic colonialism narrowly and superficially. They think of it mainly as matter of ownership, to be corrected by changes in ownership -rather than as something that can only be corrected when the economy undertakes things it now fails to do.
In this traditional scheme of things, Canada’s regional cities also have their traditional role. They work primarily as service centers for the exploitation of resources from their hinterland. To be sure, all have some manufacturing, even the small ones like Halifax, Thunder Bay and Saskatoon and the larger ones like Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton, as well as the largest, Vancouver. But large or small, the regional cities of Canada do not serve as creative economic centers in their own right. They boom when the exploitation of their hinterland booms. They stagnate when the resource exploitation reaches a plateau. They decline when it declines.
This is devastating to Canadian regions where resources stop yielding more and more wealth. The passive regional cities, generating no innovations, replacing so few kinds of imports, creating so little new work, so few factories fro transplanting, so few new markets themselves, cannot serve as substitute resources.

Halifax, which boomed long ago when exploitation or resources in the Maritime Provinces boomed, cannot perform such services for the now impoverished Maritimes (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island). Winnipeg, although it boomed when the wheat lands of the prairies boomed and was celebrated as the locus of the largest grain exchange in the entire world, promptly stagnated when the tasks of settling the prairie wheat lands and constructing the vast grain transportation and storage facilities had been more or less completed. Probably the currently booming Alberta oil cities of Edmonton and Calgary will stagnate in their turn -for the pattern is a consequence of Canada’s curiously lopsided use of capital and its profoundly colonial approach to economic life.

In Quebec, other cultural differences notwithstanding, the economic culture is now the same as that of English Canada. Perhaps this is because English Canada dominated Quebec economically in the past, or perhaps that fact made no difference. Whatever the reason, Quebec political leaders think, economically, exactly like most of their English-speaking counterparts. The present premier of the province, René Lévesque, an ardent Quebec nationalist and the chief proponent of sovereignty-association for Quebec, makes it clear in his writings and speeches that Quebec’s economic future, as he sees it, depends on assiduous exploitation of exportable resources -and when possible, semi processing them before export. Claude Ryan, leader of the provincial Liberal Party and Lévesque’s chief political opponent, sums up Canada’s economic past, present and future in these words:

“For a long time, the settlement and the cultivation of Canadian land was concentrated on a narrow band about one hundred miles wide along the United States border. But today, we are much more aware of the extraordinary wealth hidden beneath the sea on our coasts and in the vast regions of the north. Rich in minerals of all kinds, in petroleum and natural gas, in fresh-water lakes and in rivers, and in forests, these areas are already the basis for a number of immense projects such as the one at James Bay, the Syncrude installations in Northern Alberta and the petroleum drilling program in the Atlantic Ocean. And this is only a beginning. These vast territories provide us with the promise of almost unlimited developments in future years and make us the envy of other countries.”

The mayor of Montreal, who like Lévesque and Ryan is ardently French, has announced that the economic future of the city is rosy because it is in a good position to entice branch offices and branch plants from Europe.

I have singled out these three because of their positions, not because their faith in economic colonialism and their lack of interest in either human inventiveness or the economic possibilities of cities are unusual or extraordinary. They are very Canadian. If Montreal had not happened to be the national economic center of Canada in the past -if Halifax, say, had occupied that role or if Toronto had fallen into it much earlier than it did- Montreal would surely have been merely a passive regional city, stagnant long since. At any rate, there is little in French Canada’s experience, assumptions or expectations of economic life to suggest otherwise.

Now, however, Quebec is presented with a difficulty not only unprecedented here, but unprecedented in Canada. The country has never before had a national city which lost that position and became a regional city. As a typical Canadian regional city Montreal cannot begin to sustain the economy or the many unsual assets it has now. As it gradually subsides into its regional role, it will decline and decay, grow poor and obsolescent. No boom in resource exploitation can save it because -as a national center- it had already surpassed what even the most prosperous Canadian regional cities are capable of supporting. None of the traditional Canadian approaches can contend with this new problem.

A third of Quebec’s populations is concentrated in Montreal. Not only will a declining Montreal have directly depressing effect upon that large share of the province’s populations, it will have a depressing effect of the province generally. The city will become a poorer market for producers in the hinterland who now depend on it. It will be a declining source of city jobs for the population at large. Its all-important cultural function in the province’s life will suffer.

In sum, Montreal cannot afford to behave like other Canadian regional cities without doing great damage to the economic well-being of the Quebecois. It must instead become a creative economic center in its own right. That means it must cast up streams of new enterprises which, among them, take to producing wide ranges of goods now imported from other places, including other places in Canada, and which will generate new, city-made products and services that can be marketed outside of Montreal and Quebec as well as within; and it must become the kind of place where such enterprises can find the capital they require, and in turn generate more capital.

Yet there is probably no chance of this happening if Quebec remains a province. Canadian bankers, politicians and civil servants, captivated as they are by the sirens songs of resource exploitation, ready-made branch plants, and technological grandiosities, can hardly be expected to respond to Montreal’s quite different economic claims upon their attention. Beliefs and practices common to all of Canada are not apt to change simply because one city, Montreal, and one province, Quebec, so urgently need them to change.

The Quebecois themselves seem unaware of the nature of the problem which looms in their future, and given the prevailing assumptions, they may not come to understand it. But they will understand this: things are not going well.

That is why the issue of sovereignty for Quebec, now that it has been raised anew as a possibility, is not going to evaporate. Inevitably, whether or not they could do better on their own, the Quebecois are going to think they could, and many of them are going to want to try. We may expect the question of separation to be raised again and again in coming years until it is finally settled either when Canada accedes to some form of sovereignty for Quebec or when the Quebecois accept the decline of Montreal and become resigned to it and to its repercussions.
The latter seem to me unlikely. Quebec is not like the poor Maritime Provinces, which have been tied ever more tightly into Confederation by adversity and the federal government’s redistribution of tax money to alleviate it. The Quebecois have a special fear: that is they themselves cannot make a success of Quebec, their long struggle will prove to have been “a sad tale told by a minority on the road to oblivion.” That is how the old story of separatist sentiment in Quebec ties the new story.

While it is quite possible that Quebec would do no better on its own than as a province of Canada, there is little reason to suppose it would do worse, and there are even some practical reasons, which I will touch in due course, for supposing it might to better. Furthermore, as we all understand, dependence is stultifying, and sometimes the obverse is also true. That is, sometimes independence releases new kind of effort, opens up formerly untapped funds of energy, initiative, originality and self-confidence. That has been the experience, for instance, of Norway when it broke away from Sweden at the beginning of this century. [/color]
[/i][/quote]

References :

Welcome aboard ms1.

Please, post links, not full articles.
It’d be appreciated if you went through your previous post and cleaned it up (so that someone else needn’t do it for it and delete your favourite bits).

Cheers, happy posting,

IP Mod.

[quote=“Jaboney”]Welcome aboard ms1.

Please, post links, not full articles.
It’d be appreciated if you went through your previous post and cleaned it up (so that someone else needn’t do it for it and delete your favourite bits).

Cheers, happy posting,

IP Mod.[/quote]

I would like to post a link to the article. Sadly, it is a word document on my computer and not online. But I am available for your suggestions.

Please tolerate me a little bit. English is not my mother language. So I will no always be clean. But I will do my best effort

: