The first shot in the next Quebec referendum campaign

Opinion: Peter White on the one-sideness of debate in Quebec

by Peter White

Quebec Premier Pauline Marois (Jacques Boissinot/CP)

Quebec Premier Pauline Marois (Jacques Boissinot/CP)

Pauline Marois has just fired the first shot in the next Quebec referendum campaign.

In a pre-election speech in Shawinigan on February 5, the Quebec premier and Parti québécois leader said her government, if re-elected this spring, would hold a vast public consultation on a White Paper on the future of Quebec. While refusing to reveal her strategy, she said a referendum would be held at an “opportune time.”

“I am a sovereigntist. And should the people elect me and my government I will have the possibility to [achieve] sovereignty,” she said after her speech. Current polls indicate she will indeed be re-elected.

In Trois-Rivières the same day, Mme Marois also clearly laid out the question she will put to Quebecers:

“We want Quebec to become a country. We must examine all options. What status will allow us to preserve our language over a period of 10, 20 or 50 years? That of a Canadian province or that of a country? To me, it’s clear: the only path that assures the future of French is that of a country, a French-speaking country in America!”

This is the fundamental existential question that Quebec francophones have always faced. Every generation since 1760 has pondered this question, openly or tacitly. So far, every time they have had to choose, Quebecers have chosen Canada. But in the last Quebec referendum in 1995, a clear majority of francophones voted for Quebec sovereignty. Then-PQ premier Jacques Parizeau spoke nothing but the truth in saying that his referendum had been lost owing to the “ethnic vote,” his politically incorrect term for non-francophones in Quebec.

As a bilingual anglophone living in Quebec, it distresses and depresses me to see the one-sidedness of the current debate.

An old political adage says you can’t beat something with nothing. But that is precisely what Quebec federalists have largely been doing since 1995.

Virtually no one speaks up for Canada in Quebec. Nobody defends federalism, or explains its virtues and advantages to today’s Quebecers. With rare exceptions, such as André Pratte at La Presse, Quebec’s francophone media personalities are anti-Canada, either overtly or surreptitiously.

One might expect our 75 federal MPs to be spokespersons for federalism or defenders of Canada. But no; from 1993 until 2013, most Quebec MPs belonged to the Bloc québécois, which actively exalted independence. Now that over two thirds of our MPs belong to the NDP, apparently the best we can hope for is silence on this issue. NDP leader Thomas Mulcair is no great federalist tribune, while the five Conservative MPs are largely invisible. True to his roots, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau is, by default, thrust into a lacklustre semblance of Captain Canada. But he can’t do the job alone.

Unless this changes, we are setting ourselves up for a nasty shock. A referendum campaign is just a single-issue, single-constituency election campaign. As in a general election, much depends on the popularity of the opposing leaders. Under Quebec’s referendum law, the Yes side is headed by the premier, while the leader of the No side is the leader of the opposition. This would presumably pit Pauline Marois against Quebec Liberal leader Philippe Couillard, who will have just lost the 2014 election to premier Marois.

What should federalists be saying to francophone Quebecers?

First, although essential, economic facts and arguments are not enough. Nor are occasional and fleeting public appearances by federal ministers.

As prime minister Diefenbaker used to say, elections turn on things of the spirit.

Francophone Quebecers must be reassured that they are recognized as original founders and co-builders of Canada, that they are respected by other Canadians, and that they strongly supported by Ottawa and other provinces in their wish to live fully in French within Canada.

Prime minister Harper’s best electoral showing in Quebec (10 seats in 2006, with 24.6% of the popular vote) came after he had supported a resolution in the House of Commons recognizing that the Québécois formed a nation within a united Canada.

Quebecers must be reminded of the two reasons why the Fathers of Confederation chose a federal system. First, Quebecers have full democratic sovereignty in their own province, with complete legislative autonomy in fields crucial to the survival and strength of their language and culture. They must be reminded how well, against all odds, this system has worked to their advantage.

But they must also be reminded that, in addition to controlling their own government in Quebec, our federal system has allowed them to play a major role in Canada as a whole, in the tradition of Laurier, St. Laurent, Trudeau, Mulroney and Chrétien. In effect, under Canadian federalism Quebec both has its cake and eats it — or as the French say, both the butter and the butter money.

To vote for Quebec sovereignty now, at a time when Quebec has never been stronger or more successful, would be to turn their backs on their history, their ancestors, and the great country we have all built together.

Peter White, a member of the Conservative Party since 1958, was Principal Secretary to prime minister Brian Mulroney.




Browse

The first shot in the next Quebec referendum campaign

  1. Let’s have that referendum: Should Quebec be an independent country? (Because if you vote No you accept to be a province like all the other provinces).

    • They would have voted Yes last time, if it wasn’t for the No side cheating and getting waves of new immigrants and billions in bribes to just squeak to 51%.

      • Yeah, because the yes side was just being honest by rejecting ballots by the bucketload… Yeesh.

      • “Waves of new immigrants” = Quebecers. Who had the right to vote.
        The separatist movement has always been predicated on pur-laine Québecois somehow being a “people” — a race — and thus has always been and will always be racist at its core.

        And yes, Kevin is right, there was far more evidence of “Yes” cheating.

      • 51 % + 5,000 clearly marked votes that were rejected outright for no good reason.
        No means non!

  2. Actually … it’s time to tell them some hard truths … not molly coddle them with a bunch of feel-good comments about their importance in Canada. Amongst the hard truths they should hear are:
    1) No more Canadian dollar
    2) No more Canadian passports
    3) No more transfer payments
    4) Pay back share of national debt
    5) No more federal government departments located in QC, and no more federal government jobs
    6) No more Canadian armed forces bases in QC and no more economic spin-offs from those locations, including employment, and of course whatever defense etc. they now receive from those forces.
    7) No more federal government subsidies, grants, hand-outs to QC businesses.
    8) No more federal government grants, etc to universities & colleges, and no more grants, loans, etc. to students.
    9) No more subsidies for roads, rail, bridges, or other forms of infrastructure.
    10) No more Canada pension plans, old age security, EI, or other national programs.

    • No more rocky mountains? Give me a break! Trying to hold Quebecers with stupid threats is ridiculous. If so many Québécois want to leave Canada maybe Canada should wonder why? Why is it that the only time they feel like they matter is at referendum time? Why is it that although Quebec culture is exported and know around the world but is completely unknown in other provinces? In a divorce instance, did anyone ever managed to convince their partners to stay by telling them: no more money from me after you leave?

      • Well that’s true about threats, but it is important to combat the assumptions (i.e. lies) of the PQ — like that Quebec is indivisible, or of course they’ll not assume the debt — with some alternative information.

      • If you try and explain to people outside of Canada that we
        have a political party that gets federal funds and is given official party
        status who’s only reason for existing is to break up Canada, they would say
        this is a terrorist organization. the fact that we send our young boys to Afghanistan
        to die to defend us from an enemy that
        has no desire to attack us is insane we should be sending these boys into
        Quebec instead they are the real terrorists and a direct threat to this
        country. I am tired of hearing about how we treat the people of Quebec and their
        language and culture what has ever been done to suppress this by the rest of
        Canada, and as for that comment about their culture being exported around the
        world but the rest of Canada knows very little of that same culture, have you
        ever been in Quebec? just ask someone from
        outside Montreal anything about the English part of Canada and see what and how
        much they know, give me a break.

        • So should the 22e Regiment be used to go after “the real terrorists,” as you call them? Or are they “real terrorists” as well? There is no shortage of Afghanistan veterans who hail from Quebec, and you’ve just taken a dump all over their service and sacrifice.

          Disgusting.

        • Lets see Rush, Avril Lavigne, Nickleback, Justin Bieber, Atom Egoyan, Margaret Atwood, The Bare Naked Ladies, Neil Young, Stompong Tom… What do you know about Quebec culture? When was the last time you listened to french music? You give me a beak!

    • they have paid taxes

    • Time for some hard truths:
      1) How would you stop Quebec from using the Canadian dollar? Especially when every Quebecer already has Canadian dollars in their wallets and bank accounts. The feds going to collect it on the way out? Plenty of countries use another country’s currency. Quebec probably would want to create its own currency, so it could control monetary policy. The breakup of the country would probably destroy the value of the Loonie and the Quebec franc or whatever would probably be just as stable.

      2) So what? Quebec passports.

      3) Also means less money sent to Ottawa, end result not much different.

      4) You don’t really understand how national debts work, do you? How exactly would you determine Quebec’s “share” anyways?

      5) Independent countries require a lot of government departments that province’s don’t, things like foreign affairs. Most, if not all, of these people would now have jobs with the Republic of Quebec.

      6) One would assume that Quebec would set up its own military. Even if it doesn’t, you nnow have several Canadian military bases, including training facilities, along with other federal training facilities (CBSA) that are now in a foreign country. Canada would also lose the thousands upon thousands of soldiers who would be Quebec citizens.

      7) Yawn, that’s a drop in the bucket. Quebec already spends more on that then the feds. Next.

      8) Quebec already has its own system of grants and loans for students in the province and doesn’t participate in the federal system. Colleges and universities are funded by the provinces in Canada. There are a few research grants that the feds hand out. No reason the province couldn’t take these over, they are a (relatively) tiny amount of money.

      9) Not really something the feds do. Provincial responsibility, you don’t know much about Canada’s separation of powers do you? You might want to read the BNA Act. The feds do handle some bridges and it would be better if they didn’t (see the Champlain bridge debacle in Montreal)

      10) Quebecers already don’t have the Canadian Pension Plan. They have the Quebec Pension Plan. Since we wouldn’t be paying our taxes to the feds – and would now be paying them to Quebec, why wouldn’t Quebec be able to fund the handful of national programs that actually apply in the province?

      • My thoughts exactly. Thank you for debunking those old myths about separation.

      • I think the debunking also need some debunking.

        1. You’re right, Quebec could continue to use the C$, but it would have absolutely no input over Canadian monetary policy and the Bank of Canada would no longer take Quebec into consideration when setting monetary policy. I think that Quebec would have little choice but to switch to its own currency unless it took dramatic reforms because the C$ would prove too strong for it to be competitive. The value of the Loonie doesn’t depend on Quebec’s status within Canada so of course it won’t be destroyed by Quebec leaving. That is just economic ignorance talking.

        2. I would be very surprised if the outcome of negotiations between Quebec and Canada following a yes vote didn’t allow those Quebecer’s who wished to, to keep their Canadian citizenship to do so. After all Canada allows dual citizenship and it would be incongruous to not that option for Quebecers, millions of who would have just voted in a Referendum to remain part of Canada. And I suspect most of those who kept Canadian citizenship would also opt to retain their Canadian passports because of the advantages that come with it.

        3. It might mean less money coming into Ottawa, but it would mean a lot less money going out. In 2009 for instance the Federal government took in just shy of $40 Billion in revenues from Quebec. However its expenditures in Quebec were a little over $53 Billion. So Quebec received a net benefit of over $13 Billion that year of which about $8 Billion was in equalisation payments. Think of Canada as a large corporation that has a money- losing subsidiary (Quebec). If the corporation sells or closes the subsidiary it’s overall revenues will drop, but it’s expenditures drop even more, meaning it’s overall financial health improves. We might call it the “Separation Dividend”

        4. That national debt has been incurred paying for services that all Canadians including Quebecers have benefited from, be it infrastructure, social programs, defence expenditures etc. Therefore Quebecers are liable for a portion of the debt. There are various ways to calculate Quebec’s liability and Quebec will assume liability for it’s share (however calculated) because if it were to repudiate the debt it would poison relations with Canada and damage it’s own creditworthiness going forward. Any agreement reached would probably be pretty generous to Quebec but due to the aforementioned Separation Dividend, Canada could easily afford it. Quite possibly the debt would remain with Canada (as it would have lower financing costs than Quebec) and Quebec would make payments to Canada to cover it’s agreed upon portion of the debt. This would of course an independent Quebec’s financial problems.

        5. True enough, but where is Quebec going to get the money to pay for all these government departments? We’ve already seen that Quebec is a net recipient of federal funds (in 2009 the only province that was a net contributer was Alberta). Upon becoming independent Quebec would suddenly have to find $14 Billion to plug a hole in its current budget, let alone financing a Foreign service, Military, trade delegations etc.

        6. You are making a lot of assumptions. Could Quebec afford to set up it’s own military. I don’t see how it could. It’s not simply the case of taking over the assets of the military stationed in Quebec, but also creating a whole military organization to support them. And you can’t automatically assume that serving members of the Canadian armed forces from Quebec would actually switch over en-masse to the armed forces of an independent Quebec where the prospects for service overseas and advancement would be pretty poor. Canada may or may not decide to keep military bases within Quebec but strategically I can’t see any pressing reason for it to do so.

        7. 8. 9. All true as far as it goes but this all goes back to where is Quebec going to get the money?

        10 You’re correct that Quebec has it’s own pension plan, but once again you misunderstand the financial relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Quebec is a net financial beneficiary of Confederation. You won’t be paying taxes to Ottawa but the loss of equalization payments will open a vast hole in the Quebec government’s budget.

        • You definitely make some good points there but I do think you make a lot of false assumptions

          1. It’s ridiculous to think that Canada losing 20 per cent of its economy – $345.8 billion a year – wouldn’t have a negative effect on the dollar. International investors will pull their money out because of uncertainty. Extricating the two economies would be a financial mess and would drive the dollar down. I’m not sure why you think a higher Canadian dollar would be bad for Quebec, which is less dependant on the export of raw materials than some of the provinces in the rest of Canada. Plenty of Quebec-sized economies do just fine with much higher valued currency than CAD, like Norway and Sweden. Regardless, control over currency policy is overrated and relatively ineffective (the Bank of Canada been trying to get inflation to two per cent with little success for quite some time)

          2. People probably would get a choice of citizenship and passports (I think your mention of negotiations is really the most important and overlooked part of the whole sovereignty exercise – if there is a yes vote we will have endless negotiations, but that’s a whole different discussion). My original point was that there is nothing inherently special about the Canadian passport that sets it apart from the passports issued by other countries. You mention some “advantages” to the Canadian passport, I’d like to hear, in detail, what “advantages” the Canadian passport has over, say, the passport of New Zealand? I doubt the Quebec passport would be treated differently by any country that matters.

          3. In 2009 it was $13 billion. In 2004 it was under $1 billion. The average has been around $3 or $4 billion a year. Which is a lot of money – but a tiny fraction of Quebec or Canada’s GDP – we’re talking about something like $400 a person, on average. Even in 2009 (the peak of the recession) it’s under $2,000 per Quebec resident. The largest single chunk of federal spending in Quebec – $20 billion – was transferred not to the provincial government but directly to people. Cut a few tax credits and there you go.

          Regardless, the corporate analogy is a false one because governments are subject to different economic forces. There’s also the fact that looking at the government financials and concluding that more Quebec gets a financial benefit from being in Canada is rather simplistic. The largest investment funds in the country are located in Quebec and would not move, 52 per cent of all venture capital in Canada is managed in Quebec, more of this money would stay in the independent nation of Quebec than stays in the province now.

          There’s also the fact that $11 billion of the money that the Feds spend in Quebec is purchasing goods and services. This complicates the situation further. Some of this money is for offices and land in Gatineau (the Quebec half of the National Capital Region), other parts would not be spent by an independent Quebec, other parts would be spent elsewhere and be lost as income to Quebec businesses, while another percentage would presumably still be spent in Quebec because it’s the only place where these goods and services come from (ie. some planes and helicopters). So it’s much more complicated than saying “where’s the $13 billion going to come from.”

          4. According to Stats Can (I hadn’t seen this when I wrote the first thing) Quebec’s share of the interest on the debt was $6.2 billion in 2009. It’s included in that $13 billion figure you quoted earlier.

          5. Since there’s not actually a $13 billion hole (though there is a smaller one) it would be easier to find the money – taxes would probably have to go up. And there would be some savings as the redundancies between Quebec’s existing foreign service and Canada’s; the RCMP and the SQ along with Revenue Quebec and Revenue Canada would be closed.

          6. It’s assumable that Quebec would have some sort of a military, though probably not a particularly robust one. It’s doubtful Quebec would continue on with the fighter plane replacement debacle which would be a net savings in Quebec’s inherited share of the $20-some billion Canada spends on defence.

          7. 8. 9. Some cuts to programs, tax increases. It’s not impossible. Also not catastrophic.

          10. You’ve missed how pension plans are funded in this country. QPP isn’t funded from the government budget. It’s funded by premiums and investments. While the QPP has some unfunded liabilities, they’re much smaller than the $800 billion the CPP has in unfunded liabilities. There’s no federal or out of province money going into the QPP (except through returns on investments).

          TL;DR: Will Quebec be poorer as an independent nation? Without a doubt. Will it be a fiscal catastrophe? Absolutely not.

      • You are correct!

    • Correct!

  3. Let’s suppose that Québec becomes a separated country, what’s going to happen after that? what’s the economic/social plan? How the province will be able to pay for the government and basic services?

    The province is doing that good that we can afford to loose a huge amount of non-francophones skilled/experienced workers and some multi-national companies? How they will convince people and companies to not move 600km south and go to Ontario?

    I’m not 100% against a sovereign Québec, but the sovereigntists are failing to show me what gonna happen on the aftermath of the separation.

  4. This is only because the Calgary conservative majority represents a low tide mark in relations with Quebec. When Trudeau Jr. gets in, his popularity will squelch all of these separatist rumblings. There is no way that Quebec will actually walk out on the generous terms that Canada gives it.

    • I tend to agree.

    • Actually, no, the Emperor Trudeau has no clothes, and it’s showing more and more.
      Watch the NDP re-dynamise things though.

  5. I have a question for Quebec. If they leave Canada. They need to repay the money owe to the PEOPLE of Canada. For they get nothing for free. They want something from Canadians. Cash up from. For ALL federal buildings on Quebec land. They buy them. Or pay for them to be removed from there land. Currency? They CANNOT use Canadian money. They will have to produce their own. And their money will not be recognized by Canada. They will also need a passport to enter Canadian territories. Quebec has always been a thorn in the side of Canadians.

    • Listen Dude . . . I am a federalist, live in Mtl, originally from BC.

      Some facts you might want to apprise yourself of:

      “They need to repay the money owe to the PEOPLE of Canada” . . . uhhhh . . . Quebecers were Canadian taxpayers all those years so they could legitimately claim ownership of assets located in Quebec. I sure as hell know that I have paid federal taxes while living here. And what about assets outside of Quebec, like ships and planes . . . do they not own a share of those?

      “They CANNOT use Canadian money.” and how could anyone stop them from doing so? Of course, they would have no control over monetary policy so it might not be in their interest to retain the Canadian dollar.

      Believe me, there are TONS of arguments to be made against separation; there is just no need to invoke stupid ones. The stuff you’re spouting I would expect from Levant or Lilley or Lowell Green, with a healthy portion of spittle.

      • Exactly. Well said.

      • The monetary policy or lack of one is troubling and has to be addressed, as is the contentious issue of borders. I do not believe that Quebec can leave lock, stock and barrel with a slim majority, certainly not if there are pockets of dissension that are in a majority concentrated in specific geographic regions, for example on the island of Montreal. The secessionists have to come up with a clear definition of what they are trying to do, as in the past their option was always wrapped up in an association or partnership with Canada. The argument is that Canada would have no choice but to negotiate on Quebec’s terms. If Quebec would be divided, I couldn’t imagine how it would have an advantage.

        Another intrinsic problem is the Quebec population has been overly schooled, or dare I say brainwashed, by a pie in the ski leftist ideology and it’s prominent think tanks in the UdeM, UQAM and le Devoir are a driving force behind Quebec’s historical antipathy to English cultural dominance, it’s economic structure and its capitalist and utilitarian nature.

        As a Quebecker if we were more like Germany, I would at least consider independence as an option. That we are too much like France, has me sceptical that this would be a good place to stay if it was not part of Canada.

  6. The new Quebec will be the same as the old Quebec.
    Corrupt
    Crime infested
    And will expect Canada to pay.
    We need a Canadian to negotiate this.
    AND NOT SOMEONE WITH QUEBEC ROOTS.

    • To remind you that Preston Manning revealed in an interview that he had approached cabinet ministers coming from provinces other than Quebec to table a motion of non-confidence towards the member from Shawinigan in the event of YES-side win in 1995.

  7. Reading the anti-Quebec coments here I can’t help but to wonder why Québec might want to leave such a charming federation…

    • When you look at what both sides have done you may learn why Quebec hasn’t seperated and why Canada hasn’t educated them on the issue.

    • It’s the same old play being staged, with new actors in the lead roles. In my experience, we share far more in common than many people, on both sides of the aisle, wish to admit. If Confederation fails, then so be it. It would be a sad loss for everyone involved, nevertheless.

    • Don’t shoot all the dogs cuz some of them got fleas…please don’t!

    • And if you were a non-white Québécois watching this, would you feel that you are being included in “our choices”, “our freedom”, “our country”, “our children”, “our future”?
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umTBTa1Q8DU

      How can you promote ‘laïcité’ and Québec values with the image of a giant cross that lights up in the sky of Montreal? How can you go around the province and never, ever, come across a single person coming from a visible minority? Are they not there? Do you not choose to exclude them?

      Are only anti-Canada comments relevant? Are Quebec indépendantistes the only race in the world who are perfect and beyond reproach?
      Watching videos like this PQ-produced propaganda I can’t help but wonder how charming le pays du Québec would be.

      • Qui parle de race? L’article parlait du manque de défenseurs de la fédéeation canadienne au Québec, je soulignait que le Québec bashing de ce genre b’aidait pas… Ruen à voire avec la charte de la laicité… Je me dois tout de meme d’etre en accord avec vous pour la croix au parlement, c’est effectivement une contradiction… Typiquement québécoise.

        • Rien à voir avec la charte de la laïcité en effet, puisque ce dont je vous entretiens est la vidéo de propagande de la campagne électorale du PQ (2011) pour laquelle je vous ai fournit un lien. Cette propagande ne concerne pas exclusivement ou particulièrement la charte de la laïcité mais l’ensemble
          du programme du PQ pour l’avenir du Québec, le sujet de l’article.

          Personne ne parle de race en effet, puisque de toute évidence, selon la vidéo et le PQ, il n’y eut qu’une race dans l’histoire du Québec, il n’y en a qu’une dans le Québec d’aujourd’hui, et il n’y en aura qu’une dans l’avenir.

          Quant à la croix, je ne faisais pas référence à celle que Duplessis a installée à l’Assemblée nationale mais à celle que le PQ choisit de montrer dans sa vidéo lorsque Madame Marois commente les valeurs québécoises : la croix sur le Mont-Royal à Montréal.

          Il serait de mise que vous preniez quelques minutes pour regarder la propagande péquiste sur l’avenir du Québec avant de commenter sur l’avenir qu’entrevoit le PQ pour les citoyens qui vivent au Québec.

  8. The debate is about to get re-centred and a lot more productive for all sides.
    Watch the Quebec NDP in the next two months.

    • You honestly think that splitting the vote will help the federalist cause?

  9. The last Canadian leaving Quebec, please bring the flag.

  10. Technically, that’s a statement, not a question, Marois. Not sure it would pass muster as a “clear question” as mandated by the SCC and the Clarity Act.

    As to independence being the key to preserving French in Quebec… I call BS. Your French heritage has been protected and watched over while in Canada y our policy of official bilingualism; if you expect to continue to do business with the rest of North America once you separate, you can bet that business will need to be conducted in English.

    You can probably also count on losing close to 100% of sales to English Canada for a generation or two as well. Not sure what percentage of your exports are to other provinces – but whatever it is, it will likely dry up.

    • Not to mention the blow back for francophone communities in the ROC. It might get really ugly. That was always pets objection to levesque. That by abandoning Canada they also turn their backs on those communities and essentially write them off altogether.
      I don’t know what Marois’s timetable is, but I sure hope JT is PM before the sh*t Hits the fan. I have zero faith in Harper holding the country together. And as for the NDP, I’m afraid I see their position as being conflicted to the point of being nearly incoherent.
      This is scary when you think about it. Federalists seem to have allowed cultural and political ties that bind to fray so badly that I don’t know if they can be renewed at all. Hope I’m being too pessimistic.

      • Agreed re the French communities outside Quebec. They will unfairly take a ton of abuse, and will certainly lose their language protections in the fallout.

        And that’s just the tip of the iceberg as far as ugliness goes. The economic fallout due to a crashing loonie will likely lead to job loss, which will make a lot of people very angry; terrorist acts against Quebec seem almost inevitable.

        The decade after is not one I care to dwell on for too long.

  11. “that they are respected by other Canadians”
    Why is the converse not equally imperative?

  12. Why doesn’t Canada call Quebec’s bluff and tell it to secede? Both will be able to exist quite admirably. It may be better for both countries to get on with their own business and end all the interminable debate that has gone on since time immemorial! Two allied nations would be better.

  13. A Quebec army defending uprisings should be good for laughs,once they get back from Hollywood,Florida.

  14. What makes you think Quebec has never been stronger or more successful? Their population is rapidly aging, finances are almost out of control and it has become one of the most corrupt places in North America. Soon their “tongue troopers” are going to be joined by their culture police and business is already starting to flee again.

    Why make the effort to keep these bozos?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *