U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Is Canada better without Quebec?
Yes, Canada is better off without Quebec 55 41.67%
No, Canada is better off with Quebec 77 58.33%
Voters: 132. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-24-2015, 08:57 AM
 
34,455 posts, read 41,569,541 times
Reputation: 29922

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbesdj View Post
Quebec is certainly a country. Not an independent country, but a country nonetheless.

country (plural countries)
  1. (archaic) An area of land; a district, region. [from 13th c.]
  2. A set region of land having particular human occupation or agreed limits, especially inhabited by members of the same race, language speakers etc., or associated with a given person, occupation, species etc. [from 13th c.]
  3. The territory of a nation, especially an independent nation state or formerly independent nation; a political entity asserting ultimate authority over a geographical area. [from 14th c.]
  4. ​(usually preceded by “the”) A rural area, as opposed to a town or city; the countryside. [from 16th c.]
  5. Country music. [from 20th c.]
  6. (mining) The rock through which a vein runs.
You're playing with semantics, Quebec is a Canadian Province and not an independent nation.
When Quebec rises up to explore its full potential by actually separating from the motherland then it will become a sovereign country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-24-2015, 09:07 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,962 posts, read 27,410,308 times
Reputation: 8623
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101 View Post
You're playing with semantics, Quebec is a Canadian Province and not an independent nation.
When Quebec rises up to explore its full potential by actually separating from the motherland then it will become a sovereign country.
What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 10:03 AM
 
261 posts, read 203,491 times
Reputation: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Well, I do expect, as they say in English, things to "come to a head" eventually.
That's what I hope will happen, but I don't know what would actually spark this. It certainly won't be Philippe Couillard's government. I was kind of hoping that the Wildrose Alliance would win Alberta's next election and start agitating for an end to any sort of bilingualism in Canada, which would force politicians to take sides and maybe discuss a real project for the country. But then we saw what happened with them. I still have some hope that it might be inevitable for English Canada to wish to rid itself of bilingualism.

Quote:
So I do expect one of these scenarios to play out eventually. I am not that old but I don't even know if it will be in my lifetime. The status quo, as imperfect and unsatasfying to everyone as it may be, could go on for several decades still.
I'm even younger than you, and yes it could last for a long time, but then other more global issues such as climate change could hit us in the meantime.

Quote:
But I also don't expect Quebec to go "gently into that good night" as Dylan Thomas said, and become a Canadian province like all the others. A "Big New Brunswick", a former FLQ guy turned bombastic film-maker Pierre Falardeau once said.
Do you have any evidence that Falardeau was in the FLQ? Because I've never heard this. But yeah, you know that's why I was asking you what young francophone Quebecers think of all this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Sounds like what Laforest is proposing is Primary Trudeauism 2.0.

This was the idea of the coming of the so-called three wise men of Quebec, Trudeau, Gérard Pelletier and Jean Marchand, to Ottawa in the 1960s.
But as it turned out what Trudeau managed to build was not a Canadian nation inside of which Quebec would recognise itself. I don't know, I'd have to read Laforest's book but I'm not sure he knows better than any of us what is the right way forward.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 10:12 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,962 posts, read 27,410,308 times
Reputation: 8623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migratory Chicken View Post


Do you have any evidence that Falardeau was in the FLQ? Because I've never heard this. But yeah, you know that's why I was asking you what young francophone Quebecers think of all this.

.
I could be totally wrong about this. I've always heard that he was. Can't find any confirmation that he was. Though he was definitely in the RIN. Not the same thing as the FLQ though, of course.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 10:26 AM
 
1,317 posts, read 2,036,781 times
Reputation: 1132
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbesdj View Post
Quebec is certainly a country. Not an independent country, but a country nonetheless.
Don't be daft. It's not a country. If the people of Quebec were to vote for independence, if Quebec were to lawfully separate from Canada, and if Quebec were to be recognized by countries around the world as a country, then Quebec would be a country. To hold that it's a country at this point in time is as absurd as it is factually incorrect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 10:33 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,962 posts, read 27,410,308 times
Reputation: 8623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migratory Chicken View Post


But as it turned out what Trudeau managed to build was not a Canadian nation inside of which Quebec would recognise itself. I don't know, I'd have to read Laforest's book but I'm not sure he knows better than any of us what is the right way forward.
I know, and you'd think Laforest as a political scientist would know this too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 11:18 AM
 
34,455 posts, read 41,569,541 times
Reputation: 29922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.
Spin it anyway you like but the fact remains Quebec is just another Canadian province and its inhabitants part of Canadas 35+ million Canadians ,
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 11:21 AM
 
1,218 posts, read 2,119,713 times
Reputation: 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Well, I do expect, as they say in English, things to "come to a head" eventually. Some day I expect there will either be a sea-change within Canada that will allow for greater autonomy (not necessarily out of generosity, but because people don't care, and also may wish similar autonomy for their own provinces), or Quebec will make the final push for independence. (I am a federalist for sure and do love Canada "warts and all" but as a student of both politics and history, it's sometimes hard not to envisage the hypothesis that Quebec's ultimate destiny might actually be to be an independent country.)
I wish this thing would be put on the table once more to be resolved - different Canadian structure or Quebec becomes independent. The problem with the former is that as much as you think or hope it will happen, there is currently, as far as I can tell, no impetus for change in terms of thinking on the Anglo side. It is not impossible entirely that things will change but it would involve a huge effort to sway both the hearts and minds that a structural change is optimal for Canada. And there doesn't seem to be any pervasive force permeating. There needs to be a force that permeates over time to change thinking of the populace in the long run, if you want draw analogies to civil rights movements.

Most of the media in English Canada about Quebec talks about threats to separate, transfer payments, student protests over massively subsidized tuition, tough language laws. etc. If I think about it, nothing I see in the media really builds bridges and may in fact do quite the opposite. It is very hard to imagine that Canada will change it's current structure to become a multinational administrator anytime soon. I understand that Canada was more of an "arrangement" in its origins in response to the amalgamation of states, but the country has come a long way since then and the current vision is to build a successful cohesive nation, not what will be seen as a fragmented one. I'm not sure if there is a middle ground for both sides to be happy but there is a very fundamental difference on both sides. Without any bridges to be understand each other, and I can't think of any, I don't see how one can expect changes to come.

Last edited by johnathanc; 02-24-2015 at 11:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 11:35 AM
 
34,455 posts, read 41,569,541 times
Reputation: 29922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
(I am a federalist for sure and do love Canada "warts and all" .
Gasp!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Colorado
1,524 posts, read 2,267,501 times
Reputation: 2168
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnathanc View Post
I wish this thing would be put on the table once more to be resolved - different Canadian structure or Quebec becomes independent. The problem with the former is that as much as you think or hope it will happen, there is currently, as far as I can tell, no impetus for change in terms of thinking on the Anglo side. It is not impossible entirely that things will change but it would involve a huge effort to sway both the hearts and minds that a structural change is optimal for Canada. And there doesn't seem to be any pervasive force permeating. There needs to be a force that permeates over time to change thinking of the populace in the long run, if you want draw analogies to civil rights movements.

Most of the media in English Canada about Quebec talks about threats to separate, transfer payments, student protests over massively subsidized tuition, tough language laws. etc. If I think about it, nothing I see in the media really builds bridges and may in fact do quite the opposite. It is very hard to imagine that Canada will change it's current structure to become a multinational administrator anytime soon. I understand that Canada was more of an "arrangement" in its origins in response to the amalgamation of states, but the country has come a long way since then and the current vision is to build a successful cohesive nation, not what will be seen as a fragmented one. I'm not sure if there is a middle ground for both sides to be happy but there is a very fundamental difference on both sides. Without any bridges to be understand each other, and I can't think of any, I don't see how one can expect changes to come.
This is exactly why Quebec needs to become independent. The only other course is the status quo which most Quebecois are unhappy with, yet they continually support it, just like with the relatively recent election of Couillard. Acajack, Migratory Chicken, perhaps you can help me understand your perspective. There are only two options on the table:

Option #1: Independence

Option #2: Status Quo

That's it. Yet you guys are pinning your hopes on a third option. Option #3: Devolution of Canada. The problem is that option #3 isn't even on the table. Aside from a few fringe individuals, no one outside of Quebec is even remotely considering this. There is nothing at all to suggest that this kind of change is realistic. It is about as realistic as me pinning my hopes on the US becoming a constitutional monarchy. There is no impetus for it to happen. It's just not going to happen.

Acajack/Migratory Chicken, since you are both clearly federalists, and clearly quite intelligent people. Yet I am unable to follow your logic when it comes to the independence question. Can you help me to understand why you support the status quo over independence? I ask because you both sound like you both have strong opinions about making dramatic changes to the status quo, yet you are against the only realistic option that will change it: independence. Is it that you are against independence at all costs? Acajack, in your case you are even willing to admit that something has to happen in the future, and admit that independence may be the ultimate destiny of Quebec, so why would you support the status quo over independence? I am genuinely curious to know how you guys perceive this issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top