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.
So is this thread, and the concept of Quebec separating. Until it's officially decided, it will be entirely speculation.
Seems like looking at the last 35 years of history there is a lot more evidence that shows that Quebec might one day separate from Canada than anything indicate that some parts of Quebec might separate from it.
The real question is, is Quebec better off without Canada? Yes I say, unless some basic requirements are made:
Let's take a look at these demands from a constitutional perspective.
Quote:
- Devolution of Canadian government giving Quebec power over it's own fate
I'm unsure exactly what you mean here, but I imagine that it involves turning over federal powers (Constitution ss. 91, 92(10), and 94A) to Quebec.
Unfortunately, the Government of Canada cannot do that on its own. That would require the consent of Parliament plus seven provinces comprising 50% of the population (see Charter s. 38).
Quote:
- Dissolution of monarchy, or ability for Quebec to disregard monarchy, like taking the Queen off the money
Getting rid of the monarchy cannot be done without the assent of Parliament and all ten provinces: see Charter s. 41.
Quote:
- powers to give complete protection to French language in Quevbec and New Brunswick
Already in effect. To put a constitutional spin on it, Quebec can decide that French is its language (broadly, anyway) under Constitution s. 92(16). New Brunswick's francophones are protected under Charter ss. 16-22.
Quote:
- Quebec has own seat at UN and own Olympics team seperate from Canada
- 50/50 split between Quebec and Canada in dplomatic affairs
The Canadian government can do nothing about this demand, with the exception of amending the constitution to allow it. Assuming the required number of provinces and population go along with it (Charter s. 38 again), Quebec will have to convince the other members of the UN, of the IOC, and all the countries with which Canada has diplomatic relations that Quebec is separate and deserving of a seat/team.
I doubt it would be possible unless Quebec becomes fully independent and separate from Canada. At least, no more possible than if Texas and New South Wales applied to join the UN, and California and South Australia applied to the IOC to field their own Olympic teams.
In other words, with these points, you're demanding that the Canadian government deliver something it cannot unilaterally do, either nationally or internationally. What would Quebec do if Canada said, "It's OK," while the UN said, "It's not OK"?
Quote:
- more autonomy for French language units in the military
In what sense? I can certainly understand if they try to order a beer in the mess in French and are told to "speak English," but if you are suggesting that French-language units get a choice in what actions (e.g. Afghanistan, ISIS, etc.) they will participate in, then you have the wrong idea of what a country's military is all about. Imagine if Massachusetts' soldiers refused to participate in US Army actions in which they were ordered to participate--I'd guess that most of them would be court-martialed, and end up serving time.
Quote:
- ability for Quebec to skip military ventures like Afghanistan
The military is Canada's, not Quebec's--see Constitution s. 91(7).
Quote:
These are the conditions. Anything less is inadequate.
With all due respect, PBeauchamp, these are your conditions. I don't see where these are the conditions of the Quebec government. Many Quebecers may feel as you do, which is fine. But right now, I'm not hearing a lot of talk from Quebec politicians on these issues, nor am I seeing the federal government scrambling to discuss these issues.
You are, of course, free to present these as what youpersonally would like. But one poster saying "These are Quebec's demands" on an anonymous internet message board, while we hear nothing similar from the government of Quebec--well, you can imagine how much stock those of us in the ROC will put in them.
Last edited by ChevySpoons; 02-13-2015 at 10:23 PM..
I wouldn't want to see any Canadian province leave Confederation.
This thread of course is very regionally biased. If you were to ask most people east of the Manitoba border I bet most would rather see Alberta leave before Quebec does.
I wouldn't want to see any Canadian province leave Confederation.
This thread of course is very regionally biased. If you were to ask most people east of the Manitoba border I bet most would rather see Alberta leave before Quebec does.
Actually i've never heard that type of sentiment in Toronto or Ontario.. I've heard rumblings about western separatist sentiment and i've actually experienced it in City Data among some members. I was actually hurt when some posters (more than one) have said if Quebec separates they can take Ontario with em or the west will secede.. There's been a few to go so far as to say that its because of voter imbalance heavily in Ontario's court and it would have too much control over the nations destiny as the primary concern.
Anyway, not once have I seen anyone in these forums for example from Ontario express a desire for Alberta or the west to separate or leave - not once!
Actually i've never heard that type of sentiment in Toronto or Ontario.. I've heard rumblings about western separatist sentiment and i've actually experienced it in City Data among some members. I was actually hurt when some posters (more than one) have said if Quebec separates they can take Ontario with em or the west will secede.. There's been a few to go so far as to say that its because of voter imbalance heavily in Ontario's court and it would have too much control over the nations destiny as the primary concern.
Anyway, not once have I seen anyone in these forums for example from Ontario express a desire for Alberta or the west to separate or leave - not once!
I'll second that as being a fallacy.
With so much effort put into making last ditch efforts to keep Quebec in the family on a couple of occasions I hardly think there would be a ground-swell of suggestions of having yet another family member leave the table.
Frustration with Quebec manifests itself due solely to the perception of never seeming to be able to adequately "appease" the separatists. There is none, and never has been, any measurable suggestion of having a frustration generated reactionary "Alberta can go too" feeling from anywhere in Canada much less Ontario.
The only ongoing talk of secession is from those two provinces themselves.
Even back in the heady times of "let the eastern bast***s freeze in the dark" crappola, there was not one scintilla of suggestion of kicking Alberta out of confederation.
Let's just put this all down to the normal results of power hungry political entities capitalizing on the conditions of angst at the time and using it to advance their agenda of gaining exposure and credibility.
With so much effort put into making last ditch efforts to keep Quebec in the family on a couple of occasions I hardly think there would be a ground-swell of suggestions of having yet another family member leave the table.
Frustration with Quebec manifests itself due solely to the perception of never seeming to be able to adequately "appease" the separatists. There is none, and never has been, any measurable suggestion of having a frustration generated reactionary "Alberta can go too" feeling from anywhere in Canada much less Ontario.
The only ongoing talk of secession is from those two provinces themselves.
Even back in the heady times of "let the eastern bast***s freeze in the dark" crappola, there was not one scintilla of suggestion of kicking Alberta out of confederation.
Let's just put this all down to the normal results of power hungry political entities capitalizing on the conditions of angst at the time and using it to advance their agenda of gaining exposure and credibility.
100% agreed re Ontario and the west! I'm just pissed that a certain someone hasn't said she's sorry for hurting my feelings and made more of an effort to make up - She knows who she is..
As for Q.C i also agree about the fatigue in the R.O.C.... I don't completely agree with it myself but you'd have to be living like a groundhog not to be aware of it... I think when push comes to shove though, most Canadians want a united Canada.. Hey, things could be worse as in Spain and the Catalonian situation..
With all due respect, PBeauchamp, these are your conditions. I don't see where these are the conditions of the Quebec government. Many Quebecers may feel as you do, which is fine. But right now, I'm not hearing a lot of talk from Quebec politicians on these issues, nor am I seeing the federal government scrambling to discuss these issues.
You are, of course, free to present these as what youpersonally would like. But one poster saying "These are Quebec's demands" on an anonymous internet message board, while we hear nothing similar from the government of Quebec--well, you can imagine how much stock those of us in the ROC will put in them.
What he is saying is what every other Quebec politician, federalist or seperatist, says. They just dont do it in English. Trust me, I am a bilingual Quebecois and the main political mentalities are split between what more Canada can give Quebec before leaving and how Quebec can force the other provinces to accept some ridiculous demands. They dont care about or respect the Canadian constitution so that route wont work. This is why it is wrong to look at seperatist polls and say "only 40% want to seperate, Canada is safe". There are always another 30% who will only vote against seperation because they think they can milk Canada some more. This is the reality of Quebec tha most anglophones in the ROC are blissfully unaware of. That's why you dont see any of the other regular Quebecois posters distancing themselves from him, what he is saying is completely normal. Thats why the few Quebecois who are Canadians first leave for another province where loving Cnada is not a revolutionary act.
What he is saying is what every other Quebec politician, federalist or seperatist, says. They just dont do it in English. Trust me, I am a bilingual Quebecois and the main political mentalities are split between what more Canada can give Quebec before leaving and how Quebec can force the other provinces to accept some ridiculous demands. They dont care about or respect the Canadian constitution so that route wont work. his is why it is wrong to look at seperatist polls and say "only 40% want to seperate, Canada is safe". There are always another 30% who will only vote against seperation because they think they can milk Canada some more. This is the reality of Quebec tha most anglophones in the ROC are blissfully unaware of.
I think the question is what position are they really in to do anything substantially about it if what you are saying is true.. Quebec gets equalization payments but so do other Provinces.. As for respecting the Constitution it is what it is - they can agree to it or not but i'm not sure what sort of meaningful difference it will make if they respect it or not - its more a matter of it is what it is.. If it is 30 percent here we are talking about 2.8 million people who demand this and that.. I think we need to put that into perspective.. I'm not saying their views should be dismissed but they should be weighed against what is reasonable. I demand to retire tomorrow and be coddled by a harem of beautiful men from around the world... Will I get it - well I hope so lol..
On the matter of Equalization paymets - last year QC got 8.1 Billion dollars.. Quebecs economy is 365 billion dollars and the Canadian economy is 1.8 Trillion dollars... I know 8.1 billion is a lot to you and me but when you are talking about a large Province like QC or country like Canada that 8.1 Billion needs to be put into perspective..
Let's take a look at these demands from a constitutional perspective.
I'm unsure exactly what you mean here, but I imagine that it involves turning over federal powers (Constitution ss. 91, 92(10), and 94A) to Quebec.
Unfortunately, the Government of Canada cannot do that on its own. That would require the consent of Parliament plus seven provinces comprising 50% of the population (see Charter s. 38).
Getting rid of the monarchy cannot be done without the assent of Parliament and all ten provinces: see Charter s. 41.
Already in effect. To put a constitutional spin on it, Quebec can decide that French is its language (broadly, anyway) under Constitution s. 92(16). New Brunswick's francophones are protected under Charter ss. 16-22.
The Canadian government can do nothing about this demand, with the exception of amending the constitution to allow it. Assuming the required number of provinces and population go along with it (Charter s. 38 again), Quebec will have to convince the other members of the UN, of the IOC, and all the countries with which Canada has diplomatic relations that Quebec is separate and deserving of a seat/team.
I doubt it would be possible unless Quebec becomes fully independent and separate from Canada. At least, no more possible than if Texas and New South Wales applied to join the UN, and California and South Australia applied to the IOC to field their own Olympic teams.
In other words, with these points, you're demanding that the Canadian government deliver something it cannot unilaterally do, either nationally or internationally. What would Quebec do if Canada said, "It's OK," while the UN said,"It's not OK"?
In what sense? I can certainly understand if they try to order a beer in the mess in French and are told to "speak English" but if you are suggesting that French-language units get a choice in what actions (e.g. Afghanistan, ISIS, etc.) they will participate in, then you have the wrong idea of what a country's military is all about. Imagine if Massachusetts' soldiers refused to participate in US Army actions in which they were ordered to participate--I'd guess that most of them would be court-martialed, and end up serving time.
The military is Canada's, not Quebec's--see Constitution s. 91(7).
A fascinating perspective, albeit flawed. We are not the United States of America, nor are we the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Canada's constitutional history is shallow and if we are being honest with ourselves, relatively unstable. When dealing with Quebec the Canadian constitution has revealed itself to be a flimsy device. In Quebec we have a discovered the mother of all trump cards. It is the threat of separation. The Canadian federal government has showed us time and again that it is willing to "negotiate" and make "concessions" when faced with the prospect of it's collapse. Look at us in the nation of Quebec, look at how boldly we can disregard the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and still find approval in the Supreme Court of Canada. The nation of Quebec has come into it's own right, and over the last few decades it is become clear to see that our possibilities are endless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons
With all due respect, PBeauchamp, these are your conditions. I don't see where these are the conditions of the Quebec government. Many Quebecers may feel as you do, which is fine. But right now, I'm not hearing a lot of talk from Quebec politicians on these issues, nor am I seeing the federal government scrambling to discuss these issues.
You are, of course, free to present these as what youpersonally would like. But one poster saying "These are Quebec's demands" on an anonymous internet message board, while we hear nothing similar from the government of Quebec--well, you can imagine how much stock those of us in the ROC will put in them.
ChevySpoons, I have never made any "demands". I have only made known to your anglophone colleagues some of the demands that are regularly batted around at our PLQ meetings. Assuming an educated gentleman such as yourself is fluent in French, I encourage you to familiarize yourself with Quebec's political situation. Gone are the days when federalists believed in one united federal Canada. We have replaced this mentality with a more reasonable agenda. Today we believe Canada will devolve into a true confederation in order to better suit Quebec. We believe in collecting what is rightfully owed to us as one of two founding nations of Canada. Above all, we are all Quebecois first, and the fate of the rest of Canada, let alone the constitution, is none of our concern.
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.
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.
- She knows who she is..
