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.
Like others, I'm skeptical that it can happen (for practical reasons).
Going back to the OP, I find the "cultural oppression" bit fairly amusing, as there was only any French population to speak of for roughly 20-50 years prior to the victory of the English in the Seven Years war, and the Quebec Act, intended to sweet-talk the Quebecois into staying faithful to the union rather than join the Americans in rebellion against England, was signed in 1774.
This is a country that's been united far, far (8-10x) longer than Quebec was ever a viable French colony. And of course, glosses over the more viable complaint that First Nations' peoples have about their treatment under English rule. Queen or no Queen, she's just a figure-head. The PM is the functional head of state, and at least 4 of the most recent PMs hail from Quebec (Trudeau x 2- Pierre and Justin, Chretien, Mulroney).
The notion that QC is not represented I find...curious.
To make things more interesting, Quebec has 23% of the population (and 20% of GDP), but will draw 30% of federal payments in this fiscal year. Personally, while I don't have a vested interest either way, from my view it looks like Quebec just likes coercing Ottawa into giving them money to mollify the population, and somehow manages to keep doing it 240 years down the line from the Quebec Act which set the precedent for bribing them to stick around.
Why does it keep working? I don't entirely know. Independence would create some problems for the province, certainly, as despite the claims about their size relative to other countries, the loss of the support they get from Ottawa would be a net loss. Not to mention they'd need to pay for significant infrastructure they don't currently have to pay for wholly now (head of state, ambassadors, etc.).
Perhaps it persists because it really would hurt the remaining Canadian state even more, both in the loss of face, the contiguity problem, the loss of its 2nd and 7th biggest metros, etc.
I'm sure there are details and aspects of the debate I don't understand, as I just follow the argument casually. But from here it looks like QC has always gotten special treatment, and rails against the state either because it knows that's how it secures its future of continuing to get special treatment, or perhaps they really are that ____ and believe they deserve even special-er treatment.
, as there was only any French population to speak of for roughly 20-50 years prior to the victory of the English in the Seven Years war,
Your numbers are a bit off. The French were in present-day Canada as early as 1534, with permanent settlements as of the early 1600s, including towns and (small) cities, parishes, a court system, schools, colleges, etc.
The Treaty of Paris ending the Seven Years' War was signed in 1763.
So that's a good 150-200 years of presence in this part of the world.
This is a country that's been united far, far (8-10x) longer than Quebec was ever a viable French colony.
I don't understand where you get 8 to 10 times longer?
Canadians will mark the 150th anniversary of their "unity" as the country we know today next year in 2017.
Between 1763 and 1867 (the year of "Confederation", creating the country we know today), Canada wasn't really a country in the true sense of the word.
Nothing magical happened in 1763 that immediately united Canadians as one country.
For starters, there were hardly any English-speaking Canadians living in the country at the time.
It was basically a bunch of aboriginal and French people living under the control of British soldiers and administrators.
English-speaking people only started arriving in Canada in decent numbers after the American Revolution, and it took some before the flow from the UK started to pick up.
Like others, I'm skeptical that it can happen (for practical reasons).
Going back to the OP, I find the "cultural oppression" bit fairly amusing, as there was only any French population to speak of for roughly 20-50 years prior to the victory of the English in the Seven Years war, and the Quebec Act, intended to sweet-talk the Quebecois into staying faithful to the union rather than join the Americans in rebellion against England, was signed in 1774.
This is a country that's been united far, far (8-10x) longer than Quebec was ever a viable French colony. And of course, glosses over the more viable complaint that First Nations' peoples have about their treatment under English rule. Queen or no Queen, she's just a figure-head. The PM is the functional head of state, and at least 4 of the most recent PMs hail from Quebec (Trudeau x 2- Pierre and Justin, Chretien, Mulroney).
The notion that QC is not represented I find...curious.
To make things more interesting, Quebec has 23% of the population (and 20% of GDP), but will draw 30% of federal payments in this fiscal year. Personally, while I don't have a vested interest either way, from my view it looks like Quebec just likes coercing Ottawa into giving them money to mollify the population, and somehow manages to keep doing it 240 years down the line from the Quebec Act which set the precedent for bribing them to stick around.
Why does it keep working? I don't entirely know. Independence would create some problems for the province, certainly, as despite the claims about their size relative to other countries, the loss of the support they get from Ottawa would be a net loss. Not to mention they'd need to pay for significant infrastructure they don't currently have to pay for wholly now (head of state, ambassadors, etc.).
Perhaps it persists because it really would hurt the remaining Canadian state even more, both in the loss of face, the contiguity problem, the loss of its 2nd and 7th biggest metros, etc.
I'm sure there are details and aspects of the debate I don't understand, as I just follow the argument casually. But from here it looks like QC has always gotten special treatment, and rails against the state either because it knows that's how it secures its future of continuing to get special treatment, or perhaps they really are that ____ and believe they deserve even special-er treatment.
Who doesn't want more, right?
A few more comments:
- It's popular in some circles to say that Quebec gets special treatment but that's highly debatable. Canada has a variety of set-ups that allow for federal payments to provinces if their economy and finances aren't equivalent to the national average. Depending on the numbers, any province can qualify for this, and some other provinces (actually four of them) receive way more than Quebec does per capita. Since the inception of the program, all provinces have received payments from the feds in this manner at one point or another. Even oil-rich Alberta did at one point. This is not a special deal for Quebec.
- I don't necessarily agree that the French language and francophone culture is being suppressed, disrespected, etc. in Canada at the moment, but there is no doubt that this took place during Canada's history.
- I wouldn't say that Quebec and francophones in general have not had adequate representation at the political level. Certainly not in recent decades.
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.
