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.
Interesting question. I moved to Quebec from Ontario around the time of the 1995 referendum. I didn't go around saying I was moving for linguistic or political reasons. A major factor was was more affordable housing costs, and that's usually what I mentioned as my "reason" for crossing the border. In any event, lots of people (tons in fact) asked me what I'd do if Quebec separated. Would I move back to Canada to remain Canadian if Quebec separated? My answer to that was always that Canada to me without Quebec isn't Canada anymore, so if independence ever did happen, I'd have to reassess my sense of belonging (appartenance).
BTW, even when living in Ontario (or the Maritimes), I always did feel that Quebec was an inextricable part of Canada, and without it Canada pretty much ceases to exist. If it's gone, then for me at least nothing is taken for granted anymore.
It's interesting you say that. My boss at my old job on Prince Edward Island was an immigrant from South Africa and he considered Quebec to be "Canada's backbone", he has respect for Quebecois and wouldn't want to see them go.
A Quebec-less Canada will emerge as a different entity, and definitely much more centralized than it is now (Canada is actually rather DE-centralized)
But significant changes will be undertaken on both sides of the border if Quebec separated.
To be fair Ontario and Maritimes residents will probably feel most that Quebec is a central component of Canada without which it just wouldn't be the same, and perhaps more so the closer they are to Quebec.
In my experience there are many anglophone Canadians from the ROC who consider Canada without Quebec to be borderline unthinkable, or at least a greatly diminished Canada that would be deprived of an important component.
I don't want to speak for him but I am pretty sure people like fusion on here feel this way. And many others too.
In my experience there are many anglophone Canadians from the ROC who consider Canada without Quebec to be borderline unthinkable, or at least a greatly diminished Canada that would be deprived of an important component.
I don't want to speak for him but I am pretty sure people like fusion on here feel this way. And many others too.
Greatly transformed? Yes. Greatly diminished? I'm not so sure.
Quote:
At this point all that's needed is to dot some i's and cross some t's in a fair and honest referendum and you will then have the country and sovereign nation of Quebec standing tall on the world stage.
It is true that the Quebec provincial government only has a few more responsibilities left to assume to actually be functional as a sovereign country.
It just shows how decentralized Canadian governance actually can be; then again if all provinces assumed the same responsibilities as Quebec does now, would that do anglo-Canada any good?
lol not you specifically but the fact you're a Lawyer with experience in Constitutional Law puts you leagues ahead of most Canadians on this issue.. I just meant in a general sense Chevy, I think the typical C/D poster in the Canada forums is just a bit more engaged in politics and Canadian matters as a whole than your typical Canadian.
Besides nothing wrong with being a Wonk - the world needs more wonks than what it has for the most part
True. And if he doesn't like the outcome of the decision; well, he doesn't have to, and he can inform us of that fact.
But it is what it is: the fact remains that not all provinces' assent is required for most amendments. We see this reflected in the Charter amending formula today, where th 7/50 rule holds for amendments. Only a few provisions require the assent of Parliament and all ten provinces.
Is the 7/50 rule undemocratic? Guytar may think so, and he is free to say so. But it is constitutional nonetheless.
Are you saying that the parliament could open the constitution to abolish or at least strongly reform the senate based on the 7/50 (or 7/93 since 1995) ?
In short, Parliament could have repatriated the Constitution by itself. However, by convention, such an act would require the assent of a "substantial" number of provinces. See pp. 904-905 of the cite, specifically:
Emphasis added. But I think all can agree that while "unanimity" would have been nice, the Court's words of "substantial degree" and "substantial measure" in the context of the decision do not mean "unanimity."
I am probably wrong, but to me raptriament of the constitution should have been done on a full democratic basis instead of applying constitution rules for building the constitution, but that's only my wonkless perspective
What would Canada be without Quebec? It would lose an important part of its Identity, even the whole separation issue has become part of Canadian identity. The same could be said for Quebec, what would it be if it didn't have the ROC for contrast.
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.
