Sarkozy says Quebec-France ties should not divide Canada

[Leafless]

The Canadian Press — Quebec's deep ties with France should never become the wedge that divides a united Canada, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Friday.

President Nicolas Sarkozy should know that currently Canada is NOT united as proven by the recent federal election. Quebec made certain a Conservative majority would be next to impossible to achieve.

When President Sarkozy makes silly comments like this:

“Francophones in my family don't ask me not to consider Canada ... as a friend.”

This gives an underlying impression that Quebec is a country separate from the ROC.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

[Smallc]

President Nicolas Sarkozy should know that currently Canada is NOT united

See there's this border. It goes all the way around the country and it even includes Quebec That means, Quebec is part of a united Canada.

[Leafless]

See there's this border. It goes all the way around the country and it even includes Quebec That means, Quebec is part of a united Canada.

Quebec is part of Canada by default.

Quebec to this day has never signed the constitution and flaunts Quebec nationalism and has more powers than any other province in Canada.

Is there anything else you would like to know about the pretend country of Quebec?

Edited October 18, 2008 by Leafless

[mcqueen625]

If you look at the BLOC politicians and the Liberals for that matter they refer to THEIR huge energy projects but the truth is that those projects are sitting on land that is OWNED by Newfoundland & Labrador although Quebec has always thought of all of the land on the mainland including Labrador as part of Quebec. The truth is that Quebec has been stealing from Newfoundland & Labrador ever since that agreement was signed. Quebec is making huge profits from projects that they do not own, on land they do not own. I think the borders of Quebec should be redraw back to their original places and we will see just how much land Quebec has encroached on that was not part of Quebec originally.

Edited October 18, 2008 by mcqueen625

[Smallc]

and has more powers than any other province in Canada.

Any province can have those same powers, they just choose not to. Quebec is really a nationalist province, though they currently have a federalist government. Sovereigntists really are in the minority.

Edited October 19, 2008 by Smallc

[Leafless]

Any province can have those same powers, they just choose not to.

Please provide proof to back that statement.

As far as I know immigration powers equal to what Quebec harbours has been denied to other provinces by the federal government.

Quebec is out of control harbouring powers other provinces don't have including being recognized as a distinct society... courtesy Mr.Harper relating to Quebec is a nation within Canada.

Currently we have a two- tiered Canada with Quebec on one level and the ROC on the other.

Quebec is really a nationalist province, though they currently have a federalist government. Sovereigntists really are in the minority.

How can you possibly say separatist are the minority when the Bloc won 50-seats in the recent federal election? Regardless people are tired of hearing the same old Quebec federalist/separatist conflict.

Edited October 19, 2008 by Leafless

[Smallc]

Please provide proof to back that statement.

I can't find it now, but I know I've heard it before. It may not relate to all powers, but there are powers that Quebec as that the other provinces could have if they wanted.

How can you possibly say separatist are the minority when the Bloc won 50-seats in the recent federal election?

With less than half the vote...and not all of the people that voted for them were sovereigntists, or they would never have considered voting conservative.

[g_bambino]

Quebec is part of Canada by default.

Default?

Quebec to this day has never signed the constitution

So, there were no representatives from Lower Canada present at the constitutional conferences leading up to Confederation, and the BNA 1867 was foisted on them without their consent? Really?

[Leafless]

Default?

Quebec did not sign the Constitution Act of 1982 but by default Quebec was included regardless.

So, there were no representatives from Lower Canada present at the constitutional conferences leading up to Confederation, and the BNA 1867 was foisted on them without their consent? Really?

We are referring to the Constution Act of 1982.

[g_bambino]

We are referring to the Constution Act of 1982. Quebec did not sign the Constitution Act of 1982 but by default Quebec was included regardless.

Putting aside the question of who "we" is, the Canada Act 1982 was but another constitutional document added to the already existent collection of documents and conventions. It was not a new constitution. So, Quebec falls under the jurisdiction of the Constitution Act 1982 because the province was formed by the British North America Act 1867 (now Constitution Act 1867), and never removed itself from Confederation.

[Brunopolis]

With the amount of sovereignty and special laws and rules Quebec has right now they should really just seperate. Their wouldn't really be too much of a change from right now.

I've seen some nations where it's easier to move from one country to the other than going from any other province in Canada to Quebec.

[Leafless]

Putting aside the question of who "we" is

"We" refers to people who are intelligent enough to understand that it was the Costitution Act 1982 is what I am talking about.

the Canada Act 1982 was but another constitutional document added to the already existent collection of documents and conventions. It was not a new constitution.

It is a NEW Canadian Constitution.

You know the foreign one, that was repatriated from England which now makes it Canadian.

So, Quebec falls under the jurisdiction of the Constitution Act 1982 because the province was formed by the British North America Act 1867 (now Constitution Act 1867), and never removed itself from Confederation.

Quebec did not sign the newly repatriated Canadian constitution in its entirety but was included by 'default' because the large majority of provincial legislatures voted for it.

[Leafless]

With the amount of sovereignty and special laws and rules Quebec has right now they should really just seperate. Their wouldn't really be too much of a change from right now.

Quebec would never be able to survive such a drastic change relating lack of federal financial aid and their reluctance to allow English speaking companies and investors to re-develop what is left of their resources.

I've seen some nations where it's easier to move from one country to the other than going from any other province in Canada to Quebec.

Ha-ha-ha-ha.

[g_bambino]

It is a NEW Canadian Constitution.

No, it isn't.

Quebec did not sign the newly repatriated Canadian constitution in its entirety but was included by 'default' because the large majority of provincial legislatures voted for it.

The Lieutenant Governor of Quebec didn't have to sign the Constitution Act 1982; in fact, the consent of no province was technically required for its implementation. The provinces were only consulted because it was recommended by the Supreme Court that the federal government do so. Quebec was included under the new act because the province never left Confederation.

[Leafless]

No, it isn't.

Of course it is new.

The constituion is now on Canadian soil in the hands of parliament and in the process of being amended at that time and uninhibited from the polical actions of the British parliament.

The Lieutenant Governor of Quebec didn't have to sign the Constitution Act 1982; in fact, the consent of no province was technically required for its implementation. The provinces were only consulted because it was recommended by the Supreme Court that the federal government do so. Quebec was included under the new act because the province never left Confederation.

What you are taking about is the necessity of a patriation 'reference'.

There was no way the provinces would have allowed the constitution to be patriated by the PM unilaterally. Constitutional convention required this and the PM obliged. He really had no choice.

Could you provide a link or proof to back up your statement: "Quebec was included under the new act because the province never left Confederation."

This is contrary to my information that states Quebec was included only because of majority consent resulting from the 'kitchen accord'.

Edited October 23, 2008 by Leafless

[g_bambino]

Of course it is new.

No, it is not.

There was no way the provinces would have allowed the constitution to be patriated by the PM unilaterally. Constitutional convention required this and the PM obliged.

It was impossible for such a convention to exist because such a thing had never been done before; with the BNA 1867 still firmly in British hands, it was that authority that decided what happened to that document, and they didn't need any province's approval before-hand. Knowing this, Trudeau threatened to go straight to that source and get the job done without any input from the provinces. It was then that the premiers took the matter to the Supreme Court, which said Trudeau should have the consent of the provinces, though it wasn't technically required.

Could you provide a link or proof to back up your statement: "Quebec was included under the new act because the province never left Confederation."

This is contrary to my information that states Quebec was included only because of majority consent resulting from the 'kitchen accord'.

It's hardly contrary. That majority consent was the reason Trudeau went ahead without Quebec's approval, but the reason Quebec was drawn along with that decision was because the province never left Confederation and thus still had to abide by the constitution. Look at any map for proof that Quebec never left Confederation.

Edited October 23, 2008 by g_bambino

[Leafless]

It was impossible for such a convention to exist because such a thing had never been done before; with the BNA 1867 still firmly in British hands, it was that authority that decided what happened to that document, and they didn't need any province's approval before-hand. Knowing this, Trudeau threatened to go straight to that source and get the job done without any input from the provinces. It was then that the premiers took the matter to the Supreme Court, which said Trudeau should have the consent of the provinces, though it wasn't technically required.

It's hardly contrary. That majority consent was the reason Trudeau went ahead without Quebec's approval, but the reason Quebec was drawn along with that decision was because the province never left Confederation and thus still had to abide by the constitution. Look at any map for proof that Quebec never left Confederation.

Quebec was included because it did not have a choice in the matter.

But in saying this Quebec should have been kicked out of confederation at that time or the Charter scrapped.

Neither happened proving Trudeau was indeed looking out for Quebec, thus making a fool of the ROC.

[g_bambino]

Quebec was included because it did not have a choice in the matter.

Exactly.

But in saying this Quebec should have been kicked out of confederation at that time or the Charter scrapped.

Neither happened proving Trudeau was indeed looking out for Quebec, thus making a fool of the ROC.

Quebec should have been kicked out for doing nothing illegal? Why should the Charter have been scrapped, but the rest of the Canada Act not?

[Leafless]

Quebec should have been kicked out for doing nothing illegal? Why should the Charter have been scrapped, but the rest of the Canada Act not?

No of course not.

Traitorous/threats demands, are not illegal as they only undermine the foundation of the country.

[Leafless]

Exactly.

Why should the Charter have been scrapped, but the rest of the Canada Act not?

The only part of the charter that should have been included was the original 'Bill of Rights'.

The rest of the charter reflects socialistic ideologies that seriously conflict with a free and democratic society.

[g_bambino]

Traitorous/threats demands, are not illegal as they only undermine the foundation of the country.

You'd first have to prove them to be traitorous.