Quebec's Pending Changes

[August1991]

I frankly think that the Harper Government (federal) will lose seats in Quebec in the next federal election. Harper is playing badly an excellent hand.

But Quebec is changing.

Désillusionné par le Parti québécois, un ex-collaborateur des premiers ministres Lévesque, Landry, Parizeau et Bouchard a fait le saut à l'ADQ, où il travaille à l'élaboration de «nouvelles idées» en vue de la prochaine élection provinciale.

Raynald Bernier, qui a été directeur de cabinet de Bernard Landry au début des années 1980, puis conseiller de René Lévesque, Jacques Parizeau et Lucien Bouchard, est désormais secrétaire et coordonnateur de la Commission politique de l'ADQ.

JdeM

After months of speculation former PQ cabinet minister Francois Legault has finally launched his Coalition for the Future of Quebec.

...

"We have to forget about what happened in the past and look in the future," said Legault. "We are trying to help Quebec and we are coming from different political families, so there's no reason to start a battle."

CTV

Like 1949 or 1959, there are changes due in Quebec.

Edited March 13, 2011 by August1991

[jbg]

Like 1949 or 1959, there are changes due in Quebec.

That's very indefinite. What changes?

And if Harper loses seats, what Federal party gains? Or is it more Bloc?

[Smallc]

I frankly think that the Harper Government (federal) will lose seats in Quebec in the next federal election.

Given their current numbers, I don't see what this is based on. If anything, they could pick up a couple of seats.

[Topaz]

Do the people of Quebec really know what they will lose if they do separate? I would like to see a debate for any province who think they would like to go their own way. What would happen with CPP, OAS, GIS, their share of the debt etc. Of course , with Quebec, they do have the St. Lawrence river and seaway which could be a problem for the freighters. They also have military bases there, lots to think about.

[Shwa]

Do the people of Quebec really know what they will lose if they do separate? I would like to see a debate for any province who think they would like to go their own way. What would happen with CPP, OAS, GIS, their share of the debt etc. Of course , with Quebec, they do have the St. Lawrence river and seaway which could be a problem for the freighters. They also have military bases there, lots to think about.

They will lose their land base since most of it is either under Indian treaty or under an Indian land claim. There might be a few seigneuries along the south shore they pack into, but that is about it.

[kimmy]

Do the people of Quebec really know what they will lose if they do separate? I would like to see a debate for any province who think they would like to go their own way. What would happen with CPP, OAS, GIS, their share of the debt etc. Of course , with Quebec, they do have the St. Lawrence river and seaway which could be a problem for the freighters. They also have military bases there, lots to think about.

I don't think the changes August is anticipating relate to separatism. I think he's talking about changes where Quebec grows up, quits crying victim, and joins the 21st century.

-k

[Posc Student]

Given their current numbers, I don't see what this is based on. If anything, they could pick up a couple of seats.

A poll last week showed the Conservative were only at 20% in Quebec City and that they would lose seats there. Some polls have showed them with higher numbers in Quebec, though Ekols had them at 15%, but just like in Canada if their support is more spread out throughout the province instead of being concentrated in certains regions it won't help them.

[Smallc]

A poll last week showed the Conservative were only at 20% in Quebec City and that they would lose seats there. Some polls have showed them with higher numbers in Quebec, though Ekols had them at 15%, but just like in Canada if their support is more spread out throughout the province instead of being concentrated in certains regions it won't help them.

Just like in Canada? Quebec is in Canada. The poll showed them at 20% in Quebec, and that's a respectable showing for them (virtually the same as in the last election). I don't see them losing much of anything anywhere.

[Posc Student]

Just like in Canada? Quebec is in Canada. The poll showed them at 20% in Quebec, and that's a respectable showing for them (virtually the same as in the last election). I don't see them losing much of anything anywhere.

I meant Canada as a whole and not a regional level. A poll last week showed them at only 20% in Quebec City which is bad.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Posc Student

[Smallc]

As for the Conservatives, recent polls show they’re still strong in the Quebec City area. The Harper government’s refusal to finance a hockey arena doesn’t seem to have hurt the Conservatives in the provincial capital.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lysiane-gagnon/dont-expect-a-quebec-surprise/article1939258/

It doesn't seem that the Globe and Mail agrees.

[Posc Student]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lysiane-gagnon/dont-expect-a-quebec-surprise/article1939258/

It doesn't seem that the Globe and Mail agrees.

One poll obviously shows them doing well and another shows them not doing to well, not strange at all.

[August1991]

I don't think the changes August is anticipating relate to separatism. I think he's talking about changes where Quebec grows up, quits crying victim, and joins the 21st century.

Kimmy, you are wrong to use a personal situation to understand a society. "Grow up", "Quit crying" are phrases used to admonish individuals. (You must be Lutheran.)

Quebec is a society of several million people. Many are tired of arguing with others on the same point.

---

I suspect that English-Canada is as tired of this National debate as people in Quebec. In this thread, I merely want to say that in French Canada, change is pregnant.

Edited March 17, 2011 by August1991

[ToadBrother]

They will lose their land base since most of it is either under Indian treaty or under an Indian land claim. There might be a few seigneuries along the south shore they pack into, but that is about it.

Indeed, the issues surrounding native lands didn't quite go off during the leadup to the 1995 referendum, but several chiefs let it be known that the Separatists were in for quite a shock if they thought they could just trot off with their lands. In other words, not only would Quebec have to negotiate with the Federal Government, it would have to negotiate with First Nations. One only has to look at BC to see how long that can take. There are serious legal issues that arise out of those Indian lands, which are first and foremost under the protection of the Crown.

[g_bambino]

Indeed, the issues surrounding native lands didn't quite go off during the leadup to the 1995 referendum, but several chiefs let it be known that the Separatists were in for quite a shock if they thought they could just trot off with their lands. In other words, not only would Quebec have to negotiate with the Federal Government, it would have to negotiate with First Nations. One only has to look at BC to see how long that can take. There are serious legal issues that arise out of those Indian lands, which are first and foremost under the protection of the Crown.

Quebec sovereigntists were never known to let facts get in the way of a good patriotic rant.

[ToadBrother]

Quebec sovereigntists were never known to let facts get in the way of a good patriotic rant.

In this case it was worse than that. I'm assuming that a number of Separatist strategists were also going to be drafting a constitution, negotiating with Canada, possibly even retaining the Queen as head of state, and so on and so forth. The disposition of the native peoples would be a huge part of all of these actions. It was as if they had never even considered the fact that the constitution, right back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, created a special status for native peoples. They were remarkably unprepared to negotiate a separation from Canada, and it does not appear that in the intervening 15 years that they have done anything meaningful to address what really is one of the 800 lb. gorillas in the room. Have they considered what would happen if the First Nations of Quebec said "We're not leaving Canada, our rights and territories are guaranteed by longstanding agreement with the Crown."? So far as I can tell (and I'll admit right up front I'm no constitutional expert), while these territories are within the borders of Quebec, they are in effect protectorates of the Federal Crown, and thus Quebec, even now, has only limited powers within those territorial borders. In short, if the First Nations refused the overtures of a Quebec government empowered by a successful referendum, there are vast strips of territory that Quebec would be forced to leave behind, and that if they attempted to take them, then the Canadian Crown would be within its legal rights to insure the integrity of those territories, and it might even be said without much exaggeration that the Canadian Crown would be required to do so. If Quebec did not capitulate, then I posit we might have a war of some kind on our hands.

Edited March 17, 2011 by ToadBrother

[scouterjim]

Do the people of Quebec really know what they will lose if they do separate? I would like to see a debate for any province who think they would like to go their own way. What would happen with CPP, OAS, GIS, their share of the debt etc. Of course , with Quebec, they do have the St. Lawrence river and seaway which could be a problem for the freighters. They also have military bases there, lots to think about.

Quebec isn't going anywhere. The Quebecois KNOW that they get whatever they cry for, and just have to say "secede" before the Federal government bends over backward to appease them.

[g_bambino]

So far as I can tell (and I'll admit right up front I'm no constitutional expert), while these territories are within the borders of Quebec, they are in effect protectorates of the Federal Crown, and thus Quebec, even now, has only limited powers within those territorial borders.

No, you are correct: all treaties are with the Queen in right of the federal realm, not any of the provincial ones (though, arrangements can be made between the federal and provincial governments over how the reserves are to be administered, I believe). The sovereigntist strategists couldn't have been completely ignorant of the fact, given that First Nations leaders raised it and the Cree held their own referendum on separation from Canada all before the 1995 Quebec referendum.

Beyond that, the sovereigntists seemed to believe also that the amending forumla of the constitution didn't apply to Quebec (not surprising, as they've generally refused to accept the existence of the Constitution Act 1982 because Lévesque didn't give it his approval).

To them it was just a matter of "nous sommes indépendant!" and, voilà, it is done.

[fellowtraveller]

The status of First Nations within Quebec and Canada was raised by the First Nations many times in both referendum campaigns and every time the separatistes angrily shouted them down. It is the last thing they want to talk about.

The notion put to them is that 'if Canada is divisible, then so is Quebec', given that the First Nations and likely Montreal have no interest in a sovereign Quebec and would prefer to remain within Canada.

It is not a topic for polite company in La Belle Province.

[August1991]

The status of First Nations within Quebec and Canada was raised by the First Nations many times in both referendum campaigns and every time the separatistes angrily shouted them down. It is the last thing they want to talk about.

The notion put to them is that 'if Canada is divisible, then so is Quebec', given that the First Nations and likely Montreal have no interest in a sovereign Quebec and would prefer to remain within Canada.

It is not a topic for polite company in La Belle Province.

Fellowtraveller, you entirely miss the point of this thread. And you really don't understand Canada, or Canadian history.

I think Quebec politics will soon change and as a result, federal politics will change too. What happens if the Bloc doesn't win 38 seats?

Edited March 19, 2011 by August1991

[g_bambino]

Fellowtraveller... you really don't understand Canada, or Canadian history.

Would you like to be a little more specific about where his errors lie?

[fellowtraveller]

August 1991 is one of the Quebecois who gets very, very angry at the notion that Quebec is divisible too, particularly the First Nations aspects. They can wiggle their way past Montreal, but those pesky aboriginals just won't swear loyalty to a new master.

It is a very difficult question for the separatistes, I can understand their dilemma but can't be of much help in resolving it to their satisfaction.

[bloodyminded]

August 1991 is one of the Quebecois who gets very, very angry at the notion that Quebec is divisible too, particularly the First Nations aspects. They can wiggle their way past Montreal, but those pesky aboriginals just won't swear loyalty to a new master.

It is a very difficult question for the separatistes, I can understand their dilemma but can't be of much help in resolving it to their satisfaction.

[Topaz]

Just like in Canada? Quebec is in Canada. The poll showed them at 20% in Quebec, and that's a respectable showing for them (virtually the same as in the last election). I don't see them losing much of anything anywhere.

It's interesting you said that Quebec is in Canada and I agree BUT, in the House of Commons the Bloc always refers to "Quebec and Canada or Quebecers and Canadians" and the House allows this or doesn't point back to them that Quebec is in Canada.

[g_bambino]

It's interesting you said that Quebec is in Canada and I agree BUT, in the House of Commons the Bloc always refers to "Quebec and Canada or Quebecers and Canadians" and the House allows this or doesn't point back to them that Quebec is in Canada.

Since when was lying or misrepresenting the facts disallowed in the House of Commons?

[Chippewa]

How can Quebec seperate from First Nations. One First Nations Leader told the Premier of Quebec, that "if he wants to seperate, go ahead, and head back to France, thats the only way Quebec seperates from First Nations." Quebec is a province of canada, and most of the Treaties are signed with Federal Governments, which Quebec is not.