"SOVEREIGNTY WILL BE DONE IN QUEBEC!"

cybercoma · May 11, 2011

Quebec is unique enough that the Prime Minister of Canada stood up in Parliament and declared that Quebeckers make up a nation within a unified Canada. So you all can say it's just as unique as every other province in the country, but not even Stephen Harper believe that.

cybercoma · May 11, 2011

Provinces are very much sovereign in their own right. They aren't sovereign in the sense of a country, but they're still sovereign and they still have widespread jurisdiction.

In the sense that Nunavut is a sovereign territory, Quebec is not.

Smallc · May 11, 2011

In the sense that Nunavut is a sovereign territory, Quebec is not.

Nunavut isn't sovereign in any way. Quebec is.

Smallc · May 11, 2011

Quebec is unique enough that the Prime Minister of Canada stood up in Parliament and declared that Quebeckers make up a nation within a unified Canada.

He didn't say Quebecers. He said Quebecois. That's an important difference. There are many unique groups in the county.

RNG · May 11, 2011

Quebec is unique enough that the Prime Minister of Canada stood up in Parliament and declared that Quebeckers make up a nation within a unified Canada. So you all can say it's just as unique as every other province in the country, but not even Stephen Harper believe that.

But he'd kiss the devil to get votes.

g_bambino · May 11, 2011

It's not a sovereign territory.

It's co-sovereign. The eleven parts of Canada are bound together by free will and derive their sovereignty equally from the same source.

Of course, the Canadian government favoured patriation but to legitimize the process something more was needed, for Canada had not one responsible government but eleven. Just as it would be unconstitutional for the Queen to act in a Canadian matter on the advice of her British ministers, so it would be unconstitutional for her to act in a provincial matter on the advice of her Dominion ministers. This principle bore on the question before the court because the Queen received a petition from the Parliament of Canada, such as the proposed patriation petition, as Queen of Canada and acted on it on the advice of her Canadian ministers. If that petition affected provincial matters, as the patriation resolutions did, it would be unconstitutional for the Queen to act on it against the advice of her provincial ministers.
The Queen, in short, was not only Queen of the United Kingdom, of Canada, and certain other Commonwealth countries; she was also Queen of each of the Canadian provinces. "She is the same Queen over all, but she acts in different rights; she acts in executive matters on the advice of responsible ministers and in legislative matters on the advice of responsible Parliaments." The courts themselves recognized this when they had to decide disputes between Ottawa and one or more provinces. In such cases, they habitually distinguished "the Queen in right of Canada" from the Queen in right of the various provinces. The division of executive authority, as signified by the monarch's many crowns, formed the basis of the provinces' sovereignty as it did of the Dominion's. Canada's sovereignty did not flow from the Statute of Westminster; "it was not conferred by the British Parliament but by the Queen's acceptance of the constitutional principles which have become part and parcel of our fundamental law." Those principles entailed provincial sovereignty too, and the courts had the same duty to uphold the sovereignty of the provinces as of the Dominion.

Getting it Wrong: How Canadians Forgot Their Past and Imperilled Confederation; p. 274

This has been the case pretty much since the Lord Watson of the Judicial Committee of the Imperial Privy Council ruled in 1882, as part of his decision in Maritime Bank v. Receiver-General of New Brunswick, that "the Lieutenant Governor... is as much a representative of Her Majesty, for all purposes of Provincial Government as the Governor General himself is, for all purposes of Dominion Government."

[+]

Edited May 11, 2011 by g_bambino

Molly · May 11, 2011

Quebec is unique enough that the Prime Minister of Canada stood up in Parliament and declared that Quebeckers make up a nation within a unified Canada. So you all can say it's just as unique as every other province in the country, but not even Stephen Harper believe that.

Ha! Are we doing the Mr. Canada 'Stepehen Harper is our benevolent father' routine now?

That's just one more thing on an exceedingly long list of things I disagree with Mr. Harper about, that make me believe that he is an opportunitst who is cavalierly destructive to the very nuts and bolts of my country.

cybercoma · May 11, 2011

From Lord Durham to Stephen Harper. That's a pretty long history of believing Quebec is not "just another province", but that there are two Canadas.

bloodyminded · May 11, 2011

They already do as a constituent part of the country which recognizes them as - and only as - a consituent part.

Yes, thank you! I ask for no more for my own province (technically less, actually, now that I think about it) than what I think Quebec should get, in terms of respect, influence, federally-influenced or -induced services, etc.

How that's "anglos oppressing the French" has yet to be explained to me....except in vague platitudes that I simply am unable to wrap my head around.

Here in NB, one-third of the population is French; every one I've talked to says "good riddance" to the bloc.

So it's not a "French-English" matter, but a "Quebec-everyone else matter."

Weak minded assumption that people of different language backgrounds can't compromise.

Right; NB again. The only prejudices we get around here on the "French-English question" are from a minority of angry, rural, anti-French Anglos whom literally nobody else takes seriously.

bloodyminded · May 11, 2011

That's every bit as offensive to me as Benz's two nations definition.

My forebears were not English, nor French, nor Aboriginal and neither am I, but I'm every bloody bit as Canadian as anyone who happens to be any or all of those things. Moreso, because my nationality- my loyalty- isn't hyphenated or conditional.

You guys don't get to tell me that your greater loyalty to some other 'nation' makes you more valuable to this one. I say that it makes you less valuable.

A fair point.

g_bambino · May 11, 2011

[T]he Prime Minister of Canada stood up in Parliament and declared that Quebeckers make up a nation within a unified Canada.

He never said any such thing.

Molly · May 11, 2011

Whenever someone starts using "ethnicity" as an essential defining quality of the "uniqueness" of a particular political jurisdiction, giant warning lights should start flashing...

This bears repeating. (Could use all caps and colour, too.)

August1991 · May 11, 2011

Nope. Quebec is - and only is - a province. Nothing more. It exists only at the privledge of Canada and it's articles of governance. It has no land base.

That kind of attitude would destroy Canada. And it is wrong in practice.

Everyone elected at the national assembly since 1982. The whole Québec then.

The problem with your argument Benz is that the National Assembly is not the sole voice of Quebecers. The federal government and specifically federal MPs from Quebec also speak for Quebecers.

Total denial... nothing has changed and the more your bark like that, the more Québec is getting closer to the independence.

This threat has absolutely no credibility in English Canada anymore. If it lacked credibility before, the voters in Berthier-Maskinongé have truly undermined its credibility.

My forebears were not English, nor French, nor Aboriginal and neither am I, but I'm every bloody bit as Canadian as anyone who happens to be any or all of those things. Moreso, because my nationality- my loyalty- isn't hyphenated or conditional.
You guys don't get to tell me that your greater loyalty to some other 'nation' makes you more valuable to this one. I say that it makes you less valuable.

Molly, Canadian history is messy and it defies placement into a simple box. Some Canadians view themselves as part of a nation within a larger Canadian context (or superstructure, to coin a term). It's usually best if no one tries to impose their definition of Canada on everyone else.

Molly · May 11, 2011

Deleted

Edited May 11, 2011 by Molly

Benz · May 11, 2011

Well, how is it false that Quebec is a province of Canada, like the others? Doesn't it say so in the 1867 Constitution (BNA) Act, which is legally binding and received Quebec's assent at the time? You might wish to change this situation, and you have the right to wish this, but that doesn't seem to make it a lie.

1867 is only 29 years after the rebellion where the patriots were crushed by the british army. The french were not in a position where they had many options. Considering what the french had prior to that, the new federal system was a great improvement. From the beginning of the discussions until the adoption in 1867, Québec always wanted to make Canada a confederation and the english Canada wanted a federation. At the end, Georges-Etienne Cartier finally accepted the federation thinking it would be better than the previous status and he was afraid that the status quo would prevail if he doesn't sign.

After that, it got worst. The federal government gained more powers always with the consent of the english and against the will of Québec. Today it is a too centralised system that can only please english provinces.

Will you lay back on the advantage you got 140 years ago when the french were the conquered subjects of her majesty until Québec leaves or you will considere us as a real partner.

Québec is not like the other english provinces. Even if on your papers it says otherwise.

----

Nunavut is a territory. It separated from the Northwest Territories because of it's unique ethnicity, culture and cultural codes. How is Nunavut like the "other provinces?"

Your argument fails because Quebec has it's sovereignty - as a sovereign territory with the nation of Canada. Not so hard to understand at all.

Sovereign nations have a say on the constitution of their own country. Québec doesn't. The anglos can set the rules even if the french are unanimously against. You want to keep that superiority so you deny or marginalize the differences.

---

I was born in Saskatchewan, lived there quite a while and still have many relatives there. I then lived in Alberta for years. Unfortunately I now have to be in the Greater Vancouver area. And all three of those provinces are different from each other. There are different cultures in each.

According to your logic, Canada must merge with USA. Although english canadians are a bit different from the americans, it's not enough to say they are two different nations. English canadians and americans are culturally more alike than with the Québécois.

So you are in favor of annexation? It's amazing to see how much some of you just don't explore and challenge their own logic.

----

That's every bit as offensive to me as Benz's two nations definition.

Offensive... poor drama queen. You are offensed that those nations survived the british colonialism. Cry me a river with your crocodile tears.

My forebears were not English, nor French, nor Aboriginal and neither am I, but I'm every bloody bit as Canadian as anyone who happens to be any or all of those things. Moreso, because my nationality- my loyalty- isn't hyphenated or conditional.

Good for you. You adopt the Trudeau's nation building. We reject it totally. What you gonna do. Enslave us until we are assimilated by force?

You guys don't get to tell me that your greater loyalty to some other 'nation' makes you more valuable to this one. I say that it makes you less valuable.

You are sick!

---

Whenever someone starts using "ethnicity" as an essential defining quality of the "uniqueness" of a particular political jurisdiction, giant warning lights should start flashing...

Explain. What warnings? You are getting very ugly if it is what I think you are trying to say.

Benz · May 11, 2011

The problem with your argument Benz is that the National Assembly is not the sole voice of Quebecers. The federal government and specifically federal MPs from Quebec also speak for Quebecers.

No, the Québec people belong to their provincial MPs in first place. Federal MPs are second.

This threat has absolutely no credibility in English Canada anymore. If it lacked credibility before, the voters in Berthier-Maskinongé have truly undermined its credibility.

Whatever the Québécois say, the ROC just don't care. Québec can vote Bloc for 18 years, they won't understand the message. Now the Québécois are giving the chance to NDP and see what happens, the ROC won't get the message. They never do. But the other way around is also true. The ROC keeps on saying they don't care and yet, few Québécois like you still hope they will eventually change their mind. No they won't, because they don't have too. If we get sovereign, they will have too, or it will be the end of this non-sense union. We won't get what we want by begging. We will have to take our future in our own hands.

Molly, Canadian history is messy and it defies placement into a simple box. Some Canadians view themselves as part of a nation within a larger Canadian context (or superstructure, to coin a term). It's usually best if no one tries to impose their definition of Canada on everyone else.

hehe! That's very "offensive" to her.

She hold the supreme truth and everyone who do not agree are the soldier of evil. :rolleyes:

bloodyminded · May 11, 2011

Offensive... poor drama queen. You are offensed that those nations survived the british colonialism.

The Native people and the French were not in the same boat--it's not as if the French were rightfully here and then screwed over by English imperialists.

The French and English both were imperialists and colonizers. Surely you know that?

Good for you. You adopt the Trudeau's nation building. We reject it totally. What you gonna do. Enslave us until we are assimilated by force?

Of course not. Your fellow Quebeckers voted to stay. Blame them, if blame is to be laid.

Edited May 11, 2011 by bloodyminded

g_bambino · May 11, 2011

After that, it got worst. The federal government gained more powers always with the consent of the english and against the will of Québec.

Quite the contrary, Confederation as Macdonald and the other Fathers of Confederation envisioned it actually became more decentralised after 1867. I already pointed to the ruling by the Lord Watson in 1882.

Sovereign nations have a say on the constitution of their own country. Québec doesn't.

Yes it does. The clauses of the constitution that prove your claim to be false have already been posted.

The dogma of pure laine Quebec nationalists who fight for special treatment relies on willful ignorance and historical revisionism.

[sp]

Edited May 11, 2011 by g_bambino

cybercoma · May 11, 2011

The British won, but they could not impose their will on the French because they did not have the population to simply take over. They had the land in title, but the de facto authority in Quebec were the Canadiens. Otherwise, the monarchy would not have compromised on so many things, such as the Civil Code and Catholicism.

Tilter · May 11, 2011

He never said any such thing.

The key word being "within".

g_bambino · May 11, 2011

The key word being "within".

That was an important element, yes. But actually, the key word in relation to this thread was "Québécois", which has no one specific definition and was chosen for that very fact.

Benz · May 11, 2011

The British won, but they could not impose their will on the French because they did not have the population to simply take over. They had the land in title, but the de facto authority in Quebec were the Canadiens. Otherwise, the monarchy would not have compromised on so many things, such as the Civil Code and Catholicism.

The british thought that eventually, they would succeed to assimilate the canadiens. They failed and yet, several english canadians are still too stubborn to recognize the reality. The Québec are not, never been and never will be just another english province.

I salute your efforts to make them understand. If only there would be more like you.

Benz · May 11, 2011

The Native people and the French were not in the same boat--it's not as if the French were rightfully here and then screwed over by English imperialists.

The French and English both were imperialists and colonizers. Surely you know that?

Not the same way and not for the same reasons.

The french did not try to destroy the natives and take their land. They settled on unoccupied territories and they were dealing very well with the natives. Except of course the Iroquois that were allied with the british and were fighting for them.

The british knew that the only way to conquer the whole north america was to get rid of the biggest natives' ally. The french.

Of course not. Your fellow Quebeckers voted to stay. Blame them, if blame is to be laid.

Will do. Because your message is very clear. Someday they will understand they were wrong about you.

cybercoma · May 11, 2011

The British won, but they could not impose their will on the French because they did not have the population to simply take over. They had the land in title, but the de facto authority in Quebec were the Canadiens. Otherwise, the monarchy would not have compromised on so many things, such as the Civil Code and Catholicism.

Some of the letters from American settlers moving into Quebec and the Maritimes are quite hilarious. Their frustration with the Crown for not wiping out the French language and culture is telling.

cybercoma · May 11, 2011

The british thought that eventually, they would succeed to assimilate the canadiens. They failed and yet, several english canadians are still too stubborn to recognize the reality. The Québec are not, never been and never will be just another english province.

I salute your efforts to make them understand. If only there would be more like you.

Thanks. And what you wrote is absolutely true. The British did think by showing benevolence the "French" (really les Canadiens by this point) would voluntarily become British subjects. Indeed, it never happened, except by legislation through the BNA only.

I hope people don't get me wrong. I'm absolutely opposed to Quebec secession, especially now that I live in the Maritimes. It would be a logistical nightmare. I'm lukewarm to the idea of sovereignty association, which leads me to the only idea that I think could potentially be workable. Quebec would have to be an independent "colony" of Canada. I would rather not use the term "colony" because of its historical connotation, but hopefully that gives you some idea of the type of relationship that I think could be workable with Canadians. Quebec would have a Governor-type position that would still have a direct relationship with the federal government of Canada and legally, Quebec would still be a part of Canada, but at arm's length. I just can't see any other viable middle ground.