Here we go again - Quebec Independence

[Cartman]

If I may belabour the matter a little more August. The strongest argument you make I believe is that of cultural integrity. But, is not Quebec best served by a multicultural Canada? It seems to me that globalization is making us all very similar no matter where we live. Neo-liberalism is the threat, not Canada.

[caesar]

Maple; we have no restricition on

French signs in BC. We just happen to have a very diversified province where the French language ranks way down the list of percentage that speaks French as a first language. We have governmental notices that come in a large variety of languages that is indicative of the people living here in BC.

It is NOT discrimination; it is just common good sense to reach the people who do live here. English as a first language is no longer a majority here in the lower mainland.

[takeanumber]

Alright, so the population of Anglophones went from over one million to 800,000 over 2 decades because of....?

What?

the reason: how they were being treated.

When 20 percent of a minority flees a province because of discrimination, they do not have it 'easy'.

I think there is a way that the ROC treats minorities, and then how Quebec treats minorities.

So I think that once Quebec finally leaves, the ROC can become a sovereign people.

And it'll make us stronger.

[August1991]

The strongest argument you make I believe is that of cultural integrity. But, is not Quebec best served by a multicultural Canada?

Given some of the yahoos on this forum, one wonders whether Canada is a help or a hindrance.

But seriously, Cartman, that is part of the question. There are very few French Quebecers who believe that English Canada helps ensure the cultural integrity. (To translate, would you believe that the US helps to ensure the integrity of Canadian culture against the onslaught of globalisation?)

IMV, Quebecers' attachment to Canada is mostly practical, with a dose of blind tradition. There is a backlash against the union-nanny-state-establishment PQ but I don't know if it is pro or anti independance. (Call this the TalkNumb effect, à la québécoise.)

Many of the posters to this web site, and certainly those on the left, seem to be Canadian nationalists with a deep suspicion about the United States. Translated into Quebec, they would all be péquistes.

If I may belabour the matter a little more August.

That's impossible.

Alright, so the population of Anglophones went from over one million to 800,000 over 2 decades because of....?

The state of Michigan suffered worse, if Michael Moore is to be believed. What's your point?

So I think that once Quebec finally leaves, the ROC can become a sovereign people. And it'll make us stronger.

What part of ROC fears most or is most opposed to negotiating a special status for Quebec? (Let's say, fiscal autonomy with contributions to the central state on an issue by issue basis. Obviously, Quebec would no longer receive any transfer payments.)

[takeanumber]

Anglophones left Quebec because they where being discriminated against.

If you won't admit to that, then you truly are myopic in your vision.

The thing that the ROC doesn't like about Quebec being in CAnada while not being in CAnada is that it's double dipping.

I can see it now:

They don't want to pay into EI, but they'll demand EI transfers from the ROC.

They'll demand that Quebeckers who are working for the federal government should be allowed to keep their jobs.

They'll demand that the ROC keeps all of the federal debt and let Quebec off scott free.

It'll be a total double dip.

Therefore: if Canada is divisible, so too is Quebec.

We'll let the aboriginals decide if they want to stay in Canada, as a territory.

We'll let Montreal, and indeed, other parts of Quebec decide if they want to stay in the 'province of Montreal' or the "province of Quebec"...and that's how it will be.

The Rest of Quebec will get sovereignty, but they won't have our passport, or our money, and they sure as hell won't be getting any Canadian money to fund their little socialist experiment.

[playfullfellow]

What part of ROC fears most or is most opposed to negotiating a special status for Quebec? (Let's say, fiscal autonomy with contributions to the central state on an issue by issue basis. Obviously, Quebec would no longer receive any transfer payments.)

I think Ontario would be the most against seeing Quebec get more autonomy. This is mainly because they know that other provinces, mainly Alberta, would want to follow suit. Then Ontario would lose their status quo of being in control. The maritimes would also be against this because they would feel separated from the ROC.

[idealisttotheend]

Question regarding all threads on the territorial integrity of Canada. Just who is Ontario?

[takeanumber]

@Idealist: I think what most people miss is that Ontario really has several dimensions.

There's Urban Ontario.

There's the 905

There's Blue Ontario

There's the Northern 'Dependencies'

There's the Capital Region

There's the French portion of Ontario

Alberta is really quatra-cut

There's Redmonon

There's Calgary

There's Northern Alberta

There's Rural Alberta

Atlantic Canada is really divided into dozens of pieces.

I mean...the differences in point of view between Bathurst and say...Picto...is striking, both in language and culture.

The differences between Cape Breton and say, Grand Mannan or Shippigan, are all equally striking.

So yeh.

I think the cons, when they trash Ontario, are talking about Urban Ontario and it's dependencies, and possibly even Blue Ontario.

I think the only people they're not mad at are the 905's and the Capital Region.

It would be nice if people labelled things, but you know, we're not too specific here.

[Boydfish]

I don't think that anybody, even the Quebec seperatists themselves, take the idea of an "independent" Quebec seriously. If they can become viable as a province of a greater confederation first, maybe, but until then, not gonna happen. They need $7 billion dollars a year in direct aid from the confederation, plus several billion more in indirect aid and are still plumetting into debt.

In terms of dividing Quebec post-exit from confederation, there are several methods for that. I doubt that interal referendums would be useful or relevant, as they would be administered by Quebec itself. What would be relevant is that Lower Canada was given the territory of Ungava to administer as part of confederation. With Lower Canada no longer in confederation, Ungava reverts to territorial status. That means that post-exit, Quebec is two tiny strips of land on the St.Lawrence.

[takeanumber]

That's all the nation of Quebec really is.

Two strips of land along the Saint Lawrence.

That's where all the francophone, ethnic Quebecois reside.

Plus Quebec City and Gaspe.

So yeh.

Referendums for the island of Montreal and other regions could be held by Elections Canada, especially if those parts of the country overwhelmingly vote no to seperation.

There's a year worth of negotiations on how the country was to be divided, and nobody likes uncertainty, so more than likely, there would be an agreement to that effect.

Most Quebecois though don't believe that they need federal transfers though. They really do think that they're a net contributor to confederation.

And the Rest of Canada already rejected asymtric confederation with Quebec.

The Rest of Canada has said "Either in or out", that's what they said during the 1992 referendum. So this "double dip" pipedream of the Quebecois just isn't going to happen.

In spite of what they think, the Rest of Canada has a choice too, and we can say 'non' to them.

[idealisttotheend]

Thank you for answering my question TN. You made my point exactly, we generalize far too much about these things. Maybe it would've been better if Ontario was split into smaller sections but even with it as is, there are a lot of differences between Ontarians. Good point about Alberta too, Edmonton has a political cultural miles apart from Calgary's.

Just which group are the "severely normal" Albertans anyway. And do conservatives in the west disagree with all of "Ontario" or can they agree with the 31.5 % who voted Conservative and just disagree with the rest.

Generalizations are easy but usually so wrong.

[August1991]

I don't think that anybody, even the Quebec seperatists themselves, take the idea of an "independent" Quebec seriously. If they can become viable as a province of a greater confederation first, maybe, but until then, not gonna happen. They need $7 billion dollars a year in direct aid from the confederation, plus several billion more in indirect aid and are still plumetting into debt.

Your comment reminds me of the American that comes to Canada, looks at our money and starts laughing.

That's all the nation of Quebec really is.

Two strips of land along the Saint Lawrence.

And this is what Canada at night is.

Referendums for the island of Montreal and other regions could be held by Elections Canada, especially if those parts of the country overwhelmingly vote no to seperation.

Elections Canada?

I doubt partioning Montreal would be practical or even desired.

Most Quebecois though don't believe that they need federal transfers though. They really do think that they're a net contributor to confederation.

What many understand is that they pay taxes to Ottawa and get little in return. Or rather, they get what an Anglo dominated government decides to give them. For example, such boondoggles as Mirabel.

They are also aware that Ontario's auto industry receives pork and Ontario relies on nuclear energy financed by the federal government. The same applies to Syncrude and Hibernia.

We can get into a pissing match if you want (I don't care to really). I'll simply state that many Quebecers do not feel they are well represented in Ottawa. The sponsorship scandal is the latest evidence of this.

The basic logic is that as a linguistic minority, they are out of the loop. The priorities in Ottawa are simply not those of Quebec. Quebec City would spend the money better.

Sweden has about the same population as Quebec and a similar area. It even has a Finnish monority. The Swedish state is very interventionist but this works, to a degree, and Swedes seem happy with it. They certainly enjoy a high standard of living.

This is the economic argument. The political/cultural argument is different.

[Bro]

QUOTE]Find me an ethnic minority, anywhere in the world, that is as well treated as the Anglophones of Quebec.

.

Excuse me,but until Quebec leaves, it is still part of Canada,and the Anglais are not an ethnic minority,you sob.

Who the hell do you you think helped build Quebec,contrary to your warped views about history,it was a compilation of Canadians ,not just Quebecois who hold the rest of English Canada in contempt.

Does any other minority in Canada have language police checking their store front signs,go visit Toronto or Ottawa.

Your comment about the English being an ethnic minority,shows that your one time leader Parizeau had it correct in what he said about the ethnic vote,which showed him as a bigot and racist,and obviously the Quebecers who support that party are as much in the same fold judging by your comments.

[playfullfellow]

Sweden has about the same population as Quebec and a similar area. It even has a Finnish monority. The Swedish state is very interventionist but this works, to a degree, and Swedes seem happy with it. They certainly enjoy a high standard of living.

The difference is that Sweden has a very long history. Sweden also has dozens of trade agreements with other countries. Sweden is also a part of the larger entity called the EU. Very much difference. You also have to take into consideration that the Swedes are an entirely different culture than Quebec. Geographics and numbers are about the only similarity there are.

[Boydfish]

Your comment reminds me of the American that comes to Canada, looks at our money and starts laughing.

How interesting! Your comment reminds me of a spoiled teenager telling their parents that feed them, clothe them, pay their bills and provide all of their support that they "just don't do anything to help them".

[August1991]

Sweden is also a part of the larger entity called the EU.

Since when?

The difference is that Sweden has a very long history.

The history of the French in North America is only a long history. We're talking several centuries in either case. But I don't quite see the relevance.

Excuse me,but until Quebec leaves, it is still part of Canada,and the Anglais are not an ethnic minority,you sob.

My parents were married when I was born so you're wrong.

Your comment reminds me of a spoiled teenager telling their parents that feed them, clothe them, pay their bills and provide all of their support that they "just don't do anything to help them".

How does my comment remind you of this? Are you referring, for example, to the fact that Canada relies on the US for its defence?

[maplesyrup]

Maple;  we have no restricition on

French signs in BC.  We just happen to have a very diversified province where the French language ranks way down the list of percentage that speaks French as a first language.  We have governmental notices that come in a large variety of languages that is indicative of the people living here in BC.

It is NOT discrimination; it is just common good sense to reach the people who do live here.  English as a first language is no longer a majority here in the lower mainland.

I know there are supposedly no legal restrictions of French in British Columbia however the Trans Canada Highway is financed by the feds. Even federal buildings in Vancouver have bilingual plaques and/or signage.

Actually the more I think about it the more miffed I am be coming about the lack of French (read: bilingual) signage.

So in BC we have de facto eliminated French. BRILLIANT!

I remember before I moved out to Canada's left coast, hearing about the CRTC forcing the cable networks in BC to carry one French channel and the ensuing anti-French (there is no other way to describe it) diatribes.

I think the federales have let us down but not insisting on bilingual highway signs across Canada.

I guess I could write Tony Valeri to find out the reasons why the francophone community hors du Quebec is being descriminated against bigtime, especially by those who are supposed to protect their minority rights, our federal government.

Maybe it's time Ottawa started to kick ass on this issue, or we'll knock some more seats off the Liberal government's totals in the next electoral round.

[playfullfellow]

MS, what is the point of making all signs bilingual? All they do is state speed limits, names of the next town and distances. We all know that an octogan is unversial for a stop sign, yield signs are an upside down triangles etc. Why do you want to waste hundreds of millions of dollars on this kind of bs? Oh yeah, money grows on trees somewhere. In BC anyways, it would make more sense to add mandarin to the signs as there are way more chinese people there than french.

[Guest eureka]

August 1991!

You entirely miss the point when you ask for an ethnic minority that is as well treated as the

Anglophones of Quebec. The Anglophones are not well treated at all. Signs, which many seem to think it is all about, is only a part of the language repression. It affects only visibility where the reality is that the laws intrude on the use of English in every aspect of life in Quebec.

The issue comes down to Anglophones not being an ethnic minority. The United Nations has held that Anglophones are not a minority but part of the Canadian majority. This is the reality that the Quebec nationalists are trying to overturn with a dependent "independence." They are determined to create an ethnic Franciphone majority out of the part of the national minority that calls Quebec their home province.

The reality of Quebec is that it was always - at least since French was given official language status - a dual language community and not a bilingual one. Government was required to operate in both languages without qualification or restriction.

That condition should be restored as legality and morality would require.

Separation! That would mean civil war and is hardly worth discussion. The ultra nationalists should be told so without all the equivocation.

[seabee]

The United Nations has held that Anglophones are not a minority but part of the Canadian majority.

Assuming this to be exact, them the federal government or any of its agency should give any support, financial or otherwise, to any group in Québec that claims to defend the right of Québec's (non-existent, according to the UN) anglophone minority. When it supports, say, Alliance Quebec, it ignores or rejects the UN's opinion. By the same token, any Québec anglophone rights group acknowledges the province of Québec to be a near-independant state.

Or is it just that Canada is just a land of confusion?

Separation! That would mean civil war

Why? Has Canada outside Québec (COQ) rejected democracy?

The ultra nationalists should be told so without all the equivocation.

Even mild nationalists know that historically, English presencce in present-day Canada can only be accounted for by one and only one factor, violence. You know, conquests of the Acadians and of the Canadians (now mostly called Québécois). This not an equivocation either.

[caesar]

Seabea; your thinking is not correct. English IS "part" of the majority of "Canada". That does not mean they ARE the majority in "Quebec."

First; part does not mean all

Second Canada does not mean Quebec.

Note; even in Vancouver; English as a first language is no longer a majority. English is still the major first language in Vancouver; but is now below 50%

All our provinces are semi independent on many issues.

Even cities have jurisdiction in which they are independent.

[August1991]

Signs, which many seem to think it is all about, is only a part of the language repression. It affects only visibility where the reality is that the laws intrude on the use of English in every aspect of life in Quebec.

I imagine that many social customs intrude on one's use of Armenian in many aspects of life in Toronto too. What's your point?

The United Nations has held that Anglophones are not a minority but part of the Canadian majority.

Do you really believe that this problem is due to a decision of the UN?

The reality of Quebec is that it was always - at least since French was given official language status - a dual language community and not a bilingual one.

That is how the BNA Act was written. The BNA Act was also called "confederation", which it was not. And Canada was called a dominion, which it never became.

The fact of the matter is that the use of French and English in Canada requires different government attention for the simple reason that the two languages don't have the same usage on the continent. If the federal government won't take this task seriously, the Quebec government will.

Separation! That would mean civil war and is hardly worth discussion. The ultra nationalists should be told so without all the equivocation.

I have never, ever heard ultra nationalists talk seriously about using violence. (I guess the idea was discussed about 30 years ago.)

In truth, the separatists lost the vote in 1995 by a margin smaller than Gore in 2000. Yet, the separatists accepted the defeat and got on with life. Tell me, who was more respectful of democracy: Pierre Trudeau or Rene Levesque?

The great thing about Canada, IMV, is not that we stay together but rather that we resolve our differences in a civilized way.

[maplesyrup]

August1991....would you really prefer that Quebec goes its own way, or do you just infer that when some of les tetes carres go overboard with their cruel, uncaring, and unenlightened remarks about Quebec ?

BTW what's up with the UN commenting on Canada's anglos? Is this for real? I have been away from Quebec for way too long.

[ft.niagara]

The marriage of French and English in Canada seems to be one not made in heaven. There is a parallel with North Korea and the World- give me my way or I will make and export atomic weapons. Quebec says give me my way or I will want a divorce. Marriages are not forever sustainable on a nonequitable relationship. Sooner or later the battered spouse will leave, or perhaps like North Korea, Quebec will continually use brinkmanship to its advantage.

The actions of the nation France does not help the situation. France the nation holds english speaking nations in distain, and by default, probably French Speaking Canadians of English Speaking Canadians.

Just my opinion.

[maplesyrup]

What would the ROC be like without Quebec? Who would we pick on then, eh?

And speaking of Canada, Quebeckers might lay claim to the name Canada because they used it first, Les Canadiens, and I am not talking about the hockey team.

What would we be called: Rest of Canada? How embarassing!