Here we go again - Quebec Independence

[I miss Reagan]

I mean I can't believe I still hear these kind of comments, but sure enough, even today, on another thread here, some yahoo is complaining about bilingual labeling on his cereal boxes. I find it hard to believe peole like that still exist, but unfortunately there are still a few around. Seriously, what do you do with people like that?

I know, crazy yahoos! Diversity is our strength!

[maplesyrup]

Do you think you contribute to Quebeckers wanting to leave Canada with those kind of comments?

I think I am beginning to believe in a firewall, but not the way you envisioned it.

[I miss Reagan]

Individually I think Quebeckers are great. I haven't met one I didn't like. The more I listen to them, the more I empathize with the plight of the Quebeckers. They're smart. They realized early that the squeeky wheel gets the grease. Collectively they are a real pain in the a$$. I respect them though. At least they stand up for what they believe in. They stand up against corruption, even when their own province benefitted from it.

But ya I think they should separate. When they depart they leave the door open for us. Let the Balkinization begin!

[maplesyrup]

Individually I think Quebeckers are great. I haven't met one I didn't like. The more I listen to them, the more I empathize with the plight of the Quebeckers. They're smart. They realized early that the squeeky wheel gets the grease. Collectively they are a real pain in the a$$. I respect them though. At least they stand up for what they believe in. They stand up against corruption, even when their own province benefitted from it.

But ya I think they should separate. When they depart they leave the door open for us. Let the Balkinization begin!

Corruption exists everywhere, in every political party, in every religion, in every province. The idea is to minimize it.

Look at the CEOs in the business world fighting tooth and nail against some controls over their corruption.

[I miss Reagan]

Sure there's corruption everywhere yes I'm sure even in the CPC. I guess it just depends on how much corruption you can stomach. Most of Canada felt like the sponsorship scandal wasn't enough to pass on the liberals. Quebec did, and I respect them for that.

On a sidenote I was also quite impressed with Duceppe.

[Guest eureka]

The dictionary or encyclopedia definition is hardly definitive. Those are are only rough guides to meaning of a state of things. What matters is the actual cases.

Canada could not have been a confederation since it was the joining together of a number of colonies not sovereign states. There are actually no cofederations that I am aware of that conform to the definition - least of all Canada IN INTENT though many are trying to convert it into a confederation.

The jurisdiction given to provinces under the BNA Act was not significant in 1867. How important were Health, Education, and Welfare at the time? Or civil rights other than those provided by Common Law and the Civil Code then. These have all expanded hugely since.

How important also was control of nautral resources in a country that was still not much beyond the Fur Trade?

That Canada was intended to be a highly centralised nation is clear from the Constitution itself. It is also clear that the Francophone leaders of Quebec knew it in spite of latter day claims to the contrary.

In the Act, reserve powers were given to the federal government. That says it all and is quite incompatible with any idea of a confederation. That was understood by all to firmly place the federal government in control of future developments.

New provinces were added from areas that wre almost unpopulated and could make no claim to nationhood - as also the old could not. Large areas were added to Quebec that clearly would not have been if Quebec had any justification for its pretense of being a separate nation.

What I find most contemptible in the "Sovereignist" wishes is the cynical abandonment of French Canadians. Separation of Quebec would swiftly result in the assimilation of those in provinces other than Quebec.

[Bakunin]

its your opinion but since it was supposed to be so clear that it was a federation, why does most of the canadian don't know what is the difference between a confederation and a federation. Even dictionnary and encyclopedia use the word confederation.

Canada day is the celebration of the confederation of canada...

MacDonald and George étienne cartier are called:

Fathers of Confederation

i just made a quick search on google here is what they say:

Canadian Confederation, or the Confederation of Canada, was the process that ultimately brought together a union among the provinces, colonies and territories of British North America to form a Dominion of the British Empire, which today is a federal nation state simply known as Canada.

--

In light of the evolution of Canada, the term confederation is today perceived as mostly a ruse by Prime Minister of United Canada John A. Macdonald and others to encourage French Canada and the maritime colonies to come to the talks. The political leaders of the maritime colonies worried about being dominated by the population centres of Central Canada and like French Canada did not want a strong central government. Macdonald had no intention, however, of actually making Canada a confederation and was willing to have many of the colonies remain outside a political union rather than weaken his proposed central government. Canada thus became a federation, but certainly not a confederation, such as Switzerland or the first American confederal republic.

In Quebec, the idea that the new confederal Canada was a pact between two founding peoples dominated the political discourse for almost a century (1867 to 1960s).

---

The term Confederation is now often used to describe Canada in an abstract way--"The Fathers of Confederation" itself is one such usage. Provinces and territories that became part of Canada after 1867 are also said to have joined Confederation (but not the Confederation). However, the term usually refers more concretely to the political process that united the colonies in the 1860s; it is also used to divide Canadian history into pre-Confederation and post-Confederation (post-Confederation being a living term that includes the present day).

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Canadian_...n_confederation

you say:

That Canada was intended to be a highly centralised nation is clear from the Constitution itself. It is also clear that the Francophone leaders of Quebec knew it in spite of latter day claims to the contrary.

I would like to know where you read this because i read the contrary evrywhere.

[Bakunin]

even more clear in the same web site.

In light of the evolution of Canada, the term confederation is today perceived as mostly a ruse by Prime Minister of United Canada John A. Macdonald and others to encourage French Canada and the maritime colonies to come to the talks.

and they considered naming canada "the confederation of canada"

The Fathers of Confederation elected to name the new country the Dominion of Canada, after rejecting kingdom and confederation, among other options. One could have created the Dominion of Borealia (from the Latin for north), analogous to the naming of Australia (from the Latin for south).

[enigma]

Second off, the treatment of Anglophones within Quebec is simply illiberal.  There's no law, anywhere else in the country, that states that you can't have a store front sign in another language.  It's simply illiberal, and there isn't a legitimate reason for it.

First thing, the treatment of Francophones in many places across Canada is worse than how Anglos are treated in Québec. Throughout the 1970's and 19080's Québécois who went across Canada looking for summer jobs were continuosly seriously beat up. You wonder why we want to separate? Look no further than yourselves. :angry:

If life in Canada is so terrible for them, let them have a vote, and we'll divie up the province into pieces.

Secondly, If we truly want to separate, it is going to be us, les Québécois, who get to choose who separates. It is not Canada's right to say which can parts go and which have to parts stay. :angry:

[seabee]

takeanumber Jul 4 2004, 04:06 PM

We'll let the aboriginals decide if they want to stay in Canada,

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.

takeanumber Jul 4 2004, 12:58

Carving out the Province of Montreal and a new Northern Territory, and then allowing the 'real' Quebecois nation to move on, would be good.

let them have a vote, and we'll divie up the province into pieces.

In these quotes, one can only assume that “we” refers to Canada outiste Québec (COQ), or English-Canada, or anglophone Canada, whatever.

“We’ll let”, “allow”, “divie up”, all indicate that COQ, the cultural inheritors of their conquests in Nouvelle-France, consider the descendants of the french colonists, the Acadians and the Canadiens, as obligated to submit to COQ, and that COQ has a right to life and death over them; the conquered have no rights.

Québécois, Acadians and French-canadians should be grateful the COQers lets them, allows them to breathe.

Pierre Valières was right four decades ago when he described french-canadians as “Nègres blancs d’Amérique” (white niggers of America).

Let’s not forget the Natives who, by law, are still not “allowed” to sign a legally valid contract.

There seems to be an anglo-supremacist undercurrent in COQ.

Or is it just the impression given by a few retrograde marginal people?

We’ll “let” you decide.

[maplesyrup]

Too bad so many people vote vote out of fear in this country. When one has to vote out of fear, something is fundamentally wrong with the system.

My hunch is that sovereignists were hoping for a Harper victory with no seats in Quebec. Is that accurate?

What is Ken Dryden is going to be like as a politician? I wonder what his views on Quebec in confederation are about.

[seabee]

eureka Jul 12 2004, 11:40 PM

What I find most contemptible in the "Sovereignist" wishes is the cynical abandonment of French Canadians. Separation of Quebec would swiftly result in the assimilation of those in provinces other than Quebec.

What is the difference between a “French Canadian” and a “Québécois”? Does a “Québécois” become a “French Canadian” when he leaves Québec?

Let’s not forget that most francophones who have left Lower Canada and/or Québec, especially during the 1820-1920 period did so to go to the United States, not to what has now become the Dominion of Canada. Doesn’t the present Québec government have the same responabilities, whatever they be, to Franco-Americans as to Franco-Canadians?

When the resident of one province, whatever his or her language, leaves that province to move to another province, all legal ties with the original province are terminated. The provincial government has no further responsability towards that person. Conversely, this person no longer has to pay taxes to that province. Provinces have no legal right to grant a provincial citizenship to its residents. Provinces may not set “embassies” in other provinces, or states for that matter. At best, they way set up some kind of cultural agency, with absolutely no right over anyone.

At present, the rate of assimilation in Canada outside Québec and the contiguous (Acadian) northern part of New-Brunswick is well over 50%. And there is nothing the provincial government of Québec can legally do about it, except maybe give a subvention to some francophone groups, at the risk of being accused by the host province of political inerference. Only the “federal” (or is it “confederal”? Let’s settle for “Dominion”) government can do somethiing about it.

On the other hand, should Québec become independant, it will legaly entitled to grant full citizenship and establish embassies and consulates to protect the rights of its citizens who might chose to move out. It will then be in a better position to protect “French Canadians in Canada or the U.S., though not retroactively, obviously. If after Québec’s independance there is a swift “assimilation of those in provinces other than Quebec.”, it will entirely be the Dominion’s responsability, as it is already.

[Hawk]

enigma:

First thing, the treatment of Francophones in many places across Canada is worse than how Anglos are treated in Québec. Throughout the 1970's and 19080's Québécois who went across Canada looking for summer jobs were continuosly seriously beat up. You wonder why we want to separate? Look no further than yourselves. 

I am manager of the party tent rental department of LCC, and I have a French-Canadian working for me =p I have no idea what you are talking about, me and him get along just dandy. He also admited to me that in Quebec the anti-Anglophone sentiment is terribly strong, and that he was glad to get out of it

*Also I have two employees from Afghanistan, 1 from Lebanon, two Native Americans, one from Yugoslavia, and one English-Canadian (other than myself). So bring on the arguments about right-wing 'discrimination' =p

Secondly, If we truly want to separate, it is going to be us, les Québécois, who get to choose who separates. It is not Canada's right to say which can parts go and which have to parts stay. 

Your lucky only you can vote, I would vote you out in a second. Always whining, always getting your way, always shrieking for equality and then using public sympathy/shame to get special status. Its sad, it really is sad. IMHO the English should have simply assimilated the French way back when we took over Canada, would have saved so much trouble

seabee:

Your argument is really inspirational to Francophones, however you fail to take into account several areas. First off, what will you do without equality checks from the feds? What will you do when we give you your portion of the national debt? How will you survive economically? How will you afford food from the West now that you will need to pay import prices? How will you afford oil or other such natural resources? How will you be able to compete on an English-dominated market?

You can't, and that is exactly why your seperation would turn from fantasy to nightmare. You would end up voting your way back into Confederation yet again, either that or you would give up your hard-earned sovereignty to France =p

[Guest eureka]

There seems to be considerable cinfusion over this subject: confusion as to the separation of powers as well as to the nature of the union.

First, in response to Bakunin, the response you gave merely confirms what I wrote about a confederal union. As to whether this was understood by the French Quebeckers, it reallly stretches credulity to think that Cartier and the others were "conned." The division of powers as set out in Sec. 92 is quite clear. The preponderance of jurisdiction lies in the delegation of power to the federal government in any possible thinking of the time. The jurisdictions of the provinces wre relatively minor in those times.

The greatest opposition to the union came from Nova Scotia precisely for that reason. It is noteworthy that the leader of that opposition changed his stance when he entered the federal scene. Nobody misunderstood among the leaders: only certain radical elements who had to be appeased did not understand.

To the poster who queried Quebecois and French Canadians! All Francophones in Canada are French Canadians. Those in Quebec are the Quebecois part of that entity. This is also why I wrote earlier that the "Sovereignists" are abandoning French Canadians in their attempt to create an artificial majority in Quebec out of one part of the national minority.

Seabee! Quebec, and any other province, does have the power to make a subvention to groups in other provinces. Neither the federal government nor any province is restricted by law in the way it spends its money. They answwer only to their voters as to whether the expenditures were acceptable or wise. Interestingly, the first government to do this was the Quebec administration of Mercier (I think it was Mercier) in about 1936 which gave money to Ontario French schools. It was the discovery of that spending power that saved the Canadian government from collapse since it had relatively few major jurisdictions. It was also the power that brought Canada into Kenesian compliance and dug us out of the Depression.

Canada is now, as I wrote the most decentralized nation in the world in terms of jurisdiction. Moreso than those two so-called models of decentralized Confederations, the USA and Switzerland. Each of those has central powers in areas where the Canadian government is excluded. Also, each of those governments devotes a greater of federal expenditure to regional concerns than Canada because of these powers.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Quebec, and any other province, does have the power to make a subvention to groups in other provinces. Neither the federal government nor any province is restricted by law in the way it spends its money.

Just a quick aside... that's absolutely correct which is why the complaints by provincial power advocates and western alienationists about the federal goverment 'abusing' it's spending power are completely without foundation.

[Bakunin]

Secondly, If we truly want to separate, it is going to be us, les Québécois, who get to choose who separates. It is not Canada's right to say which can parts go and which have to parts stay. 

Your lucky only you can vote, I would vote you out in a second. Always whining, always getting your way, always shrieking for equality and then using public sympathy/shame to get special status. Its sad, it really is sad. IMHO the English should have simply assimilated the French way back when we took over Canada, would have saved so much trouble

Quebec existed way before Canada, It even already been part of usa. Anglophone that came in quebec in 1760, where business man and politician to take control of our economy and politics for the british empire. Just to tell you how much time that took for us to get back on our feet, in 1960 in a french province, if you go shopping in montreal, the service was in english,sign where in english, we worked for english people and in english, our school where controlled by the church and we where almost all cheap labour for american and english. Then the queit revolution came and evrything changed. We are now able to go shopping in french, to use the french at work, we took control of our economy but when we start to take control of our politics, we got problem. the federal government didnt want to decentralize. Well its not they didnt want, its that trudeau came. then he centralize even more. He did that in the middle of a revolution and people got angry and since the provincial government is subordinate to the federal government, then we don't have our place in Canada. in 15 years, 65-80 sovregnist past from 1% to 40%. Many Liberal quitted and join Lésvesque to form the partie québécois. thei where called the movement "souveraineté association" sovregnty with association, a form of confederation we could say. All that because they where frustrated by the way federal acted. Then the federal government frustrated by the sovregist movement started to say just like many of you say. If you decide of sovregnty, then we will refuse any association and your economy will crash. Your with us or against us. then the conservative came to power and stopped that stupid vicious circle of hate and frustration. They tried 2 times to decentralize canada and the 2 time they failled and then the conservative went down and and restarted the vicious circle. At that time sovregnty in quebec was at about 65% but it was a liberal government in quebec. The liberal government totally collapsed... They almost became sovregnist too but at the last moment they refused and then the party splitted. Then the Liberal at the federal government went back to power and the sovregnist too. both where really frustrated. We were not talking about sovregnty association at that time. 0,5% more and Quebec was gone.

The moral of the story is that because we get so much frustrated at each other's and doesnt try to understand what we want, we get frustrated and that with too much frustration we are going to fight again and i don'T thing that if we where rational just for 1 min to try to solve the problem, maybee we could be happy and that it would be 100 time better for evryone than having to separate

Your argument is really inspirational to Francophones, however you fail to take into account several areas. First off, what will you do without equality checks from the feds? What will you do when we give you your portion of the national debt? How will you survive economically? How will you afford food from the West now that you will need to pay import prices? How will you afford oil or other such natural resources? How will you be able to compete on an English-dominated market?

You can't, and that is exactly why your seperation would turn from fantasy to nightmare. You would end up voting your way back into Confederation yet again, either that or you would give up your hard-earned sovereignty to France =p

Read this quote and feel the frustration. thats what im talking about.

[maplesyrup]

I agree with you about shopping in English in Montreal, but why not go to stores that spoke French. Only after the bombs went off did some restuarants produce a bilingual menu. I think the English school board - PSBGM was resonsible for some, maybe a lot of the language problems by not producing bilingual students. Do English students now have to be bilingual to graduate?

Actually I think Trudeau's most lasting achievement was that he bilingualized a lot of the federal civil service. This took a lot of the wind out of the independentists' sails.

Who was the government in Quebec before 1960? Haven't all the governments in Quebec been francophone governments?

It seems that the main issue is power. Power for the feds. Power for the regions. How do we satify the regions and yet retain national standards in Canada. If I live in BC and am visitng Alberta or Quebec, for example, I want my health care coverage to be in effect across the country. How does that work now?

[Guest eureka]

Bakinin!

In 1960, it was quite possible to shop and get service in French in Montreal - think Dupuis Freres rather than the spurious cry of "Eaton's."

That most business was done in English is the fault of Francophones not of Anglophones. Francophones did not set up their own businesses but stuck to an outdated, church ridden social context. Francophones were never forced to work, shop, or anything else in English. It was English merchants who built Montreal while the French sayed on the farms or in a limited number of professions and government.

The blame game is a crock. It has never been more than a much touted excuse. None of this, even if the "revance" were legitimate as it is not, justifies the language laws or the expulsion of Anglophones from Quebec.

Some information that may give you food for thought.

Until 1914, the majority of Montreal's population was English speaking: around 1900, 35% of the population of Quebec Cith was English speaking.

Until 1914, Montreal alternated between English and French speaking mayors. Since then, there has not been one Anglophone in the position even when the populations were close.

Since the language laws were enacted, more than 600,000 anglophones have left Quebec - that is half the population and one of the biggest proportionate flights of people in the modern history of the world.

Also, about 40% of Head Offices left Montreal in the first six years of the language regime.

And all this for what is said to be a mild language adjustment.

The truth is that the language laws are illegitimate and immoral: that separation is not possible since Quebec is part of the country of Canada. It is not a sovereign parther in the union of colonies.

I forget whether it was you who posted about the Conquest. However, that is another apurious concept. The Quebec that is talked of was not a Francophone province of France. It was a generic name for a large area of Canada (and part of the USA) that was disputed by England and France. The area that was settled by France was quite small.

Most of Canada, including present day Quebec was first explored and settled by the British.

It is interesting that estimates are that - in terms of bloodlines -, about 40% of the French speaking population is Scottish/Irish/English in origin.

[maplesyrup]

Eureka.....I am really tired of Anglos whining about language laws in Quebec. Why haven't the anglo educational institutions taught their students to learn the language of the majority in Quebec?

What is all this nonsense about the problems of learning a second language? Educated people these days know three and more languages. Don't you think it is time to get over it? I think it is anglos inflexibility that is leading to separation. Let's get some creative solutions here, not the same old, same old tired arguments from the past

[Bakunin]

agree with you about shopping in English in Montreal, but why not go to stores that spoke French. Only after the bombs went off did some restuarants produce a bilingual menu. I think the English school board - PSBGM was resonsible for some, maybe a lot of the language problems by not producing bilingual students. Do English students now have to be bilingual to graduate?

Its not that simple, after 1760, the french with money and education went back to france.Labor and poor people stayed in quebec. And then since we didnt have any political power, people listened to the church. Church loved the agriculture. I don'T know why i think its symbolic for the church. So the time it took to switch form the agriculture to the industrialization took a lot of time then the 2 world war and then we got

Actually I think Trudeau's most lasting achievement was that he bilingualized a lot of the federal civil service. This took a lot of the wind out of the independentists' sails.

I don't see bilingualism has a big deal for the rest of canada. Its really important in quebec since their are unilingual french, unilingual english, and a majority like me that understand the basic of english but still make lot of mistake. but for the rest of french outside quebec, thei can't live in french anyway, thei can't get a job go shoping and live in a french environment ? Montreal is different since their are a lot of immigrant and businessman. its possiblie to live in an english environment.

Who was the government in Quebec before 1960? Haven't all the governments in Quebec been francophone governments?

from 1949 to 1960 the conservative where in power. a guy named dupplesis. this era is called "la grande noirceur" i dont know how its called in english. the great blackness :/. It was a really corrupt government working with the church and when he died, the new generation "babyboomers" started a revolution politically ,socially and economically. the church lost all its credibility and evrything changed. I think thats why we can't stand a government when its too much corrupt now.

It seems that the main issue is power. Power for the feds. Power for the regions. How do we satify the regions and yet retain national standards in Canada. If I live in BC and am visitng Alberta or Quebec, for example, I want my health care coverage to be in effect across the country. How does that work now?

There aren't many way we can work this out. The province must control its economy and work toghether. now the federal government force the province to do stuff that the province don't want. I mean if alberta don'T want to sign kyoto, then why force them ? just for the fun ? a power trip ? if we can't respect or difference people will get angry

[Guest eureka]

The degree of bilingualism is subject to another myth. The Anglophones of Montreal - and Quebec, generally,- have always been more bilingual than Francophones. The figures at the time of the language laws were: 61% of Anglophones bilingual to 56% of Francophones for Quebec. In Montreal, the difference was greater but I do not recall the figures. East of St. Lawrence, it was difficult to find a Francophone who was bilingual wheras most Anglophones had a basic knowledge of French if they were not bilingual.

This whole problem is clouded in mythology: a mythology that has been promoted and popularised by the "Nationalists."

A little of the truth would help resolve the separation.

[maplesyrup]

1981: Night of the Long Knives - A Myth?

Bakunin.......what is the version you grew up with? Why did Levesque not support the patriation of the constitution?

The reason I'm asking is there appears to be a lot of confusion surrounding what happened in 1981.

[Bakunin]

The degree of bilingualism is subject to another myth. The Anglophones of Montreal - and Quebec, generally,- have always been more bilingual than Francophones. The figures at the time of the language laws were: 61% of Anglophones bilingual to 56% of Francophones for Quebec. In Montreal, the difference was greater but I do not recall the figures. East of St. Lawrence, it was difficult to find a Francophone who was bilingual wheras most Anglophones had a basic knowledge of French if they were not bilingual.

i think you did not understand. i said that in quebec the billingualism was higher. I'm not talking about french-vs english(wich is stupid since if someone is billingual, it mean they can talk both language...) its quebec vs rest of canada. It just normal. First french is harder to understand and is almost useless while learning english is really important since we use it constantly.

1981: Night of the Long Knives - A Myth?

Bakunin.......what is the version you grew up with? Why did Levesque not support the patriation of the constitution?

The reason I'm asking is there appears to be a lot of confusion surrounding what happened in 1981.

I did not read all of it but i think its near to what i heard.

Nine province's come to an agreement while the Quebec delegation was gone to sleep. The next day when he arrived the constitution was written and with compensation from quebec erased. That's why he did not sign.

[takeanumber]

I'll just say this:

The current level of social services in Quebec cannot be supported without the help of the rest of Canada. We call these 'transfers', but in reality, it's merely subsidization of the Quebec socialist system.

If Quebec seperates, it will quickly devolve into an Argentine quagmire.

If Quebec then tries to vote its way back into Confederation, don't expect Canada to vote to allow them in.

The Rest of Canada will have long since reformed their Senate, their Constitution, and will have then become a sovereign people -- without Quebec.

To ammend the Constitution to allow Quebec back in would not be possible.

And what of Rural Quebec with its rapidly aging population?

Tough Titty said the Kitty when the Milk Ran Dry.

Should Quebec be able to make it on its own, without subsidization, it will come with the heavy price of cutting social programs. If Quebeckers don't agree on this point, then they're simply not rational.

[Bakunin]

I'll just say this:

The current level of social services in Quebec cannot be supported without the help of the rest of Canada. We call these 'transfers', but in reality, it's merely subsidization of the Quebec socialist system.

If Quebec seperates, it will quickly devolve into an Argentine quagmire.

If Quebec then tries to vote its way back into Confederation, don't expect Canada to vote to allow them in.

The Rest of Canada will have long since reformed their Senate, their Constitution, and will have then become a sovereign people -- without Quebec.

To ammend the Constitution to allow Quebec back in would not be possible.

And what of Rural Quebec with its rapidly aging population?

Tough Titty said the Kitty when the Milk Ran Dry.

Should Quebec be able to make it on its own, without subsidization, it will come with the heavy price of cutting social programs. If Quebeckers don't agree on this point, then they're simply not rational.

This is exaclty what i was saying. when we don't understand each others, we get frustrated and irrational."If you separate you will go down" post is a good sample. But why not try to understand and debate on the real problem. The centralization that is killing the province's personnality.