Hey Quebec

[cybercoma]

While the ROC says they're against Quebec secession, they don't view them as a part of Canada like they claim they do.

[Evening Star]

While the ROC says they're against Quebec secession, they don't view them as a part of Canada like they claim they do.

Cybercoma, you're a good dude but please don't speak for the entire ROC. Not all of us are like the OP.

And yeah, I do agree that Quebec's current representation isn't bad and think it would be unfair for Quebec to become underrepresented.

Edited October 15, 2011 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

It is not the Quebec vote that is being Diluted it is the French vote. Why did Mulroney try to give Quebec 25% of the seats no matter what? It is because even though Quebec does not represent 25% of the population it is closer to 23 or 22 now their vote was always to represent a distinct and what was to be an equal culture. 25% of Canada is French however outside of Quebec and a few ridings in NB and Ottawa the French population is to small to actually win a seat. In NS 10-15% of the province is French but they are spread so thin not one of the NS MPs is a francophone. That is why Quebec has always been given 25%. Agree or disagree with that, it was always the logic.

So lets have a real argument about the actual facts here. This isn't about Quebec it is about Canada's Equal francophone population and the dilution of their vote.

I don't get this at all. How would giving Quebec extra seats help francophones in Nova Scotia? Are we supposed to assume they would vote the same way because they're all francophones??

[cybercoma]

Cybercoma, you're a good dude but please don't speak for the entire ROC. Not all of us are like the OP.

And yeah, I do agree that Quebec's current representation isn't bad and think it would be unfair for Quebec to become underrepresented.

I'm abstracting to the general notion of the Rest of Canada and Quebec relationship. The Rest of Canada seems to be quite opposed to Quebec leaving. I believe this to be axiomatic. Even those that support Quebec, seem to still rather they stay and work out the issues than leave. However, the irony is that the Rest of Canada seems to want to deny Quebec the fact that it is a distinct society within Canada that has a historical pedigree not shared by the other provinces. New France is the foundation of European settlement in not only Canada by nearly all of North America, save the density of settlement in the 13 colonies. Quebec is not just another province and to say that they are is to deny their historical significance to Canada.

But please don't leave! We love you Quebec, the Rest of Canada says.

Edited October 15, 2011 by cybercoma

[Newfoundlander]

That would only benefit the Liberals, Quebec will never vote Conservative in Federal elections

NEVER, won't ever happen

They did in the 80's, all Quebeck really cares about is if the leader is from Quebec.

[Vineon]

They did in the 80's, all Quebeck really cares about is if the leader is from Quebec.

Is this why they massively voted for Jack Layton as well?

Don't give me that crap that he's from Montreal.

[Wild Bill]

When demands by Québec are made so that a few seats be added to the province as well, it is no more than 3 or 4 (as I believe is proposed by the NDP), which would be enough to guarantee it rightful population representation which I thought was what everybody wanted here. But no, in reality what people here most desire, is for Québec to eat dirt.

Eat dirt? Not true! The Pequistes could always find a redneck or two to make it seem so to the media. I think they kept them in the basement of the PQ headquarters, like the old commercial for the Gulf Oil repairman.

Most of TROC never thinks much about Quebec at all! If you insist on turning the conversation to Quebec and its place in Canada, most Canadians outside of Quebec think it's a lovely province but its people have been enjoying a better deal than their own province. Electricity is thought to be much cheaper, along with auto insurance and most of all - beer!

The perception is that Quebec always uses the threat of separation to soak more money out of Ottawa. This might not be exactly true but nonetheless, a LOT of TROC Canadians believe it! TROC has bent over backwards in the interests of bilingualism, making a minimum amount of French compulsory in schools, at least one French language TV channel in every major city and a fortune has been spent on labeling products in both languages. Consumers are reminded of this whenever they buy groceries. It seems the cans always show French to the outside, causing little old ladies to have to constantly pull a can out and turn it around to see what they are buying.

As I said, for the most part Canadians in TROC rarely think about Quebec but one thing does stand out - bilingual road signs! Drive from Toronto to Montreal and you leave a city with bilingual signs all over every highway and many city streets. Cross the border into Quebec and it's French only. Few have even heard the argument that Quebec is linquistically "special" and merely trying to protect and preserve its culture. All they know is that they have gone to much expense and effort on behalf of a relatively small number of francophones only to get zero return consideration in Quebec!

Not every TROC Canadian may have thought this out completely but one thing that Quebecers do without realizing it deeply insults all other Canadians, namely thinking of Canada as a 50/50 deal between English and French Canada. People in each province feel as much loyalty towards their area as Quebecers do to theirs! Someone in Ontario doesn't think of himself as part of "Anglo Canada". He thinks of his province on its own and then Canada as a whole. He feels any kinship with another province like Quebec or PEI through Canada as a nation, not as some Anglo race.

So to TROC, Canada is a Confederation of 10 equal provinces, NOT half English and half French!

Get that typical TROC Canadian talking after a few beers and something else rather unpleasant may emerge. What Quebecers feel as "tribalism" or unity looks to many in TROC as racism! Not as to colour but as to culture or ancestry. The concept of "pur laine" didn't help this attitude either.

Just my own observations but I had thought that your POV was a bit extreme and thought I'd try to give you some better data to consider, not to upset you but simply to tell it as I truly see it. I worked for some years with an office in Pointe Claire and got to see much of both sides of the equation. I think many Quebecois just don't realize that they are as ignorant of the views of their TROC fellow Canadians as those TROC Canadians are of them!

Sometimes I suspect that our politicians like to keep it that way...

Edited October 16, 2011 by Wild Bill

[Evening Star]

Cybercoma, what you're describing is still "viewing Quebec as a part of Canada".

Is there any constitutional basis for this?: "Quebec is not just another province..."

I'm abstracting to the general notion of the Rest of Canada and Quebec relationship. The Rest of Canada seems to be quite opposed to Quebec leaving. I believe this to be axiomatic. Even those that support Quebec, seem to still rather they stay and work out the issues than leave. However, the irony is that the Rest of Canada seems to want to deny Quebec the fact that it is a distinct society within Canada that has a historical pedigree not shared by the other provinces. New France is the foundation of European settlement in not only Canada by nearly all of North America, save the density of settlement in the 13 colonies. Quebec is not just another province and to say that they are is to deny their historical significance to Canada.

But please don't leave! We love you Quebec, the Rest of Canada says.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Evening Star

[punked]

I don't get this at all. How would giving Quebec extra seats help francophones in Nova Scotia? Are we supposed to assume they would vote the same way because they're all francophones??

No but they do care about the French language and culture. The idea is that Quebec has always been the the concentration of that vote to represent this culture across the country.

[Smallc]

Your second fact is an opinion.

So is his first 'fact'.

[Smallc]

However, the irony is that the Rest of Canada seems to want to deny Quebec the fact that it is a distinct society within Canada that has a historical pedigree not shared by the other provinces.

So? I don't want them to leave, and I really like it in Quebec, but why does it matter if they're different, or more different in this case? They are partners in confederation, they are semi sovereign entities, and they have control over most of their own destiny. Aside from that, other than language, they're no more distinct than other provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador, for example.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Smallc

[Battletoads]

Conservative Stephen Harper: The Prime Minister Who Broke Canada

Keep going Mr. Harper, give yourself the reputation you deserve.

[fellowtraveller]

Conservative Stephen Harper: The Prime Minister Who Broke Canada

Keep going Mr. Harper, give yourself the reputation you deserve.

Every citizen must have the right to vote and that vote must have the same weight as that of every other citizen.

Quebec would have it differently, as would the NDP.

If that is to be the basis of our country, it is not worth saving.

There are no degrees of equality.

[cybercoma]

Cybercoma, what you're describing is still "viewing Quebec as a part of Canada".

Is there any constitutional basis for this?: "Quebec is not just another province..."

The constitutional basis is that Quebec refused to sign it. This goes beyond our constitution.

[Argus]

When demands by Québec are made so that a few seats be added to the province as well, it is no more than 3 or 4 (as I believe is proposed by the NDP), which would be enough to guarantee it rightful population representation which I thought was what everybody wanted here. But no, in reality what people here most desire, is for Québec to eat dirt.

The problem is not bringing Quebec's seat numbers to exactly its population. The problem is that it's population, relative to the rest of the country, continues to fall, and while the extra seats would 'exactly' match population ratio now it would soon be over. And the constitution prohibits taking seats away from Quebec, no matter what. Inevitably, this means ever larger numbers of parliamentarians.

[Evening Star]

The constitutional basis is that Quebec refused to sign it. This goes beyond our constitution.

We have a constitution that predates 1982. Unless I'm mistaken, Quebec's representatives did sign that.

[punked]

So is his first 'fact'.

You would be right.

[punked]

Every citizen must have the right to vote and that vote must have the same weight as that of every other citizen.

Quebec would have it differently, as would the NDP.

If that is to be the basis of our country, it is not worth saving.

There are no degrees of equality.

If you believed that you would do better diluting PEI's voting power by giving Quebec and most other provinces more seats but you don't actually believe that you just pretend you do.

[Boges]

If you believed that you would do better diluting PEI's voting power by giving Quebec and most other provinces more seats but you don't actually believe that you just pretend you do.

I think the fact PEI has 4 seats is appalling. But to dilute that travesty you'd need to ad more like 100 seats. PEI voters have to be the most over democratically represented people in the world.

I agree with the others here that say the current seats should be re-organized but if the alternative is to either do nothing or ad seats to better reflect the growing provinces I would choose the second option.

[punked]

I think the fact PEI has 4 seats is appalling. But to dilute that travesty you'd need to ad more like 100 seats. PEI voters have to be the most over democratically represented people in the world.

I agree with the others here that say the current seats should be re-organized but if the alternative is to either do nothing or ad seats to better reflect the growing provinces I would choose the second option.

No one is arguing against that, the point is if you don't add seats to Quebec it becomes one of the MOST under represented provinces. So they get to go from the around 4th-5th on the list to the very last in terms of representation. That does seem unfair.

[Wild Bill]

We have a constitution that predates 1982. Unless I'm mistaken, Quebec's representatives did sign that.

Really? I always thought that like many British-style democracies we had no formal Constitution! Instead, we had Law based on precedent, over years and years and years.

From what this old guy remembers, part of how Trudeau's Liberals sold us on having a written Constitution and Charter of Rights was by making the claim that we never had them before, implying that somehow this left us vulnerable and defenceless.

Some folks warned us that by writing them down (described as "French" style Law instead of "British") we actually were hurting ourselves! The metaphor used was a "Keep Off the Grass" sign. With a British style basis it was assumed that a citizen could walk on whatever grass he wished. Only if there was some good reason would and could a "Keep Off" sign be posted.

When the Constitution and Rights were formally written down, they really defined only what rights we DID have, as opposed to assuming we had any and all rights, proscribing only specifics when necessary. IOW, we have to keep off grass with no signs! If we had a right to walk on it there would be a sign saying so!

A good student of Law would of course frame it better than I did but again from memory, that was the gist of the arguments at that time. One definite fact is that Canada became less like Britain, who has never felt the need to have such formal documents, and more like France or even the Americans!

[Battletoads]

Every citizen must have the right to vote and that vote must have the same weight as that of every other citizen.

Quebec would have it differently, as would the NDP.

If that is to be the basis of our country, it is not worth saving.

There are no degrees of equality.

Oh I'm not denying that, it's the antagonistic 'eff you' approach I'm referring to.

[Vineon]

Eat dirt? Not true! The Pequistes could always find a redneck or two to make it seem so to the media. I think they kept them in the basement of the PQ headquarters, like the old commercial for the Gulf Oil repairman.

Most of TROC never thinks much about Quebec at all! If you insist on turning the conversation to Quebec and its place in Canada, most Canadians outside of Quebec think it's a lovely province but its people have been enjoying a better deal than their own province. Electricity is thought to be much cheaper, along with auto insurance and most of all - beer!

The perception is that Quebec always uses the threat of separation to soak more money out of Ottawa. This might not be exactly true but nonetheless, a LOT of TROC Canadians believe it! TROC has bent over backwards in the interests of bilingualism, making a minimum amount of French compulsory in schools, at least one French language TV channel in every major city and a fortune has been spent on labeling products in both languages. Consumers are reminded of this whenever they buy groceries. It seems the cans always show French to the outside, causing little old ladies to have to constantly pull a can out and turn it around to see what they are buying.

As I said, for the most part Canadians in TROC rarely think about Quebec but one thing does stand out - bilingual road signs! Drive from Toronto to Montreal and you leave a city with bilingual signs all over every highway and many city streets. Cross the border into Quebec and it's French only. Few have even heard the argument that Quebec is linquistically "special" and merely trying to protect and preserve its culture. All they know is that they have gone to much expense and effort on behalf of a relatively small number of francophones only to get zero return consideration in Quebec!

Not every TROC Canadian may have thought this out completely but one thing that Quebecers do without realizing it deeply insults all other Canadians, namely thinking of Canada as a 50/50 deal between English and French Canada. People in each province feel as much loyalty towards their area as Quebecers do to theirs! Someone in Ontario doesn't think of himself as part of "Anglo Canada". He thinks of his province on its own and then Canada as a whole. He feels any kinship with another province like Quebec or PEI through Canada as a nation, not as some Anglo race.

So to TROC, Canada is a Confederation of 10 equal provinces, NOT half English and half French!

Get that typical TROC Canadian talking after a few beers and something else rather unpleasant may emerge. What Quebecers feel as "tribalism" or unity looks to many in TROC as racism! Not as to colour but as to culture or ancestry. The concept of "pur laine" didn't help this attitude either.

Just my own observations but I had thought that your POV was a bit extreme and thought I'd try to give you some better data to consider, not to upset you but simply to tell it as I truly see it. I worked for some years with an office in Pointe Claire and got to see much of both sides of the equation. I think many Quebecois just don't realize that they are as ignorant of the views of their TROC fellow Canadians as those TROC Canadians are of them!

Sometimes I suspect that our politicians like to keep it that way...

I'm going by what I personally find not what "the Péquistes" keep in a vault (and I don't believe they need one), being a bit active around political forums and websites. That said, yes I am more likely to react and remember negative perceptions. Are they completely representative? I assume not but they are certainly not all that marginal either. Whenever an article is posted that regards Québec on the internet that allows people to comment on, like dailies do, what I read there never fails to rile me up. Just in this forum are many that do grin whenever Québec is "put to its place". How else would you explain a thread with a title like this?

I do understand what those perceptions stem from and do not necessarily disagree with all of them but it is important to acknowledge that it leads to a much unhealthy resentment by many.

Canada has not bent over much regarding bilingualism when considering the results ; it has not made Canadians themselves bilingual. Obviously a reason for that is that French quite frankly isn't needed as English would be in Québec but we at least do make a real attempt to teach it, that is having the language mandatory from grade 1 to college. In the meanwhile, Canadians reject that it is important for Supreme Court judges (12 in the country) to be bilingual. When will it stop being important for Prime Ministers to be? I listened to a debate on the CPAC the other day in which a debatter thought that it wouldnt be a requirement in 2025. Switzerland is a real bilingual (often trilingual) country, as portrayed by its citizens, Canada isn't. Then again, my view as a secessionist is that French shouldn't be imposed at all elsewhere in the country... but thats a view I have that is changing as it becomes clearer seperation is becoming impossible.

I don't believe Ontarians see themselves as Anglo-Canadians but I certainly believe they would call themselves Canadians much before they call themselves Ontarians. The same applies to all other provinces except Québec so yes I would say there is a much stronger sense of belonging to the province here than elsewhere, the reason being that the Québécois don't see Québec as a province, but as a nation. I've yet to see a similar claim made by Manitobans or British Columbians. A very good showing of that we just had is the ridiculously small amount of people that went to vote in Ontario for the provincial legislature, less than 45%.

I don't buy and Québec in large will never buy that Canada is a confederation of 10 equal provinces. First of all, Canada is a federation but leaving that aside, it is entirely ridiculous that PEI has equal representation with the one province with a french majority. Arbitrary borders have made it so Québec is only one out of 10, they just as well could have made it so Québec would have been divided in 4 provinces and be 4 out of 10. Reducing a clear distinct society with a different ethnic background thats nearly 1/4 of the country to 1/10 of it is ridiculous. Most Canadian provinces are simply geographical constructs, Québec is the one that can best argue it isn't. Sure someone drew the lines on the map but they were drawn for a reason much more clear than were the line between Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

I've yet to see Québécois refer to their ideologial position as tribalism, that is another word used by the ROC, along with racism. Every little small occasion is good to call Québec a racist society because a certain protectionnism is used (and is necessary) to maintain its distinction afloats. Canada doesn't have the same problem and thus fails to understand it. 'Pur laine', once again (as is tribalism), is a term much more used outside Québec than it is within. If I remember right, it was one made popular by the English media following its use in Mordecai Richler's books.

You've listed a plethora of negative perceptions the ROC has of Québec and explained/relativised them after saying the ROC doesn't think much of it. Does it ever see Québec in a good light? As in a province with a very small criminality rate? Where actual racism as recorded in statistics is much lower than seen more west? Where aboriginals have more than elsewhere kept their ancestral languages and don't massively crowd our jails? Where people have most accepted homosexuality? Where social progressive values hit the peak in this country? Where green energy is most valued?

I agree with your conclusion in that ignorance resides in both sides of the fence.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Vineon

[Vineon]

The problem is not bringing Quebec's seat numbers to exactly its population. The problem is that it's population, relative to the rest of the country, continues to fall, and while the extra seats would 'exactly' match population ratio now it would soon be over. And the constitution prohibits taking seats away from Quebec, no matter what. Inevitably, this means ever larger numbers of parliamentarians.

You do not allocate seats based on demographical predictions. You allocate them based on their actual representation, that's the idea. Should they have to be revised again later, they will.

Frankly I don't see the problem with adding seats. It isn't an additional cost to society because the population grows accordingly.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Vineon

[Argus]

Canada has not bent over much regarding bilingualism when considering the results ; it has not made Canadians themselves bilingual. Obviously a reason for that is that French quite frankly isn't needed as English would be in Québec but we at least do make a real attempt to teach it, that is having the language mandatory from grade 1 to college. In the meanwhile, Canadians reject that it is important for Supreme Court judges (12 in the country) to be bilingual.

Important? I would say impractical. As you have already acknowledged, French is just not needed most places outside Quebec. This means very, very few Canadians outside Quebec and a few distinct regions such as parts of New Brunswick, eastern and northern Ontario are actually bilingual (as opposed to thinking bilingual means being able to ask where the toilet is).

Requiring every SC nominee to be bilingual, which was the proposal, would basically limit SC nominees to that tiny pool of fluently bilingual lawyers, almost all of whom are Francophones. You would not only be required to accept a lesser quality of applicant, given 95% were shut out of contention, but it would actively discriminate against Anglophones who were from any province other than Quebec.