Quebec hardens language law, federal politicians applaud.

[Benz]

On 6/15/2021 at 6:10 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

It seems Quebec politicians have been very willing to stomp on freedom of speech, expression, and religion rights to enforce their nationalist agenda.  I understand their concerns, but the choices they are making a very dangerous, and unconstitutional.  The religious symbols law is an absolute joke.  They're afraid of hijabs LOL.

Freedom of speech? WTF? Listen, you might not agree regarding the place of practice a religion and I respect that, but stop the BS about the freedom of speech. This is so ridiculous.

Unconstitutional? You are talking about your constitution that we have no say because you slammed the door in our face. I will care about your constitution only the day will open the book and sit at the table to review it. Until then, it is your constitution that is a joke.

Why you guys only focus at hijabs? We had bigger concerns with Kirpans and Turbans. I am telling, no way the Sikh will be able to break our laws regarding the mandatory helmet for bikes like they did in few other provinces. Over me dead body. Regarding the law, you are totally missing the points anyway. This why sometimes I wonder if thinking in english somehow limits the brain capacities, there has to be an explanation. You have all the rights to not agree with us and I have no problem with that, I respect that. But that is not the issue here. You just don't get it. You just don't understand anything. You can understand and do not agree, but you don't get to that level. Or maybe you do but, you are so childish that you prefer to play stupid.

English canada and Québec have a very different scope that covers religious rights. What we have in common is, we both agree that everybody can choose its own religion and can practice it as well. The difference between us is the coverage of where you have the right to practice it. For us, it regards the private life (by the way, I am not sure if private life is the appropriate translation of what I have in mind, en français j'utilise l'expression contexte de vie privée) of an individual and/or the community of the same believers. For you, it is extended to all levels of the society. When a person goes to work, or occupies a public job, that person IS NOT in a context of private life. So for us, in such context, one individual does not have the right to use its religious practices. You may do if there are no issues with it, but if there are, you cannot claim a right to practice your religion. That fundamental right is only in a context of private life. The opposite is true as well. A company cannot forbid the practice of a religion if there are no good reasons for it. So out of the private life context, it's neither a right, not forbidden. It's a case by case situation. Unlike you, the right of practicing the religion applies in any possible kind of context.
Now regarding bill 21, the rule says that religious symbols are forbidden only in the context of position of authority. It concerns only few number of jobs. The reason why it is required is the exactly the same why it is required that a person in position of authority has no conflict of interests of what-so-ever. Among those who wear a religious symbol, you can classify them into 2 categories. The first one, although they were it, it is not mandatory for them and they do not have an issue removing it if it is required. The second one, they are SO INDOCTRINATED by their religions that they prefer to lose their jobs rather than just removing it. Those people are more afraid of their god than our laws. The problem with them is, if they are facing an issue where our law says one thing, but their religion says the opposite, they will not choose our law, they will choose their religion's law. If they are ready to lose their job for just a symbol, for sure they will make such choice regarding the law as well. That is why we cannot afford to take the risk to let them have position of authority. Any other kind of job or role in our society, they can only pay the consequences of their actions. But in a position of authority, they can do damages. We are filtering them out of those positions. Is it possible to an indoctrinated person to play that role and never face such issue? Yes it is. But I am no gambler and I have nothing to win to take the risk. You wanna be a judge, a policeman or a teacher? Be fully secular. Otherwise, there plently of other kind of jobs you can still do.
Again, you have the right to totally disagree with me, but don't be an @$$ by pretending that where are racists attacking people wearing hijabs. Unless this is your thing, twisting reality and spreading hatred with lies.

[Benz]

10 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

It sounds like the problem is not language at all, but rather your all not having enough sex, or your shooting blanks...maybe wearing those speedos all the time have broken your balls. Making more French babies is the solution, .

If the problem would be the capacity of making babies, we would have ten times more adoptions than we actually are. Other societies are having the same issues with birth rate. Japan and China are both facing issues with that now. But they are so many, they do not have the need to compensate with more immigrants.

Now if I compare with Canada, the Quebec's birth rate is 1,58 and the Canada's birth rate is 1,50. It seems that your speedo is a little bit tighter than ours.  But since the rest of america is english, it is more interesting for the immigrants to choose english over french, or chinese... well, for now.

[Argus]

21 hours ago, Benz said:

Quebec gets around 50 000 new immigrants (whether it is from normal process or refugees) per year and in that number, most of them do not have french as mother language and moreless only 40% do speak functional french. Although french courses are free and the government subsides them, still alot of immigrants won't learn french. The birth rate of the french people is very low and it does not take a phd to understand if the number of people not speaking french increases all the time at this pace, it soon will become a serious issue for the french.

But the number of people not speaking French is NOT increasing. Ninety five percent of Quebecers speak French. Furthermore, Quebec has control over its own immigration, so if it's bringing in people who don't speak French whose fault is that?

21 hours ago, Benz said:

Even among the people who learned french because they have too, their native language is not french.

Yeah, no kidding. You think it's any different with the millions of immigrants to English Canada?

21 hours ago, Benz said:

 So when I see people living here in Quebec for several years and not being able to say Bonjour or few sentences in french, that is totally alien to me. How can you live in a society and be so close minded and isolated like that?

Quebecers are entirely in control of Canada's immigration. Australia, for example, tightened its English language requirements for immigrants. This produced immigrants better able to thrive economically, and who can assimilate faster. Canada simply does not care. Maybe you should complain to Justin Trudeau if you think it should be changed.

21 hours ago, Benz said:

So how can you live for so long into a society and never learn its language, it sounds so stubborn and narrowed.

If you work in a niche area mostly around people who speak your own language, and aren't good at learning other languages it's natural enough. Especially if you're older.

21 hours ago, Benz said:

Then I decided to ask the question directly. Whenever I met someone not speaking french in Quebec, I asked the person. There were a variety of answers. Sometimes it was just as narrowed as it sounds. But sometimes I could understand. The answer that came the most frequently is, the person feels too old and too busy to learn.

Learning French is not easy. I've taken a number of French courses in my life, some at my own expense. The grammar is unnatural to English speakers, as is the whole business of words having genders which completely change how you spell and say them. And you have to have the 'ear' for the way words are joined together in speaking - the 'liaison' as one of my French teachers said. You also have to be using it every day and hearing it every day or you pretty much lose it.

21 hours ago, Benz said:

Conclusion, the language laws regarding the schools are a very good thing. Very important for the preservation of the french culture.

I would be more accepting of French efforts at preserving their culture if they didn't sneer at the very idea of English Canada preserving their culture, history and traditions. A series of Quebec politicians has done everything they can do eliminate them, and the present idiot even says Canada is not a nation - though Quebec is - and has no identity - though of course Quebec does.

 

[Benz]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

But the number of people not speaking French is NOT increasing. Ninety five percent of Quebecers speak French. Furthermore, Quebec has control over its own immigration, so if it's bringing in people who don't speak French whose fault is that?

Yeah, no kidding. You think it's any different with the millions of immigrants to English Canada?

Quebecers are entirely in control of Canada's immigration. Australia, for example, tightened its English language requirements for immigrants. This produced immigrants better able to thrive economically, and who can assimilate faster. Canada simply does not care. Maybe you should complain to Justin Trudeau if you think it should be changed.

If you work in a niche area mostly around people who speak your own language, and aren't good at learning other languages it's natural enough. Especially if you're older.

Learning French is not easy. I've taken a number of French courses in my life, some at my own expense. The grammar is unnatural to English speakers, as is the whole business of words having genders which completely change how you spell and say them. And you have to have the 'ear' for the way words are joined together in speaking - the 'liaison' as one of my French teachers said. You also have to be using it every day and hearing it every day or you pretty much lose it.

I would be more accepting of French efforts at preserving their culture if they didn't sneer at the very idea of English Canada preserving their culture, history and traditions. A series of Quebec politicians has done everything they can do eliminate them, and the present idiot even says Canada is not a nation - though Quebec is - and has no identity - though of course Quebec does.

 

Quebec has the control of its immigration after Canada did the first draft. We do with what's left.

Number of people not speaking french does increase. I do not know where you get your stats but you are totally off.

You are clearly missing the point. I will repeat. A non neglectable amount of immigrants that do not have french as native language, do prefer to adopt english only on the basis that english speakers outnumber the french in North America. They do not hate french, they just go practical. If the amount of people thinking like that is critical, it does become a collateral threat to french language.

So now you are blaming Quebec for the lack of measures Canada is taking to make sure the immigrants learn english outside Quebec? Tell me you are not that coward and stupid and I am just misinterpreting your saying. If you like what Australia does, then do the same. I heard there is a serious issue with that in Vancouver. We have nothing to do with it.

The I-am-too-old excuse, I can manage to swallow it. Otherwise, your social aptitudes are very restrictives if you have no intention to learn about the society's language where you live and limit yourself to the very tiny surrounding.

I admit that the learning of French language is difficult for no good reason. I am among those who claim a major change and simplification. So, I agree that if you do not practice and hear it often, it's difficult to keep it. That excuse goes for someone living in Calgary, even with the best intentions of learning it. But if you are living in Montréal. What is your excuse? Well, one possible excuse is, the french people would talk to you in English anyway, so you can continue being lazy. Well that one, the blame goes to those French who are too helpful. Besides that, you have everything you need to learn it.

You really need to show where and how Quebec object to English Canada for preserving its own culture. It is the other way around. I think you guys need to take inspiration from us sometimes and do more. The multiculturalism's policy is a serious threat to your culture IMO but, I do not see much Canadians sharing that opinion.

As for Canada not a nation... I do not know exactly what Legault said, but usually what the people here are saying is a little different. Canada is not a nation because it is a federal country having nations such as English Canadians, Québécois and the natives. For several generations, the English Canadians were trying to erase the French and the natives and totally swallow them as one nation named Canadian. But although they tried very hard, it never become true. More than ever, the natives do not consider themselves as Canadians. They are Cree, or Ojibway, or Innu in first place. The same goes for the Québécois. The concept that the English Canadians deciding alone all the rules (constitution) because they have the majority is totally rejected by everyone else. The former british imperialism is over and English Canadians need to move on and accept the reality. Quebec signed a deal nation to nation with the Cree where those natives can now share the sovereignty of their land with the provincial government. That is a good example of recognition and collaboration between the two and both benefit from it. The federal is too centralized and after the English Canadians complain that the Quebec is controlling it too much. If you want Quebec to mind its own business, make sure Ottawa does the same.

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, Benz said:

Quebec has the control of its immigration after Canada did the first draft. We do with what's left.

Other way around. Quebec chooses and accepts, then they apply to immigration Canada

4 minutes ago, Benz said:

You are clearly missing the point. I will repeat. A non neglectable amount of immigrants that do not have french as native language, do prefer to adopt english only on the basis that english speakers outnumber the french in North America.

They apply to the Quebec government because they can already speak French. What is the problem? That it's not their native language? Gee how about that. So what?

4 minutes ago, Benz said:

So now you are blaming Quebec for the lack of measures Canada is taking to make sure the immigrants learn english outside Quebec?

Now I'm blaming Quebec for our whole immigration program. It was redesigned and expanded by Pierre Trudeau, and then Brian Mulroney hugely increased the numbers. Then Jean Chretien increased them more. Harper didn't do much but continue it, and now Justin Trudeau has hugely increased the numbers again. The Liberal Party has worked to expand immigration for fifty years, and since Quebec Prime Ministers have run Canada for 43 of the last 53 years due to the Quebec tribal vote It's all on you guys.

You don't like it? Too bad. Vote for different people.

4 minutes ago, Benz said:

Tell me you are not that coward and stupid and I am just misinterpreting your saying. If you like what Australia does, then do the same.

We would if we didn't have Quebec constantly voting for politicians who want to increase immigration and who care nothing about the rest of Canada.

4 minutes ago, Benz said:

You really need to show where and how Quebec object to English Canada for preserving its own culture.

Canada's culture was replete with British culture and British traditions. The Quebec PMs and Liberals worked to do away with them in order to make Quebecers feel more at home. They did everything from getting the royal crest off government buildings and communication to changing the name of federal departments to seem less British, to changing the name of Dominion Day to Canada Day (that was a Quebec Liberal MPs private members bill which did it, by the way. The Tory who was supposed to object so there wouldn't be unanimous consent - was a Quebecer, and didn't object).

The Quebec centred Liberal Party worked to de-British Canada, revamping its institutions and changing behaviour through propaganda. For example, they turned sleepy Dominion Day into a Rah-Rah American style Canada Day. They also biligualised all federal institutions in order to ensure Quebecers held a disproportionate number of jobs, and especially senior positions. Any Canadian tradition or institution which might offend 'newcomers' was changed - but not the Quebec ones. Pride in the military was replaced by a love of 'peacekeeping' and the military was downgraded again and again to its current pathetic size and composition. Pride in our history was replaced by an almost total lack of knowledge of our history, and a focus on every blemish and politically incorrect statement and act. Except in Quebec, of course, where students are taught pride in their history.

 

4 minutes ago, Benz said:

It is the other way around. I think you guys need to take inspiration from us sometimes and do more. The multiculturalism's policy is a serious threat to your culture IMO but, I do not see much Canadians sharing that opinion.

I agree, but it is a Liberal policy developed by Pierre Trudeau to water down our culture, and it's taken hold and would be hard to eliminate unless we could get rid of Quebec first.

4 minutes ago, Benz said:

As for Canada not a nation... I do not know exactly what Legault said

Trudeau. He said Canada is a 'post nation' state with no core identity.

4 minutes ago, Benz said:

More than ever, the natives do not consider themselves as Canadians. They are Cree, or Ojibway, or Innu in first place.

Then I'm sure you'll have no problem letting them and their lands stay in Canada if Quebec ever votes to separate (please do!) as the natives have said they intend to do.

 

[August1991]

On 5/19/2021 at 12:43 PM, Argus said:

I'm reminded of a Liberal MP from Quebec who represented a largely Anglo riding in Montreal Emmanuella Lambropoulos who was on the official language committee and had the TEMERITY to ask for evidence that French was in decline in Quebec. She was pilloried from all corners, subjected to insults and sexual harassments throughout Quebec's media, and removed from the committee by Trudeau. Oh, and O'Toole, maintaining the Conservative Party's tradition of being crawling, spineless ass lickers towards Quebec, also attacked her.

....

Whatever.

[Moonlight Graham]

On 6/29/2021 at 7:26 PM, Benz said:

Why you guys only focus at hijabs? We had bigger concerns with Kirpans and Turbans. I am telling, no way the Sikh will be able to break our laws regarding the mandatory helmet for bikes like they did in few other provinces. Over me dead body.

We're not talking about riding bikes, we're talking about wearing them at work.  Don't insult my intelligence my talking about "conflict of interest" etc.  It's about fear of these "other" religions and you know it is.  Wearing a piece of cloth doesn't affect a public servant, unless it actually does affect their jobs, like wearing helmets as you say.

On 6/29/2021 at 7:26 PM, Benz said:

Regarding the law, you are totally missing the points anyway. This why sometimes I wonder if thinking in english somehow limits the brain capacities, there has to be an explanation. You have all the rights to not agree with us and I have no problem with that, I respect that. But that is not the issue here. You just don't get it. You just don't understand anything. You can understand and do not agree, but you don't get to that level. Or maybe you do but, you are so childish that you prefer to play stupid.

You're the one throwing tantrums and calling me names.

Again, I respect the Quebecois trying to retain their language and culture, I get it, I support it.  But when the government is telling private businesses what language they can display signs etc., and telling them what language they can greet customers, yes that is a freedom of speech issue.  These aren't "Canada's rights" these are also the rights of basically every western liberal democracy, including France.

And ya sorry the Charter still applies to Quebec.  Quebec signed onto Confederation and the rules therein.  Their signature isn't needed, as per the rules they signed onto to.  But there are also clauses in the constitutional that allows a provincial government to override the Charter.  So have at it.

 

Edited July 1, 2021 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

On 6/19/2021 at 3:18 PM, taxme said:

Canada is Quebec. Quebec is Canada. The french have been running Canada for decades now ever since old man comrade Pete boy Trudeau came to power in 1980. While Canada gets to be bilingual, Quebec gets a to be a unilingual french speaking province only. No discrimination or french ass kissing seen here, folks. 

English Canada is dead.

Every province besides Quebec and New Brunswick are English only.

[Benz]

12 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

We're not talking about riding bikes, we're talking about wearing them at work.  Don't insult my intelligence my talking about "conflict of interest" etc.  It's about fear of these "other" religions and you know it is.  Wearing a piece of cloth doesn't affect a public servant, unless it actually does affect their jobs, like wearing helmets as you say.

I am not insulting your intelligence, you are peeing on your own intelligence yourself. 99% of the jobs are not concerned by that law. Nothing else is. It only concerns 4 jobs in position of authority. So the religious people wearing symbols can still do it anywhere in public and in all other job types. Not bad for a society that is supposed to fear them. If we feared them, we would forbid it in all or most of the jobs. We would forbid it in public space, etc... You rather sound like you want to incite hatred toward Quebec nation. Despite that the facts are proving otherwise, you invent a fear that does not exist, like if the law would be irrational. On the contrary, your accusations are. You are not even trying to argue on the main point, you try to drift this into illusion of fear. Bad faith or plain stupid? I told you many times. I am ok if you do not agree, but do not splash me with an opinion that is not mine, just to suit your point. This is disrespectful and fallacious.

Quote

You're the one throwing tantrums and calling me names.

Respect the opinion of the ones you do not agree with. Don't put words in their mouth that they did not say. Do not invent actions they did not do. Do not invent motives they did not have. If you still do, at least, try to demonstrate it instead of just free accusations. 

Quote

Again, I respect the Quebecois trying to retain their language and culture, I get it, I support it.  But when the government is telling private businesses what language they can display signs etc., and telling them what language they can greet customers, yes that is a freedom of speech issue.  These aren't "Canada's rights" these are also the rights of basically every western liberal democracy, including France.

The biggest issue here is that you do not respect facts and reality. Is English signs are forbidden? NO. No matter how often you lie, it will never become true. The law says you cannot show a sign in English only. French must comes along.  Not replacing English. Yet, you guys still say that English is forbidden. It's not true. You do not have a problem with our law, you have a problem with the reality. English is not forbidden in Quebec, just as well as the Earth isn't flat. Same thing regarding the language spoken in an enterprise. English is not forbidden. What is forbidden, is forcing English on people. If I want my colleague to speak to me in French, that colleague has to comply. But if I am ok that he speaks to me in English, the law can't do anything. Also, that rules is applied only between coworkers living in Quebec. If I speak with a co-worker living in Singapour or Vancouver, the law doesn't apply. You can use the Nazi's technical solution to lie until some people think it is true, bottom line, it will never be true.

Quote

And ya sorry the Charter still applies to Quebec.  Quebec signed onto Confederation and the rules therein.  Their signature isn't needed, as per the rules they signed onto to.  But there are also clauses in the constitutional that allows a provincial government to override the Charter.  So have at it.

Yeah, you are talking about the signature of a nation that was teared down less than 30 years before that. A nation who saw its leader hung up. That federation was a great improvement compared to what it was before. But it did not take long that we experienced its downsides. So basically, what you are saying is, the only solution is to separate or use the notwithstanding clause as often as needed. The message is pretty clear.

[Benz]

16 hours ago, Argus said:

Other way around. Quebec chooses and accepts, then they apply to immigration Canada

Nope. Don't get fooled by the illusion of that website. An immigrant that is refused by Quebec, can still be accepted elsewhere in Canada. Also, an immigrant accepted by Quebec, is not guaranteed to be accepted by immigration Canada. Canada has the last word. But this is not the biggest concern here.

Quote

Now I'm blaming Quebec for our whole immigration program. It was redesigned and expanded by Pierre Trudeau, and then Brian Mulroney hugely increased the numbers. Then Jean Chretien increased them more. Harper didn't do much but continue it, and now Justin Trudeau has hugely increased the numbers again. The Liberal Party has worked to expand immigration for fifty years, and since Quebec Prime Ministers have run Canada for 43 of the last 53 years due to the Quebec tribal vote It's all on you guys.

You don't like it? Too bad. Vote for different people.

We would if we didn't have Quebec constantly voting for politicians who want to increase immigration and who care nothing about the rest of Canada.

You voted for them, not us. PE Trudeau and Chrétien? We so disagreed with them that we hold a referendum to separate from the country on both of them. When Chretien was in prime minister, Quebec was voting for the Bloc. Only English speaking people of Quebec were voting 100% for the Liberals. Blame your own fellows, not us. PE Trudeau betrayed us and did the exact opposite of what he promised. We were so disgusted by him that we voted for the Mulroney and the conservative. We were so satisfied that we wiped them out and voted for the Bloc. It is very coward of you to blame us while you admit that your Harper was just the same. We never agreed with PE Trudeau. Even Robert Bourassa was totally against him. It is silly to put on us what they did just become they come from here. While here, we have the same consideration for them that the people in France had for the Nazi's collaborators. All the guys you named, had a huge support from the English people in Quebec and the Ontarians. No way I will endorse their decisions. NO F*CK*NG WAY.

Quote

Canada's culture was replete with British culture and British traditions. The Quebec PMs and Liberals worked to do away with them in order to make Quebecers feel more at home. They did everything from getting the royal crest off government buildings and communication to changing the name of federal departments to seem less British, to changing the name of Dominion Day to Canada Day (that was a Quebec Liberal MPs private members bill which did it, by the way. The Tory who was supposed to object so there wouldn't be unanimous consent - was a Quebecer, and didn't object).

The Quebec centred Liberal Party worked to de-British Canada, revamping its institutions and changing behaviour through propaganda. For example, they turned sleepy Dominion Day into a Rah-Rah American style Canada Day... 
...Any Canadian tradition or institution which might offend 'newcomers' was changed - but not the Quebec ones. Pride in the military was replaced by a love of 'peacekeeping' and the military was downgraded again and again to its current pathetic size and composition. Pride in our history was replaced by an almost total lack of knowledge of our history, and a focus on every blemish and politically incorrect statement and act. Except in Quebec, of course, where students are taught pride in their history.

Do Quebec was pleased by that? Is doing a referendum to separate is a good way to show our appreciation? Gee Argus. Be smarter than that and look with your eyes. That nation building mostly done by the liberals was not to please one or another, it was to create a non natural nation to justify a system meant to satisfy itself, not the people. They wanted Canada to take a direction where the French would fit and get assimilated. It is ironic because it is the other way around. It is in English Canada, mostly Ontario, that the people swallowed that model. We never agreed to that nation building type. It is not our model. We always valued the concept of multinations of Canada. If the ROC wants to cheer the Queen of England, it is the last of our concerns. You guys can do whatever you want. In a flexible federalism, we share what we have in common and we manage our differences in ourselves. But that is not what the liberals wanted. They wanted a hybrid one size fit all kind of nation because they thought it was the only we to keep us united. Does it work? Not really. But you are only fooling yourself if you keep thinking that guys like me are the same as guys like them.

The schools are under the power of the provinces, not the federal. Quebec has the power over its own schools, but not yours. You eny that we teach pride to our students about history, then do the same. Don't blame us for the cowardness or your provincial politicians. Otherwise, you have what you deserve. 

Quote

They also biligualised all federal institutions in order to ensure Quebecers held a disproportionate number of jobs, and especially senior positions. 

Get a grip. This  is only whining. If you do not want a bilingual country, then let's separate this sh!t. We merge all the french parts of Canada to Quebec and we split. Then you will have your unilingual English country. Otherwise, stop complaining. It is perfectly normal that both languages are required for the federal jobs. It does not advantage Quebec, it advantages the most educated and intelligent people. oh well, then, you are right, it does advantage Quebec. Because Quebec is better at being bilingual than the others. Then don't blame Quebec, blame yourself. You are the one who fail.

Quote

I agree, but it is a Liberal policy developed by Pierre Trudeau to water down our culture, and it's taken hold and would be hard to eliminate unless we could get rid of Quebec first.

Or, you pull your head out of your ass and do the right thing. We totally reject PE Trudeau's multiculturalism. Yet, you still associate Trudeau to us. You are your own biggest issue. You are unable to identify the real problem and its origin. You feed your own confusion. But I know why you do that. You do not have the courage to fight your own demons, so you blame us for something, even if we are fighting against it. If Quebec separates, it will only solve the Quebec's problem. It won't change anything to you. You will still face the very same problem with the federal. You think it will be easier without Quebec because you lie to yourself about the big picture. But the reality will catch you up. The liberals won't disappear. The weight of Ontario will increase. The federal will increase its power justified by the fear of other separations and will become more centralized. Quebec can be your greatest ally but you keep on spitting on it.

Quote

Trudeau. He said Canada is a 'post nation' state with no core identity.

Indeed. Trudeau was very against nationalism. He disdained both sovereignists and Quebec provincial federalists. He hated both Lévesque and Bourassa. It is in his logic of multiculturalism. He believed only in a cultureless state and rule of law. His son is his own product. Justin does not understand that. He just applies it.

Quote

Then I'm sure you'll have no problem letting them and their lands stay in Canada if Quebec ever votes to separate (please do!) as the natives have said they intend to do.

oh no, that is NOT what the natives said. They said they do not belong neither with Quebec, nor with Canada. They are their own nation, their own culture. Agreements are only for the sake of mutual interests. Right now they have a pretty good deal and they would never give up on  that. If they want to separate, they would lose the Paix des Braves, and therefore their shared sovereignty and of course, all income from Hydro-Electricity. You can't manipulate them anymore.

[taxme]

On 6/30/2021 at 8:37 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

Every province besides Quebec and New Brunswick are English only.

You are wrong. In Ontario and Manitoba pretty much all government owned buildings and highway traffic signs are in both English and french. Those two provinces are well on their way to becoming bilingual. They just have not declared that as of yet. But they will in time. All highway traffic signs in Quebec are in french only. Bilingualism is not a word being used or said in their french vocabulary anymore. Wake up, will you. ?

[Moonlight Graham]

On 7/1/2021 at 1:26 PM, Benz said:

Yeah, you are talking about the signature of a nation that was teared down less than 30 years before that. A nation who saw its leader hung up. That federation was a great improvement compared to what it was before. But it did not take long that we experienced its downsides. So basically, what you are saying is, the only solution is to separate or use the notwithstanding clause as often as needed. The message is pretty clear.

What would separation accomplish for Quebec if they don't have to follow the Charter and can make any law they want anyways?  The notwithstanding clause was put into the Charter to appease provinces like Quebec.  I'm not saying they can't do it, i'm saying they need to be careful, I'm saying what price to freedom are Quebecois willing to pay to maintain their culture?  And it's not like I don't have compassion for Francophones in Quebec, I want them to keep their culture too.  I'm just saying it's a tough road ahead, one that could look a lot like Donald Trump if they aren't careful.

[Moonlight Graham]

On 7/2/2021 at 4:10 PM, taxme said:

You are wrong. In Ontario and Manitoba pretty much all government owned buildings and highway traffic signs are in both English and french. Those two provinces are well on their way to becoming bilingual. They just have not declared that as of yet. But they will in time. All highway traffic signs in Quebec are in french only. Bilingualism is not a word being used or said in their french vocabulary anymore. Wake up, will you. ?

Find me a highway sign in Toronto that's in french.

[Benz]

On 7/10/2021 at 12:42 AM, Moonlight Graham said:

What would separation accomplish for Quebec if they don't have to follow the Charter and can make any law they want anyways?  The notwithstanding clause was put into the Charter to appease provinces like Quebec.  I'm not saying they can't do it, i'm saying they need to be careful, I'm saying what price to freedom are Quebecois willing to pay to maintain their culture?  And it's not like I don't have compassion for Francophones in Quebec, I want them to keep their culture too.  I'm just saying it's a tough road ahead, one that could look a lot like Donald Trump if they aren't careful.

I won't surprise you if I tell you that I do not give you any credit for the comparison of our patriotism to the Trump's self-interest exploit of pseudo-nationalism based on populism. By comparing both, you rather show a disdain and misunderstanding of Quebec's aspiration.

You say you have compassion for Quebec and I do believe you. I do believe you feel it. Nevertheless, it is from your angle under your considerations. Let me show you another angle. Let's say that you love belugas. You consider them as great creatures, among the most wonderful on Earth. You go to Canada's Wonderland to admire them. They do nice tricks to wow you and with their behavior, they make you think they enjoy it. You pass a good moment and when you go back home, you feel more admiration toward them. But what about them? when the show is over, they go back to their tiny pool where they turn around indefinitely. The next day, they have to do that again if they want to eat. They are not there by choice and they cannot choose to leave. They work everyday and if they have a rest, it's in a tiny space for their size. It's do or die. No other option. I did go to Canada's Wonderland 3 years ago. Although I was impress by what they can do, it was heart breaking to see where they end up after the show. When the show ended, I was staring at the other human show. The crowd leaving with satisfaction and smile on their face, while right there under their eyes, they could see those poor beasts turning around in their jar. How come they do not see what I see? That is the parallel I want you to open your eyes on, when you are trying to paternize us about the price of freedom with all of your compassion.

Ottawa is taking decisions that do not go with the interests of all canadians. Only for the benefit of few of them, or maybe the majority but, at the expense of many others. While Ottawa is subsiding oil in the west, nuclear in Ontario, Ottawa is not only giving nothing for Quebec that has to develop its hydro alone, but it is also contributing to hinder it. Do you think Ontario could afford to refuse dealing with Quebec's hydro if Ottawa was not subsiding their nuclear industry that much? What about NFL that is trying to avoid dealing with Quebec, its natural and only neighbor, by getting around us at 10 times the cost it would take to just deal with us. Of course NFL cannot afford to do that alone. So Ottawa is helping them and since we contribute to the system, it's like if we are helping them to screw ourselves as well. I can go on like that with many other cases but, I know the cassette. Ottawa is also giving us candies here and there. Like if that would compensate somehow. It's still bad on the big picture. But the point is not only economic. The place of religion is a good example. We have a different understanding to the extension of the practice of it. We limit it to the private context, you extend it to the absolute. Although the non withstanding clause exist, the federal is still trying to derail it at the court that has to base its judgement on the constitution that we did not sign. Instead of respecting each's others opinions, it's a continual fight and load of insults and accusations. What about the language now. According to the constitution, as a french, I can go into a french school anywhere in Canada. Well, yeah, according to the rule. But that is not the reality. How many french schools have been opened AFTER some people had to fight with money, time and energy, up to the supreme court to make it happen. Some of them saw their children grown too old to go to that school because it took so much time. So much effort and public money has been spent to fight against that. So much resistance from the political side from both the province and the federal to fight against that right. It is very dissuasive among most of the common people with all the consequences that come along. I can continue like that with so many other examples and topics. I think I made my point.

Giving up on freedom is a very high cost. Your applauses and fishes you are giving me are not enough for me to be satisfied with turning around in your jar. There is no good reasons that it should continue like that. Quebec is a nation and needs to be sovereign just like any other nations in this world. Whether we are totally independent or a member of a flexible federalism, it is secondary. Both are ok to me. I am not saying that to convince you that Quebec's sovereignty is good for you. It is totally irrelevant for you because it is not up to you to decide anyway. It doesn't change much for you. It would only change the dynamic of our political and economical relations. You say you have compassion for the french and Quebec. Good, then acknowledge this. Because the paternalism you have over us and the disregard regarding our revendications are not compatibles to what you stand on many subjects. How many times I told you it is ok to not agree regarding the place of the religion, as long as we respect each other's point of view. But you end up with silly accusations with total disregard of our points and of course, total lack of valid ones on your side. What a way to conduct a debate eh!

Edited July 14, 2021 by Benz

[taxme]

On 7/9/2021 at 9:42 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

What would separation accomplish for Quebec if they don't have to follow the Charter and can make any law they want anyways?  The notwithstanding clause was put into the Charter to appease provinces like Quebec.  I'm not saying they can't do it, i'm saying they need to be careful, I'm saying what price to freedom are Quebecois willing to pay to maintain their culture?  And it's not like I don't have compassion for Francophones in Quebec, I want them to keep their culture too.  I'm just saying it's a tough road ahead, one that could look a lot like Donald Trump if they aren't careful.

Why would Quebec want or need to separate from the rest of English Canada when they pretty much already control the rest of Canada? No bilingualism for french Quebec. But bilingual today, and french tomorrow is the plan, man, for the rest of English Canada. 

Here we go again. Bring the name of Donald Trump into the picture. You lefty liberals just cannot seem to get Trump off your stunned minds. Donald Trump is a lot better man and a better leader than your feminist Fidel Trudeau could ever be. LOL.  

[Army Guy]

I got a few questions, I'm asking because i don't know and am curious. 

1. What is it that Quebec does not like or wants to add, about the present constitution?

2. If Quebec does decide to separate, what does that look like, i vaguely remember the demands from both sides, such as 1/3 of the military for Quebec, and for ROC a portion of the national debt goes to Quebec. What does the borders look like, you mentioned that this is a concern of not only of the French in Quebec but in the ROC, such as northern NB i assume ?.. In my military years, the French from Quebec did not include the Acadians as French people, rather red necks that tried to speak French. I ask because will this new borders cut of the Maritimes from the ROC or will Quebec concede some of the southern borders to connect the Atlantic provinces with the ROC. I ask because during the last referendum there were political meets with the US about the Maritimes joining the US for these reasons. 

3. What would it take for Quebec to stay in Canada as a province of Canada and not a separate nation, other than revisions of the constitution. 

[Moonlight Graham]

On 7/14/2021 at 2:59 PM, Benz said:

Giving up on freedom is a very high cost. Your applauses and fishes you are giving me are not enough for me to be satisfied with turning around in your jar. There is no good reasons that it should continue like that. Quebec is a nation and needs to be sovereign just like any other nations in this world. Whether we are totally independent or a member of a flexible federalism, it is secondary. Both are ok to me. I am not saying that to convince you that Quebec's sovereignty is good for you. It is totally irrelevant for you because it is not up to you to decide anyway. It doesn't change much for you. It would only change the dynamic of our political and economical relations. You say you have compassion for the french and Quebec. Good, then acknowledge this. Because the paternalism you have over us and the disregard regarding our revendications are not compatibles to what you stand on many subjects. How many times I told you it is ok to not agree regarding the place of the religion, as long as we respect each other's point of view. But you end up with silly accusations with total disregard of our points and of course, total lack of valid ones on your side. What a way to conduct a debate eh!

My preference would be to give provinces as much authority over their own policy/laws etc as is practically possible.  Some things, like national defense, might not be practical that way, but many other things yes.  I don't believe in Ottawa centralizing and controlling so many things.  I think Quebec should be able to control its own immigration, and Alberta should be able to control its own oil output etc.  Of course things are a bit complicated because of very old constitutional agreements that at this point aren't easily changeable, but I do hear what you and other Quebecois are saying.

Too much Ottawa centralization just rips the country apart and creates resentment within the country, and calls for separation by Quebec or Alberta or whomever.  I agree we should have flexible federalism.

I'm entitled to my opinion, but having an opinion and being wary or critical of something the Quebec government does doesn't mean I would want Ottawa to force Quebecers to change their laws.

IMO all provinces are like brothers and sisters of the same Canadian family, we will all bicker and fight sometimes as siblings do, but are at the end of the day family.  Any time any province feels it needs to seperate is a sign that the rest of Canada probably isn't listening to them enough.  There should never be any need to separate if we're all listening to each other and giving everyone the self-determination they deserve.

Edited July 15, 2021 by Moonlight Graham

[Benz]

On 7/14/2021 at 3:55 PM, Army Guy said:

I got a few questions, I'm asking because i don't know and am curious. 

1. What is it that Quebec does not like or wants to add, about the present constitution?

2. If Quebec does decide to separate, what does that look like, i vaguely remember the demands from both sides, such as 1/3 of the military for Quebec, and for ROC a portion of the national debt goes to Quebec. What does the borders look like, you mentioned that this is a concern of not only of the French in Quebec but in the ROC, such as northern NB i assume ?.. In my military years, the French from Quebec did not include the Acadians as French people, rather red necks that tried to speak French. I ask because will this new borders cut of the Maritimes from the ROC or will Quebec concede some of the southern borders to connect the Atlantic provinces with the ROC. I ask because during the last referendum there were political meets with the US about the Maritimes joining the US for these reasons. 

3. What would it take for Quebec to stay in Canada as a province of Canada and not a separate nation, other than revisions of the constitution. 

1. I will try to make it as short as possible. We think that a real confederacy would suit Canada much better but, unfortunately, the idea never grows up outside Quebec. So we have no other choice to focus only to what regards us. The most important point that needs to be understood is, we do not want that the rules could be changed without our approval. We have no problem to follow the same rules, as long as we agree on the rules. Trudeau said in 1980, "f**k Quebec, but to compensate, I will put the non withstanding". The problem with that, is whenever it regards the cost of a program, if Quebec does not agree on how the program is managed and retire, we lose the money from it. But the money belong to the people. It's not fair if one gets nothing just because of a disagreement. Again, if the federal would be more decentralized, the issue wouldn't occur. One example among many others, the Scholar Sponsorship. Ottawa wants to give money only for the best students. Quebec rather wants to split the money even among the students. That was a big futile fight in the beginning of the 2000s. 

1. Quebec recognized as a nation
2. Quebec veto on constitution (no problem to extend that to regions or even other provinces)
3. Equal number of french and english at the suprême court, minimum 3 coming from Quebec.
4. Full compensation on an opt out.
5. Limit the the right to practice a religion to a private life context. A province can extend it to the absolute if it wants, I do not mind about that. 

2. Very, very sliding subject where every one is having difficulties to be objective.

1. Military, infrastructure, debts... the most reasonable would be that everyone get its fair share. But what is a fair share? Circa 1840, the debt of Upper Canada has been cut in half and shared to the Lower Canada that had no debt. So many investment has been done outside Quebec with our money, so many programs that we did not get our fair share. It's impossible to agree on what is fair, we must rely on what is the most realistic way to process that issue.
2. Territory. Even right now, there is an issue about that. The south border of Labrador is one of them. It just doesn't make sense. Same thing regarding the islands along the northem coast of Quebec. It does not make sense that they belong to Nunavut. Whether Quebec separates or not, it should belong to Quebec. Now regarding french territories outside Quebec and english territories inside Quebec. It should be resolved in 2 steps. First step, the borders stay as is. Second step, Quebec and Ottawa can try to deal afterward and exchange territories.
3. Connections. Not an issue. It would be just like USA right now. Alaska is not connected to the mainland. Hawaï is far away. The maritimes can choose to stay with the central and western Canada. Circulation throught Quebec is just one point among many others that can be negociated easily.

3. Other than constitution? When the federal does not intervene, Quebec does get along pretty well with the other provinces. The shit hits the fan when the federal stick its nose... or when the rules are unfair. There might be details that need changes but, it's minor compared to the constitution. If the provinces could control the power of Ottawa to spend money, it would help to reduce alot of irritations. But only Quebec stands on that. So a full compensation on any federal programs would do the job.

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by Benz

[Benz]

17 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

My preference would be to give provinces as much authority over their own policy/laws etc as is practically possible.  Some things, like national defense, might not be practical that way, but many other things yes.  I don't believe in Ottawa centralizing and controlling so many things.  I think Quebec should be able to control its own immigration, and Alberta should be able to control its own oil output etc.  Of course things are a bit complicated because of very old constitutional agreements that at this point aren't easily changeable, but I do hear what you and other Quebecois are saying.

Too much Ottawa centralization just rips the country apart and creates resentment within the country, and calls for separation by Quebec or Alberta or whomever.  I agree we should have flexible federalism.

I'm entitled to my opinion, but having an opinion and being wary or critical of something the Quebec government does doesn't mean I would want Ottawa to force Quebecers to change their laws.

IMO all provinces are like brothers and sisters of the same Canadian family, we will all bicker and fight sometimes as siblings do, but are at the end of the day family.  Any time any province feels it needs to seperate is a sign that the rest of Canada probably isn't listening to them enough.  There should never be any need to separate if we're all listening to each other and giving everyone the self-determination they deserve.

There you go. It's a good start. If you like the term family to represent all provinces, then you need a detail to express the reality of the current context. It would be like if 9 children out of 10 are boys and the other one is a girl, or vice versa. Or 9 are biological siblings and one adopted. Quebec is its own nation. We have many differences and the most obvious one is the language and the culture that comes along. It means we see things differently on some points. But we also are having our common points. If you understand that the rules cannot be decided by the majority alone, then you are on the right track. But if on the contrary, you think you can compensate this unbalanced power by your good will, it won't do it. Alot of conflicts will be encountered.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, Benz said:

There you go. It's a good start. If you like the term family to represent all provinces, then you need a detail to express the reality of the current context. It would be like if 9 children out of 10 are boys and the other one is a girl, or vice versa. Or 9 are biological siblings and one adopted. Quebec is its own nation. We have many differences and the most obvious one is the language and the culture that comes along. It means we see things differently on some points. But we also are having our common points. If you understand that the rules cannot be decided by the majority alone, then you are on the right track. But if on the contrary, you think you can compensate this unbalanced power by your good will, it won't do it. Alot of conflicts will be encountered.

You also have to realize that while the rest of Canada isn't perfect they have tried very hard over the decades to appease Quebec.  Official bilingualism for a minority language, official multiculturalism since the 60's, recognizing Quebec as a nation within a nation, 2 major attempts after 1982 to bring Quebec into the constitution, mostly Quebec Prime Ministers the last 50 years, lots of money thrown Quebec's way, and they put up with a separatist federal party that couldn't give much of a rat about the rest of the country.  It's not like people don't care.

[Army Guy]

On 7/16/2021 at 1:56 PM, Benz said:

1. Quebec recognized as a nation
2. Quebec veto on constitution (no problem to extend that to regions or even other provinces)
3. Equal number of french and english at the suprême court, minimum 3 coming from Quebec.
4. Full compensation on an opt out.
5. Limit the the right to practice a religion to a private life context. A province can extend it to the absolute if it wants, I do not mind about that. 

2. Very, very sliding subject where every one is having difficulties to be objective.

1. Military, infrastructure, debts... the most reasonable would be that everyone get its fair share. But what is a fair share? Circa 1840, the debt of Upper Canada has been cut in half and shared to the Lower Canada that had no debt. So many investment has been done outside Quebec with our money, so many programs that we did not get our fair share. It's impossible to agree on what is fair, we must rely on what is the most realistic way to process that issue.
2. Territory. Even right now, there is an issue about that. The south border of Labrador is one of them. It just doesn't make sense. Same thing regarding the islands along the northem coast of Quebec. It does not make sense that they belong to Nunavut. Whether Quebec separates or not, it should belong to Quebec. Now regarding french territories outside Quebec and english territories inside Quebec. It should be resolved in 2 steps. First step, the borders stay as is. Second step, Quebec and Ottawa can try to deal afterward and exchange territories.
3. Connections. Not an issue. It would be just like USA right now. Alaska is not connected to the mainland. Hawaï is far away. The maritimes can choose to stay with the central and western Canada. Circulation throught Quebec is just one point among many others that can be negociated easily.

3. Other than constitution? When the federal does not intervene, Quebec does get along pretty well with the other provinces. The shit hits the fan when the federal stick its nose... or when the rules are unfair. There might be details that need changes but, it's minor compared to the constitution. If the provinces could control the power of Ottawa to spend money, it would help to reduce alot of irritations. But only Quebec stands on that. So a full compensation on any federal programs would do the job.

 

1..

1. I'm pretty sure ROC has already recognized Quebec as a nation already. So why is it not enough to be recognized as a province with Canada, why is there a need to be a nation onto yourself ? I think it creates a division within Canada, when everyone is not treated the same. 

2. I think the constitution should be reworked, to include Quebec, not so sure on the veto powers, one would have to take a look on what is best for the nation, you said your self all sides are not always going to agree, but i think every problem can be worked out to benefit everyone in most cases.

3. Thats a big request, for a couple reasons, per % of population would be a much easier pill to swallow, and i would hope, that at this level of justice being English or French decisions that were being made would be based on law and what is best for the nation as a whole. That judges would not have a preference for either language or province, in a perfect world.

4. i was not aware that this was an issue, not sure what to think.

5. I would be ok with that. 

2..

1. it would be extremely difficult to figure out exactly what Quebec provided in terms of taxes and what % of projects went strictly to Quebec. Again would a % of your population be the % of national debt each province be assigned... how would say Alberta be access when it has given more into equalization than any province towards national and provincial projects. But i agree it would be difficult not only to figure it all out but to have all sides agree it was fair. Also the use of the Canadian dollar would be another big contributor, with Quebec separating the Dollar would slide in my opinion a lot. and with Quebec using the dollar it might even drag it down more as Quebec would have little in the means of established credit. 

2. Lets take a look at Quebec through out history, Quebec was given vast chucks of territory so it would be easier to administer, including vast chunks of the north, and south, And in case of separation this would need to be sorted out first, as it would be i think a major bone of contention.

3. True enough Alaska is an exception, but what happens if relations between ROC and Quebec sour, and imposes duties or even a border closure on both sides of the borders... Having a direct connection is important , so important maritime Premiers talked to the US government about joining them, to ensure security and sovereignty. 

[taxme]

On 7/14/2021 at 12:55 PM, Army Guy said:

I got a few questions, I'm asking because i don't know and am curious. 

1. What is it that Quebec does not like or wants to add, about the present constitution?

2. If Quebec does decide to separate, what does that look like, i vaguely remember the demands from both sides, such as 1/3 of the military for Quebec, and for ROC a portion of the national debt goes to Quebec. What does the borders look like, you mentioned that this is a concern of not only of the French in Quebec but in the ROC, such as northern NB i assume ?.. In my military years, the French from Quebec did not include the Acadians as French people, rather red necks that tried to speak French. I ask because will this new borders cut of the Maritimes from the ROC or will Quebec concede some of the southern borders to connect the Atlantic provinces with the ROC. I ask because during the last referendum there were political meets with the US about the Maritimes joining the US for these reasons. 

3. What would it take for Quebec to stay in Canada as a province of Canada and not a separate nation, other than revisions of the constitution. 

1. On the contrary. What will it take for the rest of English Canada to finally decide that they have had enough of the french whining and crying about how hard they have been done by in the past by the rest of English Canada and the rest of Canada decides to try and separate from french speaking only socialist Quebec? 

2. Gesus man, the french have been pretty much been running and ruining and stealing from the rest of English Canada for decades now. 

3. Get over it, army man, Canada is pretty much dead and gone. We can thank french socialist Quebec for that. It's time for Canada to break up and let the Maritimes, Quebec, and the rest of western Canada to go their separate ways. it's time to kiss the old Canada goodbye and get it over with. Just saying. ?

[Moonlight Graham]

On 7/16/2021 at 12:56 PM, Benz said:

1. Equal number of french and english at the suprême court, minimum 3 coming from Quebec.

3 of 9 Justices coming from Quebec is never going to happen and is totally unreasonable.

You can't have an equal number of french and english on the SCC, there's 9 justices and you need an odd number to avoid ties in the voting.

Quebec should not get special treatment, anything that applies to them should apply to the other provinces.

[Moonlight Graham]

On 7/14/2021 at 2:59 PM, Benz said:

Ottawa is taking decisions that do not go with the interests of all canadians. Only for the benefit of few of them, or maybe the majority but, at the expense of many others. While Ottawa is subsiding oil in the west, nuclear in Ontario, Ottawa is not only giving nothing for Quebec that has to develop its hydro alone, but it is also contributing to hinder it.

Oh STFU.  Are you kidding me?  Ottawa does more to bend over backwards to Quebec than any other province by orders of magnitude.  Quebec is not being ripped off, quite the opposite.  Much of the corruption in Ottawa even involves politicians funneling money and favours to Quebec corporations and whatnot.  Trudeau dumped his own attorney general to butter the coffers of SNC-Lavalin.  How much has Ottawa given to Bombardier?  Chretien put a CRA tax centre in his hometown of Shawinigan.  Do you remember the sponsorship scandal?  The entire federal government bureaucracy in Ottawa (and Gatineau) is a giant job factory for bilingual Quebecois.

Quebec politicians have controlled the country for most of the last 50 years.  Give me a break with your whining.  Imagine if you lived in BC or Saskatchewan how much you'd be whining about being ignored by Ottawa.  When was the last Prime Minister from BC?

[Benz]

21 hours ago, Army Guy said:

1..

1. I'm pretty sure ROC has already recognized Quebec as a nation already. So why is it not enough to be recognized as a province with Canada, why is there a need to be a nation onto yourself ? I think it creates a division within Canada, when everyone is not treated the same. 

2. I think the constitution should be reworked, to include Quebec, not so sure on the veto powers, one would have to take a look on what is best for the nation, you said your self all sides are not always going to agree, but i think every problem can be worked out to benefit everyone in most cases.

3. Thats a big request, for a couple reasons, per % of population would be a much easier pill to swallow, and i would hope, that at this level of justice being English or French decisions that were being made would be based on law and what is best for the nation as a whole. That judges would not have a preference for either language or province, in a perfect world.

4. i was not aware that this was an issue, not sure what to think.

5. I would be ok with that. 

2..

1. it would be extremely difficult to figure out exactly what Quebec provided in terms of taxes and what % of projects went strictly to Quebec. Again would a % of your population be the % of national debt each province be assigned... how would say Alberta be access when it has given more into equalization than any province towards national and provincial projects. But i agree it would be difficult not only to figure it all out but to have all sides agree it was fair. Also the use of the Canadian dollar would be another big contributor, with Quebec separating the Dollar would slide in my opinion a lot. and with Quebec using the dollar it might even drag it down more as Quebec would have little in the means of established credit. 

2. Lets take a look at Quebec through out history, Quebec was given vast chucks of territory so it would be easier to administer, including vast chunks of the north, and south, And in case of separation this would need to be sorted out first, as it would be i think a major bone of contention.

3. True enough Alaska is an exception, but what happens if relations between ROC and Quebec sour, and imposes duties or even a border closure on both sides of the borders... Having a direct connection is important , so important maritime Premiers talked to the US government about joining them, to ensure security and sovereignty. 

1.1 This is something I can't figure out regarding your reasoning. How come the recognition of our nation would make people not treated the same? On the contrary. People would still be treated the same. The difference is, we would have to both agree on the rules. But the rules would still be the same to everyone. Right now, only your nation is recognized and pretends to be the only one in this country. But it is not the reality. Quebec and the natives are all different nations and Canada is not the only one country in this world having more than one nation within its border. For me, being a different nation than yours, is not a good reason enough to separate from Canada. The federalism is suppose to be flexible enough to respect that reality. But it becomes a reason to separate if your nation does not recognize us because you guys wants to keep absolute power over the rules. It's time to turn the page of the "French and Indian war", and recognize and respect each others.

1.2 That's the only way to make sure we get along. As long as one side can decide of everything, it will always be a problem.

1.3 I did a mistake on that one. This is not the official request we presented in 1990 and I wrote it too fast. My bad. Please check the reply I will do to Moonlight graham.

1.4 In 1980, the group of 8 was claiming exactly that. Unfortunately, the group of 8 betrayed Quebec and give up that and rather go with Trudeau. We are 100000% agree with any other province that would claim the same. Unfortunately, we are the only one claiming it. But I strongly suggest that you guys claim the same for your respective province. Right now, you guys let the federal spending whatever it wants, wherever it wants, however its wants. You are giving way too much power of spending to that the federal. I think just reducing seriously the power and the coverage of spending would be better but, you guys seem ok with that. So at least, the very least, we need the full compensation of an opt out. 

 

2.1 Yep, Alberta has contributing alot lately, but Alberta also has benefit alot in the past for its development. It would be a great futile exercise to compute all spending, contributions and investments of the last 200 years. Of course there are winners and losers. If we separate, what happen if we do not agree, what happen if we do agree. I believe that we both benefit to make it simple.

2.2 Over my dead body. Quebec has also being taken out territories. You are watching the point from a very narrowed view. It can only lead to war. It's amazing how you discard your own history to suit your today's ambition. Remember that you did cultural genocide to the french and natives living outside Quebec. Now that the cleansing is done, you behave like this whole country is legitimately exclusively yours. You will never make a point with it. If this is really the path you want to take, there will be blood. Give up on this imperialistic attitude. What is done, is done. If the ROC wants to exchange territory, let's discuss it. But if the ROC wants to take from Quebec what is left to Quebec, then let's kill each others.

2.3 Quebec is not in a position where it can starts create geopolitical issues and problems for a caprice. USA wouldn't tolerate sterile disputes anyway. This is definitely not the way we plan to behave with our neighborhood.  If we do such thing, it is because you would have been looking for it. I do not expect you to reach that point. Right now, you are thinking like a federalist pro-Ottawa. Quebec always being able to get along pretty well with its neighbors. Whenever there is a dispute, it's always because Ottawa puts is nose in it.