What does Quebec want?

[Leafless]

The latest Ipsos Reid poll indicates Quebec's marriage with the Conservatives is already over.

Here are the results:

"The poll finds Quebecers hold different views than the country at large:

- 57 per cent of Canadians overall think the government has Canada on the "right track" (just 45 per cent think this way in Quebec);

- 67 per cent of Canadians approve of the government's "making major expenditures to equip our Armed Forces" (versus just 47 per cent in Quebec);

- 48 per cent of Canadians approve of the government's "extending Canada's military commitment to the NATO mission in Afghanistan" (38 per cent of Quebecers approve);

- 45 per cent of Canadians approve of the government "supporting Israel in the latest Mideast conflict" (only 29 per cent of those in Quebec approve of this).

- 49 per cent of Canadians approve of the way the government has formed a "closer relationship with the American administration" (37 per cent feel this way in Quebec);"

If Quebec thinks this differently from other provinces in Canada then why is Quebec included in polls concerning other Canadian provinces especially when it reserves the right to autonomy especially concerning Charter rights and it's official language right's and harbouring it's own separatist party?

What will it take to bring Quebec on side with other Canadian provinces a feat which I think is IMPOSSIBLE for any federal national politcal party unless we all CONFORM to the political ideologies of Quebec.

Why do we continue to waste our time politically with a province that is the cause for a dysfunctional federal government?

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...k=44245&p=1

[jbg]

First, the CPC ridings in QC are all in one small region. What's the sentiment in those ridings? Second, the US stood up to the South, which had its own separatist movement, resisted the US mandate towards racial justice, and which had caused similar dysfunctionality as caused by Quebec. Now, the South is a vital part of the US.

[August1991]

First, the CPC ridings in QC are all in one small region. What's the sentiment in those ridings? Second, the US stood up to the South, which had its own separatist movement, resisted the US mandate towards racial justice, and which had caused similar dysfunctionality as caused by Quebec. Now, the South is a vital part of the US.

jbg, your posts here are usually insightful but the comparison you make is wrong. The past differences between the US North & South are nothing like the divide between Quebec and the rest of Canada, except that a federal state is divided.

As to this poll, I would like to see the actual poll questions and results including sample sizes. In general, francophone Quebecers are instinctively isolationist - much like Americans in the 19th century. The answers above are consistent with that viewpoint.

[jdobbin]

As to this poll, I would like to see the actual poll questions and results including sample sizes. In general, francophone Quebecers are instinctively isolationist - much like Americans in the 19th century. The answers above are consistent with that viewpoint.

So what are they saying in Quebec? You're there and should have some idea.

All day on radio when the first poll came out, various wags were saying that the chances of a fall election were not likely because there would be no gains in Quebec.

[Leafless]

The past differences between the US North & South are nothing like the divide between Quebec and the rest of Canada, except that a federal state is divided.

FLQ strategist Pierre Vallieres made a direct connection between Quebec and the U.S. South.

In fact it was not only Vallieres but the provinces teachers, civil servants, journalist, business people and professionals that were buying into Quebec separatism and were largely responsible for the emergence of the Parti Quebecois in 1968.

http://mediasphere.onf.ca/E/history/conten...rendum_1980.epl

[jbg]

jbg, your posts here are usually insightful but the comparison you make is wrong. The past differences between the US North & South are nothing like the divide between Quebec and the rest of Canada, except that a federal state is divided.

Thanks for the compliment. However, one must look for parellels in the very rare cases that parts of prospeous democracies consider splitting off. It is, in general, counterintuitive, given the very real danger that separation will materially endanger the business environment.

As was pointed out after my post, others who I was not aware of drew similar comparisons.

[August1991]

FLQ strategist Pierre Vallieres made a direct connection between Quebec and the U.S. South.

I don't know if I would call Pierre Vallieres an FLQ strategist but he did write White Niggers of America in which he used Marxism to claim French Canadians were oppressed like American blacks, or some such.

The US Civil War was a fight between Southern plantation owners and Northern Yankees. So, I don't see a parallel with Quebec other than the obvious one.

I think Tolstoi said that all happy families resemble each other but unhappy families are unhappy in their own way.

It is, in general, counterintuitive, given the very real danger that separation will materially endanger the business environment.

The world's map is different now than even 20 years ago. For example, the Czech Republic and Slovakia successfully and in a civilized way became separate countries. Just recently Montenegro voted to separate from Serbia.

[Leafless]

The US Civil War was a fight between Southern plantation owners and Northern Yankees. So, I don't see a parallel with Quebec other than the obvious one.

The parallel is the same as both groups are looking for political recognition. In Canada Quebec came out much further ahead than U.S. Blacks in which the type of 'political catering' Quebec receives in Canada would not be tolerated in the U.S.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/...ing_recogni.php

The world's map is different now than even 20 years ago. For example, the Czech Republic and Slovakia successfully and in a civilized way became separate countries. Just recently Montenegro voted to separate from Serbia.

What does this have to do with Quebec?

Are you suggesting Quebec's situation is on the same political level as the Czech Republic or Slovakia?

[Bakunin]

As to this poll, I would like to see the actual poll questions and results including sample sizes. In general, francophone Quebecers are instinctively isolationist - much like Americans in the 19th century. The answers above are consistent with that viewpoint.

So what are they saying in Quebec? You're there and should have some idea.

All day on radio when the first poll came out, various wags were saying that the chances of a fall election were not likely because there would be no gains in Quebec.

Its quite simple, there is an area near quebec city that are more encline to vote for an economically conservative party. They used to vote for the liberals and the bloc but they changed their mind last election especially to get rid of the liberal. I think nothing has changed over their, the conservative would still win their seats with no trouble. I don't know how strong thei are attached to the conservative but i beleive the conservative doesn't have to fear losing them unless the liberal became more popular then the vote will be divided in 3. However in the rest of quebec, after the election the conservative got a little bit of support but they lost it because the conservative ideology keeps them from voting or just supporting conservative and this is especially true in Montreal.

I think this is where harper's conservative government failed. Since we know his ideology will never spread accross the whole canada, he doesn't have to change his policy but one thing he can make is try not to talk about things like war in lebanon at the tv. He can support it but he doesn't have to talk about it because it will damage im politically.

[Bakunin]

sry, double post

[August1991]

The parallel is the same as both groups are looking for political recognition. In Canada Quebec came out much further ahead than U.S. Blacks in which the type of 'political catering' Quebec receives in Canada would not be tolerated in the U.S.

Leafless, the US Civil War was a fight between white Southern plantation owners and white Northern Yankees.

[Borg]

Why do we continue to waste our time politically with a province that is the cause for a dysfunctional federal government?

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...k=44245&p=1

What do they want?

More money.

More power.

Less accountability to Canada.

Less responsibility to Canada.

Let those people go! Sooner than later!

When they leave let them take their share of the debt.

Let them use their own currency and make them utterly responsible for their own new country.

We will all be better off.

As to your quoted final comment? Hear! Hear!

Unfortunately, none of the above will ever happen.

Borg

[Leafless]

The parallel is the same as both groups are looking for political recognition. In Canada Quebec came out much further ahead than U.S. Blacks in which the type of 'political catering' Quebec receives in Canada would not be tolerated in the U.S.

Leafless, the US Civil War was a fight between white Southern plantation owners and white Northern Yankees.

The South initially wanted to be an independent nation that's why there was a civil war.

The two groups Iam referring to to-day in relationship to a political class struggle are in comparison between Quebec and U.S. Blacks.

How about using links August to confirm what what you say is fact.

http://www.cyberessays.com/History/86.htm

[Rue]

I am not sure what I could add other than to say this as a former Quebecer who moved with many Anglos to Toronto in the early 80's...Quebec has always had often different views as to foreign policy. It makes sense.

Their different language and identifying with the French colonial founders not the British results in this difference.

Many Franco-phones out of nature and I mean sub-conscious nature, just by habit, will just disagree with the federal government on what-ever it does especially foreign policy.

Quebecers genuinely feel they are different and so its a self-perpetuating phenomena...to be different they actually try to act differently by distancing themselves from what they see as the English view which is still traditionally associated with the federal government.

The irony is not withstanding the bilingualism policy that clearly favours hiring Franco-phones and not withstanding the huge influence Quebec has had and has on the federal government and not withstanding half the federal government is actually in Hull not Ottawa...French Quebecers will always disagree with

the federal government and I doubt that wil ever change.

Its part of this psyche of being different. To be different from your brother, if he likes red, you like blue. If he drives a chevy, you drive a honda.

I don't read that much in to it and I will tell you why. These same Franco-Quebecers who make a point of being different and disagreeing with everything the federal government does, have no problems demanding contracts and hand outs from it and voting in seperatists who still swear an allegiance to the Queen and find nothing contradictory about collecting federal pay-cheques and federal pensions although they claim to be

seperatist.

Quebecers love to have their cake and eat it to. When push comes to shove, the fact is they can afford to

say they are different because they know the same federal government system they claim to not approve of will still look after them.

Quebec is that annoying son that won't move out of the basement. They insist you pay their rent, feed them, pay the gas on their car, but they insist they have the right to be treated as an independent equal.

Its a selective thing.

I do think the majority of Franco-phone Quebecers do not want a Canadian Army or presence in Afghanistan.

Its part of rejecting what they feel would make them the same as Anglophones.

Its also interesting because some people say Quebecers are very sympathetic to Arab nations and the Lebanese. On one level they are but don't kid yourselves, in a coffee shop discussing politics oversees they will be sympathetic but then if you ask them about the Muslim next door all dressed in ceremonial garb insisting religious rights in schools, suddenly their tone changes very quickly.

Yes Quebecers like to talk about not being racist, simply wanting to protect the French language-but then when people who speak French from Arab and African nations move in, their tone changes, quite quickly.

To understand a Quebecer is to understand this- never take what they say verbatum.

[Leafless]

So back to the topic:

What does Quebec want out of it's Canadian national political parties to appease it's sub-conscious nature to avoid Quebecers voting voting for a separatist party?

Or is this as Rue suggest as being totally unattainable due to the frivolous, irresponsible nature of Quebecers and their political leaders.

[M.Dancer]

It has been said in the past that what Quebec wants is a strong independent Quebec within a strong united Canada......

Why is that so hard to understand?

[Leafless]

It has been said in the past that what Quebec wants is a strong independent Quebec within a strong united Canada......

Why is that so hard to understand?

Quebec has said many things in the past and you have chosen this as to what Quebec wants out of national federal parties to acquire votes.

This is difficult to understand as Quebec is simply one out of ten provinces and as far as I know there simply isn't any political mechanism to allow this to happen with Quebec or any other province in Canada.

If this is the case I would suggest Quebec severe it's apron strings it has attached to the federal government and other provinces in Canada concerning it's viability and simply leave if it has the courage to do that.

[M.Dancer]

So in effect you are deaf to quebec's desire.

Give you a hint, what Quebec wants, is what Stevie Harper wanted for Alberta, except Quebec is a little more politically sophisticated and a little more articulate in their message.

Quebec has said many things in the past and you have chosen this as to what Quebec wants out of national federal parties to acquire votes.

I haven't a clue what this means and I'm not sure what it has to do with my post.

This is difficult to understand as Quebec is simply one out of ten provinces and as far as I know there simply isn't any political mechanism to allow this to happen with Quebec or any other province in Canada.

Well, no. Quebec is not just one out of 10. Quebec is a founding member. A province that at one time counted lmost half the population of the Dominion and with the adding of other provinces watched it;s political clout diminish. Just Like PEI is not just 1 out of 10, who has a speical arrangement within confederation) neither is Quebec. Quebec right now extends her own consular missions in foreign countries, etc etc....has a different codification of civil law..yadda yadda yadda......

There is nothing particularly strange about what Quebec wants for itself. More power to shape her future, a future shared with canada (and the other unique 9)

[Leafless]

M.Dancer

I don't know why you want to drag Alberta into this when the premier of Alberta never expressed or demanded a desire to separate.

In fact Alberta's hostility towards the federal government is due to a large part by the feds continually pandering to Quebec and basically being politically ignored.

Your analysis of Quebec being a being 'a founding member' is Liberal history and discredits Britain and does not reflect the true political situation concerning the British win of Canada on 'The Plains of Abraham'.

What you say about Quebec having half the population of the Dominion simply isn't true. The only time Quebec's numbers were almost equal was when Lord Durham passed the Act of Union joining upper and lower Canada and which at that time Canada was not yet a Dominion.

Quebec initially was allowed concessions from Britain which included the right to their own language (not official), their Catholic religion and own civil law. Quebec's role regarding consular missions in foreign countries is limited.

Quebec is not in the position to shape it's future as it is a 'have not province' dependent on the federal government and other provinces in Canada concerning it's present viability as a functioning province.

It makes me laugh when you suggest in the event of Quebec separation Canada would continue dealing with Quebec. Their are a million issues that must be resolved before that would ever happen including animosity from other provinces that just might want to do the same thing if Quebec gets away with it.

It is a nightmare scenario.

[August1991]

What do they want?

More money.

More power.

It is not surprising that in a negotiation, one party would view the other party as "wanting more". A better strategy is to view the negotiation from the other party's perspective.

[Borg]

What do they want?

More money.

More power.

It is not surprising that in a negotiation, one party would view the other party as "wanting more". A better strategy is to view the negotiation from the other party's perspective.

Perhaps I have.

It did not change my opinion - as bland as I admit it to be.

Borg

[August1991]

The South initially wanted to be an independent nation that's why there was a civil war.

Isn't that like saying that two people divorced because they didn't want to live together? I mean, duh.

If there is a comparison between the US Civil War and Canada's endless Quebec wrangle, it's in the prelude or the various efforts to patch a compromise on to the messy hulk. I don't think Harper has the magic solution but he is the first protestant (anglophone) PM in Canadian history to win seats in Quebec on the strength of his own name. That's a remarkable feat and I'm surprised so few commentators have noticed it.

It has been said in the past that what Quebec wants is a strong independent Quebec within a strong united Canada......

Why is that so hard to understand?

Yvon Deschamps used to make that joke. Like most good jokes, there's some truth to it.

To state this for an English-Canadian audience, I have always felt that Canada works best when Canadians are not forced to choose between their region and the central government. There are many good reasons that Canada is a federal state. This is one of them. The central government should respect the sovereignty or autonomy of the provincial governments.

Many Franco-phones out of nature and I mean sub-conscious nature, just by habit, will just disagree with the federal government on what-ever it does especially foreign policy.

Quebecers genuinely feel they are different and so its a self-perpetuating phenomena...to be different they actually try to act differently by distancing themselves from what they see as the English view which is still traditionally associated with the federal government.

C'mon, rue. It's not out of an obsessive need to be different.

Instead, I am always more astonished by the profound attachment of many Quebecers to this thing called Canada. The past federal election is an example.

Let me provide a quote to consider. In 1917, Joseph Francoeur, a member of the Quebec Legislative Assembly (now the National Assembly) presented a motion to withdraw Quebec from confederation. The Quebec Prime Minister at the time, Lomer Gouin, replied:

I wish to make my position on this subject very clear, Your Honour. I believe in the Canadian Confederation. The federal government appears to me to be the only possible one in Canada because of our differences of race and creed, and also because of the variety and multiplicity of local needs in our immense territory....Confederation was not the result of a whim, nor an act lightly performed, but the result of an absolute necessity. This act was freely accepted by Quebec. Had it not been for Cartier, had it not been for the popular wish of Lower Canada, we would not have had Confederation.

[jbg]

It has been said in the past that what Quebec wants is a strong independent Quebec within a strong united Canada......

Why is that so hard to understand?

In much the same way a 16 year old son wants total freedom of action, on Mum's and Dad's money?

[M.Dancer]

M.Dancer

In fact Alberta's hostility towards the federal government is due to a large part by the feds continually pandering to Quebec and basically being politically ignored.

Your analysis of Quebec being a being 'a founding member' is Liberal history and discredits Britain and does not reflect the true political situation concerning the British win of Canada on 'The Plains of Abraham'.

What you say about Quebec having half the population of the Dominion simply isn't true. The only time Quebec's numbers were almost equal was when Lord Durham passed the Act of Union joining upper and lower Canada and which at that time Canada was not yet a Dominion.

Quebec initially was allowed concessions from Britain which included the right to their own language (not official), their Catholic religion and own civil law. Quebec's role regarding consular missions in foreign countries is limited.

Quebec is not in the position to shape it's future as it is a 'have not province' dependent on the federal government and other provinces in Canada concerning it's present viability as a functioning province.

It makes me laugh when you suggest in the event of Quebec separation Canada would continue dealing with Quebec. Their are a million issues that must be resolved before that would ever happen including animosity from other provinces that just might want to do the same thing if Quebec gets away with it.

It is a nightmare scenario.

What makes me laugh is your inability to comprehend what I wrote and insert your own narrow view. Har! there I laughed.

I don't know why you want to drag Alberta ..........

I suggest you bone up on ol' firewall Harper

Your analysis of Quebec being a being 'a founding member' is Liberal history and discredits Britain and does not reflect the true political situation concerning the British win of Canada on 'The Plains of Abraham'.

I'm not sure what "liberal history" is. I'm not sure if you know either, considering that the original provinces were Quebec, Ontario Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. You might also be unaware as to who the leading personages were. It was covered in High School.

What you say about Quebec having half the population of the Dominion simply isn't true

A province that at one time counted lmost half the population of the Dominion --M.Dancer

Population: 1861

Quebec 1,191,516

Ontaio 1,620,851

Nova Scotia 387,800

New Brunswick 285,594

So sue me for not being an accountant......and I'll sue you for putting words in my mouth.

It makes me laugh when you suggest in the event of Quebec separation Canada would continue dealing with Quebec. Their are a million issues that must be resolved before that would ever happen including animosity from other provinces that just might want to do the same thing if Quebec gets away with it.

This is where I laugh again. Obviously you have one of them new fangled computers that puts words in where there are none. Please revert to the original and show in my post where I said anything about seperation.

As to the rest about the plains of abraham yadda yadda yadda.....thge plain of abraham ws a battel fought between two forien powers and has nothing to do with either confederation or the evolution of provincial power in Canada.

[M.Dancer]

It has been said in the past that what Quebec wants is a strong independent Quebec within a strong united Canada......

Why is that so hard to understand?

In much the same way a 16 year old son wants total freedom of action, on Mum's and Dad's money?

No. More like a husband who wants to be treated as an adult but still wants to be married.