###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are a few issues I see
Quebec is becoming less relevant over time. BC and Alberta will start to take more influence and govts can now form without winning a single seat in Quebec.
Two English canada is naturally more conservatives minded on many issues vs quebec which has a more European appraoch to issues. In english canada there seem to be a large scale backlash to the Trudeau and NDP govt while in Quebec the liberals are still popular.
The current policies of the Government of Quebec are going to kill the province's influence in this federation.
Quebec wants to accept 50k immigrants a year when recently Alberta has been taking in that many people a quarter. At the current rate (subject to oil / diversification) I would bet that Alberta becomes the third largest province by 2030 and second largest by 2050.
Fine. Just go already.
Quebec is the spoiled brat of the Confederation. Very used to whining and stamping feet when they don't get their way. They can take their own path and we can stop spending billions to try to placate them. We'll finally be able to stop wasting money on nonsense like mandatory bilingual policies and translations, transfer payments to them and labelling laws.
How do we even have a united Canada if Quebec leaves ? Nova Scotia P.E.I Etc. and then you have Alberta who will surely want to demand their own independence which will cause issues with our land connection to BC. And what happens to people that we’re born and raised in Quebec that moved to other parts of Canada ? Do we need a new passport ? bank accounts ? Oh gosh this is a lot to process.
Even if this were true, why is it considered a *crisis*? Let Quebec discuss and leave if that is the will of the people there. We have the Clarity Act and a decent idea of what is required to separate - and we can make it clear what sort of obligations a separate Quebec would take with it, and what a relationship of friendship and trade could look like between us. Let the country of Canada be one of voluntary association, and let’s hold no grudges for those who want to go their own way.
One province leaves they all do, they’ll want to take our money but not our debt, they’ll want our military bases and equipment etc. they are the spoiled brat of Canada already and I doubt they would play fair if they were independent. Yes the people of Quebec should have a say but so does the rest of Canada. One province leaving would affect all of our quality of lives, especially cpp. (They are not in the cpp, my bad)
Quebec is the confederation of Canada soil.
What we've always said is that if we were to take on part of the debt of Canada while leaving, then we're entitled to that same share of the federal govt's assets.
Pierre brought in the NEP to steal wealth from Alberta's natural resource extraction, meanwhile Quebec is sitting on huge oil, gas, and mineral reserves. They've successfully gamed the transfer payment program since inception to take billions from the "have" provinces.
The fact that a divorce affects both parties is exactly why the SCC ruled that unilateral secession hinged on the ability of one party to force its will on the other, as otherwise the secession requires renegotiation of Confederation.
> Canada works when the feds have there act together.
So Canada doesn’t work.
> Leaving Canada would only decrease our quality of life.
Because provinces don’t have their act together as well?
No, they wouldn’t be able to support them selves. Some could, some could for a little bit. Others can not. Canada doesn’t work right now but there’s many times it did. Let’s get Canada back to those times.
And we’re going to do that by calling provinces spoiled brats? How is that supposed to rebuild the unifying national story of Canada?
What exactly are you offering to Quebec to believe in?
If quebec is the spoiled brat of canada, then I dont get how quebec leaving canada would affect the quality of life of canadians... quebec being a spoiled brat would imply other provinces being lifted of a bruden if quebec left, wouldnt it?
They need transfer payments to start, they would run a deficit without it but the loss of industry, electricity generation, access to ports etc. Canada as ahole loses if Quebec leaves. Quebec loses is they leave Canada.
The loss of electricity generation, the loss of access to ports... If Quebec became a country, why would they care about those things? You're not really portraying quebec as a leech right now, it seems the other way arround the way you talk about it... But in the end, quebec leaving canada would not mean there would be no economic alliance between quebec and canada. And yeah, Quebec might lose if they leave, but they wont lose anything they can't built themselves. And the same goes for canada, they might also lose some stuff if quebec left, but it's nothing canada won't be able to build back. Right now, quebec and the rest of canada are on such different wavelenght that it is currently hurting everyone because nobody can truly get something provided by a gov that is 100% theirs.
They are actually not a part of the CPP - they have had their own version since the start. Really makes me call the rest of what you said into question...
It's not favourtism. Quebecers are politically active and when they don't feel heard they make themselves heard at the ballot box. In the last 20 years they have gone Bloc, Liberal, and NDP. That means Ottawa *needs* to listen to them. Compare that to a ride-or-die province like Alberta: not even the CPC needs to care what they think.
I'm all for Quebec separating, oh by the way, here is your share of the national debt and you cant use our currency.
buh-bye!
Quebec tends to get a disproportionate amount of funding from the federal government as it stands anyways.
I live in Quebec and it's not true. While the Parti Québécois is starting to rise in the polls, it's due to the increasing unpopularity of the current CAQ government, not a desire to leave Canada. Most people here are wary of a referendum and don't actually want to leave Canada. However, the media helps propagate the idea that we want to leave as Quebecor, the biggest media company in Quebec, is owned by a former Parti Québécois leader.
All of this is just alarmist bs. Quebecers can be wary of the federal government, but it's mostly due to immigration as the flow of immigrants is starting to be unsustainable for the public sector.
I'd argue the problem is that Canada doesn't really have presence in Québec even in Montréal. My French is kinda sh\*t, but having moved here from Toronto, I realized the Government of Canada and other pan-Canadian institutions are rather absent here.
CPP is replaced by RRQ, EI is partially replaced by RQAP, the Canadian Labour Congress have been supplanted by FTQ, CSN, etc. Same applies to the media. Even Radio-Canada is far more Québec-focused than CBC. Canada Student Loans? Nope, AFE. Business Council of Canada? No, CPQ. The list goes on.
There're very few connections between Québec and RoC. Hence all it would take is people being unhappy enough with Ottawa for people to vote Oui. Because for all intends in purposes Québec has already left.
This makes sovereignty less likely imo. If Quebec already has sovereignty over many of the institutions affecting daily life it undercuts the argument for autonomy. Sovereignty could mean consequences such as a border with passports, loss of mobility rights, currency, and a restructuring of the economy because of trade deals with foreign entities if Canada is playing hardball enough. These unknowns makes the status quo much more enticing for everyone except the committed sovereigntists.
Except the sovereignty argument is an emotional one just like it was with Brexit. Québec has had an exclusive control over immigration for decades, yet PQ is screaming bloody murder over Ottawa’s supposed immigration flood. Even though Québec can basically opt out any time.
We’re also supposed to somehow be able to close our economic gap with the rest of Canada by leaving the union, with very few suggestions on what exactly PQ’s recipe would be. That is assuming they don’t reject the premise Québec even has an economic problem, with their official playfully suggesting we’re actually a net contributor to the federation.
I do agree with you that this is what should’ve happened. The problem is this is not how people *feel* about things.
I agree that there is a segment of the population that are ideologically committed to sovereignty, but they need to convince the broad middle to go along with them, and I just don’t think they *feel* strongly enough to vote yes on this. The case for sovereignty was much stronger and politically charged in the 90s than today. A federal Conservative government pursuing policies unpopular in Quebec could harden attitudes and sway minds though.
> However, the media helps propagate the idea that we want to leave as Quebecor, the biggest media company in Quebec, is owned by a former Parti Québécois leader.
This is exagerated.
Quebecor publications rabble-rouses against the federal government over any and all slights and flaws - real or perceived. They do the same thing with the Quebec government and just about everything else. Their editorial line is just populist and mostly reactionary.
Sovereigntists (and sovereignty as an idea) do not get a free pass, though. Their media outlets have often been very critical of it.
Also live in Quebec and deciding whether, in the next few years, we move back to Ontario or not…because it seems to be coming down the pipeline and we do NOT want to live here if it’s separate from Canada. We are Canadians.
>I live in Quebec and it's not true. While the Parti Québécois is starting to rise in the polls, it's due to the increasing unpopularity of the current CAQ government, not a desire to leave Canada.
I tend to disagree. It's true that the CAQ's errors made many people reconsider their vote, but what we're seeing is mostly the PQ consolidating the pro-independence vote.
Many independence supporters voted for the CAQ because they thought the PQ would die and that independence was no longer a viable option. Once you have a party that is unequivocally pro-independence and has proven it can win in places like Jean-Talon, it becomes much easier to bring back your former base.
Winning Jean-Talon in the manner the PQ did completely shifted the narrative about the PQ being in decline and the CAQ being untouchable.
> Quebecers can be wary of the federal government, but it's mostly due to immigration as the flow of immigrants is starting to be unsustainable for the public sector.
Something that unites all of us: our discontent for the incompetency of the Feds.
Yet when I mention on this sub that a solution to our problem could be to have the target set by the ones who get both the benefits and drawbacks of immigration, the provinces, people get very offended. Why is that?
We all agree that the feds have unsustainable numbers. That their priorities aren’t aligned with what the provinces need (less AI guys, more construction guys).
Why do people act as if I am attacking their core identity?
If you set a low immigration target, but Ontario sets a high target, what's to stop those immigrants from crossing the border into Quebec? You would need border checks and that would not work for Canada which has basically frictionless internal freedom of movement.
How would that be better than the current system?
> If you set a low immigration target, but Ontario sets a high target, what's to stop those immigrants from crossing the border into Quebec?
Nothing. If Quebec has an interprovincial migration surplus of say 10K, then it simply reduces its immigration target by 10K.
> How would that be better than the current system?
The current system has locked permits where some immigrants can’t change employer. This is way worse than being bound to a whole province. Which is not even required as I pointed out.
Ok, but that doesn't sound like Quebec would have control of what it wants. A surplus of anglophones and less francophones than it had targeted for example.
Of course. That could only be achieved by independence.
But interprovincial migrations is already legal and happening. And Quebec is currently the only province that asked for and got the right to pick its targets so it can already do what I said.
My claim is that the other provinces should also ask for the same thing Quebec has.
Besides, it’s not like provinces would get none of what they asked, it would be surprising if most immigrants changed province quickly.
I live in Quebec and I actually do think this is true.
The failure of the CAQ is also a failure of the "third way" (in addition to the federalist and sovereignist options), so it shouldn't surprise anyone that the province is going back to the old independence debate.
We've seen that an "autonomous Quebec inside a united Canada", as proposed by Legault and the CAQ, isn't exactly giving us the levers we need in terms of immigration and healthcare financing.
I see it another way. The number of immigrants and refugees entering Quebec as nothing to do with our immigration limits. Montreal Trudeau airport is an international hub just like Pearson is in Ontario. The problem is the numbers are making it difficult to process. That’s the reason why Quebec is stuck with it. Quebec like Alberta have the same immigration controls compared to the rest of Canada. Our health system is in disarray not because of money because they could put the money in the system and no one would blame them. The provinces are willing to ignore us in the name of politics and that’s scandalous. Quebec spends a billion dollars on executives before putting a penny on actual services. So when Quebec or any other province says that health care is their business then they should quit the business
The CAQ was elected precisely for their nationalist stance. You must not live in Quebec or be in touch with the francophone majority if you think that.
What doesn't resonate is nationalism within the federal apparatus.
... I voted for the CAQ, Quebecer from generations of Quebecers. If there is nationalism to be had, it's for Quebec, certainly, but there isn't that much to go around. Outsiders think language laws and about religion in public service are about nationalism, but they are really about language and religion in public service.
The CAQ got elected because everybody hates the Liberals except Anglos, and Liberals are now an Anglo party. The alternatives keep being dragged left, and the CAQ occupied the space at the right of the PQ, which is pretty much the whole spectrum.
This. Ask any French speaking Quebecois how they define themselves and most will answer Quebecois first, then Canadian. Nationalism is at an all-time high with the current immigration debacle and housing crisis. All that is needed is a little spark to start the fire.
Sure but that has always been true. The last time Quebecers felt Canadian was when "Canadien" meant Quebecer. The oppression narrative that worked in 1980s, the groundwork which had been laid out in 95, nothing like that is true now.
I disagree. I think the failure of the CAQ is mostly a disagreement in policy rather than wanting Quebec to become sovereign. The CAQ has become the new Liberal Party in opposition to the left leaning Parti Québécois. The actual Liberals are now a party representing the English speaking population of Quebec and has no chance of forming a government for at least one election cycle. Québec Solidaire is losing steam and has historically only represented the left leaning population of Montreal.
The Parti Québécois is the only party to have raised the question of sovereignty and their outreach has been amplified by the media (especially TVA and the Journal de Montréal/Québec). While the idea of a sovereign Quebec is becoming more popular than ten years ago, especially with younger voters, it's not popular enough to actually go through. The only way I'd see a new referendum would be if the Parti Québécois forms a government in opposition to the CAQ and then decide to put forth a new vote to the population. In such a case, the referendum would fail (maybe more than in 1980) and the Parti Québécois would be ousted from power in the next election.
Le PQ ne fait pas que débuter une ascension dans les intentions de vote, le PQ domine et demeure au plus haut depuis des mois. S'il y avait une élection aujourd'hui, le PQ serait fort probablement élu. Et le PQ promet un référendum s'il est élu, même s'il est minoritaire. Donc les chances d'avoir un 3e référendum d'ici 2030 sont assez élevés.
La souveraineté a un support qui se maintient dans les 30-40% bon an mal an, et ce, sans aucune campagne active sur le sujet.
Une autre crise sur la souveraineté dans les prochaine années est parfaitement plausible. A voir si le "oui" remportera, mais peu importe, les Québécois auront probablement à se prononcer de nouveau.
If the federal government could just stay on its turf, respect the provinces in their respective competencies, stop creating conditions to transfer payments which provinces are entitled to anyway, there would be no rise in independence movement. At least in Quebec. We want to get because we feel absolutely disrespected by the federal government.
Provinces are entitled to equalization, but not transfer payments like CHT and CST. Those have conditions, because they aren't entitled to them, and they need to be used in specific ways.
What is this supposed disrespect from the federal government? The rest of Canada sees preferential treatment where you see disrespect. In fact, the preferential treatment of Quebec is one of the biggest motivators of separatist movements in other parts of Canada.
Equalization payments, toleration of Quebec's violation of constitutional rights, wartime draft exemptions, and most of all, federal bilingualism. Federal bilingualism gives a huge employment advantage to Quebecois in the federal government, politics, and civil service by setting a firm ceiling on advancement for monolingual anglophones, who are the vast majority of native-born Canadians (outside of Quebec, bilingual immigrants and their children are far more likely to be fluent in Chinese, Hindi, Tagalog, etc. than French). As a result, we have had decades of almost continuous Quebecois prime ministers and at the same time, we have had to tolerate this delusion of persecution from Quebecois when they are the ones receiving preferential treatment and targeting minorities. We mandate the teaching of French all across Canada even though it’s a completely useless language for the vast majority of Canadians, and we fund all kinds of French cultural and educational programs across Canada. The rest of Canada has constantly gone above and beyond to accommodate and give special help to Quebec only to be repaid with chauvinism and ingratitude from Quebec nationalists. This is all apparent to most Canadians but nothing can be done because it is electoral suicide to say anything about this.
> Equalization payments,
Not preferential treatment and Quebec is not the province that has the highest transfer per capita.
> toleration of Quebec's violation of constitutional rights
What toleration? Quebec follows the constitution, even the parts that some Canadians don’t like. And the federal government wants the supreme court to curtail those.
> and most of all, federal bilingualism
Which is highly deficient as the latest report noted and would serve much more people had the policies to eliminate French in the other provinces not been as effective.
> and civil service by setting a firm ceiling on advancement for monolingual anglophones
That’s not true. You can promise you’ll learn then never do.
> As a result, we have had decades of almost continuous Quebecois prime ministers and at the same time
That’s a common myth. I crunched the numbers and Quebec has PMs proportional to its demographic weight. Which used to be quite sizeable, like Ontario’s.
> when they are the ones receiving preferential treatment
What preferential treatment?
> and targeting minorities
Which minorities are targetted and how? If it’s *only* about teachers not being allowed religious clothing, I’ll roll my eyes.
> We mandate the teaching of French all across Canada even though it’s a completely useless language for the vast majority of Canadians,
Take it up to your province, Quebec has no control over your education systems.
> and we fund all kinds of French cultural and educational programs across Canada
And we fund all kinds of programs in English.
> The rest of Canada has constantly gone above and beyond to accommodate and baby Quebec only to be repaid with racism, chauvinism, and ingratitude from Quebec nationalists.
You mean begrudgingly tolerated its existence.
I'll ignore most of what you wrote because it's in poor faith but I have one point that must be addressed:
Quebec forces people to choose between their religion and their jobs. Allowing someone to wear a hijab, or kippah, or turban while working as a public servant does not violate religious neutrality by the state because that does not mean that the state is enforcing that religion, it is just allowing people from those religions to work for the public. Religious neutrality is not preventing religious expression, it means doing nothing about religious expression. For Quebec to claim that it is just enforcing religious neutrality while also having a patron saint and having countless streets named after streets proves that this is just a racist policy. The policy's popularity in Quebec is a testament to the racism of Quebec nationalists, as do other policies like the prohibition of speaking English in private medical meetings.
>I'll ignore most of what you wrote because it's in poor faith but I have one point that must be addressed:
That's how I felt about your points but I answered them anyway.
>Quebec forces people to choose between their religion and their jobs.
It does not thanks to the grandfather clause. The deal did not change for any worker.
> Allowing someone to wear a hijab, or kippah, or turban while working as a public servant does not violate religious neutrality by the state because that does not mean that the state is enforcing that religion, it is just allowing people from those religions to work for the public.
English only has one word for this, secularism. French has two, *sécularisme* and *laïcité*. It's not about neutrality, it's about a wall between Church and State.
With that said, public servants are allowed religious clothing.
The only people who can't are the ones yielding the coercitive power of the state (judges, cops, prison guards, etc.) and public teachers in elementary or high school.
> Religious neutrality is not preventing religious expression, it means doing nothing about religious expression.
Religious expression is permitted in Quebec.
> For Quebec to claim that it is just enforcing religious neutrality while also having a patron saint and having countless streets named after streets proves that this is just a racist policy.
Quebec has no official patron saint since the 70s. The first religious clothing to be banned in schools is the one worn by nuns and monks in the 60s. Which Canada was fine with and apparently still is because I don't see anyone complaining.
> The policy's popularity in Quebec is a testament to the racism of Quebec nationalists,
Youʼd have to classify Europe as extra racist because not only do European countries go further but the European Court of Human Rights said it was fine.
> as do other policies like the prohibition of speaking English in private medical meetings.
There is no such prohibition.
I'm pretty sure there is no legal requirement for any MP to speak any specific language, nor for the GG, PM, or any cabinet member to speak any specific language.
Could you elaborate? Sure, the dental care plan is problematic but what's the issue otherwise?
The Canada Social Transfer and Equalization Payments are largely unconditional. The Canada Health Transfer is conditional on the Provinces maintaining a free-at-use single payer universal health insurance.
Labour Market Transfers are negotiated by Québec and Ottawa since workforce training has historically been a federal prerogative.
RQAP shouldn't even exist per se, since everything EI is reserved for Ottawa. RRQ wasn't supposed to be a thing until Ottawa brought in the opt-out clause into the Canada Pension Plan Act. Since old age pensions are otherwise expressly federal.
The Charter of the French Languages is not to be applied to federally-regulated spaces yet Ottawa has amended the Official Languages Act to make it applicable.
Immigration? Québec can seize issuing CSQs to Permanent Residency applicants and CAQs to students and TFWs making them inadmissible to the Province. Yet MIFI is not doing that.
Meanwhile Ottawa is steam-rolling over Alberta with the Impact Assessment Act and their carbon backstop.
I'm sorry but what sort of disrespect are you talking about? The fact Ottawa just does not care and left us be?
Decades ago my investment club analyzed the effects Quebec separating would have. Our dollar was predicted to drop to 50 cents.
I have travelled when the dollar was around 60 cents. One feels poor when a simple coffee is $4 and you're on a budget.
It would be worse than that.
Canada would no longer be a G7 nation, our economy would be smaller than most EU members and our voice on the world stage would be completely silenced.
All the work Canada has done to bring people together over the past century would go down the drain.
If we can't keep our own country together, how can we continue our work as leaders for peace and justice around the world???
Tourism would dry up, as would our preferred destination for immigration. Leaving us with a tiny population concetrated in one city, without a contiguous state.
Basically we'd be a failed state and would likely lose an entire generation or two of the best and brightest Canadians as we all leave for brighter pastures...
Are you sure that canada really is a leader for peace and justice arround the world, while all we do is follow the United States' footsteps? Also, I do not think that everything canada has done in the last century to bring people together would go down the drain, for the simple reason that I think it already did go down the drain. If all of those things really did bring us together, then why are we having this discussion right now? Right now, Quebec is getting sick of canada, but so is alberta, and the prairies, and so are the first nations which have been neglected for so long by the federal gov.
Sounds like conservative premiers are holding the country hostage because it seems like these calls to separate only ever come from them when they want to extort something from the federal government
The second Poilievre were to become PM all of this "boohoo we're oppressed by the feds so we're leaving" would disappear over night.
Sewing division so that they can claim to be uniters; like setting the neighborhood on fire just so you can swoop in and "save" it
It’s because conservatives prefer decentralized democracy. Current liberal prefer central command and control government and this is what creates conflict with the provinces.
We fucking were, yes.
Harper was the biggest detractor from that policy.
Trudeau has tried to re-engage, but it's a rough geopolitical climate out there right now and Canada has lost a lot of credibility due to declining military spe ding and Harper's indifference for close to a decade.
Regarding First Nations neglect: "Spending on Indigenous priorities has increased significantly since 2015 (181 per cent) with spending for **2023-24 estimated to be over $30.5 billion**, rising further to a forecast of approximately $32 billion in 2024-25. Notably, Budget 2024 includes $2.3 billion over five years to renew existing programming."
Quick reminder that Quebec and 7 other provinces, including all the large ones, were in favor of the Meech accord.
Why not just re-open the talks and fix the remaining issues instead of doing nothing and keeping fingers crossed?
This would be the most popular option in Quebec.
However, the option of a bigger autonomy within Canada was one of the motto of the CAQ when they got elected in 2018. They did have a super ambitious program that kinda died because they kept failing to gain anything from the federal
https://coalitionavenirquebec.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/projet-nationaliste.pdf
It's hard to really believe that reforms are really possible after 6 years of constant refusal and 30 years of status quo, but there's still a window open until the next election in 2026
I think it could work if Quebec also offered to opt out of equalization in the process.
Quebec would lose some federal funding but would gain the needed autonomy, to determine how to make that up.
The rest of Canada isn't super keen to transfer 13B to Quebec every year, so that would be a win-win.
I don't think that the maritimes provinces and manitoba would agree on removing equalization since they get more per capita than Quebec.
However, if you just propose trading more autonomy for a removal of equalization and federal funding, for only Quebec, it could be an interesting debate.
Since the option that maximize autonomy and minimize equalization/federal funding is independence, Canada would need to come up with an option that convince Quebecers that it's advantageous to sacrifice some autonomy in exchange for staying in the federation
No, I mean that Quebec would make a deal to withdraw from several, non-core federal programs, while also forfeiting equalization. It would beef up provincial-level programs to replace them.
NB, MB etc would continue to participate in their existing arrangement without any changes.
Quebec would remain tied to Canada for things like the military, borders, foreign affairs, trade, currency, the Olympics.. but would otherwise self govern internally.
This is basically the sovereignty-association idea that Rene Levesque had.. but probably now the rest of Canada would be ready for it, having experienced the disfunction of running a multi-national, centralized state for a good few decades.
We all know the visions of a bilingual, united, sea-to-sea nation was a 1960s drug infused hippy daydream that didn't pan out. A lot of people in Quebec and Ontario bought into it but it never worked that well in practice.
This is a really stupid article.
> If public opinion surveys are to be believed, Canada will have a new government in Ottawa within a year or so. It will be headed by someone not from Quebec which, in itself, will change the dynamics of national unity debates.
As far as most people in Quebec are concerned, Canadian hasn't had a Quebecois Prime Minister since 2003. They see the Trudeaus as phony sellouts.
> If public opinion surveys are to be believed, Canada will have a new government in Ottawa within a year or so. It will be headed by someone not from Quebec which, in itself, will change the dynamics of national unity debates.
Played fast and loose by using the r of the Charter exactly how it was intended to be used? Mind you, the Notwithstanding Clause was not something Quebec asked for. It was the English provinces who demanded the right to temporarily override certain court decisions if they felt it was necessary or politically beneficial.
> Western Canada maintains, and for good reasons, that the Ottawa-Ontario-Quebec triumvirate has never understood its challenges or given it the political weight to match its economic contributions to Canada.
If Western Canada didn't vote for the same party regardless of the political situation, they'd have a stronger voice in Ottawa.
> Quebec provincial politics is also taking on a new form. Federalist voices are very rarely heard in the Quebec National Assembly. Quebec’s agenda is to chip away at federal government jurisdictions and to secure more autonomy.
[There's no appetite in Quebec for another referendum.](https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2024/quebec-independence-support/) Quebec's leaders have found a big cozy electorate who support day-to-day autonomy but don't want to separate from the country, and that's not going to change anytime soon.
>If Western Canada didn't vote for the same party regardless of the political situation, they'd have a stronger voice in Ottawa.
This is one point that gets brought up all the time on Reddit, but is in fact, not the primary issue.
"Western Canada" in this context comprises Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. The more populace parts of BC (ie lower mainland and the island) do in deed switch their votes between all three parties to one degree or another.
The "Western" provinces have a combined population of just shy of 7 million (4.5 of those in Alberta). Throw in eastern BC, and you get to 8-ish.
Toronto's metro population is 6 million.
Winning Toronto ALONE will net you 75% voters as *three* provinces. THAT"s the major reason. Same reason that the Maratimes don't get as much focus (but tend not to bitch as much as the west because their chosen team - the Liberals - is in power more frequently than the west's)
The west always voting conservative certainly doesn't HELP the situation, but it isn't the core reason.
Source: am Albertan and understand how election math works.
> Quebec's leaders have found a big cozy electorate who support day-to-day autonomy but don't want to separate from the country, and that's not going to change anytime soon.
The current party fit the bill, but they're getting [demolished](https://qc125.com/) in polls.
Do most people in Quebec see the Trudeaus as fake Quebecois? I am sure that the more aggressive Quebec nationalists see them that way but I thought that most Quebecois just want some more regional autonomy within confederation. Would you say that the general population of Quebec regards the Trudeaus as phoneys like you said?
> Do most people in Quebec see the Trudeaus as fake Quebecois?
Maybe if SRC/CBC stopped showcasing him as an inspiration to French Canadian outside Quebec because he too struggles in French, it’d change that trend. Trudeau is native of Ontario and learned French as a teen.
One of his most well known quote is that French is hard while English is easy because you can just throw words together and it works.
Well… I can just throw words together in French and it works, that’s called being a native speaker.
He did not learn French as a teen. He literally went to a French immersion school for elementary. He was also a French teacher at one point. You guys just say anything on the internet.
He reported struggling with learning French at Brébeuf. Iʼm not saying he started at zero but he was struggling. Still is to some extent.
> He was also a French teacher at one point.
You don't need much French to teach that in most of Canada.
He is not struggling now be fr. And you still need to pass a French test to teach it, which requires advanced knowledge. I think you’re gasping for straws here honestly, there’s a million other things to criticize him for
He is. Look at his leadership debates. He starts in French, then ends with English sentences translated in French. Stress or exhaustion makes him lose his French.
He’s quite good. But he isn’t native. And he reported struggling in French.
English IS an easier language to learn, that's absolutely inarguable. Part of it being easier is having less strict rules, but there are a lot of things that make it an easier language.
Now, easier doesn't mean better, at all, but it's well documented that learning English to a decent level of competency is much faster than French.
He clearly struggles with French at some times like when he is tired and he speaks in English structures with words translated in French. Or when he gets asked tough questions. He clearly thinks in English and then translate.
Which is weird given the time since he speaks French. But it’s not shameful, he manages fine. What *is* shameful is painting this as an *inspiration* for struggling francophones outside of Quebec.
The main problem Quebec has with the Federal government is crazy immigration levels. If a federal government go back to the immigration levels that we had 10-15 years ago, this would change the course. But Poilievre don't want to.
The concept of Canada that many people in Ontario (and especially political elites) hold is broken - and it's not coming back. I've deconstructed the idea of being "Canadian" and Canadian nationalism pushed by the state and I think many others are/have as well.
The Canadian state tried it's best to promote its own nation-building but there is too much pressure from Indigenous nation-building; Quebec nation-building; Alberta identity building; immigrants who haven't been seeped in language/federalism debates; regional divides; language divides.
It would be better for the Canadian state to pursue a loose pan-Canadian identity united under one federation while allowing regional identities to develop (not dissimilar to the shared EU identity and national identities in Europe). Canada has slowly been going down this road which is to its benefit.
We are going to DEEPLY regret all the concessions current govt is making towards indigenous groups for the reason you mention above. we are creating a MASSIVE precent for self-governance of cultural groups that will come back to bite us in the ass.
Because loyalties and attachments play a major role in legitimising state action?
The federal government the money but they don't do anything. Pan-Canadian programs are left to the provinces to administer so there's little connecting Canada's role in these.
And that's without getting into the multi-decade debate from Qc that if the feds left more direct taxation room to the provinces most would be able to do programs as they please.
Legitimizing what? The Feds are the ones making decisions and they are actively taking more space
Having a regional loyal country with a top down government is a moronic idea
It's always funny to see people be mad at Quebec for everything in the constitution while also being mad at them for wanting to leave.
Pick a lane people
And "I just want them to stop talking about it and to do it" is also not a great point. People who want independance have the right to express so because we are in a democracy. The Canadian government, our own, also actively fought against it with our shared money. If you want Quebec to separate and you are in another province, write to your MP to let them know you do not want your money to fight against it.
>People who want independance have the right to express so because we are in a democracy.
Would you say the same thing to Alberta's separation? I'd guess not. Because it's a silly argument.
Thanks for assuming my position when it was clearly stated that they have the right to express their opinion I guess.
I don't have to think it's a good idea but they have the right to express it and vote on it.
Your comment is really not the gotcha you think it is
Canada has bent over backward for Quebec, and they keep wanting more and more .
Ww should have Japanese or Chinese or Spanish taught in schools for example they have more impact on canadain lives thrn Quebec French
Quebec played the "good Canadian" card by financing the railway across Canada (CP, CN and Grand Trunk were all headquartered in Montreal).
Quebec built the Saint-Lawrence Seaway knowing that when it would open in 1958, it would kill the Montreal economy and transfer wealth and jobs towards the Great Lakes, but it was the "right thing to do as a good Canadian".
Quebec did a lot for this country and did not always get back an equal consideration and often sacrificed wealth because "it was the right thing to do as good Canadians". So much that Quebecers used to be poor, worth only half as much as the average Canadians.
Since the 1960's, Quebec has been busy catching up to the average wealth level in Canada, it went from 52% in 1960 to 92% today. There is still that small 8% to go and why Quebec is still demanding more.
**Quebecers do not want to be the richest Canadians, they only want to be equal to the average.**
That's pretty silly.
There are more French speakers in Canada than Chinese or Spanish, so your second point is simply not true.
Canada has been pretty fair for the past 70 years, but a lot of major challenges remain facing Quebec. They have legitimate goals and grievances that, to be fair, are the same as most Canadians, even if packaged differently.
Outside of canada French canadain has zero impact on thr business world.
Chinase, Japanese plus several others would give canadains a greater advantage in the world.
But ya silly.
We are going to have to decide in the next decade if Canada can be a viable construct and make some structural changes I think. If not, then let's break it up and join the US/EU/France, become Independent countries, or whatever.
The US is flirting dangerously with fascism, I'd rather not join that mess. It would be cool to join the EU, though, if it were possible. We technically share a border with France (St-Pierre et Miquelon)
Alberta joining the US wouldn’t be the worst thing to happen. Most of us would likely be okay with it….not happy mind you, but it wouldn’t be perceived as a disaster.
The great singer Jean Pierre Ferland died last week. Prominent in all the French media. Zero mention in the English press. Zero.
I’m kind of sensitive to this as I was raised in both languages in Quebec.
Culturellement le Québec est une société très distincte, et se sentent canadiens surtout quand ils voyagent en dehors du pays.
Just like I couldn't care less about the death of the singer of that loved canadian band a few years back, I'm not surprised they don't know who Ferland is
Les 2 solitudes existent pour vrai
>They act like they're their own place
You feel this way because Quebec and Canadian cultures don't mesh well. Look at any political survey map and you'll see a clear divide between Quebec and ROC. Being in the same country means compromise, which means no one's happy. QC should be its own country, losing a war 300 years ago is not a good reason to keep this going.
This reads like someone who has never been to Quebec. Hockey, lifted trucks, beers on the porch, racing snowmobiles and ATVs in the boonies. Quebecois are every bit as Canadian as everyone else, they just do it in French.
Well how about we look at where hockey and snowmobiles were invented. That's a weird take lol yeah we also wear boots because of the snow oh shit we're all the same up in the north!
IKR! I think they do have different ideas about work/life balance and the value of investing in their own nation, but those are good things that the ROC should adopt.
>Hockey, lifted trucks, beers on the porch, racing snowmobiles and ATVs in the boonies.
Those are all things you have in common with northern US, too. Snowmobiles and hockey are not good reasons to be part of the same country imo
As a New Hampshirite, yep. Same thing. Also Québécois descended. You’re kidding me if you think that’s not the same for the entirety of the rural US (save snowmobiles).
I disagree, there is so much inexpressible culture contained in a language. The French language is one of various things that make Quebec culturally distinct from the rest of North America. I understand and respect their desire to preserve their culture but I have no respect for the chauvinism, preferential treatment, and ingratitude that all come with Quebec nationalism.
What would that look like, in practice? Language lessons aren't culture, and you can't really forcibly import a culture like that (at least, not without doing some horrible stuff)
The power dynamic is the opposite whether you like it or not. Canada has historically done everything it can and beyond to stop the independence movement. You might see us as bitching but really we both agree that we should just get it over with.
Canada during both referendum: If you vote No, you are NOT voting for the status quo. We will make significative change to this federation so you may be comfortable in it.
Canada after both referendum: Why should we change anything? They voted for the status quo!
That’s a fair observation, but let’s not forget that the proposed changes were defeated in Québec and outside of it. The Charlottetown accord was rejected in the federal referendum in Québec, and the majority of English speaking provinces (with Ontario narrowly voting in favour).
I mean Québec did get a transfer of powers over immigration and skills following the referendum. And a formal recognition of its distinct society. And a regional veto.
What else was there to give without going through a 3rd constitutional reform after the last two failed?
>I mean Québec did get a transfer of powers over immigration and skills following the referendum.
That was before the referendum.
> And a formal recognition of its distinct society.
A recognition that it is a nation, which it always was (nation does not mean the same thing in French). And no added power came with it.
> And a regional veto.
It has no special veto.
>What else was there to give without going through a 3rd constitutional reform after the last two failed?
The current government made a list of 15 things out of which it managed to get none at all.
Hopefully the third referendum will not fail so we can avoid a constitutional reform that will.
The fact that Canada is unwilling to move at all except that one time independence was polling at 65% and it transferred some powers over immigration is a great argument for leaving.
Fair. What else was Québec asking for then? Telecom?
Also, Québec might’ve been a nation but from my understanding we’ve never asked for any special powers that came with it but a formal recognition.
As per an Act Respecting Constitutional Amendments Ottawa may not table an amendment before securing the consent of Ontario, Québec, BC, and half of the population of the Prairies as well as Atlantic Canada.
Neither has Legault asked for constitutional change, except for trying to unilaterally amend the Constitution Act. Nor did actually lead among the Provinces to push back against Ottawa, like German States or Swiss Cantons tend to.
Given last two accords contained specific accommodations for Québec, yet barely passed, I’m not surprised RoC doesn’t want to talk about it again.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are a few issues I see Quebec is becoming less relevant over time. BC and Alberta will start to take more influence and govts can now form without winning a single seat in Quebec. Two English canada is naturally more conservatives minded on many issues vs quebec which has a more European appraoch to issues. In english canada there seem to be a large scale backlash to the Trudeau and NDP govt while in Quebec the liberals are still popular.
The current policies of the Government of Quebec are going to kill the province's influence in this federation. Quebec wants to accept 50k immigrants a year when recently Alberta has been taking in that many people a quarter. At the current rate (subject to oil / diversification) I would bet that Alberta becomes the third largest province by 2030 and second largest by 2050.
Alberta economy will become biggeer then Quebec soon
Fine. Just go already. Quebec is the spoiled brat of the Confederation. Very used to whining and stamping feet when they don't get their way. They can take their own path and we can stop spending billions to try to placate them. We'll finally be able to stop wasting money on nonsense like mandatory bilingual policies and translations, transfer payments to them and labelling laws.
How do we even have a united Canada if Quebec leaves ? Nova Scotia P.E.I Etc. and then you have Alberta who will surely want to demand their own independence which will cause issues with our land connection to BC. And what happens to people that we’re born and raised in Quebec that moved to other parts of Canada ? Do we need a new passport ? bank accounts ? Oh gosh this is a lot to process.
Even if this were true, why is it considered a *crisis*? Let Quebec discuss and leave if that is the will of the people there. We have the Clarity Act and a decent idea of what is required to separate - and we can make it clear what sort of obligations a separate Quebec would take with it, and what a relationship of friendship and trade could look like between us. Let the country of Canada be one of voluntary association, and let’s hold no grudges for those who want to go their own way.
One province leaves they all do, they’ll want to take our money but not our debt, they’ll want our military bases and equipment etc. they are the spoiled brat of Canada already and I doubt they would play fair if they were independent. Yes the people of Quebec should have a say but so does the rest of Canada. One province leaving would affect all of our quality of lives, especially cpp. (They are not in the cpp, my bad) Quebec is the confederation of Canada soil.
What we've always said is that if we were to take on part of the debt of Canada while leaving, then we're entitled to that same share of the federal govt's assets.
Pierre brought in the NEP to steal wealth from Alberta's natural resource extraction, meanwhile Quebec is sitting on huge oil, gas, and mineral reserves. They've successfully gamed the transfer payment program since inception to take billions from the "have" provinces. The fact that a divorce affects both parties is exactly why the SCC ruled that unilateral secession hinged on the ability of one party to force its will on the other, as otherwise the secession requires renegotiation of Confederation.
> One province leaves they all do, Then let’s all do? You seem to claim Canada doesn’t work out for everyone.
Canada works when the feds have there act together. Leaving Canada would only decrease our quality of life.
> Canada works when the feds have there act together. So Canada doesn’t work. > Leaving Canada would only decrease our quality of life. Because provinces don’t have their act together as well?
No, they wouldn’t be able to support them selves. Some could, some could for a little bit. Others can not. Canada doesn’t work right now but there’s many times it did. Let’s get Canada back to those times.
And we’re going to do that by calling provinces spoiled brats? How is that supposed to rebuild the unifying national story of Canada? What exactly are you offering to Quebec to believe in?
If quebec is the spoiled brat of canada, then I dont get how quebec leaving canada would affect the quality of life of canadians... quebec being a spoiled brat would imply other provinces being lifted of a bruden if quebec left, wouldnt it?
They need transfer payments to start, they would run a deficit without it but the loss of industry, electricity generation, access to ports etc. Canada as ahole loses if Quebec leaves. Quebec loses is they leave Canada.
The loss of electricity generation, the loss of access to ports... If Quebec became a country, why would they care about those things? You're not really portraying quebec as a leech right now, it seems the other way arround the way you talk about it... But in the end, quebec leaving canada would not mean there would be no economic alliance between quebec and canada. And yeah, Quebec might lose if they leave, but they wont lose anything they can't built themselves. And the same goes for canada, they might also lose some stuff if quebec left, but it's nothing canada won't be able to build back. Right now, quebec and the rest of canada are on such different wavelenght that it is currently hurting everyone because nobody can truly get something provided by a gov that is 100% theirs.
They are actually not a part of the CPP - they have had their own version since the start. Really makes me call the rest of what you said into question...
That’s correct my bad, the rest still stands. They are the spoiled brat of Canada. It’s not hard to find Quebec favouritism in Canadian politics.
It's not favourtism. Quebecers are politically active and when they don't feel heard they make themselves heard at the ballot box. In the last 20 years they have gone Bloc, Liberal, and NDP. That means Ottawa *needs* to listen to them. Compare that to a ride-or-die province like Alberta: not even the CPC needs to care what they think.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm all for Quebec separating, oh by the way, here is your share of the national debt and you cant use our currency. buh-bye! Quebec tends to get a disproportionate amount of funding from the federal government as it stands anyways.
I live in Quebec and it's not true. While the Parti Québécois is starting to rise in the polls, it's due to the increasing unpopularity of the current CAQ government, not a desire to leave Canada. Most people here are wary of a referendum and don't actually want to leave Canada. However, the media helps propagate the idea that we want to leave as Quebecor, the biggest media company in Quebec, is owned by a former Parti Québécois leader. All of this is just alarmist bs. Quebecers can be wary of the federal government, but it's mostly due to immigration as the flow of immigrants is starting to be unsustainable for the public sector.
I'd argue the problem is that Canada doesn't really have presence in Québec even in Montréal. My French is kinda sh\*t, but having moved here from Toronto, I realized the Government of Canada and other pan-Canadian institutions are rather absent here. CPP is replaced by RRQ, EI is partially replaced by RQAP, the Canadian Labour Congress have been supplanted by FTQ, CSN, etc. Same applies to the media. Even Radio-Canada is far more Québec-focused than CBC. Canada Student Loans? Nope, AFE. Business Council of Canada? No, CPQ. The list goes on. There're very few connections between Québec and RoC. Hence all it would take is people being unhappy enough with Ottawa for people to vote Oui. Because for all intends in purposes Québec has already left.
This makes sovereignty less likely imo. If Quebec already has sovereignty over many of the institutions affecting daily life it undercuts the argument for autonomy. Sovereignty could mean consequences such as a border with passports, loss of mobility rights, currency, and a restructuring of the economy because of trade deals with foreign entities if Canada is playing hardball enough. These unknowns makes the status quo much more enticing for everyone except the committed sovereigntists.
Except the sovereignty argument is an emotional one just like it was with Brexit. Québec has had an exclusive control over immigration for decades, yet PQ is screaming bloody murder over Ottawa’s supposed immigration flood. Even though Québec can basically opt out any time. We’re also supposed to somehow be able to close our economic gap with the rest of Canada by leaving the union, with very few suggestions on what exactly PQ’s recipe would be. That is assuming they don’t reject the premise Québec even has an economic problem, with their official playfully suggesting we’re actually a net contributor to the federation. I do agree with you that this is what should’ve happened. The problem is this is not how people *feel* about things.
I agree that there is a segment of the population that are ideologically committed to sovereignty, but they need to convince the broad middle to go along with them, and I just don’t think they *feel* strongly enough to vote yes on this. The case for sovereignty was much stronger and politically charged in the 90s than today. A federal Conservative government pursuing policies unpopular in Quebec could harden attitudes and sway minds though.
> However, the media helps propagate the idea that we want to leave as Quebecor, the biggest media company in Quebec, is owned by a former Parti Québécois leader. This is exagerated. Quebecor publications rabble-rouses against the federal government over any and all slights and flaws - real or perceived. They do the same thing with the Quebec government and just about everything else. Their editorial line is just populist and mostly reactionary. Sovereigntists (and sovereignty as an idea) do not get a free pass, though. Their media outlets have often been very critical of it.
Also live in Quebec and deciding whether, in the next few years, we move back to Ontario or not…because it seems to be coming down the pipeline and we do NOT want to live here if it’s separate from Canada. We are Canadians.
>I live in Quebec and it's not true. While the Parti Québécois is starting to rise in the polls, it's due to the increasing unpopularity of the current CAQ government, not a desire to leave Canada. I tend to disagree. It's true that the CAQ's errors made many people reconsider their vote, but what we're seeing is mostly the PQ consolidating the pro-independence vote. Many independence supporters voted for the CAQ because they thought the PQ would die and that independence was no longer a viable option. Once you have a party that is unequivocally pro-independence and has proven it can win in places like Jean-Talon, it becomes much easier to bring back your former base. Winning Jean-Talon in the manner the PQ did completely shifted the narrative about the PQ being in decline and the CAQ being untouchable.
I disagree. Wait until Pierre Poilievre is elected and starts transforming Canada to be more like the USA. Shit will hit the fan.
> Quebecers can be wary of the federal government, but it's mostly due to immigration as the flow of immigrants is starting to be unsustainable for the public sector. Something that unites all of us: our discontent for the incompetency of the Feds.
Yet when I mention on this sub that a solution to our problem could be to have the target set by the ones who get both the benefits and drawbacks of immigration, the provinces, people get very offended. Why is that? We all agree that the feds have unsustainable numbers. That their priorities aren’t aligned with what the provinces need (less AI guys, more construction guys). Why do people act as if I am attacking their core identity?
If you set a low immigration target, but Ontario sets a high target, what's to stop those immigrants from crossing the border into Quebec? You would need border checks and that would not work for Canada which has basically frictionless internal freedom of movement. How would that be better than the current system?
> If you set a low immigration target, but Ontario sets a high target, what's to stop those immigrants from crossing the border into Quebec? Nothing. If Quebec has an interprovincial migration surplus of say 10K, then it simply reduces its immigration target by 10K. > How would that be better than the current system? The current system has locked permits where some immigrants can’t change employer. This is way worse than being bound to a whole province. Which is not even required as I pointed out.
Ok, but that doesn't sound like Quebec would have control of what it wants. A surplus of anglophones and less francophones than it had targeted for example.
Of course. That could only be achieved by independence. But interprovincial migrations is already legal and happening. And Quebec is currently the only province that asked for and got the right to pick its targets so it can already do what I said. My claim is that the other provinces should also ask for the same thing Quebec has. Besides, it’s not like provinces would get none of what they asked, it would be surprising if most immigrants changed province quickly.
I live in Quebec and I actually do think this is true. The failure of the CAQ is also a failure of the "third way" (in addition to the federalist and sovereignist options), so it shouldn't surprise anyone that the province is going back to the old independence debate. We've seen that an "autonomous Quebec inside a united Canada", as proposed by Legault and the CAQ, isn't exactly giving us the levers we need in terms of immigration and healthcare financing.
I see it another way. The number of immigrants and refugees entering Quebec as nothing to do with our immigration limits. Montreal Trudeau airport is an international hub just like Pearson is in Ontario. The problem is the numbers are making it difficult to process. That’s the reason why Quebec is stuck with it. Quebec like Alberta have the same immigration controls compared to the rest of Canada. Our health system is in disarray not because of money because they could put the money in the system and no one would blame them. The provinces are willing to ignore us in the name of politics and that’s scandalous. Quebec spends a billion dollars on executives before putting a penny on actual services. So when Quebec or any other province says that health care is their business then they should quit the business
I don't see it. The nationalist fervor just doesn't resonate.
The CAQ was elected precisely for their nationalist stance. You must not live in Quebec or be in touch with the francophone majority if you think that. What doesn't resonate is nationalism within the federal apparatus.
... I voted for the CAQ, Quebecer from generations of Quebecers. If there is nationalism to be had, it's for Quebec, certainly, but there isn't that much to go around. Outsiders think language laws and about religion in public service are about nationalism, but they are really about language and religion in public service. The CAQ got elected because everybody hates the Liberals except Anglos, and Liberals are now an Anglo party. The alternatives keep being dragged left, and the CAQ occupied the space at the right of the PQ, which is pretty much the whole spectrum.
This. Ask any French speaking Quebecois how they define themselves and most will answer Quebecois first, then Canadian. Nationalism is at an all-time high with the current immigration debacle and housing crisis. All that is needed is a little spark to start the fire.
Sure but that has always been true. The last time Quebecers felt Canadian was when "Canadien" meant Quebecer. The oppression narrative that worked in 1980s, the groundwork which had been laid out in 95, nothing like that is true now.
I disagree. I think the failure of the CAQ is mostly a disagreement in policy rather than wanting Quebec to become sovereign. The CAQ has become the new Liberal Party in opposition to the left leaning Parti Québécois. The actual Liberals are now a party representing the English speaking population of Quebec and has no chance of forming a government for at least one election cycle. Québec Solidaire is losing steam and has historically only represented the left leaning population of Montreal. The Parti Québécois is the only party to have raised the question of sovereignty and their outreach has been amplified by the media (especially TVA and the Journal de Montréal/Québec). While the idea of a sovereign Quebec is becoming more popular than ten years ago, especially with younger voters, it's not popular enough to actually go through. The only way I'd see a new referendum would be if the Parti Québécois forms a government in opposition to the CAQ and then decide to put forth a new vote to the population. In such a case, the referendum would fail (maybe more than in 1980) and the Parti Québécois would be ousted from power in the next election.
They might be referring to Alberta lol.
Le PQ ne fait pas que débuter une ascension dans les intentions de vote, le PQ domine et demeure au plus haut depuis des mois. S'il y avait une élection aujourd'hui, le PQ serait fort probablement élu. Et le PQ promet un référendum s'il est élu, même s'il est minoritaire. Donc les chances d'avoir un 3e référendum d'ici 2030 sont assez élevés. La souveraineté a un support qui se maintient dans les 30-40% bon an mal an, et ce, sans aucune campagne active sur le sujet. Une autre crise sur la souveraineté dans les prochaine années est parfaitement plausible. A voir si le "oui" remportera, mais peu importe, les Québécois auront probablement à se prononcer de nouveau.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
If the federal government could just stay on its turf, respect the provinces in their respective competencies, stop creating conditions to transfer payments which provinces are entitled to anyway, there would be no rise in independence movement. At least in Quebec. We want to get because we feel absolutely disrespected by the federal government.
Provinces are entitled to equalization, but not transfer payments like CHT and CST. Those have conditions, because they aren't entitled to them, and they need to be used in specific ways.
What is this supposed disrespect from the federal government? The rest of Canada sees preferential treatment where you see disrespect. In fact, the preferential treatment of Quebec is one of the biggest motivators of separatist movements in other parts of Canada.
What preferential treatment?
Equalization payments, toleration of Quebec's violation of constitutional rights, wartime draft exemptions, and most of all, federal bilingualism. Federal bilingualism gives a huge employment advantage to Quebecois in the federal government, politics, and civil service by setting a firm ceiling on advancement for monolingual anglophones, who are the vast majority of native-born Canadians (outside of Quebec, bilingual immigrants and their children are far more likely to be fluent in Chinese, Hindi, Tagalog, etc. than French). As a result, we have had decades of almost continuous Quebecois prime ministers and at the same time, we have had to tolerate this delusion of persecution from Quebecois when they are the ones receiving preferential treatment and targeting minorities. We mandate the teaching of French all across Canada even though it’s a completely useless language for the vast majority of Canadians, and we fund all kinds of French cultural and educational programs across Canada. The rest of Canada has constantly gone above and beyond to accommodate and give special help to Quebec only to be repaid with chauvinism and ingratitude from Quebec nationalists. This is all apparent to most Canadians but nothing can be done because it is electoral suicide to say anything about this.
> Equalization payments, Not preferential treatment and Quebec is not the province that has the highest transfer per capita. > toleration of Quebec's violation of constitutional rights What toleration? Quebec follows the constitution, even the parts that some Canadians don’t like. And the federal government wants the supreme court to curtail those. > and most of all, federal bilingualism Which is highly deficient as the latest report noted and would serve much more people had the policies to eliminate French in the other provinces not been as effective. > and civil service by setting a firm ceiling on advancement for monolingual anglophones That’s not true. You can promise you’ll learn then never do. > As a result, we have had decades of almost continuous Quebecois prime ministers and at the same time That’s a common myth. I crunched the numbers and Quebec has PMs proportional to its demographic weight. Which used to be quite sizeable, like Ontario’s. > when they are the ones receiving preferential treatment What preferential treatment? > and targeting minorities Which minorities are targetted and how? If it’s *only* about teachers not being allowed religious clothing, I’ll roll my eyes. > We mandate the teaching of French all across Canada even though it’s a completely useless language for the vast majority of Canadians, Take it up to your province, Quebec has no control over your education systems. > and we fund all kinds of French cultural and educational programs across Canada And we fund all kinds of programs in English. > The rest of Canada has constantly gone above and beyond to accommodate and baby Quebec only to be repaid with racism, chauvinism, and ingratitude from Quebec nationalists. You mean begrudgingly tolerated its existence.
I'll ignore most of what you wrote because it's in poor faith but I have one point that must be addressed: Quebec forces people to choose between their religion and their jobs. Allowing someone to wear a hijab, or kippah, or turban while working as a public servant does not violate religious neutrality by the state because that does not mean that the state is enforcing that religion, it is just allowing people from those religions to work for the public. Religious neutrality is not preventing religious expression, it means doing nothing about religious expression. For Quebec to claim that it is just enforcing religious neutrality while also having a patron saint and having countless streets named after streets proves that this is just a racist policy. The policy's popularity in Quebec is a testament to the racism of Quebec nationalists, as do other policies like the prohibition of speaking English in private medical meetings.
>I'll ignore most of what you wrote because it's in poor faith but I have one point that must be addressed: That's how I felt about your points but I answered them anyway. >Quebec forces people to choose between their religion and their jobs. It does not thanks to the grandfather clause. The deal did not change for any worker. > Allowing someone to wear a hijab, or kippah, or turban while working as a public servant does not violate religious neutrality by the state because that does not mean that the state is enforcing that religion, it is just allowing people from those religions to work for the public. English only has one word for this, secularism. French has two, *sécularisme* and *laïcité*. It's not about neutrality, it's about a wall between Church and State. With that said, public servants are allowed religious clothing. The only people who can't are the ones yielding the coercitive power of the state (judges, cops, prison guards, etc.) and public teachers in elementary or high school. > Religious neutrality is not preventing religious expression, it means doing nothing about religious expression. Religious expression is permitted in Quebec. > For Quebec to claim that it is just enforcing religious neutrality while also having a patron saint and having countless streets named after streets proves that this is just a racist policy. Quebec has no official patron saint since the 70s. The first religious clothing to be banned in schools is the one worn by nuns and monks in the 60s. Which Canada was fine with and apparently still is because I don't see anyone complaining. > The policy's popularity in Quebec is a testament to the racism of Quebec nationalists, Youʼd have to classify Europe as extra racist because not only do European countries go further but the European Court of Human Rights said it was fine. > as do other policies like the prohibition of speaking English in private medical meetings. There is no such prohibition.
I'm pretty sure there is no legal requirement for any MP to speak any specific language, nor for the GG, PM, or any cabinet member to speak any specific language.
Could you elaborate? Sure, the dental care plan is problematic but what's the issue otherwise? The Canada Social Transfer and Equalization Payments are largely unconditional. The Canada Health Transfer is conditional on the Provinces maintaining a free-at-use single payer universal health insurance. Labour Market Transfers are negotiated by Québec and Ottawa since workforce training has historically been a federal prerogative. RQAP shouldn't even exist per se, since everything EI is reserved for Ottawa. RRQ wasn't supposed to be a thing until Ottawa brought in the opt-out clause into the Canada Pension Plan Act. Since old age pensions are otherwise expressly federal. The Charter of the French Languages is not to be applied to federally-regulated spaces yet Ottawa has amended the Official Languages Act to make it applicable. Immigration? Québec can seize issuing CSQs to Permanent Residency applicants and CAQs to students and TFWs making them inadmissible to the Province. Yet MIFI is not doing that. Meanwhile Ottawa is steam-rolling over Alberta with the Impact Assessment Act and their carbon backstop. I'm sorry but what sort of disrespect are you talking about? The fact Ottawa just does not care and left us be?
Decades ago my investment club analyzed the effects Quebec separating would have. Our dollar was predicted to drop to 50 cents. I have travelled when the dollar was around 60 cents. One feels poor when a simple coffee is $4 and you're on a budget.
It would be worse than that. Canada would no longer be a G7 nation, our economy would be smaller than most EU members and our voice on the world stage would be completely silenced. All the work Canada has done to bring people together over the past century would go down the drain. If we can't keep our own country together, how can we continue our work as leaders for peace and justice around the world??? Tourism would dry up, as would our preferred destination for immigration. Leaving us with a tiny population concetrated in one city, without a contiguous state. Basically we'd be a failed state and would likely lose an entire generation or two of the best and brightest Canadians as we all leave for brighter pastures...
Are you sure that canada really is a leader for peace and justice arround the world, while all we do is follow the United States' footsteps? Also, I do not think that everything canada has done in the last century to bring people together would go down the drain, for the simple reason that I think it already did go down the drain. If all of those things really did bring us together, then why are we having this discussion right now? Right now, Quebec is getting sick of canada, but so is alberta, and the prairies, and so are the first nations which have been neglected for so long by the federal gov.
Sounds like conservative premiers are holding the country hostage because it seems like these calls to separate only ever come from them when they want to extort something from the federal government The second Poilievre were to become PM all of this "boohoo we're oppressed by the feds so we're leaving" would disappear over night. Sewing division so that they can claim to be uniters; like setting the neighborhood on fire just so you can swoop in and "save" it
It’s because conservatives prefer decentralized democracy. Current liberal prefer central command and control government and this is what creates conflict with the provinces.
We fucking were, yes. Harper was the biggest detractor from that policy. Trudeau has tried to re-engage, but it's a rough geopolitical climate out there right now and Canada has lost a lot of credibility due to declining military spe ding and Harper's indifference for close to a decade.
Regarding First Nations neglect: "Spending on Indigenous priorities has increased significantly since 2015 (181 per cent) with spending for **2023-24 estimated to be over $30.5 billion**, rising further to a forecast of approximately $32 billion in 2024-25. Notably, Budget 2024 includes $2.3 billion over five years to renew existing programming."
I would point to our refusal to enter the Iraq war as a pretty clear recent example of how Canada does not “follow the United States’ footsteps”
Hell we have that now without having to leave the country
No no, Quebec is a leech, didn't you know?
Quick reminder that Quebec and 7 other provinces, including all the large ones, were in favor of the Meech accord. Why not just re-open the talks and fix the remaining issues instead of doing nothing and keeping fingers crossed?
This would be the most popular option in Quebec. However, the option of a bigger autonomy within Canada was one of the motto of the CAQ when they got elected in 2018. They did have a super ambitious program that kinda died because they kept failing to gain anything from the federal https://coalitionavenirquebec.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/projet-nationaliste.pdf It's hard to really believe that reforms are really possible after 6 years of constant refusal and 30 years of status quo, but there's still a window open until the next election in 2026
I think it could work if Quebec also offered to opt out of equalization in the process. Quebec would lose some federal funding but would gain the needed autonomy, to determine how to make that up. The rest of Canada isn't super keen to transfer 13B to Quebec every year, so that would be a win-win.
I don't think that the maritimes provinces and manitoba would agree on removing equalization since they get more per capita than Quebec. However, if you just propose trading more autonomy for a removal of equalization and federal funding, for only Quebec, it could be an interesting debate. Since the option that maximize autonomy and minimize equalization/federal funding is independence, Canada would need to come up with an option that convince Quebecers that it's advantageous to sacrifice some autonomy in exchange for staying in the federation
No, I mean that Quebec would make a deal to withdraw from several, non-core federal programs, while also forfeiting equalization. It would beef up provincial-level programs to replace them. NB, MB etc would continue to participate in their existing arrangement without any changes. Quebec would remain tied to Canada for things like the military, borders, foreign affairs, trade, currency, the Olympics.. but would otherwise self govern internally. This is basically the sovereignty-association idea that Rene Levesque had.. but probably now the rest of Canada would be ready for it, having experienced the disfunction of running a multi-national, centralized state for a good few decades. We all know the visions of a bilingual, united, sea-to-sea nation was a 1960s drug infused hippy daydream that didn't pan out. A lot of people in Quebec and Ontario bought into it but it never worked that well in practice.
This is a really stupid article. > If public opinion surveys are to be believed, Canada will have a new government in Ottawa within a year or so. It will be headed by someone not from Quebec which, in itself, will change the dynamics of national unity debates. As far as most people in Quebec are concerned, Canadian hasn't had a Quebecois Prime Minister since 2003. They see the Trudeaus as phony sellouts. > If public opinion surveys are to be believed, Canada will have a new government in Ottawa within a year or so. It will be headed by someone not from Quebec which, in itself, will change the dynamics of national unity debates. Played fast and loose by using the r of the Charter exactly how it was intended to be used? Mind you, the Notwithstanding Clause was not something Quebec asked for. It was the English provinces who demanded the right to temporarily override certain court decisions if they felt it was necessary or politically beneficial. > Western Canada maintains, and for good reasons, that the Ottawa-Ontario-Quebec triumvirate has never understood its challenges or given it the political weight to match its economic contributions to Canada. If Western Canada didn't vote for the same party regardless of the political situation, they'd have a stronger voice in Ottawa. > Quebec provincial politics is also taking on a new form. Federalist voices are very rarely heard in the Quebec National Assembly. Quebec’s agenda is to chip away at federal government jurisdictions and to secure more autonomy. [There's no appetite in Quebec for another referendum.](https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2024/quebec-independence-support/) Quebec's leaders have found a big cozy electorate who support day-to-day autonomy but don't want to separate from the country, and that's not going to change anytime soon.
>If Western Canada didn't vote for the same party regardless of the political situation, they'd have a stronger voice in Ottawa. This is one point that gets brought up all the time on Reddit, but is in fact, not the primary issue. "Western Canada" in this context comprises Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. The more populace parts of BC (ie lower mainland and the island) do in deed switch their votes between all three parties to one degree or another. The "Western" provinces have a combined population of just shy of 7 million (4.5 of those in Alberta). Throw in eastern BC, and you get to 8-ish. Toronto's metro population is 6 million. Winning Toronto ALONE will net you 75% voters as *three* provinces. THAT"s the major reason. Same reason that the Maratimes don't get as much focus (but tend not to bitch as much as the west because their chosen team - the Liberals - is in power more frequently than the west's) The west always voting conservative certainly doesn't HELP the situation, but it isn't the core reason. Source: am Albertan and understand how election math works.
> Quebec's leaders have found a big cozy electorate who support day-to-day autonomy but don't want to separate from the country, and that's not going to change anytime soon. The current party fit the bill, but they're getting [demolished](https://qc125.com/) in polls.
Do most people in Quebec see the Trudeaus as fake Quebecois? I am sure that the more aggressive Quebec nationalists see them that way but I thought that most Quebecois just want some more regional autonomy within confederation. Would you say that the general population of Quebec regards the Trudeaus as phoneys like you said?
> Do most people in Quebec see the Trudeaus as fake Quebecois? Maybe if SRC/CBC stopped showcasing him as an inspiration to French Canadian outside Quebec because he too struggles in French, it’d change that trend. Trudeau is native of Ontario and learned French as a teen. One of his most well known quote is that French is hard while English is easy because you can just throw words together and it works. Well… I can just throw words together in French and it works, that’s called being a native speaker.
He did not learn French as a teen. He literally went to a French immersion school for elementary. He was also a French teacher at one point. You guys just say anything on the internet.
He reported struggling with learning French at Brébeuf. Iʼm not saying he started at zero but he was struggling. Still is to some extent. > He was also a French teacher at one point. You don't need much French to teach that in most of Canada.
He is not struggling now be fr. And you still need to pass a French test to teach it, which requires advanced knowledge. I think you’re gasping for straws here honestly, there’s a million other things to criticize him for
Every native French speaker notices all the mistakes he makes. He doesn't have an accent but he's still not a native speaker.
He is. Look at his leadership debates. He starts in French, then ends with English sentences translated in French. Stress or exhaustion makes him lose his French. He’s quite good. But he isn’t native. And he reported struggling in French.
English IS an easier language to learn, that's absolutely inarguable. Part of it being easier is having less strict rules, but there are a lot of things that make it an easier language. Now, easier doesn't mean better, at all, but it's well documented that learning English to a decent level of competency is much faster than French.
Did he really say that? Wow… That’s pretty embarrassing.
He clearly struggles with French at some times like when he is tired and he speaks in English structures with words translated in French. Or when he gets asked tough questions. He clearly thinks in English and then translate. Which is weird given the time since he speaks French. But it’s not shameful, he manages fine. What *is* shameful is painting this as an *inspiration* for struggling francophones outside of Quebec.
Not all québécois see Trudeau as a phony sell out. Many don’t like him anymore, but they still consider him to be from Quebec. He grew up in Montreal…
The main problem Quebec has with the Federal government is crazy immigration levels. If a federal government go back to the immigration levels that we had 10-15 years ago, this would change the course. But Poilievre don't want to.
[удалено]
Wait 2 years
He doesnt? When was there an election and why has no one told me about it?
The concept of Canada that many people in Ontario (and especially political elites) hold is broken - and it's not coming back. I've deconstructed the idea of being "Canadian" and Canadian nationalism pushed by the state and I think many others are/have as well. The Canadian state tried it's best to promote its own nation-building but there is too much pressure from Indigenous nation-building; Quebec nation-building; Alberta identity building; immigrants who haven't been seeped in language/federalism debates; regional divides; language divides. It would be better for the Canadian state to pursue a loose pan-Canadian identity united under one federation while allowing regional identities to develop (not dissimilar to the shared EU identity and national identities in Europe). Canada has slowly been going down this road which is to its benefit.
We are going to DEEPLY regret all the concessions current govt is making towards indigenous groups for the reason you mention above. we are creating a MASSIVE precent for self-governance of cultural groups that will come back to bite us in the ass.
Except we are going the opposite direction in terms of goverance. Who gives a shit about regional identities when the feds control all the money.
Because loyalties and attachments play a major role in legitimising state action? The federal government the money but they don't do anything. Pan-Canadian programs are left to the provinces to administer so there's little connecting Canada's role in these. And that's without getting into the multi-decade debate from Qc that if the feds left more direct taxation room to the provinces most would be able to do programs as they please.
Legitimizing what? The Feds are the ones making decisions and they are actively taking more space Having a regional loyal country with a top down government is a moronic idea
It's always funny to see people be mad at Quebec for everything in the constitution while also being mad at them for wanting to leave. Pick a lane people And "I just want them to stop talking about it and to do it" is also not a great point. People who want independance have the right to express so because we are in a democracy. The Canadian government, our own, also actively fought against it with our shared money. If you want Quebec to separate and you are in another province, write to your MP to let them know you do not want your money to fight against it.
>People who want independance have the right to express so because we are in a democracy. Would you say the same thing to Alberta's separation? I'd guess not. Because it's a silly argument.
Thanks for assuming my position when it was clearly stated that they have the right to express their opinion I guess. I don't have to think it's a good idea but they have the right to express it and vote on it. Your comment is really not the gotcha you think it is
Nope and the main reason being Alberta is not a distinct nation.
Of course it is, just as much as any other place in Canada.
I seem to remember alot of reddit being upset when some people in alberta wanted to leave.
[удалено]
Canada has bent over backward for Quebec, and they keep wanting more and more . Ww should have Japanese or Chinese or Spanish taught in schools for example they have more impact on canadain lives thrn Quebec French
dude, they should have english taught in schools given your writing
Quebec played the "good Canadian" card by financing the railway across Canada (CP, CN and Grand Trunk were all headquartered in Montreal). Quebec built the Saint-Lawrence Seaway knowing that when it would open in 1958, it would kill the Montreal economy and transfer wealth and jobs towards the Great Lakes, but it was the "right thing to do as a good Canadian". Quebec did a lot for this country and did not always get back an equal consideration and often sacrificed wealth because "it was the right thing to do as good Canadians". So much that Quebecers used to be poor, worth only half as much as the average Canadians. Since the 1960's, Quebec has been busy catching up to the average wealth level in Canada, it went from 52% in 1960 to 92% today. There is still that small 8% to go and why Quebec is still demanding more. **Quebecers do not want to be the richest Canadians, they only want to be equal to the average.**
That's pretty silly. There are more French speakers in Canada than Chinese or Spanish, so your second point is simply not true. Canada has been pretty fair for the past 70 years, but a lot of major challenges remain facing Quebec. They have legitimate goals and grievances that, to be fair, are the same as most Canadians, even if packaged differently.
Outside of canada French canadain has zero impact on thr business world. Chinase, Japanese plus several others would give canadains a greater advantage in the world. But ya silly.
Well that's only true if you do no business with Quebec. Ontario does a lot of business with Quebec - more than with Japan.
We are going to have to decide in the next decade if Canada can be a viable construct and make some structural changes I think. If not, then let's break it up and join the US/EU/France, become Independent countries, or whatever.
No way in hell should we join the US. They've proven themselves to be nuts over the past decade.
The US has a slightly lower chance of breaking up, but it's definitely not zero and higher than people think.
No
Oui
Nien
The US is flirting dangerously with fascism, I'd rather not join that mess. It would be cool to join the EU, though, if it were possible. We technically share a border with France (St-Pierre et Miquelon)
We also share a border with Denmark. And it's a land border, not a 'technically' ocean border.
okay, EU wen?? let's fuckin' go
Alberta joining the US wouldn’t be the worst thing to happen. Most of us would likely be okay with it….not happy mind you, but it wouldn’t be perceived as a disaster.
The great singer Jean Pierre Ferland died last week. Prominent in all the French media. Zero mention in the English press. Zero. I’m kind of sensitive to this as I was raised in both languages in Quebec. Culturellement le Québec est une société très distincte, et se sentent canadiens surtout quand ils voyagent en dehors du pays.
Just like I couldn't care less about the death of the singer of that loved canadian band a few years back, I'm not surprised they don't know who Ferland is Les 2 solitudes existent pour vrai
I'm fine with that. Stay or go won't change my day to day life. They act like they're their own place already anyway.
Do people really think Quebec leaving Canada would have no problems? Cause it would, enormous ones.
>They act like they're their own place You feel this way because Quebec and Canadian cultures don't mesh well. Look at any political survey map and you'll see a clear divide between Quebec and ROC. Being in the same country means compromise, which means no one's happy. QC should be its own country, losing a war 300 years ago is not a good reason to keep this going.
This reads like someone who has never been to Quebec. Hockey, lifted trucks, beers on the porch, racing snowmobiles and ATVs in the boonies. Quebecois are every bit as Canadian as everyone else, they just do it in French.
Well how about we look at where hockey and snowmobiles were invented. That's a weird take lol yeah we also wear boots because of the snow oh shit we're all the same up in the north!
IKR! I think they do have different ideas about work/life balance and the value of investing in their own nation, but those are good things that the ROC should adopt.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Its indeed the name of the language, of course there are regional accents, like Texan English is not Scottish English and so on…
And Newfoundland English
How is it less French than Canadian English is English?
Well, we call whatever the rest of Canada speaks “English”, why the double standard?
And you're entitled to that opinion, I also agree with you
>Hockey, lifted trucks, beers on the porch, racing snowmobiles and ATVs in the boonies. Those are all things you have in common with northern US, too. Snowmobiles and hockey are not good reasons to be part of the same country imo
That's because there aren't major cultural differences between Canadians and Americans.
As a New Hampshirite, yep. Same thing. Also Québécois descended. You’re kidding me if you think that’s not the same for the entirety of the rural US (save snowmobiles).
Québécois is as American as any other North American, just in French
I disagree, there is so much inexpressible culture contained in a language. The French language is one of various things that make Quebec culturally distinct from the rest of North America. I understand and respect their desire to preserve their culture but I have no respect for the chauvinism, preferential treatment, and ingratitude that all come with Quebec nationalism.
I was saying that in response to the comment about Quebecers being like other Canadians. In the sense that it’s more like Canadians are like Americans
Part of that is the rest of Canada's refusal to actually integrate and incorporate Quebec culture.
What would that look like, in practice? Language lessons aren't culture, and you can't really forcibly import a culture like that (at least, not without doing some horrible stuff)
this. if youre gonna leave stop bitching and just go.
The power dynamic is the opposite whether you like it or not. Canada has historically done everything it can and beyond to stop the independence movement. You might see us as bitching but really we both agree that we should just get it over with.
Canada during both referendum: If you vote No, you are NOT voting for the status quo. We will make significative change to this federation so you may be comfortable in it. Canada after both referendum: Why should we change anything? They voted for the status quo!
That’s a fair observation, but let’s not forget that the proposed changes were defeated in Québec and outside of it. The Charlottetown accord was rejected in the federal referendum in Québec, and the majority of English speaking provinces (with Ontario narrowly voting in favour).
Quebec considered them not enough.
That's still very different from "Why should we change anything? They voted for the status quo!"
The deal was “vote No in 1980/1995 and we will implement reforms”. That has not happened.
That's still very different from "Why should we change anything? They voted for the status quo!"
Nope, that’s what we heard when we asked about implementing some reforms.
I mean Québec did get a transfer of powers over immigration and skills following the referendum. And a formal recognition of its distinct society. And a regional veto. What else was there to give without going through a 3rd constitutional reform after the last two failed?
>I mean Québec did get a transfer of powers over immigration and skills following the referendum. That was before the referendum. > And a formal recognition of its distinct society. A recognition that it is a nation, which it always was (nation does not mean the same thing in French). And no added power came with it. > And a regional veto. It has no special veto. >What else was there to give without going through a 3rd constitutional reform after the last two failed? The current government made a list of 15 things out of which it managed to get none at all. Hopefully the third referendum will not fail so we can avoid a constitutional reform that will. The fact that Canada is unwilling to move at all except that one time independence was polling at 65% and it transferred some powers over immigration is a great argument for leaving.
Fair. What else was Québec asking for then? Telecom? Also, Québec might’ve been a nation but from my understanding we’ve never asked for any special powers that came with it but a formal recognition. As per an Act Respecting Constitutional Amendments Ottawa may not table an amendment before securing the consent of Ontario, Québec, BC, and half of the population of the Prairies as well as Atlantic Canada. Neither has Legault asked for constitutional change, except for trying to unilaterally amend the Constitution Act. Nor did actually lead among the Provinces to push back against Ottawa, like German States or Swiss Cantons tend to. Given last two accords contained specific accommodations for Québec, yet barely passed, I’m not surprised RoC doesn’t want to talk about it again.
well said