The Question isn't do you want Quebec to leave, it is... Do you think the servival of Canada depends on it.

Please don't let this go to the dogs like the other two.


Just a question, I heard on CTV news that if Quebec did seperate that they would have to give back "Rupert's Land." How much truth is in that.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/Wpdms_ruperts_land.jpg

sorry Jaye, but there should be a third option: "I'm sick to death of the subject"

HAha, half of the province would be part of Canada still. PAY US BACK FIRST.

first of all, you should learn how to spell. Secondly, No Rupert's land would not go back to Canada. We have major investments in that part of the province(which we paid for (Hydro Dams) they belong to Québeckers.

To answer your first question...no, I think Canada could survive if Québec were to leave!

EDIT

That Ruperts Land thing is an interesting concept really, don't know the truth behind it though.



first of all, you should learn how to spell. Secondly, No Rupert's land would not go back to Canada. We have major investments in that part of the province(which we paid for (Hydro Dams) they belong to Québeckers.

I dont see why this really matters. Ok so you have some built infrastructure, how does this translate into ownership of the land.

^^ I'm ganna try and figure it out with research. Because it was on CTV in the "Ask Us," segment, and that's what they said.

If Quebec ever has a referendum on their right to separate, than any part within Quebec has teh equal rigth to have it's own referendum to not separate and continue to be part of Canada.

As such, most of Northern Quebec is populated by Native Canadians. They have made clear in all previous referendums that they in no way want to separate from Canada. Therefore, a referendum on the native portion of Quebec will invariable lead to Northern Quebec continuing to be part of Canada.

Despite the infrastructure and investments made into this region, fair is fair. How much infrastructure and investments has the Federation provided to Quebec? Canada will obviously not be returned all past payments for these projects. When a separation is made, you can't have your cake and eat it too. I say democracy is the answer, and if Northern Quebec decides to not-separate contrary to the rest of the province, then so be it.

I vaguely looked up the Ruperts Land situation and I think that if indeed Quebec separated, Canada could retain the Ruperts Land portion of the province. Don't quote me on that though.

If Quebec ever has a referendum on their right to separate, than any part within Quebec has teh equal rigth to have it's own referendum to not separate and continue to be part of Canada.

As such, most of Northern Quebec is populated by Native Canadians. They have made clear in all previous referendums that they in no way want to separate from Canada. Therefore, a referendum on the native portion of Quebec will invariable lead to Northern Quebec continuing to be part of Canada.


Personally I doubt that this is true, but if it is, you could likely count on Montreal remaining Canadian too.

I did'nt say it was true. This was just my opinion. Oh, except the part that natives did'nt want to separate, that was true.

As for Montreal, your right about that as well as other pockets of Eastern Quebec I believe.

I just don't like the double standard where one part can separate no problem but another part can't. Does'nt seem fair to me. Either everyone can separate or nobody.

Quebec may say if Quebec goes then the whole province does. The thing is that within a week the north, west Quebec and West Montreal could hold their own referendum to leave Quebec and join Canada. What you Quebec do, say the referendum doesn't count????
Either way you slice Quebec will eventually leave but with not the territory or population it has now.

first of all, you should learn how to spell. Secondly, No Rupert's land would not go back to Canada. We have major investments in that part of the province(which we paid for (Hydro Dams) they belong to Québeckers.

To answer your first question...no, I think Canada could survive if Québec were to leave!

This argument cannot be rightly supported:

The Dominion of Canada has made major investments in Quebec, and indeed other provinces, but it does not follow that no possibility of secession is open to Quebec or any other province as a result.

The question of whether a sovereign Quebec would be entitled to all the land it currently holds is more complicated:

While I am not privy to the entirety of Rupert's Land, I would venture to say no constitutional principle would entitle Canada to the sum total of these lands. However, northern Quebec in predominantly aboriginal areas would have to be separately consulted in any secession talks under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The aboriginal groups draw their rights and agreements from the Crown, in whichever way it chooses to govern itself. The province of Quebec, if it chooses to separate, ceases to be a part of such an equation. Quebec could not merely replicate the same constitutional rights natives currently enjoy, if such a solution was made by a unilateral act from a now sovereign Quebec. Quebec does not have a right to simply sever but replicate Crown's obligations vis-a-vis the aboriginal treaty (and indeed other) rights. Nor can the fiduciary obligations simply be taken over. These are held in Crown's trust, and no one else's.

Any severance of the aboriginal groups from their original agreements with the Crown would have to be negotiated with the aboriginal people themselves. Such a negotiation would likely include the aboriginal representatives, Canada, and Quebec. The final decision as to the status of these lands would be within the ambit of the aboriginal representatives; the relationship with the Crown could not simply be severed by a simple referendum.

Wow... This turned into a nice civil argument that has the momentum to last 100 pages... Glad no1 flamed.

Of course Canada will survive. Canada will survive if its nothing left but Ontario, Western Quebec, a couple maritimes and a few territories, including Turks and Caicos.

^^ Honestly I meant the question to mean.

..."Is Quebec existance in Canada, comprimising Canada itself?"...

Quebec's existence in Canada compromising Canada?....no....The only thing compromising to Canada is some lousy Quebec politicians. The province and population itself have as much to do with Canada as anyone else.

I think it would devastate both economies. Ripping Canada in two parts is pretty disasturous... And what does Quebec really have to rely on? Tourism? Tarrifs on Canada?

Anyway, both countries would survive but it would be a crippling blow to both.

Rupert's land is a long forgotten former territory!

^^ Well CTV seems like a good source... I'm ganna send it in to "ask us."

^^ are u talking about the same network that announced Bouchard dead? lol
what is the source kid? Ask us on CTV is no source

Well I would call it a semi-reliable source. Do you really think CTV would make something like that up for the hell of it, there has to be some truth behind it.

I think if Quebec did leave , you may ( like someone else stated ) see a ripple affect .
BC, ALberta , sask. and Manitoba might think the same ( New Calidonia could spring up again ) and so on , who knows what would happen then.
Ont. would never leave because well thats face it , They are Canada .

I don't understand the question. Would yes mean I think that Quebec has to leave for Canada to survive?

I think if Quebec did leave , you may ( like someone else stated ) see a ripple affect .
BC, ALberta , sask. and Manitoba might think the same ( New Calidonia could spring up again ) and so on , who knows what would happen then.
Ont. would never leave because well thats face it , They are Canada .

I had stated a long rant on a similar thread about Canada being dismantled piece by piece. Not sure if your referring to that one. Either way, if one major province leaves, you can surely see others follow suite in progression. Canada would become Western Canada, Ontario, Quebec and Nfld. Not sure what would happen with the other maritime provinces or the territories.

Western Canada would lose out to all the manufacturing provided by the east. Ontario would lose out to all the natural resources to the west. Quebec would lose out the equalization payments of ROC. A no win situation for everyone

^^Rhino... honestly I don't think Saskatchewan would leave Canada either, even if Manitoba, Alberta, and BC choose to. Sure there would prob be some support for separation from the farmers, but the cities would overwhelmingly support staying in Canada, so the vote would not be anywhere near 50%.

I have never heard anyone seriously talking about separation from Canada here.

Well I would call it a semi-reliable source. Do you really think CTV would make something like that up for the hell of it, there has to be some truth behind it.
no, but I don't believe till i see it. Remember this is internet, unverified info is as good as junk.

Jaye: if you want answers to your questions, why don't you do some research instead of just asking a bunch of fanatics some honnest answers.

You'll never find them in here, and thats my honnest opinion :)

A partition of Canada into pieces is a possibility, but certainly not a foregone conclusion. There are two very different schools of thought on the issue. One predicts the partition scenario. The argument generally is that Quebec is the glue which keeps the country together; furthermore, it would set a precedent. However, although academically interesting, little actual data supports such a finding.

The second scenario predicts just the opposite: a greater cooperation from provinces and an increased level of unity in defiance of Quebec; this theory presumes that other provinces have more in common with each other than Quebec does with any one province, and that 'Western Alienation' has arisen as a result of percieved favourtism of Quebec to the detriment of the West. There is some evidence to support this view, although it is mostly speculative and based on a series of possible hypothetical scenarios.

Jaye: if you want answers to your questions, why don't you do some research instead of just asking a bunch of fanatics some honnest answers.

You'll never find them in here, and thats my honnest opinion :)

Instead of making blanket accusations, and holding the board members to be 'fanatics' you can offer your own opinions, preferably based on law, or fact, or both.

A partition of Canada into pieces is a possibility, but certainly not a foregone conclusion. There are two very different schools of thought on the issue. One predicts the partition scenario. The argument generally is that Quebec is the glue which keeps the country together; furthermore, it would set a precedent. However, although academically interesting, little actual data supports such a finding.

The second scenario predicts just the opposite: a greater cooperation from provinces and an increased level of unity in defiance of Quebec; this theory presumes that other provinces have more in common with each other than Quebec does with any one province, and that 'Western Alienation' has arisen as a result of percieved favourtism of Quebec to the detriment of the West. There is some evidence to support this view, although it is mostly speculative and based on a series of possible hypothetical scenarios.

Your right both scenarios can pan out. However, I would believe it would be the separation scenario. Firstly to modify your original assumption, Quebec is not the glue which keeps the country together. If any of the larger provinces left (Ont., Que, Alb, B.C.), it would create the very same ripple effect. The only reason Quebec is mentioned is because of how strong separitism is there relative to the ROC.

The reason I believe it would cause a cascade is that this country is already very divided as it is. If one province leaves, other provinces will then feel less obligated to stay as they won't be deemed to have destroyed the federation. If Quebec left for example, Alberta separatists may get an idea that it is feasible. Now if a down the road Alberta left, B.C would strongly consider joining B.C due to geographic alignment and mutual benefits each can derive from eachother. This would put tremendous pressure on Ontario as the only "Have" province left in the country. At this point they may deem Canada already a failure (3 provinces gone) and decide to leave and screw equalization. This would force the prairies to scramble (join Alberta or Ontario?). Finally the Maritimes would scramble or simply secede.

This is but an example. There are so many combinations and other factors to consider and you can right a master thesis on the subject if you wished to. But it shows how a cascading affect could so easily happen.

However, I can see your point that it may bring Canada closer. The whole Liberal dominance would be gone as Quebec would'nt play a role in elections and would even out the spread between the Libs (east) and Cons (west), hence reducing western alienation. Also dual language laws would be gone. Finally, the largest strain to equalization payments (Quebec) would'nt be an issue anymore.

However, this assumes everything will be just fine and dandy if Quebec separates when in fact it would be an economic fallout followed by a severe recession/depression. These kind of economic conditions would have more tendancies ot separate rather than unite.

If Canada is divisible, Quebec is divisible.
Canada is a great nation and it will survive.

http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/historical/territorialevolution/1870/1

The separatists suffer from a victim mentality.
Uttering facts is the easiest way to upset a separatist.

the largest strain to equalization payments (Quebec) would'nt be an issue anymore.


sigh sigh once more, more bullshit.

if we look at the 2005-2006 numbers, delivred by your Federal govt, you can see that Quebec recieves less than half of the equalization program.

There will be 8 have not provinces (every province except AB and ON).

If we take out Quebec, 7 remaining provinces recieving a total of 6.102B$ with about 8,771,000 people, gives an average of 685$/capita.

Quebec will be getting 4.798B$ with 7,598,000 people, gives an average of 631$/capita.

Right there we can see that Quebec is less of a burden than these other provinces.

But if we remove the border line "have" provinces (BC and SK), we get a much clearer picture!

What we get is that Quebec is actually three times less of a burden than these other have not provinces, explanation:

MB, NB, PEI, NS, NFL recieve a total of 5.430B$ with a total population of 3,522,000, a staggering average of 1541$!!!

And thats not even taking into account the transfer programs (not called eq. transfers but are the same) to the three territories which will inflate these numbers greatly.

So I wonder why don't we see more of " would you kick the maritimes out?" polls more often... because many forumers here are biggots and anti-french, they call themselves proud canadians but at the same time deny one of the great aspect and founding trait of this country, a country founded by two people, French and English.

sources:
http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/eqpe.html
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/Francais/050928/q050928a.htm

I had stated a long rant on a similar thread about Canada being dismantled piece by piece. Not sure if your referring to that one. Either way, if one major province leaves, you can surely see others follow suite in progression. Canada would become Western Canada, Ontario, Quebec and Nfld. Not sure what would happen with the other maritime provinces or the territories.

Western Canada would lose out to all the manufacturing provided by the east. Ontario would lose out to all the natural resources to the west. Quebec would lose out the equalization payments of ROC. A no win situation for everyone

I would be personally in favour of Maritime seperation. I'd like to see us join with Quebec, and make a new country called something like "The East Canadian Republic", kinda like Dominica, and the Dominician Rep. I don't like the idea of an Alaska type thing where we'd be apart from the rest of the country. And just think of how close Quebec city is to The Maritimes compared to Ottawa. It would seem like a real country then instead of the sprawling empty territory we have now. There'd be more sense of community.

Of course, the way it is now is good too. I'd only consider seperation because of Quebec, not on our own. Mainly so we wouldn't be isolated.

You did not say anything about the First Nations.
You are living on their Homeland.

I guess malek is just anti-First Nations.

^ the first Nations issue was not discussed on this page at all, since the thread has taken another direction.

I have argued about the issue of first nations on the first page (see: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=6104880&postcount=13). There is very little to challange these basic tenets of law, and while the argument that any part Quebec is separable itself has no real legal footing one way or the other, the assertion that the lands occupied and claimed by aboriginal groups are is indeed valid.

I would be personally in favour of Maritime seperation. I'd like to see us join with Quebec, and make a new country called something like "The East Canadian Republic", kinda like Dominica, and the Dominician Rep. I don't like the idea of an Alaska type thing where we'd be apart from the rest of the country. And just think of how close Quebec city is to The Maritimes compared to Ottawa. It would seem like a real country then instead of the sprawling empty territory we have now. There'd be more sense of community.

Of course, the way it is now is good too. I'd only consider seperation because of Quebec, not on our own. Mainly so we wouldn't be isolated.

interesting. Is this a pretty common view from Maritimers, or are you a minority in thinking this way?

^^ doubt it, just pure speculation.

Why would an independant Quebec want to join with an English speaking region?

no, rather, why english speaking provinces would want to join a french country with nazis at the top??

If Canada is divisible, Quebec is divisible.
Canada is a great nation and it will survive.

http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/historical/territorialevolution/1870/1

The separatists suffer from a victim mentality.
Uttering facts is the easiest way to upset a separatist.

:applause:

Especially on point #1.

^^ doubt it, just pure speculation.

Why would an independant Quebec want to join with an English speaking region?

All the Atl. provinces combined would still have a small population compared to Quebec, and a new Quebec would likely want to gain in political power and influence by increasing its area, population, and resources. I'd say they've been eyeing Labrador for years. :laugh:

no, rather, why english speaking provinces would want to join a french country with nazis at the top??

New Brunswick is bilingual, and NS has a few French areas, and Acadian heritage. And the maritimes are so small, we'd be a minority. Quebec wouldn't care if it had English regions (it already does), as long as French retained a clear majority, which it certainly would. Besides, I'd be open to changing languages. Or at least becoming bilingual.

I was trying to mimics what some zealots might post here... ;-)

Canada will not survive without Quebec because what ever is left will not be the same. A new country or countries will have to be redefined. It could be called Canada but it will not be the same country.

Canada began with Quebec, the aboriginal term "Kanata" was first heard by the european explorers on the St-Lawrence valley.

How could a country that loses its origin "survive"? Yes of course, people will survive, and a Canada without Quebec might even prosper better, but what makes this country what it is today will not survive.

I think what the separatists really want is for confederation to be dismantled so it can be redefined more to their liking. There are some in Quebec who'd like to see a Canada with 5 regions: BC-Yukon, the Prairies (Alta,Sask,Man.,NT/NV), Ontario, Quebec, Atlantic. This way Quebec's voice is 1/5th instead of the present 1/10th (+3 territories), governed by a very stripped down Federal Government that only handles defense and currency with each province/nation/region collecting its own taxes and contributing to those common services.

yes systematica, thats a view shared by many.

but the 1/5th isn't really what is seeked, cause we already have 23% or so of voices.

What is seeked is bi-national country, a country where two entities can speak to each other on an equal basis like partners. Belgium is an exemple of this.

^^^ LOL. Quebec already has 50% of the say with only 23% of the population. What Province kept Canada out of the war in Iraq? We owe you for that one. Quebec's power in Canada is undeniable. Once out of Canada it's power over the other provinces is nil.

My view is that a fractured Canada would not be able to remain as a country for long. If the Democrats were in power in Washington at a time Quebec ever votes to separate, one or more Provinces would look at joining the US. Some pundits in the US have already stated that the US would look to "pick up the pieces". The Americans already look at Alberta like a drooling dragon looks at a wounded deer - for obvious reasons. You mean to tell me that they won't at least like to have a land bridge to Alaska by annexing BC, Alberta and the Yukon?

After all the dust settles - years after the fact of a separate Quebec - the French language north of the 49th parallel would be a lot less common and important. No way would the remnants of Canada (except for NB) continue to fund bilingualism. Quebec's talented young (both Anglophones and Francophones) among others would leave their "Nation" (more of a Francophone ghetto) for greener pastures due to the ensuring depression and intolerance there. Quebec would find itself surrounded by a more hostile sea of Anglophones that look at its determination to retain its language/culture as little more than protectionism. Something that must go if it ever expects to join NAFTA.

The bi-national concept is simply not in the cards - despite what some Quebeckers may think.

Mark these words.

sigh sigh once more, more bullshit.

if we look at the 2005-2006 numbers, delivred by your Federal govt, you can see that Quebec recieves less than half of the equalization program.

There will be 8 have not provinces (every province except AB and ON).

If we take out Quebec, 7 remaining provinces recieving a total of 6.102B$ with about 8,771,000 people, gives an average of 685$/capita.

Quebec will be getting 4.798B$ with 7,598,000 people, gives an average of 631$/capita.

Right there we can see that Quebec is less of a burden than these other provinces.

But if we remove the border line "have" provinces (BC and SK), we get a much clearer picture!

What we get is that Quebec is actually three times less of a burden than these other have not provinces, explanation:

MB, NB, PEI, NS, NFL recieve a total of 5.430B$ with a total population of 3,522,000, a staggering average of 1541$!!!

And thats not even taking into account the transfer programs (not called eq. transfers but are the same) to the three territories which will inflate these numbers greatly.

So I wonder why don't we see more of " would you kick the maritimes out?" polls more often... because many forumers here are biggots and anti-french, they call themselves proud canadians but at the same time deny one of the great aspect and founding trait of this country, a country founded by two people, French and English.

sources:
http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/eqpe.html
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/Francais/050928/q050928a.htm


Wow, you are good!!! How you manage to twist things around to make my debate look like I am wrong, very impressive. :applause:
I especially like how you twisted it so that Quebec is being compared to SEVEN other provinces so that it does'nt look like it's getting the majority of equalization. Fuck you deserve another :applause: That's just a good twist right there. Even though I was specifically implying (and correctly) that Quebec is the largest strain to equalization. Should have added "of any single province". Got me there Malek!

Now the reason I'm being so sarcastic is that I really don't appreciate being called anti-french or a bigot. As my posts made clear, I DO NOT WANT Quebec to separate as I believe that it will lead to the disintigration of the country as a whole. How does that somehow make me anti-french???

You merely took one line in a long post and worked it to your advantage. Could've at least had the decency to comment on the many other points in my post. Either way, you still have'nt in any of your posts answered the question to the topic of the thread. Should Northern Quebec be able to separate from Quebec if Quebec has the right to separate from Canada?

Whether you agree or disagree, it is a fair question. Obviously most Canadians outside of Quebec believe that other parts of Quebec can separate. If you have a good argument to the contrary, please share it with us and maybe if your point is well founded, then some will change there mind.

Canada will not survive without Quebec because what ever is left will not be the same. A new country or countries will have to be redefined. It could be called Canada but it will not be the same country.

Canada began with Quebec, the aboriginal term "Kanata" was first heard by the european explorers on the St-Lawrence valley.

How could a country that loses its origin "survive"? Yes of course, people will survive, and a Canada without Quebec might even prosper better, but what makes this country what it is today will not survive.

I thought I was th eonly one who thought this way...

Anyway, it's all a moot point. Quebec will never seperate. 1995 was the seperatists last chance, IMO. I feel that the gap between seperatists and new generations of Quebecois will only get wider from now on.

I also think anyone who would want to not be part of Canada is insane.

As for the question, Jaye, I guess I'll put in my two cents. Canada would not last. If anything, we would see regional confederations, such as maritime/Newfoundland, all the western provinces, with Ontario on it's own. As for the territories, that would be tricky. I doubt that Ottawa would let go of them so easily... not being personally sure what 'rights' a territory would have.

I feel that the gap between seperatists and new generations of Quebecois will only get wider from now on.

Ça parait que tu ne vis pas ici! Tu ne sais pas de quoi tu parles!!!

I also think anyone who would want to not be part of Canada is insane.

buddy, Canada ain't that shit hot! I don't want to be part of it, and i'm not insane!

Quebec will never seperate.

We'll just have to wait and see!

the French language north of the 49th parallel would be a lot less common and important.

Who cares what language you speak west of the Outaouais river...that's not what we are fighting for! For you to say that Canada is bilingual is a JOKE. I'd like to see somebody serve me in french in Calgary or Toronto...that would be hilarious! Canada is ENGLISH...Québec is French...it's as simple as that. At least a good portion of Québeckers are Bilingual.

Quebec's talented young (both Anglophones and Francophones) among others would leave their "Nation" (more of a Francophone ghetto) for greener pastures due to the ensuring depression and intolerance there. Quebec would find itself surrounded by a more hostile sea of Anglophones that look at its determination to retain its language/culture as little more than protectionism. Something that must go if it ever expects to join NAFTA.

More doomsday predictions from a scared english Canadian who's afraid to lose his country. I truly understand your sentiments, but why do you get to have a country and not me??

Anyways, this is another thread on SSC about Québec that is about to go down the crapper...enjoy!

Who cares what language you speak west of the Outaouais river...that's not what we are fighting for! For you to say that Canada is bilingual is a JOKE. I'd like to see somebody serve me in french in Calgary or Toronto...that would be hilarious! Canada is ENGLISH...Québec is French...it's as simple as that. At least a good portion of Québeckers are Bilingual.

There is 2.3 million people outside of Quebec who can speak french. Ontario has extensive bilingual signage and is working to enhance this. If you've ever travelled to northern Ontario you likely could indeed order in french, same with New Brunswick. All packaging in the country comes in both languages, most government workers speak both languages. French as a second language in schools is mandatory in many places.You can go through the whole education system in Ontario(not sure about the rest of the country) taking french courses in french a school. If you think french influence ends at the Quebec border well you are wrong.

I'm well aware that there is a small french community in Northern Ontario, and In Manitoba as well as in an Edmonton Suburb. I'm also aware that 30% of N-B is supposed to be of French decent. It doesn't change the fact that those are small numbers, and most likely, i'd come across these people in some city, and they would probably speak to me in English, because everything around them is done in English.

Gov't workers who speak both languages is nice and all, but that is a fraction of the population. I've been to Toronto and Ottawa...i walked into a Tim hortons or (some other shop) and tried to get served in French. You should have seen their faces! It was actually kinda funny.
If Canada is sooo bilingual, why is it that I'm the one who's typing in English, and nobody on the Canada forum comes over to the Québec forum to converse in French?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that all Canadians should be able to converse in both languages. I don,t believe other Canadians should be forced to learn French...it just isn't worth it for them(being 2, 3 or 4 000KM's away and all). But please don't try to lecture me on Canadian Bilingualism...i won't buy it. To say that Canada is bilingual simply isn't true in my books...If you really want to see what bilingualism looks like...come live in Montréal for a year, then you'll understand!

It is more than a small french community in Northern Ontario. Timmins for example has a population of 43,000, 17,000 speak french. Sudbury has french speaking population of 45,000. You have countless villages of 1,000-10,000 which are bilingual the same as in Quebec.

It is more than a small french community in Northern Ontario. Timmins for example has a population of 43,000, 17,000 speak french. Sudbury has french speaking population of 45,000. You have countless villages of 1,000-10,000 which are bilingual the same as in Quebec.

THANK YOU

TO ADD to that...at least 1/3 of ontario's whole area is half french

the thing that striked me the most is that a news guy was asking some teenagers in malls in Toronto if they knew what is Quebec, if they heard about separation.

I was amazed that most of them never heard of Quebec, they don't even know it was a province next to theirs... let alone questions about separation which are useless if they don't even recognize the province.

And you guys tell me French is important to the Ontarian govt? what about education? history classes? what do they teach in school over there?

"TO ADD to that...at least 1/3 of ontario's whole area is half french"

That is a bit useless considering that less than 6% of Ontario's population is of French descent...most of those are located along the Québec border. The only other province that can legitimately clain to be bilingual is N-B.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that all Canadians should be able to converse in both languages.

I do. I beleive in it entirely. Mais je sais en peu de Francais seulment. I was taught french from grade 4 to grade 11, but as the old saying goes... use it or lose it. C'est dommage.

Your point about hardly any anglo-Canadians not being able to converse in French isn't quite fair. It's not our fault that English is the #1 language of the world (in terms of # countries, business, etc.... you know what I mean). It's not hard to see why many Quebecers can easily converse in both, while the ROC can't. I'd immerse myself in French if I could. My daughter will be sent to French Immersion when she's old enough.

I'm curious to hear why you think "Canada ain't that shit hot." You can private message me if you want.. I won't be confrontational or anything, I just want to understand.

the thing that striked me the most is that a news guy was asking some teenagers in malls in Toronto if they knew what is Quebec, if they heard about separation.

I was amazed that most of them never heard of Quebec, they don't even know it was a province next to theirs... let alone questions about separation which are useless if they don't even recognize the province.

And you guys tell me French is important to the Ontarian govt? what about education? history classes? what do they teach in school over there?

Take it with a grain of salt, there's alot that some teenagers don't know, and where else but the big city can you find the absolute bottom of the IQ barrel. They probably thought the question was about a pair of jeans. I'll bet they don't know what a 'Manitoba' or a "P.E.I" is either.

French is mandatory from grade 3 to grade 9, at least when I was in school. A good portion of my family is from Sudbury, where all road signs are billingual (some en francais seulment), and billingualism is mandatory for public sector jobs.

(funny story.. a bit of a tangent though... I heard of someone who applied for a job and was asked on an application form if she was billingual. She checked 'yes'. When she got the job, her employer was puzzled when he found out she didn't speak french, she spoke spanish..... LOL)

^^hehehe ;)

"TO ADD to that...at least 1/3 of ontario's whole area is half french"

That is a bit useless considering that less than 6% of Ontario's population is of French descent...most of those are located along the Québec border. The only other province that can legitimately clain to be bilingual is N-B.

I don't think that is correct...because I have travelled all over ontario many times...and if you enter a community anywhere near the mattawa or ottawa river...you basically have to be french....

and I said like 1/3 of the LAND....not the f'n population!!!!!!

the thing that striked me the most is that a news guy was asking some teenagers in malls in Toronto if they knew what is Quebec, if they heard about separation.

I was amazed that most of them never heard of Quebec, they don't even know it was a province next to theirs... let alone questions about separation which are useless if they don't even recognize the province.

And you guys tell me French is important to the Ontarian govt? what about education? history classes? what do they teach in school over there?

You have to be careful with what you see on TV. News has a bad habit of trying to stir shit up. They may have asked 100 people and found 3 who happened not to know Quebec. Guess what they aired.

But to really believe that it's a common thing is just ludicrous. It's one thing not to know the culture, or even the capital city, but not to know a neighbouring province? I doubt there would be too many.

the report was about how separation and quebec is viewed in Ontario with its new face i.e. massive immigration chaning Ontario.

So the reporter asked young immigrants some questions about Quebec and separation and its the answer he got, it is a very serious journalists for the 10pm news show on radio-canada... its not CP24 :p

As for people that wouldn't know another province from here, would be the people who didn't go to school, or are immigrants that don't know the country that well... The provinces and capitals were hammered into our heads from grade 4 onward... also started taking history of Canada around that time. (Upper and Lower Canada... English and French Settlements, etc).

It really boggles my mind how they would find people who didn't know another province... especially Quebec.


EDIT:... and your post just confirmed what I was talking about... immigrants don't know everything about the country yet.

How about we ask some "young immigrants" in Quebec about Ontario and see what answers you get. I don't know what you would expect. Look, 95% of teenagers no matter how stupid they are will realize where Quebec is. I think you are making something out of nothing.

don't immigrant kids go to schools ? barely an excuse.

does pretty much every other kid go to school? When you immigrate to another country what is the first thing on your mind? Learning the provinces/states/oblasts/whatever the other country calls them, or learning the language better, learing the culture, and trying to fit in?

Hell ask some Canadians who went through the education system to spell Saskatchewan and I'm sure you'd get some incorrect spellings. Ask them to draw it and I'm sure the results would be better :tongue2:

S-A-S-K-E...wait no no...A-C.ummmm....ahhhhh. Oh fuck it, who cares! :)

All the Atl. provinces combined would still have a small population compared to Quebec, and a new Quebec would likely want to gain in political power and influence by increasing its area, population, and resources. I'd say they've been eyeing Labrador for years. :laugh:

Again pure speculation. Maritimes apart from New Brunswick don't have any cultural connections with Quebec. Francophones in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland are a tiny minority. NB has a strong francophone minority but they feel Canadian, so they would not want to be part of Quebec. Also, there will be nothing to gain for both sides economically. Quebec will be hardly in position to help Martimes financially like Canada does. Trade will still be going on, borders will be open for business, ect. Interesting theory though ;)

does pretty much every other kid go to school? When you immigrate to another country what is the first thing on your mind? Learning the provinces/states/oblasts/whatever the other country calls them, or learning the language better, learing the culture, and trying to fit in?

Hell ask some Canadians who went through the education system to spell Saskatchewan and I'm sure you'd get some incorrect spellings. Ask them to draw it and I'm sure the results would be better :tongue2:

i hear you, but these teenagers were talking english.

bah fuck it, i'm dropping it. :cheers:

Belgium is an exemple of this.
Not a good example of this cooperation. Ever heard of Vlaams Blok? It makes Quebec separatists look like puppies, they have more in common with LePen or Ulster Nationalists than Quebec/Canada politics. Real racist bigotry and they represent Flemish part.

More doomsday predictions from a scared english Canadian who's afraid to lose his country. I truly understand your sentiments, but why do you get to have a country and not me??




You have a country, it is called Canada.

Scared? Not at all, I have made my way in the world. And you? Trust me you have a lot more to worry about than me. :)

The real issue is - the one you separatists always need to fudge on - is exactly how will separating from Canada improve the lives of all Quebeckers? Or do you concede that there would be winners and losers?

I also think anyone who would want to not be part of Canada is insane.

That means half of Quebec population is insane. Ok buddy ...

There is 2.3 million people outside of Quebec who can speak french. Ontario has extensive bilingual signage and is working to enhance this. If you've ever travelled to northern Ontario you likely could indeed order in french, same with New Brunswick. All packaging in the country comes in both languages, most government workers speak both languages. French as a second language in schools is mandatory in many places.You can go through the whole education system in Ontario(not sure about the rest of the country) taking french courses in french a school. If you think french influence ends at the Quebec border well you are wrong.

I worked in Sudbury for a while. A lot of Northern Ontarians have French roots, but it is English country over there. You don't have to speak a lick of French and live like a king. And French outside Qc assilimilate fast.

Not sure about 2,3 million figure. Way to high, it has to come from some federal document that comes out once a while to promote bilangualism. In reality that number might be around million at most and is constantly dropping.

the thing that striked me the most is that a news guy was asking some teenagers in malls in Toronto if they knew what is Quebec, if they heard about separation.

I was amazed that most of them never heard of Quebec, they don't even know it was a province next to theirs... let alone questions about separation which are useless if they don't even recognize the province.

And you guys tell me French is important to the Ontarian govt? what about education? history classes? what do they teach in school over there?

I watched a bit on Radio-Can on 10 years after separation issue. The reporters went to some huge Asian market in Toronto (not sure exactly in what suburb) and asked some kids and after an older lady (all Asians of course). Damn, they must have approached the slowest Asians in TO or some people straight of the boat. They had no clue whatsoever about Quebec, kind of like asking a white person about the political situation in present day Bangladesh. It was fucken hilarious :)

That means half of Quebec population is insane. Ok buddy ...

It was meant as a tongue-in-cheek statement. It's not like Canada is the Soviet Union. Don't try to read to much out of it, just tongue-in-cheek.

But honestly, why seperate? Better yet, why seperate from Canada?

That means half of Quebec population is insane. Ok buddy ...


No it doesn't - and that was one of the problems with the question.

It was meant as a tongue-in-cheek statement. It's not like Canada is the Soviet Union. Don't try to read to much out of it, just tongue-in-cheek.

But honestly, why seperate? Better yet, why seperate from Canada?

Because when Pauline Marois or Andre Boisclair go to Paris they want the red carpet and the French soldiers and the cannon ball roaring ... ;)

Kidding, it is "maitre chez nous", now I won't translate that for you, that would be too easy. If you understand this, it all becomes crystal clear. Good luck! :)

No it doesn't - and that was one of the problems with the question.can you be even more cryptic?

^^ LOL

I guess that I really have to spell it out for you.

The referendum question was fuzzy enough to elicited a "Yes" even though many voters really only wanted to give the Government of Quebec the right to negotiate a better deal for Quebec within Canada. Your prior response implied that anyone who voted "Yes" wanted to separate from Canada. That clearly is not true.

^^
Thank you.
True, some of the people who voted for YES have been duped. Whatever. Some separatists voted NON because they were afraid for their pension/federal jobs, ect. Goes both ways.

About 40% are pure et dure - hardcore separatists
Another 40% federalists
And 20% are in between ...

If you are federalist, you should be shitting in your pants because young people are more independant-prone than ever before.

If you are a separatist (or a militant as PQ likes to call themselves making a vague connections to the opressed groups fighting in Third World), you should be shitting in your pants because Quebec imports more and more immigrants and will do so in the future and those people are generally federalists ...

You have a country, it is called Canada.

Scared? Not at all, I have made my way in the world. And you? Trust me you have a lot more to worry about than me. :)

The real issue is - the one you separatists always need to fudge on - is exactly how will separating from Canada improve the lives of all Quebeckers? Or do you concede that there would be winners and losers?

NO, Canada is not my country! I don'T consider it to be my country. Canada is your country.

Once again...for the millionth time. I,m fully aware that financially we would take a hit in the beginning...but it would be well worth it to have a country that I could be proud of. A country where i wouldn't be a minority.

Me worry? No thanks...i'm not the one who's worried that his country might disintegrate after a part of it decides to leave!

^^ how many times are u going to repeat yourself? lol

NO, Canada is not my country! I don'T consider it to be my country. Canada is your country.

Once again...for the millionth time. I,m fully aware that financially we would take a hit in the beginning...but it would be well worth it to have a country that I could be proud of. A country where i wouldn't be a minority.

Me worry? No thanks...i'm not the one who's worried that his country might disintegrate after a part of it decides to leave!

Congrats! You just scored a big fat zero in explaining how and why a separate Quebec would benefit all Quebeckers. LOL.

Essentially, for you a separate Quebec is all about pride. While it's true that pride is necessary to maintain a delusional state, it isn't something that you can live on.

What is so troubling for you to be a "minority" in Canada?

It is also clear - from your statement - that you would trample on the rights of your minorities.

^Don't expect much reasoning or intellegent conversation on the subject.

The reasons for separation are really very silly and petty, something one would expect from a 2 year old.

To be reasonable though if Quebecers did vote in majority for separation than they should have it.

^^ I agree.

I have respect for Quebecer's who want to leave because they want their own nation.
I have NEVER met a separtist who disliked Canada, they simply want to be masters in their own home.
Years ago I had a friend who was a staunch separatist and he said it quite eloquently........"I think Canada and Quebec would be better best friends than lovers."
Quebecers aren't stupid, they know their economy will take a hit but if they are willing to pay that price and believe in the idea of an independent Quebec than I say good for them, their ideals come before their pocketbook.
The people that REALLY piss me off are the ones who would like to separate but don't due to financial reasons..............aka, Canada means nothing to them except a steady income. If that all Canada is to these people then the only thing I ask of an independent Quebec is that you take these hypocritical pricks with you.

^^ I think that you have been fooled into believing that the true separatists have motives that are strictly honourable. Explain to me how separating would benefit all Quebeckers.

Saying that they just want to be "masters in their own home" (as though they are currently being oppressed) is way too vague. Just what do they want to change?

Saying that they just want to be "masters in their own home" (as though they are currently being oppressed) is way too vague. Just what do they want to change?
For all the executive decisions to be taking place in Quebec city and not in Ottawa. Whether that be international affairs, economy, language issues, education, health, military. That is how I understand it.

^^Can you be anymore cryptic? ;)

So how would the results be different in a way that will improve the lives of all Quebeckers?

^Actually, I follow exactly what he is getting at.

I too as a Torontonian get mad and discouraged at the fact that Ottawa makes decisions that I would rather see in the hands of the city and the province.

I think that most people in Canada have one common complaint, Ottawa's dominion over affairs that they would rather have dealt with by a level of government that is closer to where they happen to be.

Hey, I am just a messanger. I am in Quebec now and that is the vibe I get.
Quebec society is a lot left-wing than Canadian. People expect state intervention like in Europe. Of course this demands a lot of money which is not there, hence strikes, etc. I guess Quebecers expect that money will be there after separation. Why? Francophone media gives me an impression that Quebec is a net loser in the equalization payment process. In other words, what Quebec pays in taxes is nowher near what it gets from federal government investments and equalization payments. For example in the PQ race all participants said that federal government has Quebec's money that is sorely needed for health care and education.

Once again...for the millionth time. I,m fully aware that financially we would take a hit in the beginning...but it would be well worth it to have a country that I could be proud of. A country where i wouldn't be a minority.


If you're so preoccupied about being a minority, I can see why a country like Canada doesn't suit you.

I too as a Torontonian get mad and discouraged at the fact that Ottawa makes decisions that I would rather see in the hands of the city and the province.
Toronto gets fucked in the ass. Hard.
Too bad people are so timid about complaining about it and politicans from Hogtown don't raise the issue.

^Actually, I follow exactly what he is getting at.

I too as a Torontonian get mad and discouraged at the fact that Ottawa makes decisions that I would rather see in the hands of the city and the province.

I think that most people in Canada have one common complaint, Ottawa's dominion over affairs that they would rather have dealt with by a level of government that is closer to where they happen to be.


That's actually beside the point, because several provinces feel that way. If that's truly the main issue, then Quebec would be a lot smarter to team up with other provinces - like Alberta - and get more powers for the provinces without destroying Canada.

^I can agree with that but as I said earlier, you are not going to see alot of rational thought on the matter. From both sides of the fence too.

On another note, I also think that Torontonians are GOING to become more vocal on the matter. Things cannot continue as it has, Federal Equalization has made everybody in this country resent each other. It has been a great threat to national unity.

That's actually beside the point, because several provinces feel that way. If that's truly the main issue, then Quebec would be a lot smarter to team up with other provinces - like Alberta - and get more powers for the provinces without destroying Canada.

Ottawa is a real hardheaded though. Any change must come from Ontario because everybody knows Ontario owns Canada (100 or so votes in Parlament, that is almost a monority government right there). And Ottawa won't budge unless Ontario raises the issue. Alberta and Quebec alliance might work, just don't see Alberta wanting to work with the "separatists". There is too much of anti-Quebec feeling out west for this marriage to surive honeymoon.

I also think that Torontonians are GOING to become more vocal on the matter.
I don't see it. Toronto is slipping with regards to Calgary and Ottawa in almost every regard. And Edmonton is catching up. There are some serious issues facing the city: integration of immigrants, affordable housing, pollution, transit system. I don't think that any other Canadian city (with exception of maybe Montreal) has as much on the plate as Toronto. It sounds egoistic but more money has to stay in TO otherwise there might be problems in the future.

If you want to understand the separatist philosophy, watch this Jacques Parizeau clip.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-1891-12470/politics_economy/1995_referendum/clip9

By the way the separatist behave towards minorities, I am not surprised habsfan does not want to be one.

In order to properly examine the sentiments of Quebec’s relationship with Canada, one must look deeper into the 1995 referendum. It is important to analyze the results of the referendum in relation to the question posed on the ballot, rather than merely the results by itself as they are often sensationalized and not taken into the proper context.

The question posed on the ballot was:
“Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?”

This is an unclear and vague question, one that would not be accepted if posed today under the rules of the Clarity Act. There have been many polls conducted in since 1995 that have shown that there is a firm majority of Quebeckers who, if asked a decisive question such as: “should Quebec become a sovereign nation and succeed from Canada,” would wish to remain part of the country.

It is clear that Quebec is discontent with its current relationship in Canada and thus the separatist movement has risen to a significant minority. This stems from a fundamental argument of position. English Canada regards Quebec as one of 13 provinces and territories, albeit the second most populous province, thus deserving a proportional representation of around 25% in parliament. On the other hand Quebec regards itself as one half of the country thus deserving 50% of the seats in parliament. In other words Quebec’s position states that: Quebec is French Canada, while all other provinces and territories are English Canada, and thus they should be given equal representation in parliament. History would give credit to both sides of this argument. There is no doubt that Quebec would wish to strike a new deal that would give Quebec more standing and power in Ottawa. Whether this new deal is appropriate, necessary, or acceptable—here is where the real debate exists.

I am personally very proud to have Quebec part of our country and I don’t believe Canada would be able to function properly without it. Montreal and Quebec are beautiful cities, and Quebecois culture is one of the most fascinating parts of Canadian heritage.

^^ finally someone who is posting some facts on these forums.

^^ finally someone who is posting some facts on these forums.
you mean 25% vs 50% representation?

pct points are not important, the real debate imo is that Québec always considers itself as a partner of two in this country and not only a linguistic minority.

They are going to leave at some point so I say better now than later.
At some point they will get their 50% + 1.
Just as long as they now it will be done on OUR terms.

BTW, Jacque Parizeau is a prick and Quebecers know it. I think Quebers, federalist and separatist alike, are very embarrsed by the man.

Yes...yes...yes...I'm the rascist one here! You poor ignorant fools! :ohno:

Thread's taking a rehashed and incredibly predictable approach.

^^ This concept of two nations in partnership is outdated - by more than 100 years - and it will never happen no matter how Quebec votes. Who outside of Quebec is the slightest bit interested in such an arrangement?

Quebec's economy is little more that half of Ontario's alone. They're not as important as they feel they are.

Since all the provinces are distinct, their concept of "English Canada" vs. "French Canada" is somewhat artificial. I mean, how similar is a lumberjack Newfie living in Bishop Falls to someone working on the foundations of quantum computing in Waterloo?

or the miner in northern Ontario and the tranny hooker on Queen street.

I mean, how similar is a lumberjack Newfie living in Bishop Falls to someone working on the foundations of quantum computing in Waterloo?
or the miner in northern Ontario and the tranny hooker on Queen street.
All of them are canadian!

or the miner in northern Ontario and the tranny hooker on Queen street.

The miner hooks up with the tranny on weekends. :runaway:

Once again...for the millionth time. I,m fully aware that financially we would take a hit in the beginning...!
This is a point that you continue to bring up. However it appears that the PQ have a very different view. Most of the party appear to be of the belief that the day after separation Quebec will be swimming in billions of extra dollars. In the current leadership race, Pauline Marios made the statement that after separation there would be five years of disruption for Quebec. She was heckled down and later retracted her comments.

The party line is based on Francois Legault study showing Quebec to be $15 Billion better of after 5 years. But reality shows that the day after separation, Quebec would become one of the most heavily indebted countries in the world with debts over $120 Billion.

Who do we believe, a political party looking to gain more power and authority or independent economists?

toofar, just to put things into perspective about Quebecs debt, here's a text treating about Quebec's debt. I hope you can read some french, if not, i'll try to resume it in English.




--------

La dette du Québec représente-t-elle un vrai problème?

La dette du Québec représente 44% de son PIB. Elle se situe nettement en dessous de la moyenne des pays de l'OCDE et même des plus sociaux-démocrates d'entre eux, par exemple les pays nordiques.

En 2003, à l’arrivée au pouvoir à Québec du gouvernement Charest, on parlait d’une dette avoisinant les 109 milliards. Elle est aujourd’hui évaluée à 121 milliards car le gouvernement Charest l’a augmentée de 11 milliards en 2 ans. Cependant, il faut surtout dire que de 1997 à 2005, elle est passée de 52% à 44% du PIB, une nette réduction.

Par ailleurs, il n'est pas sans danger de comparer des dettes. La dette du Québec est composée de 40 milliards de dollars dûs aux régimes de retraite des employés du gouvernement pour payer les retraites futures. Si les autres provinces canadiennes ou les États américains n’ont pas ou ne comptabilisent pas ce genre de paiement à faire dans le futur, la comparaison est fortement biaisée, sinon invalide.

La dette se compose, selon le ministère des Finances du Québec (mars 2005), de 87,2% de titres émis en dollars canadiens, 5,2% en yen, 2,4% en $ US et 5,2% en francs suisses . Nous sommes donc loin d'être dépendants de la dette étrangère. L’État québécois se garantit contre la fluctuation des taux d'intérêt avec des instruments financiers appropriés.

Les douze signataires du manifeste Pour un Québec « lucide » affirment que « notre dette publique par habitant [est] la plus élevée du continent » : attention ! Chiffres du Bureau of the Public Debt à l’appui, la dette publique étasunienne par habitant est au moins comparable et en fait probablement plus élevée que son équivalent au Québec, incluant la partie fédérale. Par ailleurs, comme ces chiffres ne comprennent pas, aux États-Unis, la dette des entreprises qui fournissent dans le privé les services fournis par les régimes publics québécois, le fardeau comparable par habitant est en fait énormément plus élevé aux États-Unis.

D’après le ministère des Finances, 68% de cette dette est à taux fixe, donc insensible aux fluctuations, et plus de 60% est sous forme d'obligations en grande partie possédées par des Québécois. Chaque fois que le gouvernement paie des intérêts à des Québécois ou des Québécoises, il en récupère une bonne partie en impôts.

Une partie importante de la dette québécoise sert à hausser la capacité productive de l'économie nationale. Elle permet le soutien de l’État aux technologies, aux infrastructures, à la recherche fondamentale, à l'éducation, à la qualification de la main d'œuvre, à la diminution des inégalités. Elle peut dans ces cas rapporter plus qu'elle ne coûte en intérêts et services !

Cela ne veut pas dire que l’État doit augmenter inconsidérément la dette publique. Nous soutenons cependant que la dette québécoise ne représente pas, à l’heure actuelle, un problème alarmant comme l’affirme le manifeste de monsieur Bouchard et de ses collègues.

malek, I can manage thanks. Who wrote it? Anyone can spin a story to suite their own agenda.

The point that I was trying to make is that you and I and most economists believe there will be some hard times after separation. However the PQ are not saying this (in public at least), their position is that come separation, all Quebec's problems will be solved, this is terribly naive and irresponsible, and IMO makes them untrustworthy.