Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
The Nation of Quebec
saggio
Registered User
Registered User
So, as you may have heard, Prime Minister Harper stood up in the Commons yesterday and announced that he believed Quebec was a nation within Canada.
A motion had been put forth earlier by the Bloc Quebecois that called for Parliament to recognize Quebec as a nation, period. All three federalist parties within Parliament gave Harper a standing ovation and agreed with calling Quebec a nation within Canada. The Bloc denounced the move, and put forward another motion today (Nov. 23) that attempted to recognize Quebec as a nation by itself.
Now, all this comes on the heels of a controversial statement made by Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff. He's the Harvard intellectual and Iraqi war apologist who came back to Canada to try his hand at federal politics. He stated awhile ago (a week? two weeks? I can't remember) that we should recognize Quebec as a nation and enumerate it within the Constitution.
Along with Ignatieff's statements earlier, the Quebec wing of the Liberal party is apparently preparing a resolution (to be voted on at the Leadership Conference) that would have the Liberal party officially recognize Quebec as a nation (not unlike Rene Levesque's motion so many years ago).
Now, nearly 20 years ago, Prime Minister Mulroney (complete asshole that he was) sought to erase the ill-will Quebeckers had felt since the Night of Long Knives, when Quebec was abandoned by the Gang of Eight. He proposed the first constitutional amendment since repatriation, under Trudeau. This was called the Meech Lake Accord. It wasn't very extensive, but included five or so major reforms:
* a recognization of the province of Quebec as a "distinct society";
* a restoration of Constitutional Veto;
* increased provincial powers with respect to immigration;
* extension and regulation of the right for a reasonable financial compensation to any province that chooses to opt out of any future federal programs; and
* provincial input in appointing senators and Supreme Court judges. #
The most important bit in there is the "distinct society" clause. This would, in essence, recognize that Quebec was not only a province, but is distinct in character and responsibility (regarding language and culture). The Accord failed when Newfoundland and Labrador pulled out, and then retired Prime Minister Trudeau spoke publicly against it.
Well, Mulroney tried again. This time, there was a much more comprehensive package of reforms. This was called the Charolettetown Accord, and included most things in Meech, but also had more substansial moves on Senate reform and native and women's rights. This time, Mulroney called a national referendum (only the second in Canadian history). It was rejected in all provinces except PEI. The failure of the Accord helped to started two new major regional parties - the Bloc Quebec ois lead by Lucien Bouchard, and awestern populist party, the Reform Party (which had been founded in the 80's) lead by Preston "Reeeeefooooorrrmmmm!!!" Manning.
Everything came to a head during the second Quebec referendum on sovereignty in 1995 (the first being in 1982). Quebeckers voted 50.6% in favour of staying in Canada, with 49.4% against. On the eve of the vote, Prime Minister Chretien went on national television and guaranteed 'constitutional renewal' to the people of Quebec, and Canada at large. That resulted in the Clarity Act - the legislative embodiment of a hypothetical question referenced to the Supreme Courtby Chretien. I won't go into the details here, but it basically states that on a clear question, and with a clear majority (both of which aren't defined), the Government of Canada would have a 'moral obligation' to negotiate with the Government of Quebec, but not a legal one (it also ruled that Quebec could not unilaterally secede).
Now, up until a few weeks ago, politicians (except Andre Boisclair and Gilles Duceppe) stayed the hell away from any talk about Quebec as a distinct society or 'constitutional renewal'. It's becoming more of an issue now with the looming provincial election in Quebec, where federalist premier Jean Charest is expected to be defeated by the newly minted leader of the Parti Quebecois, Andre Boisclair. Boisclair has stated publicly that he will ignore the Clarity Act, and have a referendum during his term, if elected.
So, fellow PA Forumers...What do you think? Do you think that Canada should recognize Quebec as a nation or distinct society within Canada? If so, why?
For my part, I struggle with a very strong feeling of Western Canadian (and British Columbian specifically) nationalism (Republic of Western Canada forever!), but also a very Trudeau-like conception of federalism. I do not think Quebec should be recognized in Canada as a nation - not when there are other, legitimately sovereign peoples without such recognition today (First Nations, Metis, Inuit...). I am against giving any special status to any province. I believe that the legal repercussions of having Quebec as a distinct society are immense, and could lead to the disintergration of the Confederation.
Discuss.
Harper wrote:"Our position is clear. Do the Québécois form a nation within Canada? The answer is yes. Do the Québécois form an independent nation? The answer is no and the answer will always be no."
A motion had been put forth earlier by the Bloc Quebecois that called for Parliament to recognize Quebec as a nation, period. All three federalist parties within Parliament gave Harper a standing ovation and agreed with calling Quebec a nation within Canada. The Bloc denounced the move, and put forward another motion today (Nov. 23) that attempted to recognize Quebec as a nation by itself.
"It isn't up to the prime minister to decide what Quebecers will choose as an option. It's up to Quebecers. The refusal to recognize the Quebec nation, the refusal to acknowledge an obvious reality, is something that we could call a blockage in Canada. Never will I accept that the only condition to be a nation is to recognize the right to remain in Canada."
Now, all this comes on the heels of a controversial statement made by Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff. He's the Harvard intellectual and Iraqi war apologist who came back to Canada to try his hand at federal politics. He stated awhile ago (a week? two weeks? I can't remember) that we should recognize Quebec as a nation and enumerate it within the Constitution.
Michael Ignatieff wrote:"Other candidates have said … recognizing Quebec as a nation in the Constitution is too difficult. Yes, it's difficult, but we must do it."
Along with Ignatieff's statements earlier, the Quebec wing of the Liberal party is apparently preparing a resolution (to be voted on at the Leadership Conference) that would have the Liberal party officially recognize Quebec as a nation (not unlike Rene Levesque's motion so many years ago).
Now, nearly 20 years ago, Prime Minister Mulroney (complete asshole that he was) sought to erase the ill-will Quebeckers had felt since the Night of Long Knives, when Quebec was abandoned by the Gang of Eight. He proposed the first constitutional amendment since repatriation, under Trudeau. This was called the Meech Lake Accord. It wasn't very extensive, but included five or so major reforms:
* a recognization of the province of Quebec as a "distinct society";
* a restoration of Constitutional Veto;
* increased provincial powers with respect to immigration;
* extension and regulation of the right for a reasonable financial compensation to any province that chooses to opt out of any future federal programs; and
* provincial input in appointing senators and Supreme Court judges. #
The most important bit in there is the "distinct society" clause. This would, in essence, recognize that Quebec was not only a province, but is distinct in character and responsibility (regarding language and culture). The Accord failed when Newfoundland and Labrador pulled out, and then retired Prime Minister Trudeau spoke publicly against it.
Well, Mulroney tried again. This time, there was a much more comprehensive package of reforms. This was called the Charolettetown Accord, and included most things in Meech, but also had more substansial moves on Senate reform and native and women's rights. This time, Mulroney called a national referendum (only the second in Canadian history). It was rejected in all provinces except PEI. The failure of the Accord helped to started two new major regional parties - the Bloc Quebec ois lead by Lucien Bouchard, and awestern populist party, the Reform Party (which had been founded in the 80's) lead by Preston "Reeeeefooooorrrmmmm!!!" Manning.
Everything came to a head during the second Quebec referendum on sovereignty in 1995 (the first being in 1982). Quebeckers voted 50.6% in favour of staying in Canada, with 49.4% against. On the eve of the vote, Prime Minister Chretien went on national television and guaranteed 'constitutional renewal' to the people of Quebec, and Canada at large. That resulted in the Clarity Act - the legislative embodiment of a hypothetical question referenced to the Supreme Courtby Chretien. I won't go into the details here, but it basically states that on a clear question, and with a clear majority (both of which aren't defined), the Government of Canada would have a 'moral obligation' to negotiate with the Government of Quebec, but not a legal one (it also ruled that Quebec could not unilaterally secede).
Now, up until a few weeks ago, politicians (except Andre Boisclair and Gilles Duceppe) stayed the hell away from any talk about Quebec as a distinct society or 'constitutional renewal'. It's becoming more of an issue now with the looming provincial election in Quebec, where federalist premier Jean Charest is expected to be defeated by the newly minted leader of the Parti Quebecois, Andre Boisclair. Boisclair has stated publicly that he will ignore the Clarity Act, and have a referendum during his term, if elected.
So, fellow PA Forumers...What do you think? Do you think that Canada should recognize Quebec as a nation or distinct society within Canada? If so, why?
For my part, I struggle with a very strong feeling of Western Canadian (and British Columbian specifically) nationalism (Republic of Western Canada forever!), but also a very Trudeau-like conception of federalism. I do not think Quebec should be recognized in Canada as a nation - not when there are other, legitimately sovereign peoples without such recognition today (First Nations, Metis, Inuit...). I am against giving any special status to any province. I believe that the legal repercussions of having Quebec as a distinct society are immense, and could lead to the disintergration of the Confederation.
Discuss.
saggio on
Posts
EDIT: I actually want to know. I've never heard an argument for why Quebec should be separate, except 'pas de place pour les anglais'.
*The rest of Canada, now having lost a very large province, is going to get very angry at Quebec. (The Quebec supporters? Guess who just seceded.)
*The rest of Canada is split into two regions, separated by Quebec:
1. Newfoundland, Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
2. Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario.
In order for residents of one region to get to the other region, they have to go through Quebec. Have to. You don't have to be an expert on the politics of ANY nation to know that making people go through a nation that recently seceded from theirs to get from one part of their country to the other is not a desirable scenario.
Well, that depends on what constitutes Quebec territory. The vast majority of territory (basically everything north of the St. Lawrence Valley and the Gaspe) was given to Quebec in the 50's. The population is almost entirely native or Inuit (mostly Cree), and they voted 98% in favour of staying in Canada last time. But you do have a point.
But I'm sure the major cities would still be "Quebec".
I partly agree - recognising Québec as a nation-within-a-nation but not other equally deserving but smaller/more quiet nations is wrong. But I think the correct solution is the opposite of yours; not to ignore every nation, but to extend this special status to all of them. If they deserve this status, they should have it.
You worry that recognising the uniqueness of Québec within Canada could lead to the disintegration of the Confederation. I'd say the opposite. Ignoring or actively refusing to recognise it is what could lead to separation. If the people of Québec believe they have no future in Canada - which is what will happen in that case - they will vote yes at the next referendum. If they think that Québec's national identity is safe in Canada, they won't. Keep in mind that the "pure and hard" sovereignists, those who want sovereignty at any cost, are a minority (less than 30%), as are those who want to stay in Canada at any cost. The majority are moderates who'll take whichever side is the most advantageous. They're the ones you'll win with things like this resolution, and they're the ones you'll lose if you ignore the national debate, and they're the ones who'll decide the issue of the next referendum.
More simply, is this action necessary for something other than the conference of extra-special-super-sayen-province status on Quebec?
edit: cause if not then Texas might just follow suit.
Unique language and history, unique social setup and mentality. They really are a society different from the rest of Canada.
To be clear, the question they asked themselves was "If Québec separates, do you want to go with them or stick with Canada?"
That was then. One thing you have to give to the Sovereignists is, they didn't waiste the past 10 years. While the Party Québécois was in power (which was most of the last decade) they negociated and signed various deals and treaties between the Native populations and the provincial government, which greatly advanced the Native status. And the Natives appreciated it - in the last election, one Native leader came out and publicly supported the PQ.
Given another referendum, they'll be asking themselves, "If Québec separates, do you want to go with them and keep all the treaties we have, or stick with Canada and negociate everything again from zero?" Granted, Canada can score points by promising to honour the treaties Québec signed, but even then I don't expect another massive 98% pro-Canada victory.
He's not the only one. Most provincial leaders, including current Liberal Premier Jean Charest, said they will not recognise the Clarity Act.
The rest of me hopes they secede, just so they can be a crappy little country on their own and I can laugh at them. Us Americans may poke fun at Canada in general, but I'm pretty sure we've got no respect for Quebec whatsoever.
Which is fine, because then we don't have to deal with Auckland kekekekeke XD
You mean, this specific action, or the Québec sovereignist movement in general?
If you mean this specific action, it is the result of a series of recent events that started when Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff said Québec should be recognised as a nation. This caused controversy among Liberals, with the main divisions between the Québec Liberals for whom Québec is obviously a nation, Trudeau Liberals for whom Québec is obviously not a nation, and Western Liberals who can't decide if they hate Québec or Trudeau more. The other leadership candidates tried to weight in, which only helped keep the issue on the front page of all the papers, and as the date of an upcoming leadership debate in Québec of all places loomed closer, things just weren't getting better.
The Bloc Québécois, always looking to score points but more so now after their surprising setback last election, seised the opportunity to embarass the government and rally Québécois by proposing a federal motion recognising Québec as a nation. They knew full well that such a motion would be supported by a majority of Québécois but firmly voted down by Ottawa, thus hopefully rallying people to their side. So Harper fought back by proposing a motion recognising Québec as a nation within Canada, something that is acceptable to both Ottawa and a majority of Québécois. I must hand it to him, it was a quite brilliant political move. It defeats the Bloc's move, diffuses a potentially explosive situation, shows the Conservatives cleaning up a Liberal mess, and gives the Conservatives something to campaign on next election.
If you mean the Québec sovereignist movement in general, then it gets a little complicated...
I have nothing but contempt for the seperatists. Quebec is treated with kid gloves in this country and we're constantly falling over our selves to give Quebec special treatement and privlidges. And frankly, I always suspect theres alot of cultural elitism and racism hiding under that "seperatist" label. Money and the ethnic vote, etc.
I'm actually off to bed, sorry. Wikipedia has some good articles (or they seem good, I've just skimmed over them) on the topic of the origins of Québec nationalism and of the Quebec sovereignty movement. They seem to cover all the points and contain all the relevent historical developments.
Your question can't be easily answered, as there is more than one beef. There is a historical aspect, a social/cultural aspect, a political aspect and an economic aspect to Québec sovereignty.
Ha Ha, beat you to it.
Damn, should make sure to read all the posts.
But still, since two of the major countries in the North American continent have areas that were historically seperate nations or have strong seperate cultures, would this cause a domino effect?
At the same time, the larger a country is, and the more diverse its population, the harder it is to govern.
If they do manage it a few good things will potentially happen:
1. Another referendum will be held in which most of northern Quebec and Montreal will re-join Canada. If the northern referendum fails then Canada will likely honor some of the Native claims to that region provided they can prevent it from impacting other claims, thus preventing the region from ever leaving.
2. The rest of Quebec leaves and has to support itself with its own economy. Which fails spectacularly after about 3 years. All of which has been kindly funded by the United States government as a humanitarian effort. Simply put they have more money than us and know how to use it.
3. Quebec either becomes a third world country out of spite or joins the United States, either by being subtlety bought out by companies over the years or as a means of settling their massive debt. Alternately they could also try to rejoin Canada but given the massive financial black hole they would represent it seems doubtful.
Keep in mind of course that Quebec politicians are amazing by comparison to the rest of the political arena in Canada. They very much view politics as a business in which the province must profit as much as possible. They have done exceedingly well so far in terms of finances and benefits gained for Quebec thus far. Consider the fact that Quebec gets somewhere between 30%-50% of all federal money given to provinces. They also have a government sanctioned and controlled monopoly on a number of local economic fronts (some neighboring province product markets etc).
The Quebec as a nation in Canada but not another distinct nation is meant to placate the marginal separatists. It is most likely aimed at those that resent having to learn English for their jobs or use English in the workplace or other such slightly discontented folk.
I am surprised that Harper would do this though, I would have expected it from Chrétien but not from a Conservative government. I'm guessing that the a number of the other provinces will make similar bids though, just because they can. Manitoba and Alberta, among others, are not happy with Quebec in general methinks and this isn't likely to improve their opinions.
Then again, apparently not. I'm not Canadian, but from the looks of things, it boils down to:
A. Quebec wants to be a seperate nation
B. Canada wants that about as much as any country wants a big middle portion of itself to become another country.
They may whine and complain but I cannot ever see it happening through proper channels, and that's all they've got. What are they going to do, revolt?
I somehow think that if the South got together and decided to secede again, the North would probably be a lot more amenable.
And the idea of America giving up any of its stuff without a fight is ridiculous.
Other stuff I heard, is that if Quebec does separate, than all the Natives will claim back their land, which is a lot of Quebec, leaving them with only a small part of their province.
SO they basically become screwed.
3DS: 2852-6809-9411
If they wanted to separate, then fine, whatever. Good luck being your own nation. But still getting money from the country you just separated from? Fuck, no.
That being said, I would be interested to know if when Canada first became a country, and not a British colony, did we still have money given to us by the British?
Oh, to be in Professor Simeon's class this year . . . it would be, interesting.
It's not necessarily opposed to "Building A Strong and United Canada", there are just two different schools of thought on how we do that - do we "build in" (the Trudeau vision where Quebec is firmly incorporated into the nation of Canada) or "build out" (the Mulroney vision where Quebec is given certain powers and recognition to pre-empt full-blown independence).
For me, Ignatieff's interest in re-opening the debate was his biggest flaw. I've always seen things from Trudeau's perspective, and the liberal notion of recognising the rights of individual Canadians to to their language, heritage, etc. (i.e. "building in") rather than nations and groups, which always seems like a substantial step backwards in a modern liberal democracy.
On the other hand, over the past year I've done a lot of work on constitutional arrangements and have found myself advocating structures not different than what Harper - or Ignatieff - are saying. This is for other countries of course - Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. - but having worked with Richard Simeon (brilliant political scientist, heavily involved in Meech and Charlottetown as a proponent of "building out") over the past year, and naturally wanting to avoid being a hypocrite, I can't dismiss the idea out of hand.
Still, I really don't like it, and can only blame Ignatieff for bringing it up and prompting this response from Harper (to protect the Conservative gains in Quebec).
Granted, Québec does not have the economy of Ontario or Alberta, which is why it is on the receiving end of the transfer payments. And granted, companies tend to leave before a referendum, and that trend would increase after. And with the need to buy back federal installation and setup a new federal government, Québec will have a tough first few years.
But Québec has a modern economy and diversified economy, with a well-developed high-tech R&D industry. Some parts of it will suffer or move away, but it's too big and varied to suddently collapse all at once. Overall I have no doubt it will pull through. Québec also has a strong natural ressource industry. Forrest, mining, aluminium production, hydroelectricity... none of this stuff is going anywhere after sovereignty. It's physically impossible.
Wikipedia has, of course, a brief page on this.
This may play a role in the "how", from a legal standpoint, and is certainly something that pissed off Québec, but the "why" is a lot older than that.
See my post last page about the Natives and the treaties and all that. The idea that the Natives will take their land and go back to Québec is a lot less sure now than it was in 95. And if they do, well the land is sparsely populated and little developped, so it wouldn't be a major hit. It's mostly needed for hydroelectricity and natural ressources, the exploitation rights of which is part of the treaties signed between the Native tribes and Québec. I think it's a safe bet that both sides will want these treaties to stay in place, as both sides profit from them, so even if Québec doesn't keep the territory it'll keep the money it gets from it.
Canada should let them secede, let them know they can no longer use canadian currency and tell them good luck. They'll come crawling back.
The U.S. would probably handle it a bit differently. We'd tell them they better not secede. When they do, we'd surround them with the U.S. armed forces and re-take the territory with sanctions.
Texas seceding? Rofl. What are they going to do? Join Mexico?
"There is not a man of us who does not at times need a helping hand to be stretched out to him, and then shame upon him who will not stretch out the helping hand to his brother."