Independence for Quebec

Aliksander

New Member
May 19, 2010
23
0
1
Greetings friends,


I would like to discuss a small portion of the Independence movement for Quebec that I have found to be prominent today. I welcome any thoughts that any of you may have, and hope to build a constructive and intelligible argument so that we may all better understand this issue. If anyone has anything to say to me directly, please do not hesitate to email me, especially if there are any other public arenas that may also be suitable for me to use to broadcast my ideas.


Action vs Inaction:

There is a great deal of speculation as to how effective the acquisition of sovereignty will resolve the economic shortcomings of any political body, or, perhaps more importantly, if it will ensure the preservation of Quebec's beautiful culture any better than the previous governing body. Many have said that Quebec's independence would not directly address its own internal struggles, and furthermore, that separating itself from its parent country is more likely to cause additional harm to the already worsening state of Quebec.


Alternately, one cannot ignore Quebec's struggle. History would show that time and time again, the needs of Quebec have been neglected, almost as if to suggest the intent to unravel the cultural differential of Quebec to her sister provinces. Canada's government and constitutional format is designed to serve Canada's majority population, and as the people of Quebec know, they are not the majority population. Pressure from the government is evident in the form of subtle cultural suppression, trade restrictions, and the forced reliance of Canada's Provinces on the Federalist governing body in both a political and economic environment.


So here lies the problem. Confronted with the uncertainty of a future that being a part of Canada entails, what should the people of Quebec do if it is there intention to make a better future for herself, and for her people. From a realistic point of view, both arguments are sound and valid, but there is yet another thought that one must consider. Both arguments are based on speculation. Speculation, though often grounded with facts and statistic, is still only speculation. Any person who operates on the same presumptions that any "speculation" suggests is investing far too much value in humanity's ability to forecast the future. As far as I can see, there are only two realistic options that Quebec has made available to herself.

Option 1. Remain part of the Canadian nation and subscribe to its constitution, economic structure, and societal system. Most political and economic issues that present themselves in Quebec will be at the discretion of the Canadian government. It has already been determined that the societal and political needs of Quebec and Canada differ, which means there will perhaps always be a cultural barrier within Canada's borders so long as Quebec is in its governmental domain.

Option 2. Quebec peacefully but assertively separates itself from its parent nation and assumes control over its own internal struggles. Regardless of the outcome, Quebec will have absolute control over itself with authority invested in its own people, thereby limiting the possibility of economic and legislative blunder at the fault of cultural misunderstanding.


The people of Quebec need to ask themselves how hard they are willing to work at achieving their goals. On the surface, revolution takes the form of territorial dispute, governmental reform, and economic restructure, but at its core, true revolution is always about one thing. The people. If the people of Quebec do not feel that Canada can help them cultivate the greatness inside of them, then one must question which they treasure more: Their life as they know it, or the potential of what they can become.
 

El Barto

les fesses a l'aire
Feb 11, 2007
5,959
66
48
Quebec
Saying 'people of Quebec ' is an exageration.
The politicians of Quebec would be more accurate.
 

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
Yet another thread on seperation. Well, I'll bite...

Alternately, one cannot ignore Quebec's struggle. History would show that time and time again, the needs of Quebec have been neglected, almost as if to suggest the intent to unravel the cultural differential of Quebec to her sister provinces. Canada's government and constitutional format is designed to serve Canada's majority population, and as the people of Quebec know, they are not the majority population. Pressure from the government is evident in the form of subtle cultural suppression, trade restrictions, and the forced reliance of Canada's Provinces on the Federalist governing body in both a political and economic environment.

I'm sorry but there is a lot of almost laughable falsehood in this statement. Quebec has NOT been ignored but rather has been pandered to, pretty much since Wolfe defeated Montcalm. Originally the British governors allowed the influence of the Roman Catholic Church and French civil law to remain, as a way to keep the citizenry content in the face of rising discontent in the southern colonies (i.e. the States). That has been something that has continued throughout Canada's history to a point where, especially in the last 40 years Quebec exerts far more influence than it should based on its population and economic value. Under our present constitution, the Quebec provincial gov't has the ability to invoke the "Not Withstanding" clause to uphold things like the provinces draconian and prejudicial language laws in the name of "protecting Quebec's culture".

Ultimately, if Quebec wants to seperate, it will, but I doubt that it will find itself in the francophone utopia most seperatists try to predict. It will be an island of French in North America, where the rest of Canada will have no reason to maintain the expensive policies of bilingualism. The pressures on Quebecers to speak and conduct business in English, so as to be able to mesh with their two largest neighbours and natural trading partners (the US and Canada) will increase, without the state mandated protection that the province now enjoys.

The economic woes of the province can likely be resolved, if there is sufficient will to do so (but this has not been evident in the last couple decades). This will, however be complicated by ther necessity of resolving the myriad of entanglements the existing relationship the province enjoys with the rest of Canada (things such as interprovincial trade agreements and federal governmental partnerships, not to mention the assumption of their share of the national debt). Another concern will be resolution of native land claims. Combine these elements with a withdrawal of support mechanisms (i.e. federal transfer payments) and Quebec could take a long time to emerge from the economic swamp it is mired in.
 

Slim Chance

Electoral Member
Nov 26, 2009
475
13
18
careful what you wish for Aliksander, you may just get it.

I do find it intensely interesting that your "needs" haven't been met and Quebec's "forced" reliance on other provinces. It would be an excellent experiment to see how these needs and self reliance will magically appear in an independent Quebec.

In the end, I'm certain that any such arrangement of independence will be mutually beneficial, but do remember this; Once the "independent" son leaves Mom and dad's house, there's no running back to raid the fridge or hit up the old-man for rent money... You'll be on your own.
 

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
42
Montreal
So many issues here but let me just start with this.

I believe there is an option 3: Quebec remains in Canada but unites with all other provinces to bring significant change to the way the country is run. I believe all provinces need to be more independent without Ottawa being some sort of parent to us all. One of Canada's big problems is that we send money to Ottawa for it to then be redistributed to the provinces. It makes no sense. Once money goes to Ottawa, it must stay there to be spent on exclusively national issues that are relevant to every single Canadian.

In other words, the provinces should always be collecting the bulk of the income tax because they will be the ones using most of the money anyway.
 

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
42
Montreal
As long as Quebec has the tools to control its own destiny I believe it can very well function inside Canada. Controlling its destiny means doing something to protect the French language. So as long as Quebec can comfortably protect its language within Canada, I believe Quebec can stay in the federation.
 

Slim Chance

Electoral Member
Nov 26, 2009
475
13
18
Perhaps it's time to test this theory. Quebec has had difficulty living within their means for many years now.
 

Aliksander

New Member
May 19, 2010
23
0
1
So many issues here but let me just start with this.

I believe there is an option 3: Quebec remains in Canada but unites with all other provinces to bring significant change to the way the country is run. I believe all provinces need to be more independent without Ottawa being some sort of parent to us all. One of Canada's big problems is that we send money to Ottawa for it to then be redistributed to the provinces. It makes no sense. Once money goes to Ottawa, it must stay there to be spent on exclusively national issues that are relevant to every single Canadian.

In other words, the provinces should always be collecting the bulk of the income tax because they will be the ones using most of the money anyway.

This is just the sort of thing I was hoping to hear. YES, this makes every bit of sense in the world, but I still do not consider it to be a viable option. People have to have faith in their government in order for the government to function, and unfortunately, many people, those both in and out of Quebec are rapidly losing faith in the government's ability to correctly facilitate the priorities of every province effectively. I believe that unification of a people should always be the first option considered when political tension begins to have a noticeable effect on society, but I think that the time for that in this scenario may be past. At this point, we have to ask ourselves which is a more difficult task: Separating Quebec from Canada and producing a self-sufficient country with the capability of Independently operating its own government and economy -- or-- Convincing the people of Quebec that they would NOT be better off as a separate entity from Canada, and somehow granting them the belief that their government is working to rectify the problems that have gone not rectified for many years. I am not trying to argue that the Canadian Government does not have Quebec's best interest at heart. I believe that Canada is a beautiful country that is full of wonderful people, but the government does not serve our interest at this time. At this point, it is a matter of the people's natural right to chose which way they want to be governed, and it should be within the good nature of Canada to grant its people this right if they so desire it.
 

Aliksander

New Member
May 19, 2010
23
0
1
As long as Quebec has the tools to control its own destiny I believe it can very well function inside Canada. Controlling its destiny means doing something to protect the French language. So as long as Quebec can comfortably protect its language within Canada, I believe Quebec can stay in the federation.

This is about far more than a language. As far as I'm concerned, if the language differential was the only issue at hand, such extremes as Independence would not dare be mentioned. This is a cultural phenomenon that has occurred on numerous occasions all over the world, and they almost always end the same. It is the cultural differential that concerns the people of Quebec the most, and moreover, Canada's increasing inability to acknowledge this. Realistically, we cannot expect a nation the size of Canada (territorial and population) to effectively cater to minority populations when there is an overwhelming majority with similar needs amongst themselves. Independence would mean that Canada would no longer have the burden of this political landscape to carry, and Quebec, likewise, would not have to make any concessions for its former sister provinces.

Yet another thread on seperation. Well, I'll bite...


I'm sorry but there is a lot of almost laughable falsehood in this statement. Quebec has NOT been ignored but rather has been pandered to, pretty much since Wolfe defeated Montcalm. Originally the British governors allowed the influence of the Roman Catholic Church and French civil law to remain, as a way to keep the citizenry content in the face of rising discontent in the southern colonies (i.e. the States). That has been something that has continued throughout Canada's history to a point where, especially in the last 40 years Quebec exerts far more influence than it should based on its population and economic value. Under our present constitution, the Quebec provincial gov't has the ability to invoke the "Not Withstanding" clause to uphold things like the provinces draconian and prejudicial language laws in the name of "protecting Quebec's culture".

Ultimately, if Quebec wants to seperate, it will, but I doubt that it will find itself in the francophone utopia most seperatists try to predict. It will be an island of French in North America, where the rest of Canada will have no reason to maintain the expensive policies of bilingualism. The pressures on Quebecers to speak and conduct business in English, so as to be able to mesh with their two largest neighbours and natural trading partners (the US and Canada) will increase, without the state mandated protection that the province now enjoys.

The economic woes of the province can likely be resolved, if there is sufficient will to do so (but this has not been evident in the last couple decades). This will, however be complicated by ther necessity of resolving the myriad of entanglements the existing relationship the province enjoys with the rest of Canada (things such as interprovincial trade agreements and federal governmental partnerships, not to mention the assumption of their share of the national debt). Another concern will be resolution of native land claims. Combine these elements with a withdrawal of support mechanisms (i.e. federal transfer payments) and Quebec could take a long time to emerge from the economic swamp it is mired in.

Your argument is very well-structured, orderly, and intellectually thought out. I agree with the face value of everything you said, but I will remind you, that this is, again, only speculation. You are making predictions based on your own knowledge of the present state of Quebec, and I do not think that is fair. Before the American Revolution, the "States" were just a handful of independent colonies that functioned under the rule of England. Arguably a far lesser candidate for independence than modern-day Quebec, alas, they became a mighty nation. One should never underestimate the will of any people. With the right LEADERSHIP, and a wisely contrived constitution, there is no reason why Quebec should not attain a mighty position in the global economy using nothing more than its own people and resources.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,295
11,385
113
Low Earth Orbit
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out BTW all border jumpers wanting to come back to reality will be shot on site.
 

Aliksander

New Member
May 19, 2010
23
0
1
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out BTW all border jumpers wanting to come back to reality will be shot on site.

That sounds like something an American would say. Who would ever want to be part of a country with people like you in it? And are you really even concerned about the door hitting my ass, or are you just trying to utilize a phrase straight out of 90's pop culture? Why don't you try offering up a real argument before going right for the insult.
 

Aliksander

New Member
May 19, 2010
23
0
1
What about a decentralized federation with more power going to local governments?

Not viable. That would require a complete restructure of the Canadian government solely to accommodate the needs of one province. It is neither logical, nor prudent. It would be easier to allow 1 province to have its independence than it would be to restructure the entire constitutional body of the Canadian government.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Not viable. That would require a complete restructure of the Canadian government solely to accommodate the needs of one province. It is neither logical, nor prudent. It would be easier to allow 1 province to have its independence than it would be to restructure the entire constitutional body of the Canadian government.

Does independence include sovereignty association and shared currency?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Not viable. That would require a complete restructure of the Canadian government solely to accommodate the needs of one province. It is neither logical, nor prudent. It would be easier to allow 1 province to have its independence than it would be to restructure the entire constitutional body of the Canadian government.

You'd be surprised how many English Canadians would like to see a more decentralized system too. Quite often Quebecers and English Canadians speak right past each other without realizing that they're arguing about the same thing.

I'll take one example:

The Bloc Quebecois would like to see Bill 101 apply to all Federal institutions in the Province of Quebec. This would cover crown corporations like Canada Post for example, as well as government offices. The argument is that it would save money and protect the French language in Quebec.

Many English Canadians would love to have the Official Languages Act not apply to Federal institutions and crown corporations in their province as it would save them money too.

Yet though both sides would stand to benefit from it, many English Canadians refuse to submit to this request of Quebec's because they're afraid of agreeing with the Bloc Quebecois on anything. If they could look past the sovereignty rhetoric, you'll find that the Bloc actually does have good ideas that would be just as relevant outside of Quebec as they are in Quebec.
 

Aliksander

New Member
May 19, 2010
23
0
1
Does independence include sovereignty association and shared currency?

There is no reason why it could not include a shared currency. Quebec's proximity to America and the rest of Canada demands that there is some degree of compatibility between all three economies. We have seen models of shared currency among nations with varying levels of success, and it would be an issue that would have to be addressed in later stages of the movement. Personally, I believe that the entire world is going in the direction of a unified, inter-dependent economy. In many ways, we're already there, and a shared currency makes all of the sense in the world, but it is an issue that is ultimately up to the people.
 

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
42
Montreal
This is about far more than a language. As far as I'm concerned, if the language differential was the only issue at hand, such extremes as Independence would not dare be mentioned. This is a cultural phenomenon that has occurred on numerous occasions all over the world, and they almost always end the same. It is the cultural differential that concerns the people of Quebec the most, and moreover, Canada's increasing inability to acknowledge this. Realistically, we cannot expect a nation the size of Canada (territorial and population) to effectively cater to minority populations when there is an overwhelming majority with similar needs amongst themselves. Independence would mean that Canada would no longer have the burden of this political landscape to carry, and Quebec, likewise, would not have to make any concessions for its former sister provinces.

Language is the backbone of culture. Give me any country with a significant separation movement in it, and good chances are they speak a different language than the majority. If not, it's probably a religious issue.

Of course language is not the only issue at hand, but I think it's one of the most fundamental. If Quebecers for some reason had lost the French language after the British Conquest, the cultural differences between Quebec and the rest of Canada would be much weaker.

So in my opinion, if Canada attempts to stop Quebec from protecting its language, than you have a very strong case for separation.
 

Aliksander

New Member
May 19, 2010
23
0
1
You'd be surprised how many English Canadians would like to see a more decentralized system too. Quite often Quebecers and English Canadians speak right past each other without realizing that they're arguing about the same thing.

I'll take one example:

The Bloc Quebecois would like to see Bill 101 apply to all Federal institutions in the Province of Quebec. This would cover crown corporations like Canada Post for example, as well as government offices. The argument is that it would save money and protect the French language in Quebec.

Many English Canadians would love to have the Official Languages Act not apply to Federal institutions and crown corporations in their province as it would save them money too.

Yet though both sides would stand to benefit from it, many English Canadians refuse to submit to this request of Quebec's because they're afraid of agreeing with the Bloc Quebecois on anything. If they could look past the sovereignty rhetoric, you'll find that the Bloc actually does have good ideas that would be just as relevant outside of Quebec as they are in Quebec.


Though there may be a cultural differential within Canada, we are all still human. Inevitably, we will always agree on a number of issues because of how they serve our human interests, but it is not only unpractical, but it is foolhardy for the people of Quebec to sit and wait for the appropriate bills to be proposed and pass in an operate amount of time. If Quebec's needs were as similar as the rest of the provinces, I would not attempt to argue against the efficiency of Canada's lawmaking process, but because of how great the societal differential is, we cannot expect timely, or even effective remedies from the government. Our solutions are going to have to come from within, and we are going to need to have the appropriate amount of power to enact them on our own terms.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Language is the backbone of culture. Give me any country with a significant separation movement in it, and good chances are they speak a different language than the majority. If not, it's probably a religious issue.

Of course language is not the only issue at hand, but I think it's one of the most fundamental. If Quebecers for some reason had lost the French language after the British Conquest, the cultural differences between Quebec and the rest of Canada would be much weaker.

So in my opinion, if Canada attempts to stop Quebec from protecting its language, than you have a very strong case for separation.

Good point. Next only to religion, language is the strongest bond in a community, since after all that's the means via which its members can communicate with one another, and that's no small matter. It determines access to government, jobs, money, resources, justice, the courts, love, marriages, friendship, camaraderie, information, knowledge, data, etc. etc. etc.

A minority language community that fails to learn the majority language will be marginalized and its access to resources will be smaller than the majority's. That's a fact.