Quebec shouldn't separate from Canada

[s_lone]

Nobody knows, but I don't think that's really the issue. The argument was raised during the last referendum campaign that if Quebec opts to separate, all it's entitled to is its original borders from 1867, to which the separatists of course responded no, Quebec is not divisible; that really invalidates their position. If Canada as a sovereign nation is divisible, so must be Quebec as a sovereign nation. If any territorially definable sub-population within Quebec, like the aboriginal people who are the bulk of the population in the north, decide to leave Quebec and either go it alone or rejoin Canada, Quebec's not going to have much of an argument against them.

I can only agree. And I must say that is probably the strongest argument in favor of staying in Canada. Those who say Canada is divisible and Quebec isn't are being hypocrites.

If we did separate however, I don't think it would be as simple as Quebec leaving with 1867 borders. Quebec has got a lot invested in the north of Quebec and losing it would require some form of compensation.

I shudder at thinking how complicated it would be to sort this out.

 

[El Barto]

True. But perhaps the British didn't have much choice than to let the French Canadians have it their way. We were numerous and they would have had a bloody rebellion on their hands had they tried to force French Canadians to british ways.



This argument can go both ways. Separatists will typically say that Quebec is dysfunctional precisely because it's part of Canada and that its identity crisis can only be solved by a country called Quebec.

I personally don't believe Quebec would have more money if it separated. But I do think there's a case to be made for the idea that the country (Quebec) could be much more efficient with working with what it has.

You're exaggerating by saying Quebec cannot properly run with what it already has. Why are you living here in the first place? Surely you must think something is right around here (Quebec)!!!

That is what they want you to believe and try to selll, but what they don't say is Ottawa is sending us more money than we give them. Besides the Quebec government is highly bound by red tape and just that alone cost money.

 

[s_lone]

That is what they want you to believe and try to selll, but what they don't say is Ottawa is sending us more money than we give them. Besides the Quebec government is highly bound by red tape and just that alone cost money.

Quebec does receive equalization payments from Ottawa. But don't forget that no matter how well Canada could be going, someone in Canada will be on the receiving end rather than on the giving end. That doesn't necessarily make the receiving province incapable of making it on its own.

 

[El Barto]

Quebec does receive equalization payments from Ottawa. But don't forget that no matter how well Canada could be going, someone in Canada will be on the receiving end rather than on the giving end. That doesn't necessarily make the receiving province incapable of making it on its own.

if I have figured out what you meant I would say thats not right because wat we pay Ottawa for we would have to pay still as a country. So I basically don't agree unless we don't have an army and don't have unemployment insurance and what ever the federal takes care of. We pay more in taxes than anywhere in this country that should be a clue that we can't manage our own affairs. Only in Quebec can the impliment a PST that is calculated ontop of a GST!
The biggest problem Quebec faces is its own damn government, be it which ever party is in power.

 

[Wombat48]

Because Quebec is entitled to its freedom and independence without having to account to anyone.

 

[AnnaG]

So how about erasing all borders and being one big happy Planet Earth country?

Fine by me.

It just doesn't work that way.

Ofg course not. And that's because there are groups that think they are better than others.

Canadians who diminish Quebecers for wanting to separating are usually the first to recoil in fear at the idea of uniting with the US.

Double standard?

Nope. Different issues. Anglos are not terribly ambitious about turning Francos into Anglos. I would bet that the American administration would be interested in turning Canadians into Americans.

 

[El Barto]

Fine by me. Ofg course not. And that's because there are groups that think they are better than others. Nope. Different issues. Anglos are not terribly ambitious about turning Francos into Anglos. I would bet that the American administration would be interested in turning Canadians into Americans.

That is because we are that good :canada:

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Quebec is not allowed to separate, period. Otherwise it could be war. Anyone who thinks they can break up a country and thinks borders are just minor administrative issues is on drugs. Our whole way of looking at the world will be significantly altered and many of us won't like it. Canada will have its own real political drama.

First off, we should ban the Bloc Quebecois, they are not a party that runs candidates in more than one province, the essence of a federal system.

 

[Risus]

Quebec is not allowed to separate, period. Otherwise it could be war. Anyone who thinks they can break up a country and thinks borders are just minor administrative issues is on drugs. Our whole way of looking at the world will be significantly altered and many of us won't like it. Canada will have its own real political drama.

First off, we should ban the Bloc Quebecois, they are not a party that runs candidates in more than one province, the essence of a federal system.

the Bloc Quebecois are actually traitors and should be charges as such.

 

[El Barto]

the Bloc Quebecois are actually traitors and should be charges as such.

the problem with that is you would have to charge all those that voted for them. A good chunk of those votes are protests votes then for the will of separation.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

the problem with that is you would have to charge all those that voted for them. A good chunk of those votes are protests votes then for the will of separation.

Sure, protest votes are part of democracy. But our federal system is not doing enough to stifle separatism. We have to respond to make votes for separatism a very tough sell, and we don't do that. And we can make these protest votes a tough sell by diluting the message of the BQ.

The BQ needs to be forced to use resources to expand into other provinces, and they will be cool to their platform. Sure, they can have their own party in Quebec, but because they are not a federalist party-i.e. no candidates outside Quebec, they should get no funds from the federal govt like the other federalist parties do. Yet they get federal money, so our politicians pander to separatists. This is so weak.

 

[El Barto]

Sure, protest votes are part of democracy. But our federal system is not doing enough to stifle separatism. We have to respond to make votes for separatism a very tough sell, and we don't do that. And we can make these protest votes a tough sell by diluting the message of the BQ.

The BQ needs to be forced to use resources to expand into other provinces, and they will be cool to their platform. Sure, they can have their own party in Quebec, but because they are not a federalist party-i.e. no candidates outside Quebec, they should get no funds from the federal govt like the other federalist parties do. Yet they get federal money, so our politicians pander to separatists. This is so weak.

If it was that illegal then they wouldn't exsist. BQ came to plat and do you remeber the Reform party out west? This comes to show you that Quebec is not the only one prtesting . The biggest problem is the Federalist way of doing things . It worked back then but seems to be outdate to day. Give the province more power and more of a skeleton body for the Federal.No one knows the exact need for thier province than the province its self.

 

[Cliffy]

If it was that illegal then they wouldn't exsist. BQ came to plat and do you remeber the Reform party out west? This comes to show you that Quebec is not the only one prtesting . The biggest problem is the Federalist way of doing things . It worked back then but seems to be outdate to day. Give the province more power and more of a skeleton body for the Federal.No one knows the exact need for thier province than the province its self.

The federal government should only involve itself with foreign affairs and inter-provincial trade.

 

[El Barto]

The federal government should only involve itself with foreign affairs and inter-provincial trade.

then we agree so far

 

[Cliffy]

then we agree so far

It is my understanding that the BNA gave sovereignty to the provinces and allowed them a central government to deal with foreign affairs. How it all changed, when it was stipulated that this central body was not supposed to make laws or collect taxes, is beyond me. As far as I know, Trudeau's constitution was never ratified by Quebec, so that would make them a sovereign nation and the constitution a worthless piece of paper.

As I can tell, Canada, as a country, does not exist, other than a corporation registered in the US of A selling stocks on the New York stock exchange.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

If it was that illegal then they wouldn't exsist. BQ came to plat and do you remeber the Reform party out west? This comes to show you that Quebec is not the only one prtesting . The biggest problem is the Federalist way of doing things . It worked back then but seems to be outdate to day. Give the province more power and more of a skeleton body for the Federal.No one knows the exact need for thier province than the province its self.

The Reform party's slogan was the "West wants in," which is the opposite of Quebec. I guess Quebec goes to extremes to strip the federal govt of power and many agree with this in principle,they just don't like the separatism part of it. Cutting it a little close perhaps. It leads to political dysfunction like we have now.

 

[El Barto]

The Reform party's slogan was the "West wants in," which is the opposite of Quebec. I guess Quebec goes to extremes to strip the federal govt of power and many agree with this in principle,they just don't like the separatism part of it. Cutting it a little close perhaps. It leads to political dysfunction like we have now.

It sucks the west is neglected. The Bloc party was supposed to be a one term party for the referendum.. odd they found reason to stick around. Tho on the flip side it does give them a different angle to critisize the current government.

Harper is supposed to represent the west and i don't know , doesn't seem to help things much .
Bah , anyway you look at it mp's lack the responsability to represent their citizens. When we start seeing that then we will be in a better position.

 

[countryboy]

It sucks the west is neglected. The Bloc party was supposed to be a one term party for the referendum.. odd they found reason to stick around. Tho on the flip side it does give them a different angle to critisize the current government.

Harper is supposed to represent the west and i don't know , doesn't seem to help things much .
Bah , anyway you look at it mp's lack the responsability to represent their citizens. When we start seeing that then we will be in a better position.

I think the west issue would be helped with an elected senate, depending on how it would be structured.

The Bloc is a tough one for many westerners to swallow, including me. I have a bit of a problem with a party that sits in Parliament with the express objective of destroying it (separating)...that just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Mr. Harper knows where the votes are, so he doesn't have a lot of choice when it comes to doing things to try and get them. The man has a lot of patience and persistence, for sure.

No question the MPs are responsible for representing the citizens, but I've wondered - if I were an MP - how I would go about representing a body of people that can't agree on much, most of the time. I mean, where would you even start? That is why I don't do a lot of criticizing of the MPs...I can't really come up with suggestions on how they could do that (usually impossible) job better.

 

[El Barto]

I think the west issue would be helped with an elected senate, depending on how it would be structured.

The Bloc is a tough one for many westerners to swallow, including me. I have a bit of a problem with a party that sits in Parliament with the express objective of destroying it (separating)...that just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Mr. Harper knows where the votes are, so he doesn't have a lot of choice when it comes to doing things to try and get them. The man has a lot of patience and persistence, for sure.

No question the MPs are responsible for representing the citizens, but I've wondered - if I were an MP - how I would go about representing a body of people that can't agree on much, most of the time. I mean, where would you even start? That is why I don't do a lot of criticizing of the MPs...I can't really come up with suggestions on how they could do that (usually impossible) job better.

Yes The Senate should be totally independant and not appointed. I couldn't agree with you more. At least it would be a less biased representation.

Harper ...oh boy , but then again when was the last really good prime minister ? I'm stumped to answer that.

The Bloc tho i don't exactly agree that they are breaking up the country. The sepreatis party are not in power in Quebec and I doubt they will seriously look at a referendum unless the federal gov screws something up badly. The Bloc mind you are voting for the interest of Quebec , sometimes that may mean good for the rest of the country too. Quebec isn't always on the opposite side. But yeah they are seperatist .

MP's if they were allowed to vote according to their conscious then we would have a true democracy. The prime ministers should be there to inspire not dominate.
Here in my provice , town councils are the one that leads and the mayor carrys out the will of the council. he has the power to slice when there's a stale mate per se. I think that is the way it should be. IMO

 

[countryboy]

Yes The Senate should be totally independant and not appointed. I couldn't agree with you more. At least it would be a less biased representation.

Harper ...oh boy , but then again when was the last really good prime minister ? I'm stumped to answer that.

The Bloc tho i don't exactly agree that they are breaking up the country. The sepreatis party are not in power in Quebec and I doubt they will seriously look at a referendum unless the federal gov screws something up badly. The Bloc mind you are voting for the interest of Quebec , sometimes that may mean good for the rest of the country too. Quebec isn't always on the opposite side. But yeah they are seperatist .

MP's if they were allowed to vote according to their conscious then we would have a true democracy. The prime ministers should be there to inspire not dominate.
Here in my provice , town councils are the one that leads and the mayor carrys out the will of the council. he has the power to slice when there's a stale mate per se. I think that is the way it should be. IMO

Good points, EB. I don't have a clue as to how to define a "good Prime Minister", given the incredible array of extreme political beliefs around the country. I would have to say that we have never actually had a good PM, in the eyes of the whole country. I have liked some, of course, but that opinion would be torn to shreds by others. Tough job. And a damned sad commentary on the "united" condition of our country.

Don't take me wrong on the Bloc...I'm not an "anti-Quebec" guy by any stretch...quite the opposite. I've been in Quebec lots of times and used to do biz there. Great place! I, like you, prefer Quebec City...I used to stay in a small hotel in old Quebec and had a ball in the evenings, visiting some of those really choice restaurants and just strolling up and down the streets. It is a very unique city.

Anyway, my comment wasn't about the Bloc representing Quebec's interests, per se. But, I do have a problem when Gilles D. pokes his face into my TV screen and tells me that the reason his party exists is for the separation of Quebec. In spite of the fact that I think he is a pretty cool guy (good political performer, and probably quite likeable, personally), I simply can't understand how the rules can or should allow a party to sit in the House of Commons, helping to pass legislation for a country they're trying to essentially break up. No logic to that picture, in my opinion.

On the MP situation, I couldn't agree with you more...if they were allowed so-called "free votes" (or if it became a rule) to best represent each constituency, the quality of the results would very likely increase. But, I'm still stumped as to how an MP could "vote for the majority of his/her constituents, given the extreme splits of opinions we seem to hear about constantly. The splits exist within many of the ridings, based on some of the election results I've seen over the past few years.

I think the problem lies within "us", more so than the MPs. We go at it fairly hot and heavy during election campaigns to state our viewpoints...in fact, I guess we do it all the time. Nothing wrong with making our opinions known and standing up for what we believe, but I wonder what would happen if our "sense of compromise and empathy" was magically increased by 20% or 25% overnight? For sure, the bloody "news" media would be shaking their heads in bewilderment...and if it shut them up a bit, so much the better.

So, I guess I'm still empathetic (maybe more like sympathetic) toward the average MP...how do you represent people who are "together" on very little? Or so it seems to me. I have no answer to that question...