If you read most of the posters here that are from outside of Quebec looks like they wouldn't oppose much.
A two-state solution for Canada?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
ahh. then if a referendum would occur it would have to be a huge majority at best. The 50% plus one vote is not democracy. I am sure there would be some kind of revolt.
The anglo exodus that occured when the PQ first came to power was a near sighted action reducing the federalist numbers when it was dearly needed during the refferendum.
That's where a common citizenship would come in. Sure civil servants in BC might not be required to know French anymore, but then again, how useful would French be to a monolingual Quebecer in BC who can communicate only with the odd French teacher and civil servant, but otherwise not be able to function at all?
Those with skills and who do know both languages would be just as free as they are now to move to wherever they want to across Canada. In some respects, this is something I could see both sovereignists (except possibly the most hard-core among them) and federalists agreeing. With a common citizenship and passports, federalists would still be just as free as they are now to move across Canada. But I do admit that I would be concerned with hard-core sovereignists deciding on a total split including citizenship. This would destroy Ottawa's and Gatineau's economy. The good news though is that since it would hurt Quebec's economy just as much if not more than the rest of Canada's, I'm confident that saner minds would prevail among the sovereignist camp that would recognize the strong federalist presence in Quebec even if a significant majority voted to split (after all, a large minority is still significant), and the strong economic, cultural, and family ties on both sides of the border.
I'm outside of Quebec, but just barely (Ottawa, literally walking distance to Quebec from downtown). For that reason, I'd rather a united decentralist federal Canada, since I'm well aware of the economic and other havoc total separation could potentially cause. So first off, I'm a decentralist federalist.
That said, violent rhetoric on either side as to what how to react in the event of separation worries me. Sure I'd rather Quebec not separate. On the other hand, I also recognize that should it ever occur, that we'd be wise to negotiate some kind of mutually-beneficial settlement, otherwise the Ottawa region would quickly degenerate into a no-man's land. So seeing that I live on the border myself, even if outside of Quebec, it would very much be in my own pragmatic interest to ensure that should separation be inevitable, that it be done on amicable terms while also ensuring the least disruption to those living on either side of the border.
What is dearly needed is the for Feds to grow some balls and the Quebec Nationalist to say "No." to the bullsht language police state that presently exists.
Quebec culture is safe and need not be protected by language censorship.
In my view, Canada should take a view of federalism that more actively favours the national level. There are several powers reposed in our federal structure that would give our national government a clear procedural advantage over the provincial level, as it should be.
We should return to a system where the Governor General-in-Council is not so reluctant to disallow provincial bills when they are contrary to the national interest. Moreover, the Lieutenant Governors should return to being representatives of the Governor General of Canada, and therefore federal agents.
We should return to a system where the Governor General-in-Council is not so reluctant to disallow provincial bills when they are contrary to the national interest. Moreover, the Lieutenant Governors should return to being representatives of the Governor General of Canada, and therefore federal agents.
Quebec culture isn't safe , but no language law can protect it as it is slowly degenreating from with in. Thanks to the PQ and over educated views on education french is badly taught. It is a shame that my Father with a grade 4 education can read and write better than some university students.
We have an up coming generation that seem to want to abreiviate everything.
It isn't exactly as simple as you're suggesting by any stretch.
First, the UN won't even consider it. Not only does the China that sits on the UNSC have specific feelings about breakaway provinces, it would have serious questions about that arrangement meeting the requirements for statehood.
Second, you need to recognize that the only reason "Canada" exists at this point is constitutional inertia. With all due respect, the only realistic options are:
1. Remain in constitutional stasis, remaining exactly as we've been since confederation.
2. Total dissolution of confederation.
Like most people in the west, I'm rather unimpressed with Trudeau and how he acted while PM. While I don't share the blind hatred that most have for him, perhaps the worst thing he did was rush the patriation of the BNA in 1982 as to create his "legacy". Not only did rushing it cause a "Charter of Compromise", it completely ignored the real and pressing problem of confederation up to that point, which was and is, the division of powers under ss.91, 92. The division of powers dominated constitutional matters from 1867 onwards. Trudeau was a highly intelligent and respected constitutional scholar, so he can't exactly claim he was unaware. There was also no reason to push it past in 1982, other than Trudeau recognizing that he needed a "legacy". Really, what should have happened in 1982 was a constitutional congress of the provinces, drafting a blank page constitution. Actually, it should have happened in 1931, after the Statute of Westminster. The problem was that none of the provinces could even pretend they were ever going to get an agreement that all 9/10 could live with.
While you have outlined things like common defence and citizenship, which clearly benefit Central Canada and the Atlantic provinces, I'm not clear why you think it would benefit places like Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC. How would they benefit from allowing open access to their markets and territory? Putting this gently, Central Canada is going to have to sweeten the deal to get the west to sign on with that. The problem is that BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan don''t need anything that Central Canada has and putting this gently, all three are vastly richer than the Canadians. Could you outline for me what you see as the benefits accruing to the west from this deal?
I'm somewhat dubious that you could get universal agreements of any sort between the provinces. You have to remember that most provinces have a constitutional bargaining position of "We don't care what we get, as long as it is more than everybody else.". Kind of hard to arrange that.
While places like Alberta and Newfoundland might embrace this type of change, some parts of the country (specifically Ontario but other places as well) would reject it as being far too similar to the structure of the states in the US.
OK, you as a happy happy francophone can claim the exodus was short sighted, but many of those who left were moving to look after their families: how much threat to your family and way of life would you be willing to endure? Many of those also left, following their jobs because the business world hates uncertainty, which is what the PQ brought and continues to bring. Yes there are French businesses, but they are fewer b/c their markets are generally smaller, and where would a company like Bombardier be, without the massive federal grants and contracts (which were a not-so-subtle bribe by the Feds to keep industry alive in Quebec and demonstrate that to Quebecers) that allowed them to survive and develop? You like to call people out on the speculation of what may happen, when you guilty of speculating on why things have happened.
What the impotent body known as the UN does or wants, should bear no relevance as to what Canadians decide to do with their country. The same goes for China: they have the right to accept what we decide we want to do and to shut the hell up.
I totally agree. I think the major reason we are in "constitutional stasis" is that everyone realized in the '80s that no one was willing to give any more ground in negotiations. Thats why any number of proposals that would require constitutional ammendment, from senate reform, to adjusting the structure of parliament and how it answers to the GG, the selection processes for various offices, and even dissociation from the monarchy are non-starters, as there isn't enough agreement on ANY issue.
So because none of us can agree on these issues, we should all just shut up and let Canada slowly rot in its stagnation?
It seems to me that our unsolved constitutional issues should give you a clue that we should either keep working at improving the situation or simply accept that Canada should loosen up (decentralize) and give more independence to all provinces.
No, if none of us can agree, it shows we don't have as much common ground as many want to believe. Without that common ground or willingness to compromise, the relationship is doomed.
So would you be in for another round of Constitutional negotiations? Do you think it's possible that a majority of Canadians (including Quebecers) could agree to decentralize all Canada in favour of provincial independence (with no special status for anyone)?
It's clear Quebec would be on board. Alberta and Newfoundland too it seems to me... That would account for about 35% of the population. Could BC be interested in that too? With BC we'd be pretty close to half the population. Who else could be interested in that?
Where's the speculation? it happened. This is not only my opinion but that of the Anglo friends that I know . Some did leave due to jobs , but some were born and raised here in the exodus too.
A previous poster usggested each province getting a seat in the UN. If the provinces want to join the club of international politics, they have to accept playing by the rules. Part of those rules include dealing with the existing politics of the other members(And in the case of Taiwan, non-members).
There is already substantial agreement on lots of issues, but there are some huge problems that even a lone holdout will prevent from passage into the constitution. No matter how obvious or needed a change is, in varying degrees from unanimous among the provinces(eg. Abandoning our heritage in the monarchy), to requiring 7 provinces with 50% of the population for major changes and lone provinces if only that province is affected, there isn't going to be a change that is made on it's own. That was one of the major flaws in Meech Lake and Charlottetown: They literally promised everything to everyone, regardless of how badly those promises conflicted with each other. Sadly, that was also how confederation was drafted in the BNA, which is why the whole document is a study in contradictions and conflicting approaches.
Worse, there is no method to limit proposed amendments. For example, if a good amendment is identified, even if everybody agrees to it, there are several provinces that are dug in demanding some pretty severe changes to the constitution in different areas. Those provinces simply will not support a good amendment unless their position is included in the process. Since some of those positions are simply never going to be accepted by other provinces, the entire thing is unworkable. Famed commentator Rafe Mair referred to this state as being "constiutionally constipated", which is an apt expression to describe it.
Quebec; I think they would be the most resistant province of all to a constitutional conference. I suspect they would refuse to attend on principle. In the accepted Quebec political theory, they are not merely one of ten provinces. The idea of negotiating with Victoria as a "peer" totally invalidates this. When you couple this perception with the fact that under confederation as it stands, Quebec and Ontario drain off billions of dollars from the other 8 provinces, they are going to be severely resistant to any meaningful change in confederation. Remember, Quebec has never asked for independence: They are seeking soveriegnty-association. Or Assymetrical federalism. Or Distinct Society. Or whatever they call it this week.
Ontario; Absolute zero interest for exactly the same reasons as Quebec.
BC; First, you'd need to get our attention. That would be a hard thing to arrange. Truth be told, British Columbians political worldview just doesn't include anything east of the Rockies. Problems in and with Ottawa are treated like the rain in BC: Unfortunate, but why complain about it? British Columbians don't tend to inject themselves in the matters of others. A big reason for that lack of interest is directly tied to our lack of influence in Ottawa. British Columbia is the third largest province and a unique culture within confederation to a degree that is really stunning, but is massively under-represented in the HoC, Senate, Supreme Court and in the civil service. A tendancy to ignore BC by Ottawa has resulted in a political culture that reciprocates by ignoring Ottawa(Any doubt on that can be answered by lighting a joint in public in Ontario and in BC). If confederation dissolved tomorrow, British Columbians would generally greet the news with a yawn: It is hard to get worked up about something that doesn't involve you. In sum, if the other 9 provinces organized and sat down to re-write confederation, BC would attend, but you aren't going to see any enthusiasm for driving changes.
This doesn't exactly answer the original question. This is from the January 27 edition of the Edmonton Journal.
"The Bloc Québécois, with 47 seats in the House of Commons, has announced its price for supporting the Conservative minority government’s new budget: The BQ wants $5 billion for Quebec, including $2.2 billion to compensate the province for harmonizing its provincial sales tax with the federal goods and services tax. With 143 elected members in the 308-seat House of Commons, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government needs the support of at least one of the three opposition parties to remain in power. Without that backing, the budget would be defeated, triggering a spring election."
Would this not be extortion? This is what they've 'lowered' themselves to...?..
"The Bloc Québécois, with 47 seats in the House of Commons, has announced its price for supporting the Conservative minority government’s new budget: The BQ wants $5 billion for Quebec, including $2.2 billion to compensate the province for harmonizing its provincial sales tax with the federal goods and services tax. With 143 elected members in the 308-seat House of Commons, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government needs the support of at least one of the three opposition parties to remain in power. Without that backing, the budget would be defeated, triggering a spring election."
Would this not be extortion? This is what they've 'lowered' themselves to...?..