Should Quebec separate from Canada?
- Thread starter sine000
- Start date
Greater Good for Canada
I think that’s quite correct, and also desireable.
Before being British Columbian, or Ontarian, or Nova Scotian, or Québécois, or whatever else, we are Canadian—and that should always be the precedence, as far as I’m concerned. This is also entrenched in our own national constitution—the Parliament of Canada is granted jurisdiction over all matters other than those narrowly and particularly assigned to the provincial legislatures, and the constitutional power of veto is vested in the Governor General of Canada for provincial legislation. Federal legislation is paramount to provincial legislation in almost all respects, and this is how it should be.
The wishes of a province should never override the greater good for Canada as a whole.
I think that’s quite correct, and also desireable.
Before being British Columbian, or Ontarian, or Nova Scotian, or Québécois, or whatever else, we are Canadian—and that should always be the precedence, as far as I’m concerned. This is also entrenched in our own national constitution—the Parliament of Canada is granted jurisdiction over all matters other than those narrowly and particularly assigned to the provincial legislatures, and the constitutional power of veto is vested in the Governor General of Canada for provincial legislation. Federal legislation is paramount to provincial legislation in almost all respects, and this is how it should be.
The wishes of a province should never override the greater good for Canada as a whole.
That's what I would prefer. Fed gov't is too big.
It's fine if you're from QC or ON, but when the feds satisfy those two provinces they tend to annoy the ROC. It's like ON & QC are first class and the ROC is second class. So much for equality amongst Canadians.
The American view is that the states are all equal partners, hence their triple E senate. Some Canadians feel the US system is flawed because of that. The infighting within Canada belies that particular view.
Not before October 20th, I don't have a passport.!!!!
They can't have Montreal. Lets see, we'll trade it for North Battleford.
They can't have Montreal. Lets see, we'll trade it for North Battleford.
Machjo: I like the way you worded it better (France would be brethren). All this debating as to what language to use will go on forever, probably should have been settled when the French were originally defeated, sometimes you can be too nice. I read the following and explains why the U.S. did not follow in the same footsteps as Canada did.
" Then as now, diversity brought about conflicts, some of which ended in accommodation and the realization that from diversity comes strength. Louisiana's history as a colony, territory, and state in the fifteen years from 1800 to 1815 was characterized not only by diplomatic, political, legal, and cultural friction but also by compromise among the various elements of its diverse population. Included during the period were the following momentous events or movements: the Louisiana Purchase (1803); the creation of the Territory of Orleans (1804); a massive immigration of French, African slaves, and free people of color from Saint Domingue (Haiti) to New Orleans (1809); the West Florida Rebellion (1810); the largest slave revolt in U.S. history in St. Charles and St. John parishes (1811); statehood (1812); and the Battle of New Orleans (1815). By the time of the Battle of New Orleans in 1815, at the end of the War of 1812, the national experiment in colonialism had become a success. The battle served as a means of uniting the inhabitants in a common cause. Soldiers from Tennessee and Kentucky fought alongside Creoles, Acadians, free men of color, and Choctaw Indians. The battle was a great military victory and the United States' most multiethnic endeavor to that time."
The battle of New Orleans was a mixing of many cultures that united us as one country, which was an important reason that lead eventually to one common language. After the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, everybody just went back to the way it was before except Great Briton now controlled New France.
" Then as now, diversity brought about conflicts, some of which ended in accommodation and the realization that from diversity comes strength. Louisiana's history as a colony, territory, and state in the fifteen years from 1800 to 1815 was characterized not only by diplomatic, political, legal, and cultural friction but also by compromise among the various elements of its diverse population. Included during the period were the following momentous events or movements: the Louisiana Purchase (1803); the creation of the Territory of Orleans (1804); a massive immigration of French, African slaves, and free people of color from Saint Domingue (Haiti) to New Orleans (1809); the West Florida Rebellion (1810); the largest slave revolt in U.S. history in St. Charles and St. John parishes (1811); statehood (1812); and the Battle of New Orleans (1815). By the time of the Battle of New Orleans in 1815, at the end of the War of 1812, the national experiment in colonialism had become a success. The battle served as a means of uniting the inhabitants in a common cause. Soldiers from Tennessee and Kentucky fought alongside Creoles, Acadians, free men of color, and Choctaw Indians. The battle was a great military victory and the United States' most multiethnic endeavor to that time."
The battle of New Orleans was a mixing of many cultures that united us as one country, which was an important reason that lead eventually to one common language. After the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, everybody just went back to the way it was before except Great Briton now controlled New France.
The only way for the provinces to solve this is to get more population but the west are rednecks and they don't want visable minorities
But I'd misworded it too. In essence, they are brethren already, whether they separate or not. Separation would not change that though it may allow them the freedom for their foreign policy to more closely reflect that somewhat. bear in mind though that the difference would be minor considering that Quebec is granted considerable freedom on the international stage already for a province.
It will end sooner or later. It can't go on forever before people start begging for a solution, for better or worse.
What you're advocating there is cultural genocide,though granted that's what Canada's been engaging in with the First Nations for a couple generations already.
I've read a bit on US language history, and the US had proven just as brutal as Canada as far as cultural genocide was concerned.
Simplistic at best:
French is not an easy language to learn to fluency, and it won't be of any use to a person until it is learnt to at least basic fluency.
But if you disagree with me, Liberalman, please let me know, and I'd be happy to continue with discussion with you in French if you'd like.
Again, a few issues there:
1. Might (or majority, which leads to might) does not necessarily make right. For example, let's suppose that the language of the 25% minority were much easier to elarn than that of the 75% majority. Then one could argue that it would be more just (and efficient) for the 75% majority to learn the language of the 25% minority. I'm not saying that is the case with French (it's about as difficult to learn as English), but just to make the point that it's not as simple as going with the majority language.
2. There is also the question of respect for local indigenous languages, regardless of their majority or minority status. Let's not forget that both English and French are essentially foreign to the North American continent.
3. English itself is difficult, so there is no guarantee that Quebecers could all learn it to fluency. In fact, English is already compulsory in Quebec high schools, and Quebec schools put more emphasis on second-language learning than their counterparts in other provinces, and yet most Quebecers still fail to learn English well. Even most high school teachers in Quebec still can't speak English.
4. Even if everyone in Quebec did succeed in learning English well, there would still be the issue of 8% of the population of Nunavut that speaks neither English nor French.
5. Seeing that both English and French are ethnic languages, to force either side to submit to the other will face resistance sicne it will naturally be interpreted as linguistic imperialism.
6. Even if all Canadians learnt English, we'd still be left in this increasingly integrated world determining how to communicate with the rest of the world. Let's not forget that only about 10% of the world's population speaks English (fluenty, that is, to a point that it's of any practical use beyond simple greetings and such).
Anyway, these are just some of the issues.
Rubbish. When I'd lived in Victoria, BC, I'd witnessed bigotry and open-mindedness. When I'd lived in Montreal, the same. Same in La Malbaie, and same in Ottawa. I've lived in different parts of Canada all my life, and we have open-minded people and bigots everywhere. Same in China by the way.
In fact, in some ways, at least as far as education is concerned, BC is MORE open than Ontario! In most of Ontatio, French is compulsory across the board. In BC, a school is free to offer French, Spanish, German, Japanese, Chinese (Mandarin), Russian, and Arabic, as per student interest. In Alberta, I can't remember the entire list, but I remember that they can offer French, Polish, Cree, Blackfoot, and I can't remember the others. So before you go out and insult any group, make sure you know what you're talking about.
Sure it would. The trick is though, to provide sufficient funding for bilingual schools nationwide, not to mention the time and money needed for teacher training on a Canada-wide scale. We have teacher shortages for both French and English as second-languages as it is. So what's your plan B?
Personally, I think the most just (and efficient and rational) long-term plan woudl simply be to promote a common second-language worldwide that would be designed to be much easier to learn than other languages. As a short-term solution, that would not be possible though owing to teacher shortages in such a language.
A short-term and partial solution at a Canadian level could be for schools to adopt the Hungarian model, whereby each school would be free to teach the second-language of its choice using a curriculum already approved by the Ministry of Education, or created by the school itself and then presented to the Ministry of Education to ensure its pedagogical soundness. The Hungarian model also allows pupils to take their secon-language test in a language of their choice among languages already approved by the Ministry.
This would alleviate the current teacher shortage by allowing schools that can't find qualified English or French teachers to find teachers of other languages. It would also allow schools to teach easier languages if they wish so as to increase bilingualism, even if not necessarily in French. After all, if an anglophone and a francophone could learn a common easy second language, they might be able to communicate even better than if they try to learn each others' difficult language. Common sense.
A short-term and partial solution at a Canadian level could be for schools to adopt the Hungarian model, whereby each school would be free to teach the second-language of its choice using a curriculum already approved by the Ministry of Education, or created by the school itself and then presented to the Ministry of Education to ensure its pedagogical soundness. The Hungarian model also allows pupils to take their secon-language test in a language of their choice among languages already approved by the Ministry.
This would alleviate the current teacher shortage by allowing schools that can't find qualified English or French teachers to find teachers of other languages. It would also allow schools to teach easier languages if they wish so as to increase bilingualism, even if not necessarily in French. After all, if an anglophone and a francophone could learn a common easy second language, they might be able to communicate even better than if they try to learn each others' difficult language. Common sense.
I follow this debate with ( almost ) bated breath, Machjo, have you any possible candidate for a third ( if I get your meaning ) 3rd SIMPLER language , instead of the patois that I think I see evolving ?
3rd? I was thinking 2nd. The 3rd language would then be whatever language you wanted to learn.
As for candidates, Esperanto would be one, though any language that meets the following qualifications could qualify:
1. It must be phonetic, with one letter for each sound and no silent letters.
2. It must have no unnecessary rules of grammar and no exceptions to the rules, following the most logical rules of grammar.
3. It must have, or at least come close to having, but one word for one meaning, and vice versa.
4. It must contain words stemming from various languages so as to make it easy for many to learn.
Neither English nor French meet these criteria, not by a long shot.