Tories and Quebec Sovereignty

[Jersay]

Well, the Bloc DID lose support this election, maybe that is a positive sign.

I really don't care if Quebec wants to seperate, if they do, they should get no funding from Ottawa to pay for their funding. You seperate, you lose. Thats how I see it.

Well the BLOC did lose which is always good, but the seperatists will come up with an excuse.

Now, what we have to wait and see is what happens in the provincial election.

The PQ can win all the seats they want, but if they don't get over 50% of the popular vote they will lose.

 

[Numure]

Well the BLOC did lose which is always good, but the seperatists will come up with an excuse.

Now, what we have to wait and see is what happens in the provincial election.

The PQ can win all the seats they want, but if they don't get over 50% of the popular vote they will lose.

The PQ has had over 50% popular support many times, its the Bloc that never achieved 50%. Alot of souvrainist don't believe in the Bloc's presence in Ottawa. Its counterproductive, and to some extent I tend to agree.

The fact that the bloc lost a little ground means little though. The candidates that won cried out for votes cause they had a chance of being ministers in a new Harper Government. Jonquière-Alma, an area that voted ''Yes'' by over 70% in 1995, and is always in the 75-80% ''Yes'' range in polls, elected a conservative. He cried out for everyone to vote for him, Seperatists and Federalists, because Harper named him as a possible cabinet minister during the campaign.

That Candidate, was a PQ organiser up until last year. Alot of Conservative candidates are seperatists in Québec. Because afterall, if we exclude independance, what we really want in Québec is more Autonomy. And this is what Harper promised.

Saying its a huge blow for the Seperatist agenda is ridiculous. Just don't say it again, when you dont know much about Québec politics.

Edit: Same goes for you Jersay, though I've come to admire and appreciate your unique openess. I'm sure you just didnt know about the politics here.

 

[Jersay]

The PQ has had over 50% popular support many times, its the Bloc that never achieved 50%. Alot of souvrainist don't believe in the Bloc's presence in Ottawa. Its counterproductive, and to some extent I tend to agree.

The fact that the bloc lost a little ground means little though. The candidates that won cried out for votes cause they had a chance of being ministers in a new Harper Government. Jonquière-Alma, an area that voted ''Yes'' by over 70% in 1995, and is always in the 75-80% ''Yes'' range in polls, elected a conservative. He cried out for everyone to vote for him, Seperatists and Federalists, because Harper named him as a possible cabinet minister during the campaign.

That Candidate, was a PQ organiser up until last year. Alot of Conservative candidates are seperatists in Québec. Because afterall, if we exclude independance, what we really want in Québec is more Autonomy. And this is what Harper promised.

Saying its a huge blow for the Seperatist agenda is ridiculous. Just don't say it again, when you dont know much about Québec politics.

Edit: Same goes for you Jersay, though I've come to admire and appreciate your unique openess. I'm sure you just didnt know about the politics here.

I would love Quebec to be more autonomous since I was born in Quebec. However, I do know limited amounts of info about the Bloc and the politics in Quebec, I only hear it from my grandparents.

However, I have done research in Provincial Elections

1970: 23.06

1973: 30.22

1976: 41.37

1981: 49.26

1985: 38.69

1989: 40.16

1994: 44.75

1998: 42.87

2003: 33.24

Now the Bloc and the PQ have never gotten past 50%. They have come close, but you need 50%+ in an election to know if you are going to win a referendum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Quebec_general_elections#1970-2003_popular_vote

 

[FiveParadox]

Anyone who is versed in our Constitution Acts, or any legislation for that matter, is quite aware that references to "the Queen" or "the Crown" within the context of Canada, is in reference to the Government of Canada and, in particular, the executive branch thereof; it is a formal reference.

Make no mistake — I am not intending to imply that Her Majesty Elisabeth II should take any active part in the issue of sovereignty in Québec.

 

[Jersay]

Agreed Five.

But this issue of Queen and crown land is that crown land which is under the head of the Queen, is reserved for the benefit of the native indians, no matter where they reside.

So when sovereignty comes up it will depend if Indian reserves will leave Quebec or all crown land.

 

[Numure]

Re: RE: Tories and Quebec Sovereignty

Anyone who is versed in our Constitution Acts, or any legislation for that matter, is quite aware that references to "the Queen" or "the Crown" within the context of Canada, is in reference to the Government of Canada and, in particular, the executive branch thereof; it is a formal reference.

Make no mistake — I am not intending to imply that Her Majesty Elisabeth II should take any active part in the issue of sovereignty in Québec.

The References to the Crown and the Queen are in refrence to the Head of state, not the Government of Canada. As the government of Canada is the Parlement.

 

[FiveParadox]

Incorrect.

References to the Queen in court cases, for example, refer to the Government of Canada — not to Her Majesty Elizabeth II (otherwise she would have quite a criminal record, lol).

Bills in the House of Commons entitled An Act to grant to Her Majesty certain sums of money, the "Her Majesty" is in reference to the Government of Canada, not to the Queen.

 

[Numure]

RE: Tories and Quebec Sov

Again, you are wrong. Her Majesty is refrence to the Queen of Canada not the government.

Her Majesty is only the Head of State, not the executive branch. Get your facts straight, seriously.

 

[I think not]

That has always been my understanding of it as well.

 

[Jersay]

Are you talking to Five or me?

 

[I think not]

I'm agreeing with Numure.

 

[Jersay]

No I mean which perception are you against.

Are you saying that Five has his facts wrong or me?

 

[I think not]

I am really not familiar with the details of what you guys are talking about. It's all a matter of legalities.

 

[s_lone]

Geez... :?

I really hope we put an end to our symbolic link with monarchy when the Constitutional debate reopens...

I realize how all these technicalities about the Queen, the Head of State and the Parliament can be important to some but I really wish Canada would refresh itself a little... Be more 21st century-ish?

 

[I think not]

By means of dumping the monarchy s-lone?

 

[s_lone]

Re: RE: Tories and Quebec Sovereignty

By means of dumping the monarchy s-lone?

Well of course! hehe...

Quebecers, whether they seperate or not, want nothing more than to live in a truly modern country. There's no doubt in my mind that dumping the monarchy would have many Quebecers say: "Yes... Yeeeesss! I like that!... T'was about time."

I'm really not saying this would solve the Quebec issue but it would surely give a slight boost for federalism...

I'm not asking we forget our past but that we come to terms with it. The world is changing fast and monarchy is becoming more and more meaningless to Canadians, especially when you consider how immigration and multi-culturalism are important to us. Our history books will always be there to remind us how this country was built but let's live in the present!

 

[the caracal kid]

agreed, s_lone,

not just that canada become "more 21st century-ish", but become more in tune with its own realities. Here we are in a thread on "Quebec Sovereignty" discussing the role of a British Monarchy over a French Nation! Let us not forget the other nations of this country as well that owe nothing to the British Monarchy.

 

[FiveParadox]

Firstly, I am not incorrect.

Bills entitled An Act to grant Her Majesty certain sums of money are passed every year in the House of Commons, and grant the Government of Canada the right to hold its revenue; not the Queen. We do not send cheques to Her Majesty Elisabeth II.

Secondly, Canada passed legislation decades ago that made the Queen of the United Kingdom the Queen of Canada in a separate capacity. Canada is not headed by the Queen of Britain; rather, she reigns as the Queen of Canada in the context of our nation, exclusively.

And I will thank you very much not to call me a liar.

 

[the caracal kid]

Semantics, five,

She could call herself the Queen of the moon, or the Queen of any "nation" willing to take on her.

She is still a foreign title holder that bears no relevancy to canadianna, and even worse, is a symbol of inequality and injustice.

 

[Numure]

RE: Tories and Quebec Sov

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/lgc/defaul...use&Sub=&Doc=billsprojetsdeloi_20050627_e.htm

The bills you mention are the bills that send Canada's contribution to the Royal Family. We give somewhat 200million I believe every year.