My statement is loaded with historical context; the western provinces and western interests have looooooong been ignored by the ruling Ontario and Quebec provinces (hence my crack about rep by pop being a joke - it works super if you happen to live in a populous region; less good if you live someplace less populous). Yes, it would have been sweet to see the west take over from the east for a little while, but no, I don’t actually want the west to make all the decisions for the whole country; that just breeds alienation and discontent. I think everyone should have their region’s best interests represented.
I don’t think we need to throw the democracy baby out with the bathwater; I just think we need to even the playing field a little bit so the federal elections in Canada aren’t decided before the western votes have even been counted. And this is coming from Calgary in Alberta, arguably the current power player in Canada; I can only imagine how unrepresented the north and the maritimes feel.
There are fewer people in the North than there are in the city I live in. As it is their votes count about three times more than mine does. Cry me a river.
I agree that it’s an unfortunate trick of first-past-the-post that the Bloc is able to get as many seats as it does, but I really must call you on this argument.
Who exactly would make this determination?
I happen to believe the Conservative Party has a completely self-interested platform at odds with governing the country. What do I do? I work against them (and, as it happens, the Bloc) at and outside of election time.
Like it or not, and I don’t, the Bloc is a political party that was put together through the legitimate democratic process by which our country is governed; it ran for and won the seats that it has and its members of Parliament are the legitimate representatives of the constituencies that elected them, constituencies that are entitled to be represented by the MPs they choose.
It occurs to me that perhaps having regional separatists working to achieve their aims by seeking a voice in the Parliament is maybe even the best way for things to go down. Separatist groups in other times and places have resorted to violence, terrorism, civil war, and unilateral declarations of independence, all of which are varying degrees of destructive and messy. The Bloc isn’t the nicest feature of federal politics, but they are a group of elected parliamentarians working for what they want – be it inside the federation, or through a change in the federation – through democratic means. I’d take that over the FLQ any day.
Bonne fête nationale, tout le monde! Well, if anyone’s got the stomach for it, how about the Québec question? What better day to start discussing it?
I agree with Wolfstu, the PQ and the Bloc are much more welcome than the FLQ. I am not a separatist, let’s get that out in the open right off the bat. The interesting development of the politicization of the PQ and the Bloc is that they have morphed into parties that represent more than just separatist Québecois - there are many for whom the Bloc and PQ are there to represent the interests of Québec in a way that none of the other parties can. Those of us in the rest of Canada tend to see them as one issue parties, and Lord knows, there has been a lot of debate about whether the PQ in particular has lost its way.
Where do the rest of you see the unity debate in 2008? Back burner or flash point? I know that some of the reactions to the Bloc in the House of Commons are quite passionately against their aims, and for some, against their very existence. What democratic, diplomatic solutions do you see for the future of the country as a whole?
For myself, I’d hate to lose any part of the country, and I do have a special affection for Québec. I keep hoping we can find the right balance of respect and responsibilities, but I also think it’s beyond the capabilities of politicians to fix. I think it’s down to us, the people. (or should that be “We, the People…” I think I read that somewhere before.)
The PQ has seen opposition from strong independentists (sorry for the ugly word, but indépendantistes is how they’d call themselves) on its left wing since its creation. Some would tell you they lost their way in 1974, when they adopted the idea of a referendum, an idea championed by future intergovernmental affairs minister Claude Morin and opposed by hardliners. Morin is himself an extremely controversial figure in Quebec history. I wasn’t born at the time but I learned a lot about this part of our history reading René Lévesque’s biography by Pierre Godin, which I would highly recommend (link is to the first of four volumes). The Bloc really isn’t all that important, except that since it’s active in federal politics, other Canadians will be more familiar with it.
Well here’s how I see it. At this point, it’s becoming more and more obvious that Quebec will never separate from Canada. In a sense it’s probably for the best, but the question remains: can Quebec continue existing inside of Canada as it is? Honestly, I believe that Quebec as I want it to be (and, I suppose, most Quebec nationalists) isn’t at all incompatible with being a part of Canada, but it would require a paradigm shift for English Canadians (defined here as the inhabitants of the mainly English-speaking part of Canada, whatever their ethnicity and language, even the francophones). And I don’t think they’re willing to go with this shift, since most of them have never really accepted what Quebec is.
So right now my prediction is that in 50 years or so the Quebec nation won’t exist anymore, and it will happen so quietly that people won’t even notice. In 50 years Quebecers will have become much like Franco-Ontarians are today. They will still speak French at home and send their children to French-language schools, but they won’t consider themselves as part of a multiethnic French-language nation called Quebec anymore, but rather as part of the ethnic and linguistic French-Canadian minority in Canada. Culturally speaking they will now be quite similar to their English-speaking neighbours (with some French-Canadian folklore added). They will get their information from the same sources as the anglophones, and they will view their history in a similar vein. And everybody will say that it is because of Canadian multiculturalism that French-Canadian culture and other great cultures have been able to continue existing until now. Immigrants to Quebec will now almost always learn no French, since it will be understood that French in Canada is for French-Canadians. Soon enough young Quebecers will realize that English is the prestige language, not only in Canada but in the world, while French is the language their uncool parents are making them speak. So eventually less and less of them will even speak French, but they will still keep elements of their French-Canadian folklore.
Personally I don’t see this as a good development, but honestly, I must admit that in the great scheme of things, it really doesn’t matter much. It certainly is a solution to the national question; it solves it as definitely as independence would. But what it means is that if I want my country (and note that I don’t necessarily mean independent country), I will have to go find it elsewhere.
Of course, I could also be all wrong. Who knows what will happen to Canada in 50 years, after all?
The way that I see it Quebec separation has been overtaken by events. Should a Stephane Dion Govt actually institute that carbon tax, along with Ontario ( read Dalton McGuinty) nefarious plan to liberate 20 billion dollars that currently goes towards transfer payments to whom ever gets it, by becoming a have not or a neither have nor have not province ,then the west led by Alberta is going to secede.
I’ve already posted my thoughts on Quebec separation - you lost, get over it. You can’t legislate culture; if people are interested in a culture, they’ll retain it. If not, it will evolve and change like culture always does.
I don’t actually see Alberta seceding over the carbon tax (aka NEP II), but I do see drastic actions taken over it, probably financial. I don’t think Alberta will roll over this time.
Oh, and featherlou, while I do understand your point (not that I agree with it), I’d be more impressed if it didn’t come from someone who’s as afraid of the US as you are. I mean, who cares if people start thinking Michael J. Fox and Jim Carrey are from the US? Who cares if Canadians start saying ‘zee’ and getting their coffee and doughnuts (or donuts) at Dunkin Donuts? And who cares if people refer to United Statians as “Americans”? If your culture is worth it, it’ll survive.
I don’t think I said French Canadian culture is inferior, just that it will survive if the people want it to survive. I thought that was just a factual statement, not a value judgement.
Are you talking about me personally being afraid of the US, or the Rest of Canada being afraid of them? I personally am not afraid of US American culture overtaking my own; they’ll be too busy in the coming decades with their financial crises to do much of anything.
Well here’s the thing: Quebec culture isn’t generic “French-Canadian culture”. The point of my tirade in post #46 is to point out that since English Canadians probably won’t ever realize that francophones in Quebec aren’t merely French-Canadians but actually a whole mishmash of ethnic and cultural groups who make up the culture of Quebec – just like the culture of English Canada is a mix of ethnic and regional cultures – and that it’s unfair to compare francophones in English Canada and francophones in Quebec and wonder why they aren’t the same, we may in time revert to being simple French-Canadians. And that’s when Quebec will disappear.
I’m talking about both, actually. Isn’t it you who’s always insisting that residents of the United States shouldn’t be called Americans, because “America” is something else? But that’s the irony: English Canadians say that the market should decide whether Quebec’s culture continues existing or not, but at the same time they’re deathly afraid of American culture overtaking their own. If you’re not afraid of this, all right.
Personally, I don’t see much distinction between American and English-Canadian culture already. What’s to be afraid of? I have traveled to plenty of states and felt right at home. I’d be surprised if anyone even knew I was a foreigner. Yet I can travel 30 Kms across the Champlain Bridge here in Ottawa and feel totally and completely out of my element.
The idea behind an Official Opposition is that it’s a government in waiting; it should be, in theory, a party ready to take the reins of government if the current government falls apart or some such thing.
I disagree with featherlou’s statement that the Bloc should be denied “any federal status.” It won enough seats to have party recognition, and the rules are the rules. I don’t think she would be complaining if a Western Interests Party won twelve or more seats. But I would agree in a limited sense; they absolutely should NOT have been recognized as the official Opposition in 1993. They were not, and had no intention of ever, fulfulling that role. The Reform Party did, and should have been so recognized.
Please believe that not all of us are terrified of the “United Statesians” and do in fact realize there’s a distinction between French Canada and Quebec.
Was it not René Levesque who said “The future of English in Québec is up to the power of your loins.”?
The English did not expel the French after the Plains of Abraham. They didn’t have the manpower, the earlier Acadien Expulsions were not seen as a high point in tolerance, and it was largely felt that time would do what the army could not - eradicate the adherence to French and its culture. Maybe they thought they were being fair, to allow the French to stay and keep their culture. All we can do now is form our own opinions based on the documentary evidence.
The French did not choose to assimilate then, and I can’t see them doing so now. Just as I, an Anglophone Canadian, do not choose to adopt American culture, I can’t see Québecois culture evolving away from its roots. Even the Québecois Anglos are different.
But also, the rest of Canada is not homogeneous. Newfoundland is perhaps the strongest example of a distinct society within English Canada, but even Saskatchewan is distinct from Manitoba. Look how the definition of the West changes as you go west - Manitoba considers itself a Western province, as does Saskatchewan. I’ve been told in Alberta that I’m not from the West, I’m from the Prairies, and BC thinks that it is the West, and if only Alberta would give BC Banff and Jasper, it’d be fair all around.
I think a) we have more in common than we have that divides us and b) would we want to be all the same? I don’t think so.
It is interesting that outside of Québec, separation is viewed as synonymous with the destruction of the country, whereas separatists view it as one province leaving to go it on its own…
Re: rep by pop; I have been struggling to prove or disprove a statement from a friend, to wit; PEI was guaranteed a ferry link when it joined in 1871, this was re-written with the completion of the Confederation Bridge. Was PEI guaranteed a fixed number of seats (4) as well? Can someone confirm or deny? We are in an interesting flux as the demographic shifts from 80% rural, 20% urban at Confederation to 80% urban, 20% rural present day. Should the rural areas be protected from being overrun by the larger representation from urban areas?
Many thanks for your responses, I’m having a great time reading your wide ranging points of view.
Separation IS synonymous with the destruction of the country.
Understand; once you establish in precedent that part of a union can dissolve itself from the union, the union effectively becomes meaningless. Every province would become empowered to threaten the federal government with secession whenever it didn’t get its way. If a province can simply walk away from the arrangement when they aren’t placated, there’s no end to it. If Quebec, why not Alberta? If Alberta, why shouldn’t Saskatchewan demand to make its own deal with Alberta? And once that happens, why should Ontario be forced to support all the poor provinces itself? They could demand a change to equalization payments or else “We’re putting a fence around Ottawa and see ya later.”
The federal government would eventually be eaten away until Confederation ceased to really exist at all.
Interesting. But this said, even if you and RickJay do not feel threatened by the overbearing presence of American culture, we can’t deny that it is a point of worry for many English Canadians. And we can certainly understand why: if both cultures are so similar, what, really, is the difference between both nations? In a context where countries tie increasingly close links with each other, what will happen with Canada and the US? I see a fair amount of anti-Americanism on the English Canadian political left (to be honest, you can also find it among Quebec’s political left), and many of featherlou’s comments remind me of this.
Well, language names don’t take a capital letter in French, and français is written with a cedilla, but other than that, it’s perfect.
Hablo un poco de español.
Well, if we consider that the point of an official opposition is to serve as a government-in-waiting, then of course the Bloc can’t fulfill this role. They’ve in fact made it clear that they wouldn’t participate in any Canadian government. But I question whether the Reform could have done it any better than the Bloc, with 52 MPs and only one east of Manitoba, and no representation in the Senate. The Reform was as much of a regional party as the Bloc; I don’t think they even fielded a single candidate in Quebec in 1993.
Well yes, of course you realize that there is a distinction between French Canada and Quebec. There are clearly francophones living in other provinces than Quebec. But do English Canadians realize that francophones in Quebec and francophones in the rest of Canada are actually culturally and ethnically different in a variety of ways? Maybe not so much. But then again, Quebecers probably aren’t all that aware of the cultural variety of English Canada, so I guess that’s what we should expect in this country.
I don’t know, what is it supposed to mean? It sounds like a “revanche des berceaux” thing, and I can’t imagine Lévesque saying this.
Well, that’s all interesting, but the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was fought between the French and the British, and today neither of these groups live in Canada. Along the way new nations developed, and Canada is today based on a deal between these nations; all this ancient history doesn’t matter anymore. I know that’s not what you were suggesting, but it always makes me laugh when I hear that Quebecers have been fighting against English oppression since the Plains of Abraham, or that the French lost in the Plains of Abraham and should accept it today. Quebecers didn’t lose this war, and English Canadians didn’t win it, so while it is still an important part of Canadian history, it shouldn’t guide our decisions of today.
Also, while the Deportation of the Acadians is today seen as a crime against humanity (which it is), it was part of how war was waged at the time. I’ve bought a very interesting book, Mythes et réalités dans l’histoire du Québec by historian Marcel Trudel, which in each chapter presents an event or period of Quebec’s history that we either didn’t hear about, or heard about in a way that isn’t entirely historically accurate. And one of the chapters deals with Frontenac’s plan to invade the province of New York during the 1680s and deport its population. So the British weren’t the only ones with this idea. All in all it’s a very good read.
That’s something I certainly agree with, and I’ve said so before. (I’ll have to visit some day.)
Of course we have a lot of things in common: all parts of Canada are Western societies after all. We also have a lot in common with the US and Germany. But no: we don’t want to be all the same, and things that will work in parts of Canada won’t work in others. Quebec separatism didn’t appear out of thin air, it appeared of course because even in the 60s, francophone Quebecers were often still second-class citizens in their own province (and even today not all is perfect), but became popular when Canada tried to force on Quebec models that weren’t appropriate for it. All Canadians will have to accept that people in some parts of the country do things that wouldn’t be imaginable in others, and it doesn’t make them stupid or racist. But of course, that goes against the concept of a single “Canadian” culture.
Is the idea of separation really all popular in the other provinces? Contrary to how it is often seen in the rest of the country, separatism isn’t a tantrum by Quebecers to get what they want. It’s a solution, probably not the best but a solution nonetheless, to a real issue.
Its gone from being under the radar and unthinkable to being an option for the future. The amount of people that believe secession is a popular idea can probably fit into one of the TTC’s bus’s and would probably depend on the economic conditions at the time.
So I would argue that given the wrong government at the time, it will at least start up as provincial saber rattling. The least relevant economic entitys happen to have the majorilty of seats in the house of commons, should they fail to heed the other eight provinces , at the very least we are going to live in interesting times.
