I understand, but… it annoys me when I hear “Quebec” then “Canada”… sigh. Canada includes Quebec. I don’t think “not Quebec” when I think of Canada.
Quite a ballsy claim with a Trudeau as PM. 
Perhaps. But when Trudeau took over the Liberals they were in third place and no one else wanted the job. Pierre did not force Justin to enter politics.
It’s not at all like Trump being advised by Ivanka, Donald Junior and the rest of those meddling kids. Even the Fords did a lot of their own driving.
So would you call me catholic (at least outside Quebec), even though I’m atheist? Well, obviously my culture, like all Western culture, is shaped by Judeo-Christian ideas, and also by the influence of the Catholic Church, but I don’t think these ethnic/religious labels are very useful. Especially “Muslim” which really doesn’t mean anything, especially when you include non-practicing or non-believing people.
Let me tell an anecdote, which @RickJay might find interesting. One of the professors I had when I was studying is from a North African country. He’s from a “Muslim” family, but he’s atheist, an old-school socialist, he loves pork and wine, and he’s fairly strongly against religion in some ways (I think he believes hijabs should be banned in public, for one, which I disagree with). After immigrating to Canada and before moving to Quebec, he worked for a few years in Ontario. And apparently, during that time, and despite the fact that he repeatedly told his coworkers that he didn’t care about Islam, that he’d left the faith as a teenager, and that of course he drinks alcohol and eats pork, they always tiptoed around these issues with him. They never managed to see him as non-Muslim. And I can totally believe it. That sounds pretty much like what I know of Canada. I’m sure they were doing it to be nice and sensitive, and not, say, to show to him that he isn’t a good Muslim (which he definitely knows), but still, it is unusual when you look at it from his perspective.
Look at it from my perspective. When I’m outside Quebec, even apart from the fact that people interact with each other a bit differently, view things a bit differently, and so on, but I have to speak my second language. I’m automatically in the position of an immigrant, or a tourist. I don’t feel more at home than I would in the US, and possibly less at home.
I know Canadians are very diverse and all that, and Canadians can barely define what they are, but to me, there’s a whole country over there where I can go and settle without having to get a residence permit, but if I do I’ll still always be an immigrant. That’s not “wrong”, it just is.
Your scenario simply doesn’t work. I’d never use anything but their preferred terms (or pronouns). It’d be inconsiderate to do anything else. All labeling scenarios exist outside of knowledge of personal preferences.
As for your perspective of Quebec versus Canada. You can feel like an immigrant in the ROC. I’d never tell you how to feel. But calling the non-Quebec provinces as “Canada” is very very annoying. You must be aware of this. It’s common enough people say this in Quebec, but I cringe every time I hear it.
“I took a trip to Canada…” etc. It’s grating to my ears.
I’ve heard similar things from Quebec coworkers. Not all, of course! But some described discrimination, including one who had been in the military and had been repeatedly told not to speak French. (That was a while back. I understand that today, a Canadian military officer essentially must be bilingual, and there are more Francophone bilinguals than Anglophone bilinguals.)
On a vaguely related note, I remember once ticking off a Englishman by accident when using the word European (it was a political survey, and one of the demographic countries was essentially asking for the respondent’s race). This was years before Brexit and I just didn’t understand why he was so upset. It was also like that time I overheard a Russian accidentally refer to a Scotsman as English. You can imagine the response that erupted! So in short, Anglophone Canadians like myself have a poor idea of what Quebec residents face, and this is probably one reason we’re so confused by separatism, etc.
This confuses the concepts of correlation with sameness. Even if all French Canadians were Catholic (which isn’t true, but I’m illustrating logic) that does not mean the ethnic group in Quebec is “Catholic.” Most Filipinos are Catholic, but “Catholic” is not the ethnic group predominant in the Phillippines.
Certainly no CATHOLIC thinks of Catholicism as an ethnic group.
I’m certain that he’s far more of a religious man than I am, but I also don’t care about that, because as far as I know, he’s never made a point of tying his political agenda to his religious beliefs. The NDP of the Jagmeet Era seems pretty much like the NDP I’ve always known, just with a bit more social media engagement.
What scenario, my colleague’s experience? I’m just repeating what he told me. In fairness, he lived in Ontario in the 1980s; I guess you could say Canadians have become more multicultural and more adept at dealing with members of ethnic minorities since then.
Well I wouldn’t say that, because it’s just woefully vague. You can’t even tell whether I went west or east. But whether you like it or not, I see two major distinct polities here, each with its own internal diversity of course, and also not neatly separated, but nevertheless recognizable. Also feel free to dislike it when people refer to the US as “America” if you’d like.
Fine. But (and I guess you’ll say I’m wrong here) I sometimes get the impression that this perception informs how anglophone Canadians think of francophones.
I think the US analogue to the nomination process for candidates is more like a caucus. Party members have to show up for the nomination meeting and vote for their candidate.
Generally, a leader can’t kick someone out of the party. Rather, they can refuse to sign the nomination papers for a candidate, certifying them as the candidate for the party in a riding.
It has happened, both federally and provincially. For example, in the 1925 election, there was a hung Parliament: Conservatives won 115 seats, Liberals won 100 seats, and Progressives won 22 seats. Prime Minister Mackenzie King struck a deal with the Progressives and stayed in power for over half a year.
More recently, in the 1985 Ontario election, Premier Miller and the PCs won 52 seats, Peterson and the Liberals won 48, and Bob Rae and the NDP won 25. Peterson formed the government, with support from Rae and the NDP, even though Miller and the PCs had more seats.
More recent still, in BC in 2017, Premier Clark won 43 seats, Horgan and the NDP won 41, and Weaver and the Greens won 3. Horgan formed office with the support of the Greens.
Not necessarily; see above.
Completely ship-shape and Bristol fashion. There is no constitutional or statutory requirement that a member of the executive hold a seat in the Commons, or even in the legislature, just a very strong constitutional convention that most ministers are MPs.
For example, two Prime Ministers were senators, not MPs: Abbott and Bowell. King, in the 1925 election, was personally defeated, but continued on as PM until he won a seat in Prince Alberta, a few months later. And John Turner did not have a seat in the Commons when he became PM and exercised the weighty patronage duties that go with that office.
The Gov Gen doesn’t sign bills. She gives royal assent, which can be done orally in person, or by sending a notice to Parliament that she has given royal assent. Signing ceremonies are US.
We are 100% independent from the UK. The British Parliament has no legislative authority with respect to Canada, and the British government has no executive functions with respect to Canada. The Queen takes advice with respect to her Canadian duties solely from the PM of Canada.
Senators serve until age 75, not for life.
Not really. Since the federal PC disappeared, the provincial PC parties are not aligned with the CPC. There is likely overlapping membership, but not a formal alignment. Save with Alberta and Saskatchewan, which don’t even have provincial PC parties anymore. And the Quebec Liberals don’t have any institutional ties to the federal Liberals.
This is something that Americans, and I’ll include our OP, who, despite being Canadian, has spent the vast majority of his life in the US–just don’t understand. It’s not his fault, nor is it the fault of the American educational system, but the question often arises from Americans: “How can Canada be independent when it has a British queen?” This may be where @Kimera757 is confused with the “99%” independent remark.
Well, Canada doesn’t have a British queen. It has a Canadian queen. Just as Australia has an Australian queen, and New Zealand has a New Zealand queen. The fact that these individual offices are all wrapped up in the same person, who happens to live in the UK, is what confuses people, I’d suggest.
A long-ago post here (it might have been by you, @Northern_Piper ) stated that unlike everybody else in the world, the Queen has no citizenship. She cannot, when she is the Head of State of 16 Commonwealth realms. She is just the Queen, acting as Queen of Canada on the advice of the Canadian parliament when necessary, acting as Queen of Australia on the advice of the Australian parliament when necessary, and so on and so on. The important part is that she basically does what Canada’s parliament wants her to do. Her powers are so limited, and what she has left (outside of granting Royal Assent) are so extraordinary that they have never been used in 155 years of Canadian history.
The fact remains that the UK parliament has no say in Canadian governance, the Privy Council is no longer the highest court in Canadian legal affairs, and the Queen does what she is told to by Canadian and provincial parliaments. Canada is 100% independent.
Good points. Our provincial and federal parties may share the same names (or they may not, see e.g. the United Conservatives in Alberta, and the Conservative Party of Canada), but they are not related in spite of their names. They may share the same values, but they are entirely separate from each other. In other words, Justin Trudeau is not the top boss of the Liberal Party both federally and provincially; and as such, cannot have an effect on the Liberal Party of Ontario or the Liberal Party of Alberta, or any other province that has a “Liberal Party of [insert province’s name here].”
I think this is partly due to the clear separation of powers between the federal government and the provincial governments, stated at ss. 91 to 95 of our constitution. There is no reason for the federal government to be involved in landlord-tenant matters, the licensing of taverns, or the regulation of road traffic; just as there is no need for the provincial governments to be involved with the military, looking after borders and customs, establishing international diplomatic relations, banking, and the coining and printing of Canadian currency.
They started doing signing ceremonies during covid. It’s the declaration rather than a huge bill that gets signed, but it’s still very presidential-looking. There’s a tiny desk and everything.
Perhaps I’m not the best person to ask a question about behaviour of Ontarioans in the 80’s as I’ve only lived in this province for the past 5 years and (almost certainly) was not even born during the time your professor was there.
As for “two major polities” existing, I’m not arrogant enough to think that people over the age of 30 will ever change their minds on the issue of Quebec sovereignty, at best you get a tired truce between those who say “Quebec sovereignty is simply inevitable” and the others who say “Quebec will always be Canadian”
At the moment you must agree, Quebec is Canadian. No matter how much you feel the ROC is separated by language, or culture, or history, or foreignness, or politics, or how Canada doesn’t cohesively exist, or its too influenced by the USA, or whatever (I’m not here to tell you how to feel about the other provinces). Just that Quebec is Canadian.
It isn’t very accurate to already refer to non-Quebec as “Canada” in common speech; such de-Canadianizing of Quebec is annoying. Anyways, I feel you understand my point, despite (most assuringly) not agreeing with the sentiments.
There is certainly the perception that French Canadians tend to be Catholic. That does not mean people think their ethnicity is “Catholic.”
Catholic isn’t an ethnicity and no one thinks of it that way - indeed, of all the religions on this planet, it might be the one religion LEAST associated with an ethnic group, as opposed to, say, Judaism, where religion and ethnicity are often, indeed usually, intertwined.
That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. Now that I come to think of it, in the UK, since devolution in Scotland and Wales, the Scottish and Welsh arms of at least the major parties have developed/acquired a much greater degree of distinct identity, no doubt for similar reasons.
Try but it’s not constitutionally required, and it’s not itself the royal assent, but a formal document declaring that royal assent has been given. It’s not like the US, where Article I requires the Prez to sign a bill for it to become law. Royal assent can be given orally.
What’s important is that there is some formality that records the assent, whether a document or Hansard, if it occurs in the House.
@Roger_That any of this confusing? 
We are missing some western province views where a lot of the focus is on natural resource extraction and how that plays into economic development and bickering over provincial/federal powers. That would be normal enough, but then as a lot of the extraction is around oil/coal and the current federal government is pricing carbon and you get even more heat.
Further to that the population, and federal representation, is heavily skewed by Ontario and Quebec. Which mean regional concerns, unless they can gain broad support, can easily be ignored to achieve electoral victory.
To provide some context for non-Canadians, Ontario and Quebec are far and away the most populous provinces. Around 38% of Canadians live in Ontario and 23% in Quebec. Alberta and BC are about 12% and 13% respectively, and all the other provinces are in the low single digits. The capital of Canada is also in Ottawa, near the Ontario-Quebec border. The disparity in population and physical distance of the capital can cause tensions if other regions feel ignored, especially because some regions will likely have little to no representation in the governing party. The current government, for example, won despite having very little support in Alberta/Saskatchewan/Manitoba, winning only 6 of 62 seats in those provinces.
This is a really important point, and highlights the major difference between the two systems. In the US, “gridlock” is part of the system and is actually praised by some people, as a way to keep the government from acting. In Canada, if gridlock develops, it’s time for an election so the people can decide who should be the government. We want governments to be able to act, and then we as voters can judge their actions.
(I agree with @Lord_Feldon 's point as well; Canada is not a vetocracy. In addition to Fukoyama, Juan Linz also developed that critique of presidential systems, notably in “The Perils of Presidentialism.”)
Just because the government is able to act does not mean it always does. Bills die as elections are called, as wording is endlessly debated, in front of Blue Ribbon Committees, waiting for some group to finish touring the country “to talk directly to Canadians and see what they really think…” but not generally due to other parties which are often much more willing to compromise than in the US.
What was the last Canadian party that made great use of their first hundred days in office to enact a lot of progressive policy?