I don’t think there is – you’ll have to run it through a translator. In and around page 17 is the meat of the sovereignty position.
One could ask that about any region of the country.
I found some information on the Bloc in English - they are definitely still separatists.
The other regions of Canada all contribute to the cohesiveness of our country with the give and take that that involves, without constantly demanding special treatment and considerations. I think if you want to be demanding all kinds of special things, it’s fair to ask what you’re doing to deserve those.
No.
The Bloc is a bit of an odd party, and there’s a disconnect between its official platform and what it actually does. To really understand you’ll need a short history lesson. When the Parti québécois won its first majority government in 1976, there was talk by some sovereigntists to start a federal party, so sovereigntist Quebecers wouldn’t have to vote for Trudeau’s Liberals. (At the time the Liberals had the vast majority of Quebec’s seats as the Conservatives were still perceived as the anti-French party.) The Rhino Party, which you may have heard of, had actually been previously formed by writer Jacques Ferron both to mock politics, especially the Liberals, and express the fact that as a sovereigntist, he shouldn’t have to vote for them. Of course the Rhinos weren’t a plausible alternative. No such party was formed, Trudeau was reelected in 1980 and was an important player in the defeat of the 1980 referendum. A few years later Brian Mulroney appeared on the federal scene and was interested in a new federal deal that would actually solve both Quebec’s desire for sovereignty and the West’s alienation. Mulroney’s Conservatives won vast majorities in 1984 and 1988, with help from Quebec nationalists who were willing to give them a chance, but the new deal failed and a few Quebec Conservative and Liberal MPs bolted to form the Bloc with a few other people (notably Duceppe, who was first elected in 1990).
So at the time, the Bloc was clearly a sovereigntist party and its goal was to speak for the sovereigntist movement, until such a time as a next referendum was won. It was very successful, actually forming the Official Opposition. The PQ came back to power in 1994 and held a referendum in 1995, but while the “Yes” vote was much higher than in 1980, it was still short of a majority. So now what was the Bloc to do? These politicians had to justify their jobs, and given that even on a bad day independence can poll from 35 to 40% in Quebec, these people wouldn’t go back to voting for federalist parties. So the Bloc tried to juggle both being a parked vote for sovereigntists (which means officially supporting Quebec independence) and working within the federal government’s framework to extract the best deal possible for Quebec. And since there is no change to the constitution in sight, this mostly means getting money. It’s a bit of a schizophrenic goal, but that’s what the Bloc has been doing for 15 years. They cannot do anything for independence, but they’re still obligated to officially support it.
Even though the English Canadians in this thread say the Bloc wants to “break up the country” and that Duceppe is a “traitor”, I get the impression that this isn’t what they really dislike about that party. It’s the fact that while the other parties do not (officially) support one province over all others, the Bloc is unapologically all for Quebec. It’s viewed as an unfair advantage. Of course, the Bloc’s response to this would be that all other parties are led and largely staffed by non-Quebecers, who don’t know anything about Quebec’s economy and culture, and who will therefore favour the rest of Canada if only through ignorance. And that even when Quebecers actually voted for federalist or pan-Canadian parties (see: the 1970s and 1980s), the federal government was actively working against their provincial government and their interests as a nation, with no Quebec MP able to say anything about it. For this reason, the Bloc is needed. It’s actually a compelling argument, and the main reason why I vote Bloc most of the time, even though I’m not really in favour of their goals, their current emphasis on money for Quebec makes me really uncomfortable, and I would welcome some sort of reconciliation with the rest of Canada if they’d just accept what we are and leave us be, the way we already mostly leave them be.
So what’s the future of the Bloc? It will probably remain as a parked vote for sovereigntists, as long as these sovereigntists are there. I note that the NDP’s Quebec strategy is starting to bear fruit, with it gaining votes in Quebec at the expense of the Bloc. (Maybe I’ll look wholly predictable if I say that the Bloc and the NDP are the two parties I’m thinking of voting for this election, but that’s because I’ll be voting in Gatineau and if Françoise Boivin is again running for the NDP, she both has a chance and would once again make a great MP.) The NDP, of course, isn’t far from (the urban wing of) the Bloc socially and economically, Jack Layton is very popular in Quebec, and the NDP, despite being a left-wing party which is usually more centralizing – see Ed Broadbent, who amazingly was also popular in Quebec – has expressed tolerance for the fact that Quebec is in many ways different from the rest of Canada and there may not be only one way for the whole country. matt_mcl might be able to say more about this. On the other hand, like the Bloc the NDP has no chance to form the government, not alone anyway. So we’ll see where that leads us.
I’m too late for the edit window, but here I’m talking a bit too much like an English Canadian. What the Bloc actually does is make itself the mouthpiece of the Quebec government, even when (as now) this government is actually federalist. Jean Charest’s government currently wants for Quebec (who was the first province to harmonize its sales tax) the same kind of money the other provinces then got for doing it, and so the Bloc’s main talking point in this election – other than the risk of a Conservative majority – is this. I think Charest has also criticized the federal government’s giving money for the Lower Churchill hydro project in Labrador, and he’s also been joined by Duceppe in this. It is schizophrenic to have an officially sovereigntist party make itself the mouthpiece of a federalist government, but that’s the role the Bloc has given itself.
I disagree, but whatever. Even the federal government probably shouldn’t have to offer services in both official languages all the time. I know I wouldn’t dare go to Calgary, even in a federal government office, and speak French. And if I try it’s likely I wouldn’t find anyone who’d be able to talk to me, official bilingualism or not.
Federal. (Local and provincial are other things.) And as I’ve said, even despite the fact that it’s the stated policy of the federal government, I’m not convinced it’s really evenly applied, or should be.
Now please don’t say such things. Gatineau is a suburb of Ottawa, and is part of the National Capital Region, but it’s not “part of” Ottawa. I come originally from Gatineau, and I’m a Quebecer, definitely not a Franco-Ontarian. You may not be able to see the difference, but believe me it is there.
And despite the fact that Gatineau has a fair number of anglophones, it’s still largely a French-speaking city, and part of Quebec. I remember Sunspace starting a thread about having gone to Ottawa and being amazed at how “bilingual” the city was, with street signs in both languages, and hearing people speak French on the street. I didn’t post anything in that thread, especially since it’s true that the greater Ottawa-Gatineau region is bilingual and bicultural. But Ottawa is an English-language city with a French-speaking minority. Francophones in Ottawa are ethnics. I am not.
This said, I don’t have any problem with anglophones living in Gatineau being able to get services in English from the municipal government, regardless of whether the city is officially bilingual or not. It shouldn’t be hard anyway. Francophones in Ottawa getting services in French from the municipal government is probably much harder, even through the city is officially bilingual, but probably feasible anyway.
It’s interesting that the Bloc is placing its constitutional position around page 17 of its official platform, if that’s supposed to be what this party is all about. I think that ties in with my previous message.
I think this is the problem. I think you’ve summed up the issue Quebecers have with the rest of Canada. The problem here is - the ROC keeps saying “What are you on about?”. In our opinions (I don’t mean to speak for all of us, but, truly - this is the case), we have no problem accepting who you are and letting you be. How is that not the case in Quebecers perception?
As to the debates, I thought Layton and Ignatieff did quite well. Harper seemed like he was on quaaludes. Duceppe was funny and astute - though the stuff on reasonable accomodation made me uncomfortable.
All that to say - I would not be surprised if the political landscape settles pretty much exactly how it was before the election was called. In accordance with threehundredeight.com - I think the Harris Decima poll is about right where we’ll be on May 2nd: 144 seats for the Conservatives, 87 for the Liberals, 44 for the Bloc Québécois, 32 for the New Democrats, and one independent. I think Ontario may go a few more Liberals at the expense of the Cons. And the Cons get a few more here and there to offset. And that’s about it. No clear mandate to anyone, and no way for anyone to for a clear alternative government. I guess it’ll be interesting?
Oh, of course you could. Don’t be silly.
And not for nothing, but French is a language I hear on the streets here with increasing frequency.
What a strange question. Are we now going to divvy up the nation based on who we think we need and don’t need? Is this “Survivor”?
You seem to think Quebec is unique in being demanding. Come on. What the hell does Newfoundland do for me? When was New Brunswick last a net contributor to the country’s finances? What good are the territories?
I want Quebec to be part of Canada because it’s full of Canadians.
We’d lose a lot of great hockey players too. 
Of course you could! You might have to wait a little bit longer til a French speaking person was available to help you, but it’s not like they’d unleash the hounds!
Heck, on Sunday at Aggie Days (agriculture-themed show for kids) at the Stampede Grounds I directed someone to the pancake breakfast in French.
47 of 75 seats, yes, but voted in on 38.1% of the popular vote. Saying the Bloc represents all Quebecers is like saying the Conservatives represent all Canadians. The actual voter numbers don’t support that. The majority of Quebec votes were split across federalist parties.
There are also many people who vote for the BQ not because of the sovereignty issue, but because they have been pretty successful in improving life for Quebecers and, as I’ve said before, people who vote for them feel that their representatives in parliament should - and do - represent them.
Also note, as mentioned, that the provincial government is currently a Liberal majority, attained after one (or was it 2 - seems I’m always voting lately) Liberal minority governments. The PQ at the time received 35.15% of the popular vote. Keep in mind that the political position of the PQ is kind of like the Conservatives at the federal level, in the sense that there isn’t really a viable third option. It’s well-known that many people will vote for one party as a measure of punishment for scandals, greed or failures of the other party, not because they necessarily agree with sovereignty. All the other issues in a platform also come into play.
Besides, in the unlikely event that sovereignty were to occur, it won’t be due to the words or actions of the members of the Bloc on Parliament Hill. It won’t be due to the actions or words of the PQ in the Assemblé Nationale. It will be due to the population choosing to go down that path; and the majority of the population does not want to go down that path.
Gilles was killing me with that laboured ‘just give us the money, let us do what we want’, thing on health care. Sheesh, he seems to want no accountability, just keep the money coming! As though Quebec was not notoriously thick as theives with corruption, but, no, no, don’t ask any questions.
What province wouldn’t want this deal? Just cut us a check, and then stay out of it, would ya?
Colour me unimpressed.
Now, there’s an interesting idea! Survivor Canada!
If we got to vote for the unceremonious exit of whomever we liked least, the Conservatives would disappear first.
A way better answer than anything I could have come up with.
I’ve wanted to have one for years. Just think - if those bimbos ran around Manitoba with their groodies hanging out like they do in all those other locations, they’d either be mosquito food or frozen, depending on the time of year.
Well, I said I wouldn’t dare speak French in Calgary (unless I’m sure my interlocutor is francophone), which is true. That’s what I did when I actually was there in 2006. To me Calgary is deep in your part of Canada, so not a place for French. Even in Ottawa I rarely speak French with someone I don’t know, unless I’m sure it’s their first language.
In New Brunswick (an officially bilingual province) I usually speak French when I’m in a francophone city, and English when I’m in an anglophone city. It just makes sense. It gets complicated with bilingual cities like Moncton, but I tend to default to English out of the perception that anglophones might not speak French, or want to hear it even if they do speak it, while francophones (especially outside Quebec) just don’t care. And bilingual cities like Moncton and Ottawa are usually more English than French anyway, since they attract people from the rest of the (mostly English-speaking) province, so I’m putting luck on my side.
In Quebec though, even in Montreal, I default to French unless my interlocutor clearly doesn’t speak it. In Pontiac I’d probably feel shy going with French first, but then force me to do it as a matter of principle. So that’s my policy regarding language borders, in Canada at least.
I am aware that a number of young Quebecers are moving to Alberta because of the economic strength over there. But does it translate to more public servants who can actually serve the public in both languages? I’m not sure, and as I’ve said it’s definitely not something that I expect, despite Canada being a bilingual country and everything.
Hey, if we separate we’ll lose the Rockies! 
Nevertheless, Cat Whisperer brings out an important point. All parts of Canada contribute something to Canadian identity. But what Quebec brings is largely something you don’t care about. That’s not “bad” or wrong. But given this, can we really claim to be one country or one nation?
One. The 2007 election led to a minority government, replaced in 2008 by the current majority government. Next election to be held, I suppose, in late 2012 or early 2013. Still enough time for Charest to resign and let his successor build up some achievements to show for the next election.
Of course, but let’s not disregard the need for leaders. A good leader can inspire his country to do great things. I’m sure Quebec’s history would be different if René Lévesque had stayed in broadcasting, or joined Trudeau’s government, or been killed during World War II.
Well I can tell you what my main issue with English Canada is, and it doesn’t have anything to do with recognition or money or anything of the sort, just perception and attitude. English Canadians know next to nothing about Quebec, which I have no problem with (I know little about most foreign countries either), but constantly act with the utmost arrogance, as if they knew everything, and knew that of course we have a problem which they know how to solve. If you check what you people say about us, it’s always about how racist and xenophobic we are, we supposedly hate Jews, Muslims, blacks, Latinos, Asians and everybody who isn’t pure laine (a phrase I’ve almost never heard in French, only in English), or how mercenary we are, or how dishonest (elbows basically just called us a nation of thieves; I remember another thread where we’ve been called a nation of strip club owners but that was more of a joke and I guess at least it’s an honest trade). There’s never any sense that when Quebec and the rest of Canada differ on any issue, it may be because we’re two different peoples whose culture, fears, hot-button issues are largely similar, but may differ even on some important points. It’s always that Quebec is WRONG!, probably because its little people is being lied to and controlled by demagogic separatist politicians, so good English Canada must intervene.
Add to this the complete lack of awareness about themselves that English Canadians sometimes show. Yes, English Canadians are a proud people, almost a people of flag-wavers despite the fact that they claim to just be “nice” and understated and that all this overt patriotism is “American :rolleyes:”. There isn’t anything wrong with that, but by God just recognize it! And this multiculturalism which you’re so proud of is really nothing special. It doesn’t make you automatically not racist; neither does the French on your cereal boxes and the fact that you claim to be bilingual. You’re not less racist than us (not more either), if there was a means to measure that. I mean, English Canada is the country where, when there are debates about making some cities officially bilingual, you have these little old men go to Town Hall in their military uniform saying that they didn’t fight for the country to now surrender to the French.
Yes, I know it’s always hard to see our own defects, while seeing them in other people is pretty easy. Yes, we Quebecers do that as well: I can point out English Canada’s defects, but I’d have more difficulty pointing out ours. But the main difference is this: English Canadians consider Quebec, as part of their own country, something they should have influence on. So they look at us, filter what they see through their own prejudices and their ignorance, and then tell us what we are and what we should be. They tell us in English, so of course this is what Americans know about us (how many Americans think there are currently separatist terrorist groups active in Quebec?), and it filters out to other countries as well. Quebecers don’t think they have any standing to tell the rest of Canada what to do. I can say that Albertans are redneck Creationist brutes who think they’ve got a God-given right to destroy the planet (note: I don’t actually believe this), and who cares? As I’ve said earlier, Alberta is in your part of the country, so it’s none of our business, and the more nationalist the Quebecer, the more he believes that. (Well, except for the “destroy the planet” part, which affects us all.)
So there’s that, to start with.
Well, those are Canadians that I’ve never met. And I’ve met a lot of them. I’d argue you are making the majority of that up. I’ll go so far as to call it absolute bullshit. It saddens me that you seem to actually believe it.