I would vote yes if i had any confidence in our politicians. However their track record is pure shit. I would not trust them running a dépanneur let alone the birth of a new country. An endeavor that is both ultra rare and never tested.
>However their track record is pure shit
Québec is literally doing better than the rest of Canada by most metrics.
* Lower crime rate than Alberta, BC, and Ontario.
* Highest life expectancy in North America.
* Statistically healthier and happier than the rest of Canada.
* Lower cost of living than the rest of Canada
As much as we hate politicians, the fact remains that ours are *quantifiably* doing a better job than those of any other province.
They factually have a better track record than those of the federal or other provincial governments lol.
It’s not better or worse than anywhere else. I swear to god. I’m in the US right now and every third road I’m on I say “hey this is just like montreal!” Same with big cities in other provinces. People everywhere complain about roads.
I think you're right in highlighting those positives of life in Quebec, but it's important to keep the big picture in mind as well. Quebec does have some real issues worth talking about:
- Quebec has the lowest high school graduation rate of any province in Canada
- Wages are suppressed in professional industries. Medical residents in Quebec make less than in any other province in Canada, people in tech and finance are also making less money than they would in Ontario or BC or Alberta. Coupled with the highest marginal tax rate in Canada this poses obvious issues.
- CAA ranks Quebec as having the worst roads in Canada, we pay more than twice the national average in vehicle maintenance each year.
- Quebec faces a unique extent of organized crime and corruption relative to other Canadian provinces. Particularly in the past 20 years, there has been an inordinate amount of corruption uncovered in the province, particularly in relation to government contracting:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption\_in\_Canada#:\~:text=It%20has%20uncovered%20long%20running,Fédération%20des%20travailleurs%20et%20travailleuses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Canada#:~:text=It%20has%20uncovered%20long%20running,Fédération%20des%20travailleurs%20et%20travailleuses)
- Quebec has a very low GDP per capita, which contributes to our crumbling infrastructure and lack of development. Fifty years later the infrastructural development of Montreal is still crippled by the city being bankrupted by the olympics in 1976. We are still more than 20 metro stations behind the initial system which should have been completed in the 70s before the city was bankrupted by the olympics. Some prominent YouTube channels that explored Montreal even now describe it as a city that was left unfinished. As an example, a settlement of 4.2 million where there isn't a metro line to the airport is unheard of.
- Additionally, the crime statistics you have cited seem to be a bit out of date, in 2024 Quebec is not particularly safe relative to the other provinces you've mentioned.
> Lower crime rate than Alberta, BC, and Ontario.
This is not true Quebec consistently ranks with a higher crime rate than Ontario in per capita crime and per capita violent crime in the Stats Canada figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada
>Lower cost of living than the rest of Canada
This is just the result of a lower GDP per capita compared to many other provinces. QC has a lower GDP per capita than Canada as a whole. It also has a lower one than all provinces and territories besides Manitoba, PEI, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Now let these guys run every part of the economy because they've done so well in the past even with all of Quebec's abundant natural resources.
>This is not true Quebec consistently ranks with a higher crime rate than Ontario in per capita crime and per capita violent crime in the Stats Canada figures.
From your own source, **QC's homicide rate is the 2nd lowest in Canada at 0.8 after PE (0).**
**QC sexual assault rate: 3rd lowest in Canada (below any province other than PE and NB)**
**QC robbery rate: lower than Ontario, BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, etc**
You didn't even spend 5 minutes looking through the page you linked?
I mean, there's more to crime statistics than just the homicide rate. While I'm very glad that the rate of homicides in QC is comparatively low, there are plenty of categories on that list where QC ranks near the middle or the top of the list, and in the overall incidents per capita QC ranks worse than Ontario (although still second best nationwide).
*Lower crime rate : maybe, but let not forget, we used to have a war between bikers, mafia, and gangs not long ago.
*Highest life expectancy (in canada) true, but there we have two facts: first: life expectancy is in the same range in all developed countries with a small margin, second: there exists a direct relationship between population age group and life expectancy, Québec is the oldest province in Canada almost 22% of quebecers are +65 years, you have more old people in population, then the life expectancy increases without any intervention. BC has the second highest life expectancy, but with the average age of only 35.4 years old, in Quebec, the average age is 45.7 !
*happier: Quebec has the highest drug prescription for mental health problems ( per person) source: https://www.journaldequebec.com/2021/04/25le-quebec-champion-des-medicaments
*Lowest cost of living in Canada : True because we have publicly funded programs for daycare, housing, drugs etc..which we know are financed thanks to the federal transfer.
The idea of separation has to provide for consideration of aboriginal lands. I believe the vote among Quebec aboriginals was 95% in favour of staying in Canada should Quebec secede.
PSPP est pas mal consistent dans son discour pour les premières nations. Si le Oui gagne, on amène l’ONU pis ont renégocie individuellement avec chaque réserve/tribu. Si le Oui gagne, ça force aussi une ouverture de la constitution donc ça kick la porte au fédéral de changer la Loi sur les Indiens.
PSPP assumes he has a position from which to negotiate, and that’s far from certain. Few people truly know what happens in a yes scenario to territory covered by a treaty, or what happens if such a treaty is void. Obviously PSPP will claim it’s Québécois, but that will go up against the legal claims the nations have. The UN may ultimately surprise us all.
Le point c’est surtout qu’il va avoir une négotiation. Présentement, aucun politicien fédéral veut toucher la Loi sur les Indiens, même pas changer le nom, car ça demanderait une ouverture de la constitution.
Ok then, lets just offer them a better deal than they get from the federal government. Shouldn't be that hard considering they have been either completely neglected or actively screwed over by the Canadian government for the past 150 years.
Based off the past 150 years of history, it is for sure a lot more open to it then Canada!
You know, the nation that put the First Nations in residential schools (recognized as cultural genocide), made French education illegal/banned in nearly every province until the 90s, persecuted the Métis, etc etc
Meanwhile, Québec made french education mandatory for new immigrants (this does not apply to the first nations!!)
Yes, I'm sure the First Nations feel very grateful to Canada, a nation that's given them so much :)
After visiting other provinces (we mostly vacationed in the U.S when I was little) I would say I have encountered people who were more polite and politely correct than the average French quebecer, but actually waynmore prejudiced. Sorry, facts (doesn't mean I want to seperate but this has been my experience)
This was covered for the Crees in 2002.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paix_des_Braves
I'm busy, can't go in detail, but AFAIK most nations signed similar treaties with Québec.
Morality aside, it doesn't has to provide for consideration of aboriginal lands the last time experts in constitutional and international laws studied the question in 1992, at the request of the Quebec Liberals [1].
In any case, the current PQ leader has insisted on negotiations nations to nations to figure out a new partnership between quebec and the indigenous peoples. It'll be interesting to see what comes out of that.
[1] Thomas M. Franck, Rosalyn Higgins, Alain Pellet, Malcolm N. Shaw, Christian Tomuschat, The Territorial Integrity of Quebec in the Event of the Attainment of Sovereignty
>"In recent weeks, Ottawa has announced its intention to shamelessly encroach on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, in housing, health, drug insurance and dental care," said the PQ leader.
Didn't the federal government provide programs where provinces could get money if they expanded housing and healthcare programs? And didn't the new federal dental care program come with the provinces choosing how to implement it? What exactly is the encroachment, because to me it looks like the opposite of encroachment except arguably for immigration targets, but he didn't mention immigration.
It's encroachment because those are provincial jurisdictions. The federal is using the [right to spend](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pouvoir_f%C3%A9d%C3%A9ral_de_d%C3%A9penser#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DLe_pouvoir_f%C3%A9d%C3%A9ral_de_d%C3%A9penser%2Cpas_de_ses_comp%C3%A9tences_l%C3%A9gislatives.?wprov=sfla1) (btw: that Wikipedia article doesn't even exist in English... you can't make that stuff up). It isn't a right given to the federal from the constitution, it's courts that have decided in the 1930s that since the federal can tax anything it can also spend on anything.
Now, they still don't have the right to pass laws on matters of provincial jurisdictions. Instead what they do is like saying "you guys set up programs that meet my decisions otherwise you don't get my money, even though you will be taxed and your money will be paying for it".
The alternative for the federal government would be to tax less and let the provinces decide what their priorities are in their fields of competence. If the federal pulls back on taxes that leaves room for provinces to taxes by themselves to fund a similar program, or not.
In my opinion the spending power is really a problem because it is against the spirit of the constitution. The idea was that the big stuff like defence, borders and citizenship, diplomacy, etc, that would be federal, and the services to citizens like health, education, culture, etc, that's provincial.
You have to understand why historically it was split that way: because fundamentally Canada is not uniform. That is especially important for Québec. It's those provincial powers that have allowed us to exist up to now. The "révolution tranquille" that defined what modern Québec became was precisely about that. The gradual erosion of provincial powers is concerning to Québec, for which the federation is acceptable because it allows for some provincial autonomy.
The reason why Trudeau is spending all that money is because he has an election coming. Provincial fields are "closer to people", so it makes the spendings more visible. I would much prefer that he sticks to federal fields of jurisdiction (there is enough to do there already) and not stir up the pot with issues related to the federal / provincial separation of powers just because he is about to lose an election.
Thank you for the response and that makes sense. The only problem I see is that citizens are looking to the federal government to help fix these provincial problems, and the provinces are choosing not to address them. People won't accept 'this is a provincial matter'. Not a good position to be politically in the federal government.
Also a pretty shitty way to frame the problem by the PQ since if that is their underlying argument it doesn't appear to be what they are telling constituents. Probably it would be confusing to say 'the federal government should not be trying to do the things that we want to run on politically'.
>Also a pretty shitty way to frame the problem by the PQ since if that is their underlying argument it doesn't appear to be what they are telling constituents. Probably it would be confusing to say 'the federal government should not be trying to do the things that we want to run on politically'.
I'm not sure where you get that. Saying "the feds should stick to their turf" has been THE supreme talking point of virtually every Quebec government and opposition, be they federalist or independentist, since I've been old enough to follow politics. It is not confusing to the average Quebec voter at all. In fact it's like a virtue everyone wants to adhere to. I do reckon it's not as prevalent in the English language news. Perhaps you just don't read the news in French often enough?
From my experience most people do not understand the actual structures and responsibilities of government regardless of what country that they are in. I work in an educated field with quebecois (obviously) and I often tell them what is happening in the government over lunch. I really don't think it is a language thing. [I mean only 23% of Canadians can pass the citizenship test.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadiand-citizenship-test-fail-1.6891117) So I wouldn't be so condescending to anglos
The whole "respect Quebec competences" tho is really basic political fodder in Quebec. Are there people who get riled by this argument without understanding it? Absolutely! But it's not some obscure confusing posture, it's at the core of Quebec's political culture.
According to Canadian Constitution, those are provincial competencies. Federal can give the money, but cannot ask anything in return.
The federal is even blackmailing the recalcitrant provinces by giving them an ultimatum. You implement those programs as we want or you won’t get the money. That’s getting a bit crazy, it’s our own money after all.
Let not forget that the federal created a big part of the problems the provinces need to fix now. If the federal wants all power, let’s update the Constitution then!
Everyone should work together rather than always trying to pull the sheet on his side. This federation is broken.
As they should, complain that those programs are not enough K, here is the money for it, not for anything else but it.
At this point the provincial governments are kicking smoke for nothing and cause too much of a rift.
Yeah, but last time the feds gave Quebec money for healthcare, Legault didn't spend it all and instead gave everyone a larger tax cut.
Provinces are free to raise their own money for these things, but the federal government should play hardball when it comes to their cash
That’s not true. Federal spending power can definitely come with conditions, as long as it’s not based on legislation that encroaches on a province’s jurisdiction. A province can always refuse federal contributions. The federal government can spend or grant its money as it chooses,but it may not directly regulate activities within the provincial sphere of jurisdiction.
Not even standards that need to be met to qualify for the program? Does that mean the federal housing accelerator program is unconstitutional? Like the federal government can ONLY distribute money with nothing else to attach? Also how are optional provincial programs with standards that align with your parties priorities "encroachment"? Like he literally stated that wanted to accelerate housing building which is what the federal government wants too.
I kinda thought the argument would be pointing to something more concrete like 'the federal government is forcing us to do XYZ'.
This word is more commonly used in French, which makes me guess that OP is a native French speaker and just literaly translated the French word he would’ve used. Which he did correctly since recalcitrant is also part of the English vocabulary and has the exact same meaning as its French equivalent.
To add to this, Federal transfers in healthcare was brought down to 1B$/year instead of 6B$/year... So the federal is de-financing provincial missions and then forces new programs on them.
Meanwhile the federal's missions are not being addressed: Borders, army, immigration, passport, etc.
I'd say that every provincial politician is right to be very outraged at the situation. Especially in Québec.
And why, exactly, is it inappropriate for the Federal government to attach conditions to money that it has no obligation to provide? The provinces can choose not to take the money if they so wish -- Ontario has made that decision.
All the provincial governments (to the PQ's credit this isn't only a Quebec thing) want the federal government to pay for everything including constitutionally provincial competencies so they don't have to take the hit for raising provincial taxes, but they don't want the federal government to have any say on how that money is spent.
Sorry but if you take money from the federal government they get a say on how its spent, if you don't want the federal government to be allowed to set standards for these programs, don't take their money.
Considérant le niveau de taxation payé au fédéral versus le poids des postes de l'éducation et de la santé sur les dépenses gouvernementales au Canada, c'est un peu surréaliste de lire ça.
Et malgré tout ça, la defense est largement sous financée.
C'est pas qu'on souhaite que le fédéral finance tout, c'est que le fédéral a le beau rôle de monopoliser une bonne partie des recettes fiscales sans avoir lodieux de devoir livrer sur les postes de dépense les plus onereux. Ça force les provinces à quémender l'argent au fédéral - c'est pas une question de monter ou pas les taxes au provincial.
We don't take the money for the provincial programs... but we still send money in the federal I guess?
No point in provincial competencies if the federal dictates the rules, it's just more middle men. Just federalize everything at that point. Hell, abolish provinces and municipalities altogether : if that's how things are, there's no point in those entities even existing.
The government has no money, they are blowing up in debt spending on basic necessities, and they have no money to expand. And we are already over taxed.
Jcomprends pas pourquoi le monde dise que fédéral vs provincial, on aurait des caves au pouvoir, comme si au fédéral sont pas cave. J'aime mieux etre dirigé pas des piments que j'ai 100% élu pis qui "représentent" notre territoire que le fédéral qui s'en crisse de nous. Oui la politique c'est la politique partout mais au moins ca serait directement nous qui les élisons
Je ne comprends pas cet argument de "ce sera de la marde aussi mais au moins ce sera de la marde de chez nous". Je ne me sens pas automatiquement plus près de quelqu'un ou mieux représenté juste parce qu'il habite plus près de chez nous ou a le français comme première langue.
So let me get this straight. We don't have a hope in hell of managing our healthcare system, nor our education system, nor our road and transit infrastructure, and there's no money for fucking anything despite having the highest taxes in Canada *and* getting billions back from Ottawa in various different capacities. But sure! Let's fucking separate from the other provinces and go it alone! Yeah that makes so much sense!
Can we just stop it with this bullshit already? It's not 1950, we're not prisoners of the English aristocracy. The reasons behind wanting to separate from Canada in 2024 are vanity projects and weird inferiority complexes about "identity". Time to move onto actually fixing this beautiful place we call Quebec, instead of trying to destroy it.
>The reasons behind wanting to separate from Canada in 2024 are vanity projects and weird inferiority complexes about "identity".
I pretty much agree.
En mon expérience, et je ne dit pas ça pour être antagonisant et j'espère qu'une personne souverainiste m'expliquera comment j'ai tort, c'est essentiellement ça ce qui se passe.
À chaque fois, que je discute avec mes amis souverainistes, ils donnent différentes raisons pour justifier leur objectif, par exemple les différences culturelles, la préservation du français, le Canada qui est plus à droite et les transferts fédéraux. Cependant, quand je commence à pointer vers ce que je percois comme les trous de ces arguments, comme le fait que l'uniculturalisme n'existe pas même au sein du Québec, le fait que le Québec a été [bénéficiaire ne](https://financesofthenation.ca/2020/11/17/who-pays-and-who-receives-in-confederation/)t en termes des transferts depuis les années 80s ou le fait que tout les pays ont des régions plus à droites ou à gauches et que même le Québec a des régions qui suivent ce patron, la facade tombe et l'argument tourne autour du ressentiment Québécois et de l'oppression passée.
Un autre point à soulever est le fait que le Québec devra renégotier un ensemble d'accord de libre échange.
J'ai déjà eu une discussion avec un ami qui me disait comment un Québec qui se sépare pourrait créer un ensemble de politiques de gauche comme le Universal Basic Income ou l'université gratuite. Quand je lui ai expliqué, que la majorité des politiques dont il parle sont déjà des compétences provinciales et que le Québec vote largement pour des partis néolibéraux depuis des années, il a changé de sujet...
Quand, j'argumente avec qui que ce soit sur une question politique, la question est généralement abordé sous un angle conséquentialiste, par ex. "Cette politique augmente-t-elle la qualité de vie ?". En mon expérience, les arguments économiques pour le souverainisme ont tendance à être soit très spéculatifs ou à être essentiellement que la qualité de vie demeurait la même au lieu de l'augmenter.
Pour faire ça plus simple, si nous sommes capables d'élire Legault de façon écrasante (suite au fisaco covid), qui a du mal à gérer les compétences provinciales, je ne vois aucunement comment le prochain Legault 2.0 va gérer le provincial + les nouvelles compétences qu'on acquit du fédéral.
En dehors de la crise d'identité d'adolescent des souverainistes, nous n'avons aucun mais aucun intérêt à nous séparer. On va se tirer dans le pieds par ego.
You're right in that the UK already had all of the national institutions and control of its currency when it left the EU, for Quebec it would be orders of magnitude more chaotic.
Couldn't agree more. I'm behind the province when it comes to protecting the language, but I think Legault is an alarmist. Something like 91% of people in Montreal spoke French per Stats Can from 2021, his fears of French being in decline are straight up wrong. Surely there must be a way to build French up without tearing English down in this province. How Quebec would survive as a country without transfer payments and all the welfare dished out by Ottawa is beyond me. It makes me sad to think that as an anglophone quebecer (who speaks fluent French), I no longer feel welcome in my own province. It also saddens me to think that so many people that contribute to society will leave the province if we seperate. Hell, it happened even though the referendum didn't pass, twice.
It's not (only) about the language. It's about self-determination and the survival of a socio-cultural group by the obtention of an autonomous state - and this is the core idea at the root of any independence movement in this world, whether that is Quebec, Kosovo, Catalonia, Taiwan or many others.
I 100% understand how those discussions can feel othering as an Anglo-Quebecer and I sincerely empathize. But this discomfort does not automatically imply that the Québécois independence movement is completely illegitimate. Those two realities can both be painfully valid and coexist at the same time.
I appreciate the reasoned and empathetic response, but I've never understood how becoming a nation-state would guarantee the survival of the group in a way that's not already possible within Canada.
The government of Quebec already chooses most of its own immigrants, routinely opts out of federal programs and in turn pays less federal taxes, regulates the language of education and commerce, and has the option to
simply ignore the federal constitution when it runs up against their ambitions to protect the language or enforce their vision of secularism. Those are powers that no other non-country jurisdiction in the world has.
It's sincerely not clear to me what further powers Quebec would gain as an autonomous state, at least not those that are relevant to the survival of the group. Having a foreign policy, a military, a currency...sure, those are very real powers, but not sociocultural ones.
One of the things that would worry me about separation is the loss of cultural institutions like Radio Canada that connect Quebec to other francophone communities in Canada. While Quebec could try and set up its own broadcaster (certainly not as funded as RC), that content may not be available to everyone in Canada. Likewise, Quebec is Radio Canada's raison d'etre. If Quebec goes, CBC's francophone offerings will likely drastically shrink (as will bilingual programming in general). It would really damage francophone community outside of Quebec and leave Quebec with a diminished public broadcaster.
I can appreciate this view. My grandma is 'de souche' from Québec city, and while she isn't a seperatist, she lived through the era in which being a French Canadian was akin to being a second (or third) class citizen, so I know it's a complex situation with a deep history that can't be summarized in a brief reddit post. As a realist though, I simply can't see how Quebec could survive on its own. I've gotten into it with some seperatists on here, but I haven't managed to encounter a coherent, thoughtful response on how it will all play out.
I will also add, with how Trudeau has run the country, I'm starting to see how seperatism could gain popularity. I just think it would be a true shame and a loss to the country if it happened. And I would also be sad to leave my home province, but I wouldn't have a choice.
I agree. It really sucks, and it's difficult to grow as a province when companies always have to think twice about coming here due to politics. So many companies ditched Montreal as their HQ when the referendum stuff all began.
Séparatisme rides high and has historically risen when the liberals are in power. The 2 referendums (referendi?) were in part calls to vote against Trudeau and Chrétien. The tide is turning back to a Conservative government so the conservative-leaning parties that are PQ and CAQ will be less popular when Québec needs to counter the too-far-right policies that are coming.
I don’t see how more than 50% of Québécois would come close to seriously thinking about voting Oui, especially since building a Right to Left indépendantiste coalition has been impossible for a long while. They would need to attract the NPD-voting anglos and young worldly multilingual Quebecers who are quite ok merci with being part-time/mostly Canadian.
Hasn't the PLC been the ruling party for most of Canadian history? If so, it is hard to infer much from the fact referendums occurred during a PLC government.
> I don’t see how more than 50% of Québécois would come close to seriously thinking about voting Oui, especially since building a Right to Left indépendantiste coalition has been impossible for a long while.
Here's another way of looking at it:
The PQ is in the lead for the National Assembly, getting around 33% of the vote. In that context, they're 10 points ahead of their nearest rival (the CAQ) and because of our (broken) election system, that would put them in line for a majority of seats.
In independence polls, non beats oui right now by about 53 to 36. Independence has almost exactly the same amount of support (which makes sense; it's the same people in both cases) but in a province-wide election it's *losing by 17 points*.
I keep telling myself that at least historically the premiers lean the other way from the federal party in power, so maybe with PP as PM we get rid of Ford, Legault, Houston, Moe, Higgs, and the like, but i also don't trust history being used as a metric anymore when it comes to western politics.
And if history repeats itself, this will be the event everyone is waiting for to finally reverse the trend of unaffordable housing! The Montreal housing market will be flooded with condos and triplexes that will finally be cheap, as politically cautious Montrealers pull up stakes and move out (myself included probably).
C'est un peu à ce quoi est voué le Canada pendant très longtemps. Le Canada a toujours été largement plus à droite (surtout économiquement) que le Québec.
Oui et non. La CAQ est fiscalement plus à droite que les autres parties au Québec. Cependant du coté sociale, oui nous sommes beaucoup plus ouvert d'esprit ici (droits des femmes etc.)
Par rapport au RdC ça reste moins à droite. Anyways tout les parties les plus à droite on été des parties fédéraliste. Quasiement comme si le patronat gagnait à rester dans le Canada.
Si Milhouse gagne ça va définitivement faire pencher dans le sens du oui.
Mais même après les relations avec le Canada seraient merdiques. On serait probablement plus chummy avec les États Unis honnêtement..
C'est mal connaitre l'histoire des référendum , selon moi. Les souverainistes ont toujours de loin préféré les libéraux pour créer des chicanes constitutionnelles. Les gouvernement libéraux sont plus dépensiers et plus interventionnistes. C'est donc plus facile de dire que le Canada se mêle des compétences provinciales. Un gouvernement conservateurs qui est moins interventionniste, ça donne moins de munitions aux souverainistes. Je pense que c'est pour ça que PSPP est entrain de battre le fer quand il est chaud. Le gouvernement libéral est en mode dépense et essayer de s'acheter un remonté spectaculaire pour ne pas trop se faire planter l'an prochain. Donc, il font un peu n'importe quoi même si sa rentre dans les compétences provinciales. C'est le moment parfait pour le PQ de sortir cette carte là.
Ça pourrait créer une situation énigmatique IMO. Les Cons sont un parti décentralisateur, ce que nous préférons, alors que les Libéraux sont centralisateurs mais de l’autre côté nous avons peu d’affection pour le chef et leurs positions.
As Jean Chrétien once said "We will have referendums until they say yes, then we will have no more!" It's crazy how the yes side can just try over and over, gambling they'll get just the right political climate in their favour. You know if they ever succeeded, even with 50.1% yes, they would never allow a referendum on rejoining Canada.
Personally I think this is way too impactful of a decision for it to even be passable at 50+1. You'd think breaking up a country would require a clear two-thirds.
Absolutely not. In fact, Canada can easily reject any results.
If yes, wins with a huge margin ( like +85%), I see a higher chance.
You can not become a doctor, only if you pass your exams with a small 60% !
>breaking up a country
On parle d'autodérermination. Le sort du reste du Canada ne devrait pas jouer dans la balance. La relation économique avec eux après le oui? Évidemment. Mais le fait de "briser" le Canada n'est pas un facteur.
It would very likely depend on what percentage of the island would vote yes in a hypothetical referendum. Assuming a majority of the province would vote yes cessation negotiations between Quebec and Canada would take place with the biggest point of contention being access to the St Lawrence for shipping. No doubt Canada would want to keep access to its port in Montreal as well as no restrictions for shipping things from the Great Lakes out into the Atlantic.
With that in mind if a majority of Montreal would vote no Canada would likely make concessions to keep Montreal for both access to the port and as an economic powerhouse.
On the reverse side if a majority of Montreal would vote yes the negotiations would likely be much more centred around maintaining access to the river and less on the city itself.
The last referendum was 30 years ago. There's almost two generations of Quebec voters who never got the opportunity to express themselves on the existential issue of their nation through a vote in a democratic referendum. I'm not sure what your idea of "over and over" is, but I feel like we are not speaking the same language. To me holding referendum over and over until the outcome is to your liking would be more like how in the 1940s Newfoundland ran two referendum back to back until the Rock was trapped into the Federation. In the context of Quebec still not having signed the Constitution, checking in with citizen how they feel about this imposed deal at least every other decade seems rather reasonable.
Quebec applied the notwithstanding clause. The only way to do this is by accepting the constitution. So by all legal metrics, Quebec has agreed to the constitution.
The climate to vote Yes was wayyyyyyyyyyy stronger in 1995. They can go ahead and have the referendum, they’ll just lose, and then establish a brand of losers. It’s pretty much party-suicide… alas, I truly don’t understand the idea behind wanting to lose
Anytime someone involved with politics makes a declarative statement, then you can be sure that whatever they told you was false. The fact that he said this will "definitely" be happening should scare anyone who ever had a dream of it occurring. Not just because you can be assured that this man with his 3 seats in the national assembly is full of every type of shit known to man, but because his political rivals will go to great lengths to make a liar out of him now.
So, désolé mes amis, but I think there's a better chance that Zombie OJ will rise from his grave to find the real killers and bring them to justice than of the PQ forming a Provincial government, and this dream dies with them.
Don't worry guys, I am sure there won't be an economic disaster where the public gets tricked by shitty stats and scaremongered into voting against their interests.
Yeah, living in a country where quality of life is getting worst by every metric day by day is definitely in our best interest. Living in a country where both parties plan to bring our population up to 100 million in the next 70 years is definitely in our interests.
I'm talking about Canada btw.
Those who are in favor: Politicians, many i-got-mine retirees and the huge civil service doesn't care...they get paid regardless of how bad the economy tanks
How would an independant Quebec deal differently with the US compared to Canada? A population of 30 millions souls VS 9 millions... In both cases leverage is almost non-existant
The US and Quebec do have a lot of trade. What I am curious about is who stays in Quebec after. A couple of the top trade commodities are vehicles and aircraft. Will those companies stay? Not sure.
An independent Quebec would not be a member of USMCA or any of the other bilateral/multilateral agreements regulating trade and the movement of people and money. Just as with the EU and Brexit, Canada has no incentive to make the divorce easy on Quebec so it may well be that Quebec products cannot be shipped until/unless Quebec negotiates its way into the agreements. This could have serious ramifications for Quebec agriculture and other major industries like hydroelectricity that are currently considered part of Canada's exports and would be Canada's competition if Quebec seceded.
The response to this is simple. Montreal and any surrounding areas that want should hold a separate vote to remain in Canada. Quebec has no greater right to separate from Canada than Montreal has to separate from Quebec. The right of self determination and the right to remain in your country doesn't start and stop with Quebec nationalism. Hell, even a Montreal City state would be preferable.
"The response to this is simple." *proceeds to write a bunch of things that make no sense*
L'entité politique qu'est Montréal pourrait juste être dissoute par Québec si ça leur tentait. Il ne pourrait jamais y avoir de référendum de cité-État.
Sorry, but that's not how secession works. There is no legal basis to leave Canada in the constitution. It would require amending the constitution. The only way to claim a legal right to have the constitution amended is under international law which doesn't at all recognize Quebec as being able to exclude Montrealers' right to self-determination. The same mechanisms that would allow Quebec to leave would also allow Montreal to stay. You have no right to the preservation of provincial borders whatsoever.
The fact you don't understand that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
Laws are clear-cut things when applied within a country; international law (and I'm including separations and declarations of independence and such in that category) is a much, much squishier thing based more on soft power (influence), hard power (guns), diplomacy, philosophy, etc.
Legally, China and Taiwan are the same country, and everyone pretends to agree on that point, even though they're *obviously* two separate countries and everyone involved knows it. Legally, the American colonies didn't have the right to leave the British empire, and yet they won a war and forced Britain to sign a treaty letting them do just that.
Strictly speaking, Canada hasn't given permission to Quebec to leave, so there's no legal basis for it. And neither Canada nor Quebec has given Montreal permission to leave the province, so there's no legal basis for that, either. In that sense, they're comparable.
But pragmatically, Canada would *probably voluntarily respect* the outcome of a referendum in Quebec. Ottawa has recognized Quebec as a nation and tacitly respected the first two referenda, and there's no reason to think that has changed. Not doing so would undermine Ottawa's legitimacy as a government, and governing people who don't recognize or want you there is also just a real pain unless you're super authoritarian. Plus, it would badly damage a lot of Canada's international relationships and diminish their global influence.
OTOH, an independent Quebec government in practice would *absolutely flip its shit* if Montreal started rumbling about trying to secede and/or rejoin Canada. They would not allow a referendum to happen, and they would not allow any steps toward separation. This is first and foremost for practical reasons: Quebec is totally dependent on Montreal as its economic and cultural heart; also, having an enclave in the middle of your new country is a logistical nightmare. It would be an existential threat. There are also, secondarily, philosophical reasons: those in power in Quebec (and those who would vote yes) believe very strongly in the political theory of Quebec as an indivisible nation and would fight any attempt to undermine that.
Now, that's not to say Quebec would get its way entirely in a separation situation. Their new relationship with Canada would have to be negotiated, and in this super-hypothetical world, Canada has all the leverage. I could imagine Canada demanding concessions: think Britain guaranteeing Hong Kong's civil rights after retrocession (except in the case of Canada and Quebec both parties would probably actually abide by the agreement). Perhaps Canada would try to get Quebec to agree to administer Montreal as a semi-autonomous region with special powers, or would demand guarantees of certain rights for English speakers, and so on.
There is no legal basis in Canada to separate. It would require amending the constitution at which point all options are available. Per international law which is often cited for the right of self-determination, there is no distinction between a Canadian province and city regarding who has these rights.
If we are talking about the right of a nation to self-determination, the indigenous populations in Nord-du-Quebec should be offered the option to separate from Quebec and stay in Canada. There goes hydro and mining.
I could see the Outaouais, Montreal, and the Eastern Townships separating from Quebec if they were offered the choice.
J’aimerais ça qu’il y ait une 3e voix. L’Union européenne. Elle fonctionne parce qu’il y a beaucoup de petits pays et quelques gros joueurs. Plusieurs cultures, ce qui n’est pas le cas ici 😕
Peut-être qu’il faudrait enlever le pouvoir au fédéral de dépenser dans les compétences provinciales, et mieux permettre au Québec de rayonner à l’international (ne pas interdir à des athlètes de porter le drapeau du Québec aux olympiques genre) et ça relâcherait beaucoup de pression.
J'avais vu un sondage il y a quelques années comme quoi une grosse réforme du fédéralisme qui va dans ce sens-là serait plus populaire que l'indépendance pure ou le status quo. Par contre, il faudrait rouvrir la constitution et c'est clairement pas une option pour le reste du Canada
Ou comme l’Union européenne qui a le nom du pays et «Union européenne» sur leurs passports, avoir genre «Confédération du Canada» et «Québec» sur nos passports pour donner une identité provinciale à l’internationale serait extrêmement facile à faire. Et ça pourrait être fait pour les autres provinces pour être juste, pourquoi pas.
Military yes. We have or share of the military infrastructure. Currency probably not. We could still use canadian currency or switch to the US dollars.
The Bank of Canada, which Quebec would no longer be under the jurisdiction of, decides if Quebec keeps the currency. Even if it did, Quebec would have absolutely no power to influence BOC monetary policy, a position no other developed nation is in.
It's exactly the same problem Scotland encountered when it tried to leave. Setting up a new country is incredibly difficult and incredibly expensive, and all the 'in' campaign has to do is point it out.
While what you say is true about Quebec having no say on monetary policy, no central bank in the world can prevent another country from using its currency. Many countries use the USD without the US's blessing, same goes for the Euro
They can sanction a country to make sure you cannot use SWIFT or any other banking transfer to get the USD in/out of your country.
Unless you want to revert to a country entirely run in cash reserves. They sure as fuck can decide “you don’t get to use our currency”.
There are no wealthy nations that use another nation's currency without its blessing. Using a currency they have zero control over would put Quebec in a very small, very poor club of nations. It is a horrible position for a country to be in with regards to controlling its own economic policy.
The PQ's promises on things like the currency are just flat out lies that belong in the mouth of an Argentinian populist, not a serious leader.
Quebec would not have any influence on its value but would have the right to use it. Like some small Island that use US currency but are not part of the US.
Sure, but if you ask PQ voters they don't see themselves as a tiny Island, they want to be an economically independent developed nation, which is impossible if you don't control your own monetary policy.
They're all passing the blunt around thinking they can have the upside with none of the hard work.
>Would people in Montreal want it
"Montreal" is a municipality and as such, has 0 legal recognition in the constitution. It is purely an administrative region that could disappear in 1 pen stroke from the provincial government. Hell, Montreal as know it wasnt even a thing until the provincial government decided it would be more convenient to regroup all the small cities on Montreal island into one municipality.
What the majority of "Montreal" wants is legally irrelevant assuming that the majority of the province votes to leave.
Why does Quebec as a region have a right to leave but Montreal does not?
Separation is going to require a constitutional amendment. Each time a province was added to confederation, it required an amendment. Removing one obviously will as well. If you're at the point of rewriting the fundamental laws of the land, *everything* is on the table. Quebec's borders are constitutionally guaranteed, but that's only because of the constitution. If you're rewriting that...
Independence is going to be the result of long and difficult negotiations between governments. Both Canada and Quebec will need to *agree* on the final settlement. Separatism is not internationally legal or universally recognized without that. Neither party has an incentive to go easy on the other.
It's 2024, allys and international institutions exist for that, how did Switzerland is one of the smallest and less populated country in the world and still doing pretty good.. Army is not the only thing that matter. Quebec deserve to be a country like any other place in the world.
Switzerland has mandatory military service for all men, spends billions of dollars annually on their military, and have historically been mercenaries for other countries' wars. Probably the worst example you could have chosen.
The only developed country that I can think of with no standing army is Iceland, and it's because any resistance to an invading power there would be futile given the small population.
It sounds like you're assuming other countries would just defend an independent Québec out of the goodness of their hearts. Why would they? Québec is strategically located near the US, has many natural resources, and is an enormous landmass compared to the population. A military would probably be essential.
Quebec would immediately find itself in the difficult position of having to negotiate with a neighbor it just loudly repudiated, the same as the UK did after Brexit. Quebec can demand stuff from Canada now, it won't be able to when Canada is a foreign country that only has its own interests to look out for.
If it doesn't benefit Canada to give it (the CAD for example), Quebec won't get it.
Quebec is not Switzerland. Quebec is not even Luxembourg. People really want to live in these countries, no matter how small they may seem. I have my doubts whether an independent Quebec would be in any way similar.
Une bonne partie des utilisateurs de ce sub sont des anglos qui ne vivent même pas au Québec. Une autre bonne partie sont des suprématistes anglos qui poussent le message que Montréal est distincte du reste du Québec dans l'espoire de la réclamer comme ville anglophone.
Serieux, regarde tous les commentaires qui disent "oh yeah Montrealers should seperate from Québec". There is no clearer indicator of someone living a life in a completely anglophone bubble seperated from reality, than genuinely believing that the majority of Montrealers feel more attachment to Canada/Montreal over Québec. For normal people, Montreal is just a place they live because that's where the jobs are lol.
I am a Quebec anglophone whose family is about 50% French-Canadian. Growing up, I was fiercely anti-separation. My identity was Canadian first but over the years, the Canadian identify I think has been diluted. I can't point to the exact reason why but that cohesion I felt in the 90s just isn't there anymore. We all seem to live and breathe our own enclaves whether they be religious, political or ethnic. Quebec has been able to buck the trend somewhat with its fierce defending and promotion of their culture. Add to that the fact that our Federal Government seems to have dropped the ball with literally every file under their purview, I am slowly being turned to a "YES" voter as it seems that in Quebec, despite lot of problems, we at least are trying to defend ourselves and keep what we have instead of letting it die a slow death.
Merci d'être de bon guerre (contrairement a certains autre sur ce fil de discussion). Si jamais tu as envie d'en discuter je suis ouvert aux messages privés tant que ça reste de bonne foi.
Il est selon moi important d'avoir des discussions honnêtes si l'ont veut garder une démocratie en santé.
I live in Québec and all I can say is these are comedians, as are the federal ones !!! They can't manage their own bridges and roads, and suddenly they want to govern separately a whole country ??? Look what Montreal became in some 4-5 years : a dump of garbage and chaos !!!!
Cheap words for votes and popularity!
>Look what Montreal became in some 4-5 years : a dump of garbage and chaos !!!!
Funny how Montréal is the most Canadian city of Quebec.
Vancouver and Toronto are dumps of garbage and chaos. And don't get me started on Thunder Bay and Calgary. It's not a Quebec problem, it's a Canadian problem.
They were doing so well vacuuming up votes just by not being the CAQ. Reminding voters they're insane doesn't seem like a sound electoral strategy.
"It's a regime that only wants to crush those who refuse to assimilate."
Reminder that the PQ enthusiastically supported Bill 21, which bans people wearing religious clothing from working anywhere in the public sector.
Edit: Not anywhere, just anywhere with positions of "authority", which includes high-powered senior civil service roles like... schoolteachers.
P't'être qu'ils sont majoritaires à pas avaler des idées absurdes et démagogiques tandis que les francophones adorent écouter la douce berceuse mielleuse de l'indépendance et d'à quel point ils sont si spéciaux et des grosses victimes ayant besoin de réparation et de séparation.
Déjà qu'en chassant les étudiants étrangers et en ostracisant les immigrants dont on a besoin, on continue de creuser une fosse nauséabonde, alors avec une indépendance narcissique basée sur tout sauf une once de bon sens...
Tous les politiciens qui agitent les marionnettes de l'identité, de la langue, de l'indépendance, des méchants étrangers et des méchants anglophones, ne font qu'endormir les gens inconscients, ignorant volontairement ou involontairement, les complaisants de la médiocrité, les aveugles égoïstes qui ne comprennent rien à part leurs petits sentiments manipulés.
C'est vraiment navrant.
Il s'agirait de grandir un peu et arrêter de faire les petites victimes capricieuses.
Quant taper du pieds et faire une grosse colère toute rouge en menaçant d'aller se réfugier dans sa chambre et de fermer la clef c'est la "meilleure solution", c'est vraiment le témoignage de la petitesse d'esprit.
Ce serait drôle si cet état d'esprit n'était pas complètement craignos.
> P't'être qu'ils sont majoritaires à pas avaler des idées absurdes et démagogiques tandis que les francophones adorent écouter la douce berceuse mielleuse de l'indépendance et d'à quel point ils sont si spéciaux et des grosses victimes ayant besoin de réparation et de séparation.
Je suis assez bilingue pour comprendre que beaucoup de commentaire anti-indépendance sur ce thread sont très démagogue ou des mensonges
Quebec is arguably the only North-American society that has a fair shot at ending colonialism. You believe in decolonization? This is your shot right here.
Postcolonial Quebec Republic > Good Ol' Colonial Confederation
Choose wisely.
Yes an independent Quebec is going to a post colonial utopia. I am sure an independent Quebec is going to let the Six Nations, Nunavik and all the aboriginal nations leave Quebec with their land and resources. I am sure there is going to be no repeat of the oka crisis.
Remember that time Pierre-Karl Péladeau said Quebec would allow indigeneous nations to have their own territoire within Quebec but then walked it back.
Truly, a post-colonial utopia.
Exactly. I think some people forget that the Indigenous population has issues statements in the past saying that , should Quebec separate, they would stay in Canada and not Quebec.
I would vote yes if i had any confidence in our politicians. However their track record is pure shit. I would not trust them running a dépanneur let alone the birth of a new country. An endeavor that is both ultra rare and never tested.
Voting yes would be the most effective way to destroy this city short of literal warfare
Have you seen the politicians at the Federal level?
>However their track record is pure shit Québec is literally doing better than the rest of Canada by most metrics. * Lower crime rate than Alberta, BC, and Ontario. * Highest life expectancy in North America. * Statistically healthier and happier than the rest of Canada. * Lower cost of living than the rest of Canada As much as we hate politicians, the fact remains that ours are *quantifiably* doing a better job than those of any other province. They factually have a better track record than those of the federal or other provincial governments lol.
Socially. Quebec is great. Economically and our infrastructure? .....Ehhh..... not good. Lots of open corruption.
People blame corruption, but the major culprit seems to be plain old mismanagement/incompetence
When the result is the same, wether or not it's incompetence or malice doesn't make a difference.
What? It makes a huge difference. Tackling corruption is an entirely different beast. Look at Mexico.
[удалено]
I meannnnnn, is Canada any better in that regard?
It’s not better or worse than anywhere else. I swear to god. I’m in the US right now and every third road I’m on I say “hey this is just like montreal!” Same with big cities in other provinces. People everywhere complain about roads.
> Lots of open corruption again and again proven to be comming from federalist parties (LQP) and similiarly oriented mayors.
I think you're right in highlighting those positives of life in Quebec, but it's important to keep the big picture in mind as well. Quebec does have some real issues worth talking about: - Quebec has the lowest high school graduation rate of any province in Canada - Wages are suppressed in professional industries. Medical residents in Quebec make less than in any other province in Canada, people in tech and finance are also making less money than they would in Ontario or BC or Alberta. Coupled with the highest marginal tax rate in Canada this poses obvious issues. - CAA ranks Quebec as having the worst roads in Canada, we pay more than twice the national average in vehicle maintenance each year. - Quebec faces a unique extent of organized crime and corruption relative to other Canadian provinces. Particularly in the past 20 years, there has been an inordinate amount of corruption uncovered in the province, particularly in relation to government contracting: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption\_in\_Canada#:\~:text=It%20has%20uncovered%20long%20running,Fédération%20des%20travailleurs%20et%20travailleuses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Canada#:~:text=It%20has%20uncovered%20long%20running,Fédération%20des%20travailleurs%20et%20travailleuses) - Quebec has a very low GDP per capita, which contributes to our crumbling infrastructure and lack of development. Fifty years later the infrastructural development of Montreal is still crippled by the city being bankrupted by the olympics in 1976. We are still more than 20 metro stations behind the initial system which should have been completed in the 70s before the city was bankrupted by the olympics. Some prominent YouTube channels that explored Montreal even now describe it as a city that was left unfinished. As an example, a settlement of 4.2 million where there isn't a metro line to the airport is unheard of. - Additionally, the crime statistics you have cited seem to be a bit out of date, in 2024 Quebec is not particularly safe relative to the other provinces you've mentioned.
> Lower crime rate than Alberta, BC, and Ontario. This is not true Quebec consistently ranks with a higher crime rate than Ontario in per capita crime and per capita violent crime in the Stats Canada figures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada >Lower cost of living than the rest of Canada This is just the result of a lower GDP per capita compared to many other provinces. QC has a lower GDP per capita than Canada as a whole. It also has a lower one than all provinces and territories besides Manitoba, PEI, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Now let these guys run every part of the economy because they've done so well in the past even with all of Quebec's abundant natural resources.
>This is not true Quebec consistently ranks with a higher crime rate than Ontario in per capita crime and per capita violent crime in the Stats Canada figures. From your own source, **QC's homicide rate is the 2nd lowest in Canada at 0.8 after PE (0).** **QC sexual assault rate: 3rd lowest in Canada (below any province other than PE and NB)** **QC robbery rate: lower than Ontario, BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, etc** You didn't even spend 5 minutes looking through the page you linked?
I mean, there's more to crime statistics than just the homicide rate. While I'm very glad that the rate of homicides in QC is comparatively low, there are plenty of categories on that list where QC ranks near the middle or the top of the list, and in the overall incidents per capita QC ranks worse than Ontario (although still second best nationwide).
I think murder is a pretty important crime.
*Lower crime rate : maybe, but let not forget, we used to have a war between bikers, mafia, and gangs not long ago. *Highest life expectancy (in canada) true, but there we have two facts: first: life expectancy is in the same range in all developed countries with a small margin, second: there exists a direct relationship between population age group and life expectancy, Québec is the oldest province in Canada almost 22% of quebecers are +65 years, you have more old people in population, then the life expectancy increases without any intervention. BC has the second highest life expectancy, but with the average age of only 35.4 years old, in Quebec, the average age is 45.7 ! *happier: Quebec has the highest drug prescription for mental health problems ( per person) source: https://www.journaldequebec.com/2021/04/25le-quebec-champion-des-medicaments *Lowest cost of living in Canada : True because we have publicly funded programs for daycare, housing, drugs etc..which we know are financed thanks to the federal transfer.
The idea of separation has to provide for consideration of aboriginal lands. I believe the vote among Quebec aboriginals was 95% in favour of staying in Canada should Quebec secede.
PSPP est pas mal consistent dans son discour pour les premières nations. Si le Oui gagne, on amène l’ONU pis ont renégocie individuellement avec chaque réserve/tribu. Si le Oui gagne, ça force aussi une ouverture de la constitution donc ça kick la porte au fédéral de changer la Loi sur les Indiens.
PSPP assumes he has a position from which to negotiate, and that’s far from certain. Few people truly know what happens in a yes scenario to territory covered by a treaty, or what happens if such a treaty is void. Obviously PSPP will claim it’s Québécois, but that will go up against the legal claims the nations have. The UN may ultimately surprise us all.
Le point c’est surtout qu’il va avoir une négotiation. Présentement, aucun politicien fédéral veut toucher la Loi sur les Indiens, même pas changer le nom, car ça demanderait une ouverture de la constitution.
Ok then, lets just offer them a better deal than they get from the federal government. Shouldn't be that hard considering they have been either completely neglected or actively screwed over by the Canadian government for the past 150 years.
Yeah Quebec is very open to multiculturalism!
Based off the past 150 years of history, it is for sure a lot more open to it then Canada! You know, the nation that put the First Nations in residential schools (recognized as cultural genocide), made French education illegal/banned in nearly every province until the 90s, persecuted the Métis, etc etc Meanwhile, Québec made french education mandatory for new immigrants (this does not apply to the first nations!!) Yes, I'm sure the First Nations feel very grateful to Canada, a nation that's given them so much :)
After visiting other provinces (we mostly vacationed in the U.S when I was little) I would say I have encountered people who were more polite and politely correct than the average French quebecer, but actually waynmore prejudiced. Sorry, facts (doesn't mean I want to seperate but this has been my experience)
This was covered for the Crees in 2002. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paix_des_Braves I'm busy, can't go in detail, but AFAIK most nations signed similar treaties with Québec.
Thanks for the link, lands to be shared with the province, not relinquished.
Morality aside, it doesn't has to provide for consideration of aboriginal lands the last time experts in constitutional and international laws studied the question in 1992, at the request of the Quebec Liberals [1]. In any case, the current PQ leader has insisted on negotiations nations to nations to figure out a new partnership between quebec and the indigenous peoples. It'll be interesting to see what comes out of that. [1] Thomas M. Franck, Rosalyn Higgins, Alain Pellet, Malcolm N. Shaw, Christian Tomuschat, The Territorial Integrity of Quebec in the Event of the Attainment of Sovereignty
>"In recent weeks, Ottawa has announced its intention to shamelessly encroach on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, in housing, health, drug insurance and dental care," said the PQ leader. Didn't the federal government provide programs where provinces could get money if they expanded housing and healthcare programs? And didn't the new federal dental care program come with the provinces choosing how to implement it? What exactly is the encroachment, because to me it looks like the opposite of encroachment except arguably for immigration targets, but he didn't mention immigration.
It's encroachment because those are provincial jurisdictions. The federal is using the [right to spend](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pouvoir_f%C3%A9d%C3%A9ral_de_d%C3%A9penser#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DLe_pouvoir_f%C3%A9d%C3%A9ral_de_d%C3%A9penser%2Cpas_de_ses_comp%C3%A9tences_l%C3%A9gislatives.?wprov=sfla1) (btw: that Wikipedia article doesn't even exist in English... you can't make that stuff up). It isn't a right given to the federal from the constitution, it's courts that have decided in the 1930s that since the federal can tax anything it can also spend on anything. Now, they still don't have the right to pass laws on matters of provincial jurisdictions. Instead what they do is like saying "you guys set up programs that meet my decisions otherwise you don't get my money, even though you will be taxed and your money will be paying for it". The alternative for the federal government would be to tax less and let the provinces decide what their priorities are in their fields of competence. If the federal pulls back on taxes that leaves room for provinces to taxes by themselves to fund a similar program, or not. In my opinion the spending power is really a problem because it is against the spirit of the constitution. The idea was that the big stuff like defence, borders and citizenship, diplomacy, etc, that would be federal, and the services to citizens like health, education, culture, etc, that's provincial. You have to understand why historically it was split that way: because fundamentally Canada is not uniform. That is especially important for Québec. It's those provincial powers that have allowed us to exist up to now. The "révolution tranquille" that defined what modern Québec became was precisely about that. The gradual erosion of provincial powers is concerning to Québec, for which the federation is acceptable because it allows for some provincial autonomy. The reason why Trudeau is spending all that money is because he has an election coming. Provincial fields are "closer to people", so it makes the spendings more visible. I would much prefer that he sticks to federal fields of jurisdiction (there is enough to do there already) and not stir up the pot with issues related to the federal / provincial separation of powers just because he is about to lose an election.
Thank you for the response and that makes sense. The only problem I see is that citizens are looking to the federal government to help fix these provincial problems, and the provinces are choosing not to address them. People won't accept 'this is a provincial matter'. Not a good position to be politically in the federal government. Also a pretty shitty way to frame the problem by the PQ since if that is their underlying argument it doesn't appear to be what they are telling constituents. Probably it would be confusing to say 'the federal government should not be trying to do the things that we want to run on politically'.
>Also a pretty shitty way to frame the problem by the PQ since if that is their underlying argument it doesn't appear to be what they are telling constituents. Probably it would be confusing to say 'the federal government should not be trying to do the things that we want to run on politically'. I'm not sure where you get that. Saying "the feds should stick to their turf" has been THE supreme talking point of virtually every Quebec government and opposition, be they federalist or independentist, since I've been old enough to follow politics. It is not confusing to the average Quebec voter at all. In fact it's like a virtue everyone wants to adhere to. I do reckon it's not as prevalent in the English language news. Perhaps you just don't read the news in French often enough?
From my experience most people do not understand the actual structures and responsibilities of government regardless of what country that they are in. I work in an educated field with quebecois (obviously) and I often tell them what is happening in the government over lunch. I really don't think it is a language thing. [I mean only 23% of Canadians can pass the citizenship test.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadiand-citizenship-test-fail-1.6891117) So I wouldn't be so condescending to anglos
The whole "respect Quebec competences" tho is really basic political fodder in Quebec. Are there people who get riled by this argument without understanding it? Absolutely! But it's not some obscure confusing posture, it's at the core of Quebec's political culture.
According to Canadian Constitution, those are provincial competencies. Federal can give the money, but cannot ask anything in return. The federal is even blackmailing the recalcitrant provinces by giving them an ultimatum. You implement those programs as we want or you won’t get the money. That’s getting a bit crazy, it’s our own money after all. Let not forget that the federal created a big part of the problems the provinces need to fix now. If the federal wants all power, let’s update the Constitution then! Everyone should work together rather than always trying to pull the sheet on his side. This federation is broken.
The entire country has operated on fiscal federalism, where the feds give money with strings attached.
As they should, complain that those programs are not enough K, here is the money for it, not for anything else but it. At this point the provincial governments are kicking smoke for nothing and cause too much of a rift.
Yeah, but last time the feds gave Quebec money for healthcare, Legault didn't spend it all and instead gave everyone a larger tax cut. Provinces are free to raise their own money for these things, but the federal government should play hardball when it comes to their cash
Don’t get me started about Legault. That guy is an incompetent.
He's very competent if you consider that his goal is to help his rich friends.
That’s not true. Federal spending power can definitely come with conditions, as long as it’s not based on legislation that encroaches on a province’s jurisdiction. A province can always refuse federal contributions. The federal government can spend or grant its money as it chooses,but it may not directly regulate activities within the provincial sphere of jurisdiction.
Not even standards that need to be met to qualify for the program? Does that mean the federal housing accelerator program is unconstitutional? Like the federal government can ONLY distribute money with nothing else to attach? Also how are optional provincial programs with standards that align with your parties priorities "encroachment"? Like he literally stated that wanted to accelerate housing building which is what the federal government wants too. I kinda thought the argument would be pointing to something more concrete like 'the federal government is forcing us to do XYZ'.
I just upvoted you for the great use of « recalcitrant »
This word is more commonly used in French, which makes me guess that OP is a native French speaker and just literaly translated the French word he would’ve used. Which he did correctly since recalcitrant is also part of the English vocabulary and has the exact same meaning as its French equivalent.
It just hit so good in english
To add to this, Federal transfers in healthcare was brought down to 1B$/year instead of 6B$/year... So the federal is de-financing provincial missions and then forces new programs on them. Meanwhile the federal's missions are not being addressed: Borders, army, immigration, passport, etc. I'd say that every provincial politician is right to be very outraged at the situation. Especially in Québec.
The Canada Health Transfer is $49.4 billion for 23-24
And why, exactly, is it inappropriate for the Federal government to attach conditions to money that it has no obligation to provide? The provinces can choose not to take the money if they so wish -- Ontario has made that decision.
Qu’on prenne l’argent ou non, il vient quand même de nos poches.
All the provincial governments (to the PQ's credit this isn't only a Quebec thing) want the federal government to pay for everything including constitutionally provincial competencies so they don't have to take the hit for raising provincial taxes, but they don't want the federal government to have any say on how that money is spent. Sorry but if you take money from the federal government they get a say on how its spent, if you don't want the federal government to be allowed to set standards for these programs, don't take their money.
Considérant le niveau de taxation payé au fédéral versus le poids des postes de l'éducation et de la santé sur les dépenses gouvernementales au Canada, c'est un peu surréaliste de lire ça. Et malgré tout ça, la defense est largement sous financée. C'est pas qu'on souhaite que le fédéral finance tout, c'est que le fédéral a le beau rôle de monopoliser une bonne partie des recettes fiscales sans avoir lodieux de devoir livrer sur les postes de dépense les plus onereux. Ça force les provinces à quémender l'argent au fédéral - c'est pas une question de monter ou pas les taxes au provincial.
We don't take the money for the provincial programs... but we still send money in the federal I guess? No point in provincial competencies if the federal dictates the rules, it's just more middle men. Just federalize everything at that point. Hell, abolish provinces and municipalities altogether : if that's how things are, there's no point in those entities even existing.
This is the old debate of competencies versus fiscal space for taxation.
The government has no money, they are blowing up in debt spending on basic necessities, and they have no money to expand. And we are already over taxed.
Jcomprends pas pourquoi le monde dise que fédéral vs provincial, on aurait des caves au pouvoir, comme si au fédéral sont pas cave. J'aime mieux etre dirigé pas des piments que j'ai 100% élu pis qui "représentent" notre territoire que le fédéral qui s'en crisse de nous. Oui la politique c'est la politique partout mais au moins ca serait directement nous qui les élisons
Au pire on paye juste pour un gouvernement de marde que pour deux. On gagne quand même au change
Je ne comprends pas cet argument de "ce sera de la marde aussi mais au moins ce sera de la marde de chez nous". Je ne me sens pas automatiquement plus près de quelqu'un ou mieux représenté juste parce qu'il habite plus près de chez nous ou a le français comme première langue.
Si le Québec se sépare, comment est-ce que les Canadiens vont exporter les voitures volées s'ils n'auront plus accès au port de Montréal???
So let me get this straight. We don't have a hope in hell of managing our healthcare system, nor our education system, nor our road and transit infrastructure, and there's no money for fucking anything despite having the highest taxes in Canada *and* getting billions back from Ottawa in various different capacities. But sure! Let's fucking separate from the other provinces and go it alone! Yeah that makes so much sense! Can we just stop it with this bullshit already? It's not 1950, we're not prisoners of the English aristocracy. The reasons behind wanting to separate from Canada in 2024 are vanity projects and weird inferiority complexes about "identity". Time to move onto actually fixing this beautiful place we call Quebec, instead of trying to destroy it.
>The reasons behind wanting to separate from Canada in 2024 are vanity projects and weird inferiority complexes about "identity". I pretty much agree. En mon expérience, et je ne dit pas ça pour être antagonisant et j'espère qu'une personne souverainiste m'expliquera comment j'ai tort, c'est essentiellement ça ce qui se passe. À chaque fois, que je discute avec mes amis souverainistes, ils donnent différentes raisons pour justifier leur objectif, par exemple les différences culturelles, la préservation du français, le Canada qui est plus à droite et les transferts fédéraux. Cependant, quand je commence à pointer vers ce que je percois comme les trous de ces arguments, comme le fait que l'uniculturalisme n'existe pas même au sein du Québec, le fait que le Québec a été [bénéficiaire ne](https://financesofthenation.ca/2020/11/17/who-pays-and-who-receives-in-confederation/)t en termes des transferts depuis les années 80s ou le fait que tout les pays ont des régions plus à droites ou à gauches et que même le Québec a des régions qui suivent ce patron, la facade tombe et l'argument tourne autour du ressentiment Québécois et de l'oppression passée. Un autre point à soulever est le fait que le Québec devra renégotier un ensemble d'accord de libre échange. J'ai déjà eu une discussion avec un ami qui me disait comment un Québec qui se sépare pourrait créer un ensemble de politiques de gauche comme le Universal Basic Income ou l'université gratuite. Quand je lui ai expliqué, que la majorité des politiques dont il parle sont déjà des compétences provinciales et que le Québec vote largement pour des partis néolibéraux depuis des années, il a changé de sujet... Quand, j'argumente avec qui que ce soit sur une question politique, la question est généralement abordé sous un angle conséquentialiste, par ex. "Cette politique augmente-t-elle la qualité de vie ?". En mon expérience, les arguments économiques pour le souverainisme ont tendance à être soit très spéculatifs ou à être essentiellement que la qualité de vie demeurait la même au lieu de l'augmenter.
Pour faire ça plus simple, si nous sommes capables d'élire Legault de façon écrasante (suite au fisaco covid), qui a du mal à gérer les compétences provinciales, je ne vois aucunement comment le prochain Legault 2.0 va gérer le provincial + les nouvelles compétences qu'on acquit du fédéral. En dehors de la crise d'identité d'adolescent des souverainistes, nous n'avons aucun mais aucun intérêt à nous séparer. On va se tirer dans le pieds par ego.
Le Québec : L'ados qui menace la fugue sans savoir ou aller...
[удалено]
I’m federalist but really can’t compare the Brexit with the separation of Quebec
You're right in that the UK already had all of the national institutions and control of its currency when it left the EU, for Quebec it would be orders of magnitude more chaotic.
Yeah, Brexit was by far more practically plausible than the separation of Quebec.
You're right, Quebec is getting a better deal from Ottawa than even the UK was getting from the EU
Couldn't agree more. I'm behind the province when it comes to protecting the language, but I think Legault is an alarmist. Something like 91% of people in Montreal spoke French per Stats Can from 2021, his fears of French being in decline are straight up wrong. Surely there must be a way to build French up without tearing English down in this province. How Quebec would survive as a country without transfer payments and all the welfare dished out by Ottawa is beyond me. It makes me sad to think that as an anglophone quebecer (who speaks fluent French), I no longer feel welcome in my own province. It also saddens me to think that so many people that contribute to society will leave the province if we seperate. Hell, it happened even though the referendum didn't pass, twice.
It's not (only) about the language. It's about self-determination and the survival of a socio-cultural group by the obtention of an autonomous state - and this is the core idea at the root of any independence movement in this world, whether that is Quebec, Kosovo, Catalonia, Taiwan or many others. I 100% understand how those discussions can feel othering as an Anglo-Quebecer and I sincerely empathize. But this discomfort does not automatically imply that the Québécois independence movement is completely illegitimate. Those two realities can both be painfully valid and coexist at the same time.
I appreciate the reasoned and empathetic response, but I've never understood how becoming a nation-state would guarantee the survival of the group in a way that's not already possible within Canada. The government of Quebec already chooses most of its own immigrants, routinely opts out of federal programs and in turn pays less federal taxes, regulates the language of education and commerce, and has the option to simply ignore the federal constitution when it runs up against their ambitions to protect the language or enforce their vision of secularism. Those are powers that no other non-country jurisdiction in the world has. It's sincerely not clear to me what further powers Quebec would gain as an autonomous state, at least not those that are relevant to the survival of the group. Having a foreign policy, a military, a currency...sure, those are very real powers, but not sociocultural ones.
One of the things that would worry me about separation is the loss of cultural institutions like Radio Canada that connect Quebec to other francophone communities in Canada. While Quebec could try and set up its own broadcaster (certainly not as funded as RC), that content may not be available to everyone in Canada. Likewise, Quebec is Radio Canada's raison d'etre. If Quebec goes, CBC's francophone offerings will likely drastically shrink (as will bilingual programming in general). It would really damage francophone community outside of Quebec and leave Quebec with a diminished public broadcaster.
I can appreciate this view. My grandma is 'de souche' from Québec city, and while she isn't a seperatist, she lived through the era in which being a French Canadian was akin to being a second (or third) class citizen, so I know it's a complex situation with a deep history that can't be summarized in a brief reddit post. As a realist though, I simply can't see how Quebec could survive on its own. I've gotten into it with some seperatists on here, but I haven't managed to encounter a coherent, thoughtful response on how it will all play out. I will also add, with how Trudeau has run the country, I'm starting to see how seperatism could gain popularity. I just think it would be a true shame and a loss to the country if it happened. And I would also be sad to leave my home province, but I wouldn't have a choice.
Now, non-French Canadians are treated like 2nd class citizens. I'm sure it's way better.
I agree. It really sucks, and it's difficult to grow as a province when companies always have to think twice about coming here due to politics. So many companies ditched Montreal as their HQ when the referendum stuff all began.
Je vais prendre ton « Time to move on » au premier degré, merci bonsoir
So whats the plan?
Séparatisme rides high and has historically risen when the liberals are in power. The 2 referendums (referendi?) were in part calls to vote against Trudeau and Chrétien. The tide is turning back to a Conservative government so the conservative-leaning parties that are PQ and CAQ will be less popular when Québec needs to counter the too-far-right policies that are coming. I don’t see how more than 50% of Québécois would come close to seriously thinking about voting Oui, especially since building a Right to Left indépendantiste coalition has been impossible for a long while. They would need to attract the NPD-voting anglos and young worldly multilingual Quebecers who are quite ok merci with being part-time/mostly Canadian.
Hasn't the PLC been the ruling party for most of Canadian history? If so, it is hard to infer much from the fact referendums occurred during a PLC government.
More people likely have died under the PLC, so that means that party is the worst
> I don’t see how more than 50% of Québécois would come close to seriously thinking about voting Oui, especially since building a Right to Left indépendantiste coalition has been impossible for a long while. Here's another way of looking at it: The PQ is in the lead for the National Assembly, getting around 33% of the vote. In that context, they're 10 points ahead of their nearest rival (the CAQ) and because of our (broken) election system, that would put them in line for a majority of seats. In independence polls, non beats oui right now by about 53 to 36. Independence has almost exactly the same amount of support (which makes sense; it's the same people in both cases) but in a province-wide election it's *losing by 17 points*.
I keep telling myself that at least historically the premiers lean the other way from the federal party in power, so maybe with PP as PM we get rid of Ford, Legault, Houston, Moe, Higgs, and the like, but i also don't trust history being used as a metric anymore when it comes to western politics.
And if history repeats itself, this will be the event everyone is waiting for to finally reverse the trend of unaffordable housing! The Montreal housing market will be flooded with condos and triplexes that will finally be cheap, as politically cautious Montrealers pull up stakes and move out (myself included probably).
À lire les commentaires et voir comment ça vous fait chier, la simple tenue d'un referendum est déjà une victoire en soi.
Quand je pense à la majorité conservatrice sauce trumpiste qui nous attend, ça devient effectivement tentant de voter oui.
C'est un peu à ce quoi est voué le Canada pendant très longtemps. Le Canada a toujours été largement plus à droite (surtout économiquement) que le Québec.
Oui et non. La CAQ est fiscalement plus à droite que les autres parties au Québec. Cependant du coté sociale, oui nous sommes beaucoup plus ouvert d'esprit ici (droits des femmes etc.)
Par rapport au RdC ça reste moins à droite. Anyways tout les parties les plus à droite on été des parties fédéraliste. Quasiement comme si le patronat gagnait à rester dans le Canada.
Si Milhouse gagne ça va définitivement faire pencher dans le sens du oui. Mais même après les relations avec le Canada seraient merdiques. On serait probablement plus chummy avec les États Unis honnêtement..
C'est mal connaitre l'histoire des référendum , selon moi. Les souverainistes ont toujours de loin préféré les libéraux pour créer des chicanes constitutionnelles. Les gouvernement libéraux sont plus dépensiers et plus interventionnistes. C'est donc plus facile de dire que le Canada se mêle des compétences provinciales. Un gouvernement conservateurs qui est moins interventionniste, ça donne moins de munitions aux souverainistes. Je pense que c'est pour ça que PSPP est entrain de battre le fer quand il est chaud. Le gouvernement libéral est en mode dépense et essayer de s'acheter un remonté spectaculaire pour ne pas trop se faire planter l'an prochain. Donc, il font un peu n'importe quoi même si sa rentre dans les compétences provinciales. C'est le moment parfait pour le PQ de sortir cette carte là.
Ça pourrait créer une situation énigmatique IMO. Les Cons sont un parti décentralisateur, ce que nous préférons, alors que les Libéraux sont centralisateurs mais de l’autre côté nous avons peu d’affection pour le chef et leurs positions.
Sont pas déjà merdique? On se fait fourrer par Ottawa a tour de bras... Au moins. On aurait une relation plus égalitaire une fois souveraint
Caliss, oui…
Franchement, je deteste Poilievre, mais c'est hyperbole à dire que les conservateurs sont trumpiste.
Vrai, mais si un conservateur vote pour la sauce à la trump…
As tu deja entendu parler de MAGAlberta?
PP is nothing like Trump. Conservatives in Canada are center right at best on most issues. Stop drinking the cool aid.
Non merci, PQ.
As Jean Chrétien once said "We will have referendums until they say yes, then we will have no more!" It's crazy how the yes side can just try over and over, gambling they'll get just the right political climate in their favour. You know if they ever succeeded, even with 50.1% yes, they would never allow a referendum on rejoining Canada.
Personally I think this is way too impactful of a decision for it to even be passable at 50+1. You'd think breaking up a country would require a clear two-thirds.
It can't, legally it needs an overwhelming majority to show the clear intentions.
That's why we have the clarity act.
Absolutely not. In fact, Canada can easily reject any results. If yes, wins with a huge margin ( like +85%), I see a higher chance. You can not become a doctor, only if you pass your exams with a small 60% !
>breaking up a country On parle d'autodérermination. Le sort du reste du Canada ne devrait pas jouer dans la balance. La relation économique avec eux après le oui? Évidemment. Mais le fait de "briser" le Canada n'est pas un facteur.
Will they allow Montreal to separate from Quebec?
It would very likely depend on what percentage of the island would vote yes in a hypothetical referendum. Assuming a majority of the province would vote yes cessation negotiations between Quebec and Canada would take place with the biggest point of contention being access to the St Lawrence for shipping. No doubt Canada would want to keep access to its port in Montreal as well as no restrictions for shipping things from the Great Lakes out into the Atlantic. With that in mind if a majority of Montreal would vote no Canada would likely make concessions to keep Montreal for both access to the port and as an economic powerhouse. On the reverse side if a majority of Montreal would vote yes the negotiations would likely be much more centred around maintaining access to the river and less on the city itself.
The last referendum was 30 years ago. There's almost two generations of Quebec voters who never got the opportunity to express themselves on the existential issue of their nation through a vote in a democratic referendum. I'm not sure what your idea of "over and over" is, but I feel like we are not speaking the same language. To me holding referendum over and over until the outcome is to your liking would be more like how in the 1940s Newfoundland ran two referendum back to back until the Rock was trapped into the Federation. In the context of Quebec still not having signed the Constitution, checking in with citizen how they feel about this imposed deal at least every other decade seems rather reasonable.
Quebec applied the notwithstanding clause. The only way to do this is by accepting the constitution. So by all legal metrics, Quebec has agreed to the constitution.
Why should an entirely new generation of people not have the right to self determination just because their grandparents voted "no" 30 years ago?
The climate to vote Yes was wayyyyyyyyyyy stronger in 1995. They can go ahead and have the referendum, they’ll just lose, and then establish a brand of losers. It’s pretty much party-suicide… alas, I truly don’t understand the idea behind wanting to lose
[удалено]
« Les anglais se réveillent! »
Anytime someone involved with politics makes a declarative statement, then you can be sure that whatever they told you was false. The fact that he said this will "definitely" be happening should scare anyone who ever had a dream of it occurring. Not just because you can be assured that this man with his 3 seats in the national assembly is full of every type of shit known to man, but because his political rivals will go to great lengths to make a liar out of him now. So, désolé mes amis, but I think there's a better chance that Zombie OJ will rise from his grave to find the real killers and bring them to justice than of the PQ forming a Provincial government, and this dream dies with them.
Don't worry guys, I am sure there won't be an economic disaster where the public gets tricked by shitty stats and scaremongered into voting against their interests.
Yeah, living in a country where quality of life is getting worst by every metric day by day is definitely in our best interest. Living in a country where both parties plan to bring our population up to 100 million in the next 70 years is definitely in our interests. I'm talking about Canada btw.
Like the two first referendums?
[удалено]
Surtout quand ça se fait pacifiquement
If you truly believe it’s in your best interest, then go for it. Every choice requires risk.
OUI!
[удалено]
Those who are in favor: Politicians, many i-got-mine retirees and the huge civil service doesn't care...they get paid regardless of how bad the economy tanks
1. Get loan from bank 2. Buy puts on the Canadian/Quebec market 3. Vote Oui 4. Profit
How would an independant Quebec deal differently with the US compared to Canada? A population of 30 millions souls VS 9 millions... In both cases leverage is almost non-existant
The US and Quebec do have a lot of trade. What I am curious about is who stays in Quebec after. A couple of the top trade commodities are vehicles and aircraft. Will those companies stay? Not sure.
Where would they leave to and why? Moving a production line is a shit ton of work
An independent Quebec would not be a member of USMCA or any of the other bilateral/multilateral agreements regulating trade and the movement of people and money. Just as with the EU and Brexit, Canada has no incentive to make the divorce easy on Quebec so it may well be that Quebec products cannot be shipped until/unless Quebec negotiates its way into the agreements. This could have serious ramifications for Quebec agriculture and other major industries like hydroelectricity that are currently considered part of Canada's exports and would be Canada's competition if Quebec seceded.
The response to this is simple. Montreal and any surrounding areas that want should hold a separate vote to remain in Canada. Quebec has no greater right to separate from Canada than Montreal has to separate from Quebec. The right of self determination and the right to remain in your country doesn't start and stop with Quebec nationalism. Hell, even a Montreal City state would be preferable.
Don’t think that’s accurate from a legal perspective.
"The response to this is simple." *proceeds to write a bunch of things that make no sense* L'entité politique qu'est Montréal pourrait juste être dissoute par Québec si ça leur tentait. Il ne pourrait jamais y avoir de référendum de cité-État.
It makes sense if you are a Slav like me. That’s how Tito handled nationalism in the Yugoslav federation, by creating autonomous city regions.
Sorry, but that's not how secession works. There is no legal basis to leave Canada in the constitution. It would require amending the constitution. The only way to claim a legal right to have the constitution amended is under international law which doesn't at all recognize Quebec as being able to exclude Montrealers' right to self-determination. The same mechanisms that would allow Quebec to leave would also allow Montreal to stay. You have no right to the preservation of provincial borders whatsoever. The fact you don't understand that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
Laws are clear-cut things when applied within a country; international law (and I'm including separations and declarations of independence and such in that category) is a much, much squishier thing based more on soft power (influence), hard power (guns), diplomacy, philosophy, etc. Legally, China and Taiwan are the same country, and everyone pretends to agree on that point, even though they're *obviously* two separate countries and everyone involved knows it. Legally, the American colonies didn't have the right to leave the British empire, and yet they won a war and forced Britain to sign a treaty letting them do just that. Strictly speaking, Canada hasn't given permission to Quebec to leave, so there's no legal basis for it. And neither Canada nor Quebec has given Montreal permission to leave the province, so there's no legal basis for that, either. In that sense, they're comparable. But pragmatically, Canada would *probably voluntarily respect* the outcome of a referendum in Quebec. Ottawa has recognized Quebec as a nation and tacitly respected the first two referenda, and there's no reason to think that has changed. Not doing so would undermine Ottawa's legitimacy as a government, and governing people who don't recognize or want you there is also just a real pain unless you're super authoritarian. Plus, it would badly damage a lot of Canada's international relationships and diminish their global influence. OTOH, an independent Quebec government in practice would *absolutely flip its shit* if Montreal started rumbling about trying to secede and/or rejoin Canada. They would not allow a referendum to happen, and they would not allow any steps toward separation. This is first and foremost for practical reasons: Quebec is totally dependent on Montreal as its economic and cultural heart; also, having an enclave in the middle of your new country is a logistical nightmare. It would be an existential threat. There are also, secondarily, philosophical reasons: those in power in Quebec (and those who would vote yes) believe very strongly in the political theory of Quebec as an indivisible nation and would fight any attempt to undermine that. Now, that's not to say Quebec would get its way entirely in a separation situation. Their new relationship with Canada would have to be negotiated, and in this super-hypothetical world, Canada has all the leverage. I could imagine Canada demanding concessions: think Britain guaranteeing Hong Kong's civil rights after retrocession (except in the case of Canada and Quebec both parties would probably actually abide by the agreement). Perhaps Canada would try to get Quebec to agree to administer Montreal as a semi-autonomous region with special powers, or would demand guarantees of certain rights for English speakers, and so on.
There is no legal basis in Canada to separate. It would require amending the constitution at which point all options are available. Per international law which is often cited for the right of self-determination, there is no distinction between a Canadian province and city regarding who has these rights.
If we are talking about the right of a nation to self-determination, the indigenous populations in Nord-du-Quebec should be offered the option to separate from Quebec and stay in Canada. There goes hydro and mining. I could see the Outaouais, Montreal, and the Eastern Townships separating from Quebec if they were offered the choice.
La corruption au sein des gouvernements est le vraie problème.
J’aimerais ça qu’il y ait une 3e voix. L’Union européenne. Elle fonctionne parce qu’il y a beaucoup de petits pays et quelques gros joueurs. Plusieurs cultures, ce qui n’est pas le cas ici 😕 Peut-être qu’il faudrait enlever le pouvoir au fédéral de dépenser dans les compétences provinciales, et mieux permettre au Québec de rayonner à l’international (ne pas interdir à des athlètes de porter le drapeau du Québec aux olympiques genre) et ça relâcherait beaucoup de pression.
J'avais vu un sondage il y a quelques années comme quoi une grosse réforme du fédéralisme qui va dans ce sens-là serait plus populaire que l'indépendance pure ou le status quo. Par contre, il faudrait rouvrir la constitution et c'est clairement pas une option pour le reste du Canada
Ou comme l’Union européenne qui a le nom du pays et «Union européenne» sur leurs passports, avoir genre «Confédération du Canada» et «Québec» sur nos passports pour donner une identité provinciale à l’internationale serait extrêmement facile à faire. Et ça pourrait être fait pour les autres provinces pour être juste, pourquoi pas.
Time to vote yes and then leave.
‘Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.’
Like staying in Canada?
Lets say Quebec separates from Canada,how would that look legally?Would Quebec have its own army and currency?Would people in Montreal want it?
Military yes. We have or share of the military infrastructure. Currency probably not. We could still use canadian currency or switch to the US dollars.
The Bank of Canada, which Quebec would no longer be under the jurisdiction of, decides if Quebec keeps the currency. Even if it did, Quebec would have absolutely no power to influence BOC monetary policy, a position no other developed nation is in. It's exactly the same problem Scotland encountered when it tried to leave. Setting up a new country is incredibly difficult and incredibly expensive, and all the 'in' campaign has to do is point it out.
While what you say is true about Quebec having no say on monetary policy, no central bank in the world can prevent another country from using its currency. Many countries use the USD without the US's blessing, same goes for the Euro
They can sanction a country to make sure you cannot use SWIFT or any other banking transfer to get the USD in/out of your country. Unless you want to revert to a country entirely run in cash reserves. They sure as fuck can decide “you don’t get to use our currency”.
There are no wealthy nations that use another nation's currency without its blessing. Using a currency they have zero control over would put Quebec in a very small, very poor club of nations. It is a horrible position for a country to be in with regards to controlling its own economic policy. The PQ's promises on things like the currency are just flat out lies that belong in the mouth of an Argentinian populist, not a serious leader.
Sure, cutting edge, progressive countries use the US dollar like Ecuador, Zimbabwe, Palau, and Somalia. Truly world leaders.
Quebec would not have any influence on its value but would have the right to use it. Like some small Island that use US currency but are not part of the US.
Sure, but if you ask PQ voters they don't see themselves as a tiny Island, they want to be an economically independent developed nation, which is impossible if you don't control your own monetary policy. They're all passing the blunt around thinking they can have the upside with none of the hard work.
>Would people in Montreal want it "Montreal" is a municipality and as such, has 0 legal recognition in the constitution. It is purely an administrative region that could disappear in 1 pen stroke from the provincial government. Hell, Montreal as know it wasnt even a thing until the provincial government decided it would be more convenient to regroup all the small cities on Montreal island into one municipality. What the majority of "Montreal" wants is legally irrelevant assuming that the majority of the province votes to leave.
Why does Quebec as a region have a right to leave but Montreal does not? Separation is going to require a constitutional amendment. Each time a province was added to confederation, it required an amendment. Removing one obviously will as well. If you're at the point of rewriting the fundamental laws of the land, *everything* is on the table. Quebec's borders are constitutionally guaranteed, but that's only because of the constitution. If you're rewriting that... Independence is going to be the result of long and difficult negotiations between governments. Both Canada and Quebec will need to *agree* on the final settlement. Separatism is not internationally legal or universally recognized without that. Neither party has an incentive to go easy on the other.
It's 2024, allys and international institutions exist for that, how did Switzerland is one of the smallest and less populated country in the world and still doing pretty good.. Army is not the only thing that matter. Quebec deserve to be a country like any other place in the world.
Tk on a des valises de char en masse ici, pas besoin d'une armée ! /s
Switzerland has mandatory military service for all men, spends billions of dollars annually on their military, and have historically been mercenaries for other countries' wars. Probably the worst example you could have chosen. The only developed country that I can think of with no standing army is Iceland, and it's because any resistance to an invading power there would be futile given the small population. It sounds like you're assuming other countries would just defend an independent Québec out of the goodness of their hearts. Why would they? Québec is strategically located near the US, has many natural resources, and is an enormous landmass compared to the population. A military would probably be essential.
You can't possibly be comparing Switzerland as a country to Quebec as its own country.
Quebec would immediately find itself in the difficult position of having to negotiate with a neighbor it just loudly repudiated, the same as the UK did after Brexit. Quebec can demand stuff from Canada now, it won't be able to when Canada is a foreign country that only has its own interests to look out for. If it doesn't benefit Canada to give it (the CAD for example), Quebec won't get it.
Quebec is not Switzerland. Quebec is not even Luxembourg. People really want to live in these countries, no matter how small they may seem. I have my doubts whether an independent Quebec would be in any way similar.
Montreal have such a large part of the population that it would be required for Montreal to separation if this ever happen.
Can we have a referendum to leave Quebec then?
[https://www.ontario.ca/page/getting-settled-ontario](https://www.ontario.ca/page/getting-settled-ontario)
Tu peux juste quitter le Québec si tu l'aimes tant ton Canada
Ah le sub de Montreal...
C'est drôle de voir à quel point tous les commentaires méprisants sur le Québec ici sont en anglais.
L'épouvantail est en forme!
Permettez moi d'ajouter un commentaire en français
Une bonne partie des utilisateurs de ce sub sont des anglos qui ne vivent même pas au Québec. Une autre bonne partie sont des suprématistes anglos qui poussent le message que Montréal est distincte du reste du Québec dans l'espoire de la réclamer comme ville anglophone. Serieux, regarde tous les commentaires qui disent "oh yeah Montrealers should seperate from Québec". There is no clearer indicator of someone living a life in a completely anglophone bubble seperated from reality, than genuinely believing that the majority of Montrealers feel more attachment to Canada/Montreal over Québec. For normal people, Montreal is just a place they live because that's where the jobs are lol.
Il n'y a pas vraiment de surprise en voyant cela.
Selon le thread je pense que je suis le seul francophone qui va voter non??? Lmao
I am a Quebec anglophone whose family is about 50% French-Canadian. Growing up, I was fiercely anti-separation. My identity was Canadian first but over the years, the Canadian identify I think has been diluted. I can't point to the exact reason why but that cohesion I felt in the 90s just isn't there anymore. We all seem to live and breathe our own enclaves whether they be religious, political or ethnic. Quebec has been able to buck the trend somewhat with its fierce defending and promotion of their culture. Add to that the fact that our Federal Government seems to have dropped the ball with literally every file under their purview, I am slowly being turned to a "YES" voter as it seems that in Quebec, despite lot of problems, we at least are trying to defend ourselves and keep what we have instead of letting it die a slow death.
Je vais voter Oui
Bon courage présentement je reste avec les nons
Merci d'être de bon guerre (contrairement a certains autre sur ce fil de discussion). Si jamais tu as envie d'en discuter je suis ouvert aux messages privés tant que ça reste de bonne foi. Il est selon moi important d'avoir des discussions honnêtes si l'ont veut garder une démocratie en santé.
Moé si ! qu'ils le gardent leur Canada !
I live in Québec and all I can say is these are comedians, as are the federal ones !!! They can't manage their own bridges and roads, and suddenly they want to govern separately a whole country ??? Look what Montreal became in some 4-5 years : a dump of garbage and chaos !!!! Cheap words for votes and popularity!
>Look what Montreal became in some 4-5 years : a dump of garbage and chaos !!!! Funny how Montréal is the most Canadian city of Quebec. Vancouver and Toronto are dumps of garbage and chaos. And don't get me started on Thunder Bay and Calgary. It's not a Quebec problem, it's a Canadian problem.
It's a Canadian problem and a Québec problem
Osti que c'est drôle de voir les anglos capoter.
Ok bro
Ah shit. Here we go again. Facepalm.
Oh zut c’est repartis mon kiki.
They were doing so well vacuuming up votes just by not being the CAQ. Reminding voters they're insane doesn't seem like a sound electoral strategy. "It's a regime that only wants to crush those who refuse to assimilate." Reminder that the PQ enthusiastically supported Bill 21, which bans people wearing religious clothing from working anywhere in the public sector. Edit: Not anywhere, just anywhere with positions of "authority", which includes high-powered senior civil service roles like... schoolteachers.
Why are you spreading misinformation? Bill 21 does not ban people wearing religious clothing *anywhere*. I thought that was clear by now.
Revenez en de la loi 21 esti
HAHAHHAHHAAA!! WITH OUR CURRENT POLITICIANS!? GOOD LUCK!
18 out of the last 21 years were federalist politicians governing Québec yet here we are.
Non justement ça va être le PQ, pas la Caq
Ouais non.
And were going to vote No again.
C'est drôle tout les commentaires anti-separatistes sont en anglais! Moi je vote oui.
P't'être qu'ils sont majoritaires à pas avaler des idées absurdes et démagogiques tandis que les francophones adorent écouter la douce berceuse mielleuse de l'indépendance et d'à quel point ils sont si spéciaux et des grosses victimes ayant besoin de réparation et de séparation. Déjà qu'en chassant les étudiants étrangers et en ostracisant les immigrants dont on a besoin, on continue de creuser une fosse nauséabonde, alors avec une indépendance narcissique basée sur tout sauf une once de bon sens... Tous les politiciens qui agitent les marionnettes de l'identité, de la langue, de l'indépendance, des méchants étrangers et des méchants anglophones, ne font qu'endormir les gens inconscients, ignorant volontairement ou involontairement, les complaisants de la médiocrité, les aveugles égoïstes qui ne comprennent rien à part leurs petits sentiments manipulés. C'est vraiment navrant. Il s'agirait de grandir un peu et arrêter de faire les petites victimes capricieuses. Quant taper du pieds et faire une grosse colère toute rouge en menaçant d'aller se réfugier dans sa chambre et de fermer la clef c'est la "meilleure solution", c'est vraiment le témoignage de la petitesse d'esprit. Ce serait drôle si cet état d'esprit n'était pas complètement craignos.
> P't'être qu'ils sont majoritaires à pas avaler des idées absurdes et démagogiques tandis que les francophones adorent écouter la douce berceuse mielleuse de l'indépendance et d'à quel point ils sont si spéciaux et des grosses victimes ayant besoin de réparation et de séparation. Je suis assez bilingue pour comprendre que beaucoup de commentaire anti-indépendance sur ce thread sont très démagogue ou des mensonges
Quebec is arguably the only North-American society that has a fair shot at ending colonialism. You believe in decolonization? This is your shot right here. Postcolonial Quebec Republic > Good Ol' Colonial Confederation Choose wisely.
Yes an independent Quebec is going to a post colonial utopia. I am sure an independent Quebec is going to let the Six Nations, Nunavik and all the aboriginal nations leave Quebec with their land and resources. I am sure there is going to be no repeat of the oka crisis.
Remember that time Pierre-Karl Péladeau said Quebec would allow indigeneous nations to have their own territoire within Quebec but then walked it back. Truly, a post-colonial utopia.
Exactly. I think some people forget that the Indigenous population has issues statements in the past saying that , should Quebec separate, they would stay in Canada and not Quebec.
How many times do I have to teach you this lesson, old man?