What do Conservatives and English Canada want out of Quebec?

[Martin]

This is something that's been puzzling me for a while, and with the election results it may become an important question. For the first time in almost a century, we have a government led by an anglo whose popular support and caucus comes almost exclusively from English Canada.

The conservatives are obviously jubilant, but I can't understand their (and most of English Canada's) attitude towards quebec. On one hand, they are happy that Quebec's voice no longer counts because they don't like (or outright hate) Quebec values and attitudes and don't think they should be represented in government, yet they are amongst those most adamantly opposed to Quebec separation. If you don't like Quebecers and their views and don't want them in your government, why do they oppose them leaving?

This op-ed and comments illustrate my point pretty well: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...ebecs-declining-influence-is-good-for-canada/

So here we are: Harper a PM for at least 4 years (likely 8), Liberals down (perhaps never to rise up again) most of the Opposition coming from Quebec and the Parti Quebecois probably forming the next provincial government. How far will he go (if at all) to placate Quebec and his Opposition? If he doesn't, won't he further antagonize Quebec and encourage the PQ's separatist cause?

 

[desy]

Conservatives were down to 2 seats in 93 after Mulroney I think the Liberals are smart enough to bounce back.
Since Quebec joined Confederation they have been given huge tracts of land and transfer payments disproportionate to their role in the economy.
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/023001/f1/1867-v5-e.jpg
A little gratitude would be nice without holding the threat of leaving and the RoC's huge investment into that province disappear with them.

But your right, it isn't hard to p1ss off Quebec

 

[CanOWorms]

Among the easiest and most direct methods of placating Quebec would be to abolish the monarchy. It is deeply unpopular there and one of the driving forces behind separatism. That's all Harper has to do.

 

[silverpig]

It's funny, a few months ago on another message board I posted a fun little "what if" scenario regarding Quebec, first nations, the constitution, and the governor general.

Quebec has never officially ratified the constitution. Friends have told me that there are people in Quebec who are somewhat upset that the British Queen is on their money, and we have a GG who symbolically rules over us (I have no experience with this, just word of mouth).

I proposed a fairly unrealistic and idealistic change where we engage Quebec on constitutional reform, and have a first nations governor general. The process is debatable, but basically the first nations elect a leader who then is recommended to the PM to be named GG. It would remain a symbolic position essentially, but would remove the British "rule" over Canada, give the first nations some official and special role in government (and celebrity status?), probably improve relations with Quebec, and not really piss anyone else off.

I was basically flamed saying that it was a stupid idea and would never work (despite my disclaimer saying we should ignore the realities of the process of making it official and just focus on the end result).

Then Jack Layton runs the BQ out of town by promising to open up constitutional talks with Quebec, and promote a lot of first nations rights.

I don't know really. I just want everyone to get along, and want Quebec to feel included. It seems a lot of anglos see the country as english Canada and french Canada, while the separatists see it as Quebec and Canada (not 'rest of Canada', just Canada as separate).

Harper seems like he's going to act like my parents sometimes did. "That's the way it is and it's that way cause I said so. If you don't like it, tough."

 

[Martin]

It's funny, a few months ago on another message board I posted a fun little "what if" scenario regarding Quebec, first nations, the constitution, and the governor general.

Quebec has never officially ratified the constitution. Friends have told me that there are people in Quebec who are somewhat upset that the British Queen is on their money, and we have a GG who symbolically rules over us (I have no experience with this, just word of mouth).

I proposed a fairly unrealistic and idealistic change where we engage Quebec on constitutional reform, and have a first nations governor general. The process is debatable, but basically the first nations elect a leader who then is recommended to the PM to be named GG. It would remain a symbolic position essentially, but would remove the British "rule" over Canada, give the first nations some official and special role in government (and celebrity status?), probably improve relations with Quebec, and not really piss anyone else off.

I was basically flamed saying that it was a stupid idea and would never work (despite my disclaimer saying we should ignore the realities of the process of making it official and just focus on the end result).

Then Jack Layton runs the BQ out of town by promising to open up constitutional talks with Quebec, and promote a lot of first nations rights.

I don't know really. I just want everyone to get along, and want Quebec to feel included. It seems a lot of anglos see the country as english Canada and french Canada, while the separatists see it as Quebec and Canada (not 'rest of Canada', just Canada as separate).

Harper seems like he's going to act like my parents sometimes did. "That's the way it is and it's that way cause I said so. If you don't like it, tough."

Well, that works on 10 year olds, but not 20 year olds.

The obvious corollary to my question is, "WTF does Quebec want?". There's federalists and separatists, but mostly its some kind of mushy middle about more self-determination, but at least they have a way of determining what they want (referendums), so they're further along.

There's options besides what conservatives and anglos seem to want (which is pretty much what you said at the end) and full independence. Many countries in the world have many different arrangements with minorities in their borders - catalonia in spain, Flanders and Wallonia in Belgium and there's also mostly-autonomous administration like Greenland or Puerto Rico. Seems like there's a whole spectrum of options that no one wants to talk about.

 

[Linflas]

Could be nothing more than abiding by the same rules and customs as the rest of Canada? The entire country is officially bilingual yet Quebec reserves the right to be exclusively francophone and not play by the same rules it wants imposed on the other provinces.

 

[cubby1223]

The conservatives are obviously jubilant, but I can't understand their (and most of English Canada's) attitude towards quebec. On one hand, they are happy that Quebec's voice no longer counts because they don't like (or outright hate) Quebec values and attitudes and don't think they should be represented in government, yet they are amongst those most adamantly opposed to Quebec separation. If you don't like Quebecers and their views and don't want them in your government, why do they oppose them leaving?

My initial impression is you are *grossly* overstating their positions and their feelings.

This op-ed and comments illustrate my point pretty well: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...ebecs-declining-influence-is-good-for-canada/

The first point in your linked article "Stephen Harper is the first non-Quebecer to be elected to lead a majority government in over half a century."

Wow, the rest of Canada *really* wants you Quebecois oppressed! I feel your pain!

So here we are: Harper a PM for at least 4 years (likely 8), Liberals down (perhaps never to rise up again) most of the Opposition coming from Quebec and the Parti Quebecois probably forming the next provincial government. How far will he go (if at all) to placate Quebec and his Opposition?

Maybe I'm not understanding of Canadian politics, but, your Providence for the first time in over 50 years is not home to the leader, and this is concerning *how*?


Did the red states here in the U.S. secede when the Democrats won a huge majority in the gov't in 2008? No. Democrats survived with Bush. Republicans are surviving with Obama. And Quebec will survive with a non-Quebec Prime Minister. You want to talk about all sorts of secession options - how about the option of getting along with your neighbors? Tolerance goes both ways.

 

[silverpig]

My initial impression is you are *grossly* overstating their positions and their feelings.


The first point in your linked article "Stephen Harper is the first non-Quebecer to be elected to lead a majority government in over half a century."

Wow, the rest of Canada *really* wants you Quebecois oppressed! I feel your pain!



Maybe I'm not understanding of Canadian politics, but, your Providence for the first time in over 50 years is not home to the leader, and this is concerning *how*?


Did the red states here in the U.S. secede when the Democrats won a huge majority in the gov't in 2008? No. Democrats survived with Bush. Republicans are surviving with Obama. And Quebec will survive with a non-Quebec Prime Minister. You want to talk about all sorts of secession options - how about the option of getting along with your neighbors? Tolerance goes both ways.

The republicans haven't held several referendums trying to secede, and have no sub group which is prominent in politics which promotes a secession.

It's the first time in over 50 years that the leader of the country hasn't been from Quebec when there is a majority in government (basically what he says goes... imagine if Obama actually CONTROLLED congress).

Imagine if Texas had held several state referendums to secede, the last one being in the late '90s and being defeated by a 50.4% to 49.6% margin. In the past 50 years, let's also say that either the President has been from Texas, or, if he hasn't, the Republicans have controlled congress (ie, no Dem president at the same time as a full democratic senate and democratic congress). Texas, who has a population 50% of whom want to leave has always had a fairly strong say in federal politics, whether it be via the president or congress. During this time Texas has made sure to get more than its share of federal grant money because of this influence.

Now a democratic president, democratic congress, and democratic senate are in power. Texas might not get everything they want and might give a big middle finger to the rest of the country and just leave.

Just FYI, the PM in Canada during a majority government is more powerful than the president is in the US. Our senate just automatically rubber stamps everything (the PM appoints senators... they aren't elected), and the members of parliament in the PM's party ALWAYS vote the same way as the PM tells them to if he says he wants them to. So imagine Obama making a law, telling congress they have to pass it (and they thus do), and there being no real oversight in the senate (they just automatically pass everything), and then it comes back to him to sign (the governor general signs stuff here, but she too is appointed by the PM and just does whatever he says).

 

[Anarchist420]

Doesn't Stephen Harper want the North American Union?