Talk:Quebec sovereignty movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sovereignty association vs. Quebec Sovereignism

I just saw that this page was moved from Sovereignty association to Quebec Sovereignism. Without trying to exercise any sense of authorship, I believe this is not the best title for this article. I don't really think that "Quebec Sovereignism" is a word in English, and there are only 4 Google hits for the phrase -- and 3 are from Wikipedia. I'd like to restore Sovereignty Association to its own article that talks about it as an important concept in its own right, and then make a separate article on this somewhat broader topic, perhaps at Quebec sovereignty or Quebec sovereignty movement.

What do people think?

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 22:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There are 3 pages returned for Quebec sovereignism in Google, 5, if we just type sovereignism. In Canadian English, sovereignist, and sovereignism have entered the vocabulary. They are no more unatural than federalist and federalism. But you are right, there is a problem. First, sovereignism should not be capitalized. Also, the article History of the Quebec sovereignist movement used to be its own separate article. It was arbitrarily merged to this new article, along with Sovereignty-Association. These are all separate things that should have their own articles:

• sovereignist = person who advocates sovereignty for Quebec
• sovereignism = the political orientation, theory, or ideology of the sovereignists
• sovereignty = the quality or state of being sovereign, self-government, independence
• Sovereignty-Association = Political option of the MSA, and the Parti Quebecois under the leadership of Rene Levesque. Independence + Interdependence.
• sovereignist movement = the movement that started with the 1967 MSA or the whole of the independence movement that started in 1957 depending on who you 8ask.

Personally, I favor Quebec sovereignist movement, Sovereignty-Association, and History of the Quebec sovereignist movement being different articles. Quebec sovereignty and Quebec sovereignism should redirect to Quebec sovereignist movement.

-- Mathieugp 00:29, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Mathieugp -- these are all good suggestions and I'd be happy to work on that when I'm back from Texas next week (yes -- it may be hard to tell I'm "away"...). I do have one last question: would you feel OK about having Quebec sovereignty movement instead of Quebec sovereignist movement ? "Sovereignist" still seems a bit weird to me, but as I don't actually live in Canada.... Thanks again, BCorr|Брайен 19:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you think many native English speakers from outside Canada might find the word "sovereignist" weird, then yes it might be better to use "sovereignty". In that case we can have Quebec sovereignist movement (and Quebec independence movement while we are at it) point to Quebec sovereignty movement. -- Mathieugp 19:48, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have found that in spoken Canadian English, the nouns sovereigntist and sovereigntism (note the t's) are much more common than sovereignist and sovereignism. Indeed, I cannot recall hearing the word sovereignist used to refer to the Quebec movement in at least the last decade by any English-speaking media personality or politician. I also note that dictionary.com defines sovereigntist as 'a Canadian who advocates the independence of Quebec', and has no entry for sovereignist.

I would think that a better title for the page would be 'Quebec Sovereignty', but failing that 'Quebec Sovereigntism' would be preferable to 'Quebec Sovereignism', to reflect general usage if nothing else. --Saforrest 04:44, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

Sovereigntist and sovereignism (souverainisme/iste in french) are not words. It was invented by the Quebec media because it was less provocative and pejorative than 'separatism/ist'. I think this page should use real terms and be renamed 'Quebec separatist movement'. --Procule 16:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• They are words now. These words have entered into common use in Canadian English. Let's not waste more time arguing this. Ground Zero 17:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• "Sovereigntist" is an accepted term, but 'sovereigntism' does not follow from English rules of word-formation. (And 'sovereignism', if it existed, would mean the ideology of, I don't know, absolute monarchy or something.) Peter Grey 21:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Moving to Quebec sovereignty movement

I propose this:

1. We move the recently created Quebec Sovereignism to Quebec sovereignty movement. It deals with information on the movement, its position, its history (summary) etc.
2. We make Quebec independence movement, Quebec sovereignty, etc. point to it. A lot of people will search for these I guess.
3. We recreate History of the Quebec sovereignist movement as History of the Quebec sovereignty movement. This presents a detailed history of the movement.
4. We recreate Sovereignty-Association as it was before. It deals with the concept of Sovereignty-Association as it was in the 1980s.

If you agree, add your name below. Thanks. -- Mathieugp 16:18, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I second the motion. This sounds like a good plan. Good article names and subdivision of the topics--Indefatigable 03:05, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Renaming?

Why did this page not end up staying as Quebec sovereignty movement? (Its present name is Quebec Sovereigntism. The former seems a perfectly acceptable name. --Saforrest 15:58, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

If you wish to move it back to what it was before, add your name above. Right now, we are only two people and its now enough. -- Mathieugp 19:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am opposed for now. What are your arguments; what makes this title wrong, misleading and/or undefensible? --Liberlogos 04:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The debate is right in this dicussion page. Quebec sovereignty movement is the most universally understandable title, the most appropriate one for the content we currently have, and more consistent with the other articles on similar subjects, for example Hawaiian sovereignty movement, Cornish independence movement etc., and the meta-article List of active autonomist and secessionist movements. The current title leaves many English-speakers wondering if sovereigntism is indeed a word in the English language and if this ism is really necessary.

If indeed we were to write an article on sovereigntism, it would be quite different from what we have at the current. Take for example the article on Marxism. The article deals with the ideas of the marxist ideology, its roots, its thinkers etc. It doesn't give us either a history of the movement (different subject), nor a bunch of anecdotes on Marx and Hegel. It is more on the lines of a "portal" to marxism, which lead the readers to more indepth articles on Marxist philosophy, dialectical materialism, historical materialism, communism and related subjects. I would like to see an article on Quebec sovereigntism eventually, in which we would present the ideas and philosophy of the first sovereignists. The political thought of nationalist and social-democrat Rene Levesque would be central in this article. -- Mathieugp 12:42, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this should be retitled, but I would suggest the Quebec Separatist Movement. Studying journalism, style guides teach us to refer to something by its accepted name, even if it is originally in another language. Thus we refer to the SAQ, the Societe des Alcools du Quebec, rather than the 'Quebec Liquor Board'. In English, the movement is referred to as the Separatist movement. See my post in article problems above as to who uses sovereignism, and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.251.236 (talk • contribs)

You do realize the discussion to which you're adding new input ended over a year ago, do you not? Bearcat 20:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Further to that, it's completely and utterly false to say that "in English, the movement is referred to as the Separatist movement". --Saforrest 17:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Quebecers?

Why quebecers!??? Why not Quebecois? --Officer Klo

Because all Québécois are Quebecers, but not all Quebecers are Québécois. A Quebecer is someone from Quebec; a Québécois is a white French-speaker from Quebec. Indefatigable 04:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

White??? You have to be joking?!

Here it is for Officer Klo: A Quebecer is an inhabitant of Quebec. In French, the cognate word is Québécois. That should be the end of it, but everything is political in Quebec. For reasons too long and complicated to explain, English Canada sometimes uses the word Québécois (in English) and give it the meaning of "French Canadian from Quebec", something which in French we would call Québécois d'origine canadienne-française (Quebecer of French Canadian origin). Therefore, the article could not use that term as the sovereigntist big plan is to have all of Quebec gain independence, not just some part of it.

That being said, neither Quebec French-speakers nor all Quebecers can be said to be "white". Quebec French-speakers are a multiethnic group. That is just a fact. Not all French speakers are of French Canadian origin. Another fact. A small amount of French Canadians were in fact non-white or of mixed race. That is another fact. -- Mathieugp 13:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My POV: I have many Québécois friends from ethnic origins other than French, and none of them have to be called something else, unless they personally want to; whoever can be Québécois if he wants to! Perhaps the mention of "white" up there was written by someone from a locality farther from Montréal or Québec city, where a great degree of ethnic homogeneity often occurs. Last thing: from my personal experience, Quebecer is mostly used by people who don't have lots of information or a lot of care about the political issues there (should I give Don Cherry as an example?), while Québécois is very often a sort of tacit acknowledgement of respect, the same way they'd use "Newfoundlander" instead of "Newfie", as the latter can upset some of them. le_natch 00:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One thing I've never understood that perhaps you might be able to clarify. Several times on televsion I have seen a group of marchers during the Fête nationale du Québec parade chanting over and over in French the words: Le Québec pour le Québécois. Can you explain what this means? Thank you. JillandJack 16:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Le Québec aux Québécois litterally means "Quebec to Quebecers". Probably we can assert without risking to be wrong that all the people "chanting" this slogan think that for Quebec to truly belong to Quebecers, it must govern itself in full, in other words gain independence. When this slogan became popular, we were in the middle of the decolonization era. Here, people were saying Le Québec aux Québécois in solidarity with millions of other people wishing the same for their homeland.

You knew what the crowd at the St-Jean Baptiste rallies were thinking, eh?

A few decades before when the indépendantistes were still extremly marginal, Maxime Raymond summed up the Bloc populaire's position in these words: Le Canada aux Canadiens et le Québec aux Québécois ("Canada to Canadians and Quebec to Quebecers"). This stance expressed Quebec's nationalists' anti-imperialist sentiment. Canada (understood to be a confederation founded on a pact between two nations) should be in the hands of Canadians, not the British, and Quebec (understood to be the historical homeland of the French Canadian nation) should be in the hands of Quebecers.

The separatists of the 1960-70s still had the same view on imperialism, but they considered that it was time to stop begging for what they considered to be unalianable rights of the Quebec people. The manifesto of the Rassemblement pour l'indépendance nationale was quite clear on this. ( You can read it here: http://english.republiquelibre.org/manifesto-rin.html ) -- Mathieugp 17:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is definetly Quebecois. I take French in high school, and we've recently learned of Quebec, and they

referred to them as teh Quebecois. Not Quebecers.

Quebecois for sure. Quebecers sounds like English butchery of the French language, which is already all too common.

---

Québécois or Quebecois are the OFFICIAL terms in English. The following VARIATIONS are also acceptable: Quebecer or Quebecker. Source: http://www.granddictionnaire.com/ , the official terminology database of the Government of Quebec. Each of these terms describe ANY person who lives in Quebec or originates from the province, whatever the language, ethnicity, gender, culture or political belief. That should end the discussion. -- Hugo Dufort 10:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Defacing of first paragraph

A recent modification by JillandJack introduced a number of innacuracies plus a very severe bias. Here is the said paragraph:

The Quebec sovereignty movement is a movement calling for the attainment of sovereignty for Quebec, a province of the country of Canada. This would mean dividing Canada into three parts, resulting in the four small economically-depressed Atlantic Provinces being isolated from the rest of Canada. The sovereigntists state that they want Quebecers to exercise their right to self-determination in order to democratically give themselves their first independent constitutional state of law. However, this alleged right to self-determination is not recognized by the United Nations and the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed: "It is recognized that there is no right under the Constitution of Canada to effect the secession of a province from Canada unilaterally and that, therefore, an amendment to the Constitution of Canada would be required for any province to secede from Canada, which in turn would require negotiations involving at least the governments of all of the provinces and the Government of Canada."

1. Overall, the point about the maritimes being isolated from the rest of Canada is irrelevant and does not belong there. For sure the geopolitical transformation resulting from the secession of Quebec is worthy of being metionned, but not in the first paragraph of this article. Also, what would potentially happen to the maritimes is more of a speculation than anything else.
2. The right to self-determination of the people of Quebec is not questionned. The right to the unilateral secession of the province of Quebec was however found to be unexistant in Canadian an international law by the Supreme Court of Canada. This was the opinion of the judges and reading the questions asked by the federal government of Canada, it is not very difficult to see how the Supreme Court could not have truly answered otherwize. That being said, if there is indeed no right allowing for the unilateral secession of any province in Canadian an international law, there is also no right disallowing it. This is a very interesting subject, but it belongs in the Clarity Act and Secession of Quebec articles, not in the first paragraph of Quebec sovereignty movement.

-- Mathieugp 22:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mathieugp: the phrase on the Atlantic provinces is absolutely pointless. The Maritimes ARE already isolated geographically from Ontario and Western Canada, no matter if Quebec becomes an independent state or not, and they will remain so (unless they are moved into the Hudson Bay or the Great Lakes of course!).

--Mattcliche 02:09, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've retagged the page as NPOV for the time being, since the notice was removed in the user's recent edits (which are themselves the subject of some NPOV debate above). Discussion here is still ongoing; POV notice needs to remain until it is resolved. Bearcat 19:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RE: Edits by Bearcat

• 1) I'm reverting some of the changes you made to our work. First, what Sovereignty for Quebec means is central, not something to be shunted several paragraphs down. Sovereignty for Quebec means splitting Canada into three parts. That is the core of the matter, everything else is peripheral to that.

I cannot agree that "everything is peripheral to the fact that the Canadian federation would be split by the secession of Quebec". One consequence of the secession of Quebec is that there will be a foreign territory between Ontario and New Brunswick. However, this consquence cannot be the definition of "Sovereignty for Quebec". The definition of something, and the impact that this something may have are not the same thing. -- Mathieugp 02:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2) The use of highways and railroads are rights, not privileges. If a Canadian individual or corporation vehicle crosses the border into another country, into say the United States, use of their highways becomes a privilege and the United States government can refuse usage to non-national persons and corporations. No Canadian needs permission to use Province of Quebec highways or railroads or the St. Lawrence Seaway. However, were Quebec to become a country, then Canadians lose their RIGHT to use highways and railroads and could not enter into the country of Quebec without permission, said permission can be refused without reason. Individual Mobility Rights throughout all of Canada are guaranteed in Section 6.(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is the supreme law of the land.

This is true in theory. Quebec could stop Ontarian trucks from crossing its borders. Canada could stop Quebec trucks from crossing its borders also. In practice however, it is not in the interest of Quebecers nor Canadians to change the current state of affairs regarding mobility. Quebec and Ontario are quite interdependent in terms of trade even though the US is today more important to Quebec's economy. The sovereigntist camp has always made it clear it was interested in opening its borders to Canadian and American trade. I think it would be good for this article to bring up the facts on this. -- Mathieugp 02:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3) Charles DeGaulle is not a proper heading for this. We will move it.

There is much more to be placed here so that anyone from anyplace has a complete picture of what Quebec sovereignty means. -- JillandJack 15:04, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We rewrote this in part yeasterday but then couldn't save it (repeatedly all day) so copied and pasted the total article. Here are some of the comments relevant to our changes. There is more tom come. An enclopedia artile on this topic is no place to include a comedians joke.

REMOVED utter nonsense:

• and even the dawning national identity and consciousness in the days of New France.

Can you explain why this is utter nonsense? It is a well-know fact that when the British acquired Canada, it also came with a people that had been refering to itself as les Canadiens for quite some time already. This is not just a hypothesis. Much historical evidence attest the birth of a distinct cultural identity in Canada and Acadia. It was only natural for these people to end up seeing themselves as a nation over time. This happened all over America in the ancient colonies. -- Mathieugp 02:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

REMOVED pending further details:

• In September, the PQ created a national committee of anglophones and a liaison committee with ethnic minorities.

There is no reason for this to be removed. This is just a fact that can be easily verified. -- Mathieugp 02:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

REMOVED speculation and undefined comment:

• Perhaps for this reason, Quebec was one of the few regions within Canada where both sides of the political spectrum supported free trade with the United States.

This is not a fact, but is a common observation made by political analysts. The fact that Quebec saw the free trade agreement as a way to reduce its dependence on the Canadian market was an important factor in getting Quebec to support the deal with a strong majority. -- Mathieugp 02:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note also that the risks relative to the St. Lawrence Seaway are real, not "maybes"

REMOVED:

• It should be noted, however, that territorial partition of Quebec following a sovereignty vote is not universally accepted as a fact of Canadian law, even among supporters of Canadian federalism.
  • Says who? Name one Constitutiona Expert.

Canadian and international law are quite clear on this. For the borders of Quebec to be changed after independence, it would be necessary for Quebec to WANT to open negociation on the redrawing of its borders. Therefore, if Quebec does not wish to open negociations on this subjet, there will be nothing to discuss. For Quebec to be partitionned without it desiring so, Canada would have to break international law by invading Quebec. This would of course severly undermine Canada's reputation on the international scene. But it could work. I mean, Quebec was conquered once in 1763, than a second time in 1837-38, why not a third time? -- Mathieugp 02:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wrong, it is anything but clear. As for "international law" there is no such thing. International law is actually better termed convention. People looking to make grandiose justifications typically use "international law" as a foundation. It is laughable. I'll give a recent example: many said that "international law" dictated that Bush couldn't invade Iraq. It was illegal. Technically yes. For example, if he wanted to unilaterally invade Canada, Japan, Vanuatu, or South Africa, they would have been correct. Unfortunately, the state of war that existed between the first Gulf War coalition, and Iraq, sanctioned by the U.N. was never formally ended. For all intents and purposes, Baby Bush's actions were a legal continuation of the first Gulf War, even though common sense tells us that for all intents and purposes that first war was over. But the law, and in particular "international law" doesn't always follow common sense. Neither do those using it as a crutch for some argument.

So, to the issue at hand, it is much more complicated than a simple issue of territorial integrity. Firstly, International CONVENTION suggests that if a region does separate, it does so intact. This would seem to support the sovereigntist viewpoint. HOWEVER, the vast majority of the Northern part of Quebec was not part of Quebec until 1912. No reasonable person could expect that the Federal government, had they suspected that Quebec would ever separate, would ever have made it part of Quebec. Especially in lieu of the aforementioned complications of passing borders, and Canada essentially divided by the new nation of Quebec. The ability of Quebec to retain this portion of land is indeed in dispute, and undoubtedly would be for years. Secondly, the Aboriginal Canadians would of their own accord have the right to decide their own fate. They are the residents of this portion of land. No one expects them to vote to secede. If Quebecois can secede from Canada, so can Cree from Quebec. Sovereigntists ALWAYS refuse to acknowledge this fact and it is why it is so hard for many from the rest of Canada to show them any respect in a dialogue on the issue. Finally, in addition to their ability to vote to remain in Canada (and granted, they may actually have to wait for a fully formed Nation of Quebec to exist before doing this), they already have a special relationship with the Federal government which amounts, in many ways, to limited self-government. Not completely different from, although significantly less comprehensive than the concept of sovereignty association. As such, in particular with regard to the increased land-use rights they retain, it is easily argued that they are already semi-separate from both Federal Canada, and Provincial Quebec, and as such would be justified by international convention to immediately decide for themselves with whom they wish to associate.

Check-points and officers at border ? Not in the European Union between sovereign member-states !

So, the same could be applicable to Quebec and Canada if Quebec would become a new country one day (in many many years to come, i guess).

• Proponents of Quebec sovereignty also suggest that their intention to maintain economic and political links with Canada would render the issue moot.
  • Impossible – you can't have soverignty without control of your borders.

Yet Canada and the US are sovereign and they have a free trade agreement. -- Mathieugp 02:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They also have border check points, and people from one sovereign territory aren't free to enter the other without inspection. 27 Jan 2007 -- JillandJack 18:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the US/Canada border is quite a specific case : within the European Union, for instance, borders between member-states can be passed without any control and there are no "check points", no border officers between these sovereign states (just like nowadays, between Quebec and Ontario : imagine that with a Quebec sovereign, things would just be the same on that point), there is just a sign mentioning that you enter a new State, for instance "BIENVENUE EN BELGIQUE" ("welcome in Belgium", in French) or "WILKOMMEN IN DEUTSCHLAND" ("Welcome in Germany", in German). Explanation for North Americans : the E.U. is a free Union of Sovereign countries, it means that "Sovereignty-partnership" proposed by Quebec sovereignists is just like the one already existing in Europe, a continent which is always taken as a "reference" by Canadian federalists... Cebueq01 09:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

removed

REMOVED:

• The economic "association" part of the Sovereignty-Association concept was in some ways a forerunner of the later Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1989 and NAFTA.

Because the economic "association" was never defined in any manner and never discussed or considered with the rest of Canada, it cannot be compared in in the remotest sense to the FTA. JillandJack 19:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

I have just removed this part:

The net effect of their goal is to split the country into four separate parts: Labrador, Newfoundland, the Maritime Provinces, and Ontario through to British Columbia plus the northern territories.

While that would be an outcome of Quebec's independence, the above statement makes it sound like that is the desired goal. It isn't: the intent of sovereigntists is not to screw over the rest of us Canadians by separating, it's just to get an independent nation.

As well, it's rather cheap to say four parts, rather than three. After secession, Newfoundland would be no more disconnected from Labrador than it is now. It's an island.

Finally, the statement (if revised and re-included) should really make clear that one is speaking of geographically separate parts. The paragraph could be interpreted as meaning that Quebec sovereigntists want Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Maritime Provinces to be politically separate from Canada too! --Saforrest 00:55, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

===================

RE: Seven individual edits by User:Curps

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for causes. This and related articles demonstrate that you don'y have much of a case if you need to use misformation, distortion, and outright falsehoods to tell your story. We reversed all of User:Curpss edits as they cannot be justified and each one was either false or designed to soften the image of the separatist movement by removing facts. The separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada is a monumental event and represents utter devastion to the Atlanctic Provinces. Example of outright User:Curps falsehood with respect to violence:

• "However, this can be seen in the context of the 1960s, when there were numerous splinter groups advocating and committing terrorism and violence in the United States and other countries. In the years since 1970 there has been no violence or terrorism associated with the Quebec sovereignty movement."

There is no comparison between the FLQ terrorism that held an entire nation hostage to the Anti-Vietnam war protests, or the actions espoused by Malcom X or even the Black Panthers. That "since 1970 there has been no violence or terrorism associated with the Quebec sovereignty movement" is an outright falsehood. We replaced this with facts. JillandJack 18:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are making POV edits that are frankly silly. Spray-painting a building with graffiti is a terrorist action? Please. -- Curps 19:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

May I also ask what you think you are doing by putting an "x" on the user pages of various other users? You did this to User:Mattcliche User:Marianika and User:HistoryBA in recent days. This is a form of vandalism. -- Curps 20:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We know you insert false statements but tell me where did I mention spray painting a building? JillandJack 20:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First, I remind you that Wikipedia's policy is Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Second, you still haven't explained your trivial vandalism of other users' user pages. Third, what you call a "terrorist" action in Baie d'Urfé consisted of spray painting buildings with graffiti. -- Curps 20:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First, be man enough to admit you fabricated your claim as well as others line Air Space is only in War and deleting my non-war example from the article. And, in fact, at Baie d'Urfe the offices were trashed and a written threat to English Quebecers to get out of Quebec -- as I stated in the article. That was in fact signed "FLQ". JillandJack 20:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Once again, I remind you of official Wikipedia policy on civility. Graffiti or even property-damage vandalism is not considered "terrorism" by any reasonable definition. Terrorism involves blowing things up with explosives, hostage taking, assassinations, hijackings.

You are also adding irrelevant material about France today, the status of citizens of France in Quebec, and the status of France's colonies. France is a foreign country; information about it in a modern context is about as relevant as inserting material about the Falkland Islands into an article about the United States. The fact that you are doing so seems to indicate that you aren't really familiar with Quebec.

You made a blanket reversion of all of my edits without any attempt at good faith discussion; you merely attacked me.

Finally, for the third time, you still haven't explained what you were doing by committing trivial vandalism by putting "x" on other users' pages. (Or perhaps by your definition I should call this "terrorism" :-) At least apologize for this silliness and don't do it in the future. -- Curps 20:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is impossible to discuss with someone who lies and who uses the Edit summary to mislead. I never attacked you. I only stated a fact: you lied and inserted into Wikipedia a false statement as clearly outlined on this page. JillandJack 21:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Further, I find it rather strange that in not one single article filled with misinformation, racist remarks, lies and distoration, you never once reverted any of them from what I saw of the past 500 edits. Yet, you come to this and the FLQ terrorist article and insert false statements and remove essential facts. Why such a contradiction? JillandJack 21:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Your accusations of "misformation, distortion, and outright falsehoods", "lying", "misleading", "inserting false statements" constitute personal attacks and are not in the spirit of civil dispute resolution. I don't believe you are making any good faith efforts to resolve editing disagreements.

By the way, here's the edit I made to the FLQ article: [1]: I merely toned down your POV phrasing about "giving in to terrorism". And here are the edits I made to the Quebec sovereignty movement article: [2]. I gave reasons for these changes in the original edit summaries; you simply did a blanket revert.

And for the fourth time, you have not seen fit to explain why you added an "x" to three users' previously blank user pages. It's trivial but it's still intentional vandalism. Why not apologize to the users involved and make a commitment not to do such things in the future? -- Curps 21:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Post-sovereignty territory: POV edit introduced by JillandJack

Some paragraphs introduced recently by JillandJack are biaised, because they give an exagerated importance on a theory (if Quebec becomes an independent state, its borders would be those of 1867) which is contested by many experts and is illegal under international law.

In a study requested by Liberal Premier Robert Bourassa in 1991, Henri Dorion, a geographer and expert on the issue of international borders, had studied the question of the territorial integrity of a sovereign Quebec. In the introduction, it is clearly stated that "The theory of the uti possidetis, under the terms of which the change of statute of a territory does not have impact on its delimitation, although questioned by some, enjoys indeed an unambiguous international recognition" (our translation). Under the terms of international law, the land borders of an independent Quebec would be the same as they are as a canadian province (even the Labrador border is likely to remain as it is). However, the sea borders between Quebec and Canada would have to be defined. The whole study, titled Les frontières du Québec: l'État de la question, is available on the Quebec Government website.

For this reason, the paragraph beginning by the phrase "The boundaries of the Province of Quebec have been altered several times since Confederation...", and the following ones, should be removed, and it should be added that under international law, the most plausible theory is that the land territory of a sovereign Quebec would be the same as it is as a province, so the whole section would be NPOV.

--Mattcliche 03:50, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

There is something even better on the subject of Quebec's territorial integrity right here:

http://www.uni.ca/territoire-f.html

The original, in PDF format, directly from the Quebec government:

http://www.saic.gouv.qc.ca/publications/territoire-f.pdf

-- Mathieugp 04:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"uni.ca" is a Canadian patriotic website and thus, carries a strong bias on the current subject. It can't be considered a reliable/neutral source because of its activist content. Hugo Dufort 07:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

End of revert wars

I was asked by user Curps to comment the edit dispute over various articles related to Quebec's "evil separatists". The said edit dispute involves user JillandJack and various other users. User JillandJack's recent contributions can be looked up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=JillandJack

As one can verify on this page, various articles were slightly modified by JillandJack to turn each instance of the word "Quebec" to "Province of Quebec, Canada" or something close. In addition, a small subset of the articles we are concerned with were heavily modified, such as Quebec sovereignty movement, Quiet Revolution, FLQ, Lower Canada Rebellion etc.

I have created some and contributed to most of the articles touched by JillandJack. Most of these articles suffer from not being finished. They contain a lot of valid informations, but there are important points missing and a lot of statements are vague, out of place or simply irrelevant. Worst, often there are no sources at all or the sources are only to be found in French. There are a lot of things wrong with most of the articles dealing with the politics, history, and culture of Canada and Quebec and Wikipedia is demonstrating quite eloquently how much these topics are problematic in this part of the world. (But once could ask, "Is it really better elsewhere?" :-)

In any case, regarding JillandJack's modifications, I personnally decided to not revert any of them because his/her behavious with other users (who had also noticed the said modifications) strongly suggested that it was a waste of time. Rather, I made use of all the patience I have to actually read all of his/her modifications and I tried to point out what I believed was innaccurate in them (see above). I think that this how we are supposed to go about resolving these kinds of problems on Wikipedia.

JillandJack: I believe that most of what you added to Quebec sovereignty movement, Quiet Revolution, FLQ, Lower Canada Rebellion and others is severely biased and that virtually every single one of your assertions is not backed by facts. Can you prove me wrong? Are you willing to do the work of finding relevant sources for all the stuff you have added? If you are, and if you present valid data, all of us who do not think your recent contributions present neutral and accurate information will have to admit they are wrong. The ball is in your camp...

-- Mathieugp 04:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Change of article name

The edit of User:Curps of "02:50, 17 Feb 2005 Curps (separatism is used only by opponents of sovereignty; "independentism" is not used at all) " is incompatible with the statistical realities gathered by us on that same date (February 17) as detailed below. Given the overwhelming numbers, we are changing the name of this article to comply with Wikipedia:Naming conventions "to give priority to what the majority of English speakers most easily recognize." Note too, that the term Quebec separatists or Quebec separation and Quebec separation movement is always the first or second choice wheras in every single instance, the term sovereignists / sovereignty is the least used by as much as a 10:1 margin.

Google: (web)

• Quebec sovereignists: 5,600
• Quebec separatists: 34,700

• Quebec sovereignty: 177,000
• Quebec separation: 490,000
• Quebec independence: 734,000

• Quebec sovereignty movement 75,000
• Quebec separation movement: 83,900
• Quebec independence movement: 149,000

Google: (pages from Canada)

• Quebec sovereignists: 2,100
• Quebec separatists: 16,100

• Quebec sovereignty: 81,200
• Quebec independence 178,000
• Quebec separation: 217,000

• Quebec sovereignty movement 26,300
• Quebec separation movement: 27,700
• Quebec independence movement: 36,800

MSN: (web)

• Quebec sovereignists: 1,054
• Quebec separatists: 17,750

• Quebec sovereignty: 88,942
• Quebec separation: 206,319

• Quebec sovereignty movement 38,042
• Quebec separation movement: 46,163
• Quebec independence movement: 150,371

Yahoo: (web)

• Quebec sovereignists: 1,540
• Quebec separatists: 26,200

• Quebec sovereignty: 104,000
• Quebec separation: 200,000

• Quebec sovereignty movement 47,100
• Quebec separation movement: 49,500
• Quebec independence movement: 86,500

Yahoo: (Canada)

• Quebec sovereignists: 1,220
• Quebec separatists: 13,000

• Quebec sovereignty: 41,100
• Quebec separation: 81,900

• Quebec sovereignty movement 14,200
• Quebec separation movement: 14,400
• Quebec independence movement: 17,900

JillandJack 23:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reverting to pre-JillandJack vandalism

Is there any opposition to a) renaming this article back to 'Quebec sovereignty movement' (the actual name of the movement) and b) reverting to a past version just before JillandJack started the vadalism? -- Mathieugp 16:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

a) Yes, the old name is more suitable (and commonly used). b) Strictly speaking it's not vandalism, just very NPOV editing. We should do a diff to see if any good edits are in there, possibly by third parties; these could be kept or added back in after a revert. But certainly, an NPOV version will resemble the pre-JillandJack version much more than the current version. -- Curps 19:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. However, I do caution that a new username (Oirvine) reinserted JillandJack's edits almost verbatim after the post-ban revisions that Curps and I did yesterday. DW/Angelique/Jill/etc. may in fact have more usernames lurking in the system to get around a ban. I'm seriously considering requesting protection; I'd simply protect it myself, but it's against Wikipedia guidelines to protect a page that you've personally been involved in editing. Bearcat 22:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think page protection is necessary. This is just one person making NPOV edits, and there are a number of us who object to his edits, so the 3RR rule will keep him in check. We just have to keep an eye on the page; I have added it to my watchlist. If he tries to use sockpuppets, he will give himself away by his style, especially personal attacks and his pattern of editing. -- Curps 23:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Ansering to Curps first edit) Yes, we can look for possible good edits inserted by other people in between JillandJack's edits. -- Mathieugp 01:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Charles de Gaulle

The line Charles de Gaulle...deeply offended the Canadian federal government and all citizens of Canada... Well, it can't be all citizens, or there wouldn't be a movement at all! Peter Grey 8 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)

 Well, that is a bit snide.  It is virtually unheard of for a leader of one democratic
 nation to directly and overtly insert themselves into the internal politics of another.
 Trust de Gaulle to do just that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.66.156 (talk • contribs) 

And, while the comment about Canadians dying on France's battlefields is true, bringing the war dead into this discussion strikes me as being a very POV edit. A neutral re-phrasing would be simply that Charles de Gaulle... deeply offended many Canadians.... Ground Zero 8 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)

 The war dead question is ABSOLUTELY relevant here.  Twice Canadians died in droves for
 France.  And as I wrote above, de Gaulle, who should know these sacrifices better than
 any other single Frenchman chose to do something so offensive, so insulting, and so
 completely and utterly indefensible by any measure of international mores that he 
 in one fell swoop spit upon the graves of every man who fought and died for his country.
 Inserting the war dead here presents to the reader succinctly, just what de Gaulle's 
 behaviour represents.  I can think of no other way this point could be made so well and so
 easily.  Finally, most of the discord between de Gaulle (and ultimately France) and the 
 rest of the democratic world (most specifically the U.S.) can be traced to the insistence 
 by the Americans that de Gaulle not presume to rule France after the liberation without 
 first winning an election.  He took offense to this.  Please show me what general election
 this man won prior to the end of the war?  He was hardly dedicated to Democracy.  He was a 
 piece of shit.  I can only imagine the furor if every time the Canadian Primeminister went 
 to France there was a very public comment in support of Basque, and Norman and any other 
 groups freedom.  Coming from President of a country attempting to maintain a vicious 
 colonial empire at the time the comment was made, it is particularly indefensible.  Just 
 because a statement shows the man for what he was, does not mean it is not neutral. It is 
 simply, and unfortunately for the man and his apologists, truthful.

JillandJack / A. Lafontaine

Our favorite banned user partly rewrote the first paragraph of this article in a POV manner and also added:

"The Supreme Court of Canada, through its ruling on the Secession of Quebec declared this assertion as unconstitutional and invalid in accordance with both Canadian law and the criteria required under international law as adhered to by the United Nations. "

First of all, there is no "ruling" on the secession of Quebec by the Supreme Court of Canada. There is however an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on three very biased political questions related to the secession of Quebec. Nothing in this opinion ever invalidated the assertion that Quebecers, as a people, have a right to self-determination. None of the three questions had anything to do with it. -- Mathieugp 18:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

There's no implication for "Quebec people", since that is not a legal term, but for the Government of Quebec, the statement is exactly correct. And even separatists consider secession in terms of (unpartitioned) territory not people. Peter Grey 20:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 "three very biased political questions"  WOW!  you must be the MOST unbiased individual!
 Please, arbiter of all that is good and holy, tell us all what to think.  While the
 Federalist politicians have much blame in this, and are certainly not lily white by any 
 means, the separatists always manage to sink lower.  Neither group has integrity on their
 side, and apparently neither do you.  Oh, and by the way, most of the "Federalists" that
 are such thorns in the side of the separatist agenda, are themselves Quebecois. 
 Interesting that apologists for the inane BS from the separatist side never seem to notice 
 this.  Funny that it is always anglo vs. franco when almost everyone involved directly in
 the argument is franco born and bred.  No disengenuous arguments, obfuscation of fact and 
 reality on the separatist side?  How about the very fact they don't want a clear question?
 Spare us all your biased opinions.  Only the most radical of lunatics in Canada denies
 Quebec the right to choose their own destiny.  All the Supreme Court did, was step in and 
 state the obvious...that a group campaigning for "sovereignty association" cannot expect to
 unilaterally secede from a sovereign nation on their own terms with no consultation with 
 the nation they are secedeing from.  That at the very LEAST, there needs to be a clear 
 question.  Funny that a group of people whining about how the rest of Canada supposedly 
 is keeping them from their democratic right to self determination (an obvious load of bunk,
 but considering who I am talking to I thought it should be stated explicitly) has a problem
 with a ruling intended to ensure that the referendum vote is democratic, free, fare, and 
 clear, and thus valid.  I'm curious, why do you think the Sunni radicals didn't want the 
 Sunni population to vote in Iraq?  It was to make the government appear invalid, without 
 a...wait for it..."CLEAR MANDATE".  Why then do separatist leaders want to obfuscate?  
 If they don't want to obfuscate, why should the moot point of the Supreme Court ruling even
 be an issue.  The answer I'm sure is obvious, even to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.66.156 (talk • contribs) 

Statement incorrect

For those not aware of the Canadian federal government's manoever, here is an analogy of what Stephane Dion did attempting to use the authority of the Supreme Court of Canada:

1. Is there anything in the Canadian constitution giving the people who wear blue socks on Sundays the right to chew yellow gum half-naked on the beach without negociating with the other beachers? The Supreme Court obviously said no. Not a single line of the constitution even mentions the subject.

2. Is there anything in International law giving the people who wear blue socks on Sundays the right to chew yellow gum half-naked on the beach without negociating with the other beachers? While we are at it, is there even a right to freely make that kind of decision in International law? No said the Supreme Court. International law gives the right to chew yellow gum half-naked on the beach without negociating with the other beachers only under certain circumstances, but unfortunately people who wear blue socks on Sundays are not explicitely listed as having that right. They don't fit the description completely in our opinion.

3. Which law prevails in such a case? International or domestic law? Since the answer was (obviously) No to question 1 and 2, the Supreme Court chose not to answer the third question.

Stephane Dion then said: "Oh great! Since nothing allows for it in the constitutiuon, it is therefore unconstitutional. Since people who wear blue socks on Sundays are not explicitely listed as having the right to chew yellow gum half-naked on the beach without negociating with the other beachers, there is consequently no such a right for these people."

There are unfortunately quite a lot of problems with Stephane Dion's pitiful attempt a "prooving" that Quebecers do not "have the right" to secede unilaterally. There is even more problems with the statements of those who try to convince us that the Supreme Court "ruled" out Quebec's right to self-determination completely (intentionally or unintentionally omitting the word "unilaterally").

1. The Parti Québécois has never asserted that Quebec, as a member state of the Canadian federation, has a legal right to seceded unilaterally. The entire political class of Quebec is very much aware that there is nothing in the constitution of the Canadian federation dealing with secession. The PQ has always asserted that, were the Canadian federal government to refuse to negociate secession after a wining referendum, Quebec would be morally justified to declare independence unilaterally and seek the recognition of their new sovereignty on the international scene. The PQ has also asserted that nothing in Canadian law nor international law forbids to do this, which is entirely correct. In reality, this would be about the only legitimate option left to Quebec at this point.

2. Stephane Dion is playing a little game of logic in which only the very naive people can be the victims. He is leading us to believe in a false dilemma: to chose between something legal and something immoral (breaking the law). Here is how we can get out of this dilemma with honour:

Let us ask ourselves a question: Is the fact that something is not stated in law an automatic proof that doing it is wrong? No. Many examples could be given here. The law does not state that I cannot do A), therefore nothing forbids it. Stephane Dion is trying to lead us to believe the opposite. He is saying the law does not explicitely say that I can do A), therefore it is illegal (and thereby wrong) to do it. Because the law doesn't say I can eat kiwis, I cannot allow myself to do it says Stephane Dion. That's funny.

Let us also ask ourselves: Is doing something that is clearly against the law automatically wrong? No, not automatically. Only if it is also morally wrong. In other words, the law can be wrong. To follow a wrong law is immoral.

When the law did not allow for women to vote, the majority of women naturally did not break the law. (Some did it to protest against the injustice of course. Those interested in the topic should read Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau.)

However, what is most important is that those who thought that the law was wrong ultimately organised themselves to have the law changed, so that what they considered to be morally right become "legally right" also. Just like the right to vote, the question of independence for Quebec is a political question that must be decided by the citizens of Quebec, not by the judges of the Supreme Court.

Regarding the Quebec secession case, Stephane Dion did not exactly obtained what he wanted from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's opinion contained many paragraphs that in fact pleased the sovereignty movement. The then Premier of Quebec Lucien Bouchard wrote a very positive declaration on the opinion which case be read (in French) here :

http://www.premier.gouv.qc.ca/general/discours/archives_discours/1998/aout/dis19980821.htm

If people are interested, I can translated it. -- Mathieugp 03:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no "Quebec people" in terms of international or Canadian law. (Even the separatists don't seem to know how it's different from English Canadian and French Canadian.) And the separatists have never talked in terms of good-faith negociation (what have they ever offered to give up?). Peter Grey 10:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

My earlier statement that: "Nothing in this opinion ever invalidated the assertion that Quebecers, as a people, have a right to self-determination. None of the three questions had anything to do with it." should convince Anglophone Canadians that the separatists, of which I am, have read the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The concept of self-determination for peoples does exist in international law. You can read about it in the United Nations Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

Although quite entertaining, the question of the right to self-determination of a people VS that of a federated state is besides the point. The intro paragraph of this article was modified in a very POV manner and includes false statements. User A. Lafontaine wrote about a "ruling" which does not exist. He wrote that the Supreme Court's "ruling" invalidated the assertion of the separatists who "claim that Quebecers have a right to self-determination". The Supreme Court's opinion is that Quebec does not have a unilateral right to secede under international law. The only invalid assertion here is that of User A. Lafontaine who mixes up right to secede (and right to self-determination) with unilateral right to secede. -- Mathieugp 22:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not questioning that this "A. Lafontaine" was sloppy with the facts, but you still need a "people" first. Peter Grey 08:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Reverting Anonymous user edits

I reverted the following edits:

• 12:19, 16 July 2005 212.5.200.122
• 12:17, 16 July 2005 212.5.200.122
• 12:14, 16 July 2005 212.5.200.122
• 12:13, 16 July 2005 212.5.200.122
• 12:12, 16 July 2005 212.5.200.122

These are either incorrect or unsubstantiated statements that fail to comply with Wikipedia:Policy. A. Lafontaine 17:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I modified the distortion inserted by User:Bearcat. Note that the Supreme Court said:

• The democratic vote, by however strong a majority, would have no legal effect on its own and could not push aside the principles of federalism and the rule of law  : A. Lafontaine 14:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I most certainly do not insert distortions. Bearcat 18:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed: "the Patriotes Movement of the 19th century, or the dawning national identity and consciousness in the days of New France."

• The Patriote Party wanted good government and had nothing to do whatsoever with Quebec becoming an independent nation. As to New France, there is no evidence of any kind to support this claim. A. Lafontaine 15:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I reverted vandalism on this page, whole article was substituted with non-sense TrollDeBatalla 17:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed "The central cultural argument of the sovereigntists is that only citizenship for Quebec can adequately and permanently resolve the difficult issue of the language of the majority (Quebec French)" so that it simply says "French." Québec French certainly has a specific accent and some vocabulary differences compared to European varieties of French, but it is certainly not a separate language.

I forgot to sign the above edit --MissingNo 13:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I had written "Quebec French" for a reason. I wanted to make it clear that Quebec nationalists are defending French because it is the language of the Quebec people. There would be no nationalism in Quebec if the francophone majority did not have a culture and language that are significantly distinct from that of France. Sometimes, people assume that Quebec francophones are "French" (since they speak French) and conclude from this that Quebec nationalism is somewhat the same thing as the old French cultural imperialism. Quebec nationalists are not defending colonial French in Africa or any other former colony of France. They see French (and English) as threats to African languages and worldwide cultural diversity. When Quebec nationalists defend the position of French on the international scene, the majority do it because they think (rightfully or not) that it can help to preserve a certain balance in the world and stop the progression of English and Anglo-American imperialism. I thought writing "Quebec French" instead of just "French" would help avoid this important and common confusion. Maybe it is not necessary, I don't know. -- Mathieugp 17:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I just cut out a large section inserted by someone without a name that was an indictment of sovereigntist leaders and opinions about how Quebec would be swamped by the Americans if it weren't for us Anglophones. It seemed pretty clearly not in accordance with policy here, but I don't want to create a kerfuffle by not letting people know what I did. -- Coffeehood 21:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

How dare you. It is absolutely in accordance with policy. It was a description of how one thing in Quebec which is seemingly inarguable, is interpreted differently in the rest of Canada, and serves to put balance into the description. Everything in this article, while trying to appear balanced, is nothing but an argument for the sovereingtist side. The article should be describing the issue, not taking one side or the other. If you don't like it, improve it, but don't presume to act like Goebbels and censor something that provided balance to the piece.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.66.156 (talk • contribs)

This anonymous user put it back, with some changes. Some of the wording may have been easily misinterpreted as antagonistic to soveriegntists (which I am). If you have a problem with the wording, then rework it. The points made are VALID. The provide balance, and are SORELY needed. This is no place for a thinly veiled propaganda piece on sovereignty. There are huge holes in the political arguments for this radical step. None are mentioned in more than a cursory fashion, and the OBVIOUS questions to be raised about the sovereigntist view in light of these questions is not even dealt with. How convenient.

Geez! "How dare you" and Goebbels seems pretty harsh when you just put it back in -- nobody reversed Goebbels with a simple click of the mouse! Anyway, here's my argument: Once you start putting things like the following into an article that is supposed to be neutral it causes problems; "The rest of Canada has trouble understanding this feeling that change cannot happen within the Canadian framework." You know, I'm not a sovereigntist or a Quebecer (or Québecois for that matter) and I don't have that trouble — and I don't see it the way you do (and I saw this not to argue that my POV should "win, but that your characterisation is overgeneralised and broad). Also, drawing conclusions about the motivations and dishonesty of the leaders is not "balancing the article" and is a debating point, not a factual addition to the article.

To just talk about what ROC thinks is problematic. Maybe there should be a new section about critcisms of the movement that says things like "Some people in other provinces believe that the sovereigntists are...."

And just for the record, there are real historical and societal reasons that people of good will could support sovereignty without being self-serving, etc. You make all of them sound like they are all little Duplessises running around trying to destroy Canada due to their parochial and self-harming ways.

Coffeehood 22:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You make some good points. I've since tried to reword much of what I wrote. I would agree that it probably needs a lot (LOT) more work. But frankly, without it, the article really does come across as a justification for sovereignty, not a description of the issue. I personally believe this is because there is no description of what is and always has been a MAJOR issue in the whole debate. The fact that something said in one way in French, in Quebec, almost invariably sounds entirely different, in English, in the ROC. The most important issue in addition to this, is the FACT that the majority in the ROC (perhaps I should use that word more) sees this as Quebec separation. The article describes fairly well the many different contexts that sovereignty can take, and the fact that sovereignty means different things for different people inside the movement. The greatest difference however is the fact that the "separation" that most of Canada envisions is rarely if ever what a Quebecois is talking about. Do you see any politicians from either side in Canada getting together and talking these issues out like adults? No, both sides use the issue for their own ends. I've said that. I'm a little baffled that you think I'm wrong on that. I don't equate the bad behaviour of the politicians on both sides of the issue as an argument against the legitimacy of the sovereigntist viewpoint. I simply think it is incontrovertable that politicians on both sides have hijacked the issue for their own ends, and as such, what they say and do, must somehow be separated from the foundational concepts of the movement that supposedly underly what they are saying and doing (the two rarely coincide).

You must remember Meech? The only reason Quebec isn't in the constitution today is because small groups in a couple of provinces for their own political ends made Meech a political issue. Any reasonable person who actually took the time to read and understand Meech, as I did, could not have voted against it, unless they were a bigot or a jackass (in my humble opinion). And yet we still have a sovereignty movement. Can you explain to me how Meech could have solved all the problems with Quebec inside Federal Canada back then, but today there is no possible solution for Quebec inside Canada? Can you quote one politician that can articulate what has changed so drastically since then? I'm sure we must agree that nothing has. Perhaps political positions have hardened, but the issues really haven't changed at all.

Which brings me to the final point, you assumed my comments about politicians misusing the issue was targeted toward discrediting the sovereigntist agenda. It wasn't. I wrote an entire paragraph stating that these views were legitimately held by many Quebecois for a long time. You deleted this as well. I understand to some degree, why you assumed what you did. Clearly my own contempt for some of the issues, some of the sovereigntist arguments, and some of the players in the issue came through in what I wrote. I welcome any changes that can remove this without eliminating completely the points I think are absolutely valid, and essential to an understanding of this issue.

I want to offer you my sincere thanks for your note and for your continued work on the page. I suppose I was a bit high-handed in my response, and for that I apologise. I have to agree with most of what you've written above. And I did read your original posting as a condemnation of the sovereigntists solely; in retrospect I can see that it was more nuanced than that, and your changes have done a great deal to make that more apparent. I'm sorry that I came across as a bit of a blockhead. I felt that you were a bit offsides and that you probably would never listen to my point of view. I'm sorry for that as well. I'll try to look over the page and see if I can be of any help along the lines that Mathieugp suggests as well.

Best, Coffeehood 14:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Need to expand

I think the recent edits by anonymous user 69.123.66.156 (who is probably not a newbie for he/she knows how to use the wiki syntax too well) force us to expand on the fundamental thesis of the sovereignty movement on questions of nationalism, language and culture, federal-provincial relations etc.

I believe the English version of this article is likely to be permenantly subject to revert wars if we neglet to go in as much detail as possible on the philosophical foundations of this political movement.

I believe the anonymous user deserves answers to his questions. Why do sovereigntists consider that Canada cannot be reformed? I guess I can point him/her to this document for at start:

Québec's historical position on the federal spending power 1944-1998

The rest of the official documentation from the Quebec government is here:

http://www.saic.gouv.qc.ca/institutionnelles_constitutionnelles/documents_institutionnels_constitutionnels_en.htm

The anonymous user also wonders how come Quebec sovereigntists believe that the French language and Quebec's culture can only be safeguarded if Quebec becomes independent. Legitimate question again. The answer is also very difficult to summarize in one paragraph. One first has to be fully aware of the linguistic situation. A complete understanding of the language statistics, the sociological reality of assimilation, the competition between Quebec's territorial language policy and Canada's coast-to-coast institutional bilingualism policy, the issue around the quality of Quebec francophones' spoken language, the cultural isolation etc. are all pre-requisites to understand the point of view of the sovereigntists.

There is a lot of work to do, but the challenge is interesting. -- Mathieugp 02:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I am the anonymous user. I am farely new to Wiki, and an expert in several fields (although not in this one). I do not want to mix the two. Thus anonymous. Sorry. I do have a degree in Canadian history, and I am relatively familiar with the history of Quebec and the sovereignty movement. I will endeavour however to rein in my contempt for some areas of this issue. This stems from the fact that I think reasonable people should have solved this issue politically by now, and politicians on both sides no longer really want to deal with the issues, just exploit them.

I will endeavour to read what you provided and get back to you in the discussion. All I want is for the article not to read like a justification for sovereignty, but as a description, from both views, of the complex political situation that exists. After-all, I think that is what it should be, not a PQ sales pitch. I hope that doesn't sound too harsh, it isn't meant to be derogatory, as it is clear that the authors have endeavoured to present an unbiased article. However, the lack of the opposing viewpoint prevents someone who doesn't agree with the sovereigntist viewpoint from seeing it as neutral. It really does read as sympathetic to the cause, and I think most would agree it should not.

I understand. However, you have to realize that an article named "Quebec sovereignty movement" is not going to be a place where you see one argument by the separatists and the rebuttal by the "federalists". The whole point of neutrality policy is that there should be NO particular viewpoint. The arguments of the sovereigntists will simply be presented as they are, with no editorializing, leaving the readers to decide if it make sense to them or not. That being said, this article should, in a neutral manner, make it clear that there are opposing views and arguments, and that one can learn about these in other relevant articles such as maybe the currently embryonic and badly named "Quebec federalist ideology". -- Mathieugp 14:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Areas of misunderstanding

Generally, if I understand well, anonymous user 69.123.66.156 wants to know on what basis sovereigntists claim that Quebec's specific needs with regards to its specific national character are not met within Canada and ideally he/she would like to know exactly what those needs are, otherwize he/she cannot understand what the hell Quebec wants. Is that it? :-)

Let's try to something. The separatists usually try to state what Quebec wants on the basis of Quebec's social and often academic consensus. Consequently, what Quebec federalists and sovereigntists say alike is considered to be pretty solid and can be used in a fairly neutral manner when proceeding carefully.

After the 1980 referendum, Robert Bourassa had the nice role of presenting Quebec's demands for the Meech lake negociations. Bob Bourassa, a federalist of the kind that voted NO in 1980 because he thought Canada could be reformed, presented the government of Quebec's 5 minimal demands:

• 1. Recognition of Québec as a distinct society (a strategic euphemism for Quebec being "a nation within the nation" to quote Lester B. Pearson)

• 2. Veto over any change to the Constitution (a historical demand which goes back to the before the Westminster Status. Suggested reading : http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp295-e.htm)

• 3. Guarantees concerning the appointment of Québec judges to the Supreme Court of Canada (Quebec has numerous times lost its cause at the supreme court, but won at the British Privy Council. With the British Privy Council out of the way, Quebec felt it needed guarantees that the Supreme Court of Canada would also be, so to speak, the Supreme Court of Quebec.)

• 4. The right of provinces to opt out of federal programs with full financial compensation (another historical demand. Suggested reading: Québec's historical position on the federal spending power 1944-1998)

• 5. Increased powers for Québec over immigration duties within its borders (this is considered necessary to render Quebec's territorial language policy truly effective, otherwize, immigrants tend to assimilate to the English language and integrate the Anglophone Canadian society rather than to assimilate to the French language and integrate the Francophone Quebec society. Suggested reading: http://agora.qc.ca/liens/kymlicka.html)

These 5 demands are, from the point of view the sovereigntists, more than minimal demands. They would be minimalistic demands and Quebec would gain them all and more through independence. Therefore, if the PQ was against the Meech Lake Accord and its diluted sucessor the Charlottetown Accord, it is because it was not enough for Quebec. In 1992, the population of Quebec seems to have supported the PQ's position by voting NO to Charlottetown in a referendum.

But the fundamental questions are not really answered by all this. To answer the fundamental questions, one has to have the courage to dig the facts and find for himself if Quebec really has a reason to worry about the survival of its language, the development of its culture and society in general as part of Canada. So we need to answer at least these two questions:

• On what basis do sovereigntists claim that Quebec's language and culture are threatened as part of the Canadian federation.
• If these reasons appear valid, then on what basis do Quebec sovereigntists claim that Canada cannot be reformed to accomodate those specific needs.

If I provide our anymous user with these answers, will he/she be satisfied? I am opened to other questions to answer. -- Mathieugp 20:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

These are interesting points to discuss. I am Canadian, I understand most of this already. I've lived through the war measures act, the referendums etc. What it boils down to is two separate and distinct issues. One is a largely philosophical, and probably, ultimately unanswerable question "What is nationhood/nationalism". This has been debated for a long time. Detractors of the the sovereignty movement tend to minimize the arguments that Quebec is a "nation". The problem of course is that proponents do the exact opposite, and everybody has their own definition of "nation". Most of what you seem to want to address are these philosophical differences. I don't think there are many problems with the article in this regard. I am clearly not pro-sovereigntist, but that stems from my issues with the second issue, the political. I don't deny that the Quebecois feel like a nation. Most anti-sovereigntists would, for political expediency, deny this. It is not necessary to do so if the issue is dealt with factually. Clearly, Quebec is, and always has been a "distinct society" within the Canadian framework. Pro-sovereigntists would see this as all that is necessary to justify nationhood. This is of course wrong, because they are simply manipulating these feelings for political expediency. Clearly, any demands of Quebec can be met within the Canadian framework, the question is, will they? I would argue, that regardless of how pigheaded and unreasonable federalist politicians might be on the issues, it is the sovereigntist politicians themselves who have the obligation to the Quebecois to find out if they can achieve this without separation. After-all, it is their demands. Do you see any sovereigntists attempting this? I suppose you and they would argue "we tried and failed". As I pointed out, Meech would have solved this. But it didn't fail because it wasn't enough. It failed because of the petty politics of groups unrelated to the issue at hand. Clearly a solution can be had.

Actually, one of the reason I presented you with Robert Bourassa's 5 minimal demands for Quebec, which were for the most part in the Meech Lake Accord, was to illustrate how, in the view of the sovereigntists, even what the federalists from Quebec demand gets rejected by Ottawa. Historically, this is a constant. Like to any rule, there are exceptions like during early sixties under Jean Lesage's premiership. Quebec liberals will often point to that period and say "here is the proof that Canadian federalism can work". Personnally, I say: "what is the probability that Canada will have another Nobel prize winner as Prime Minister, one who will let Quebec exercise its full powers in the jurisdictions that are constitutionally those of provinces alone?". -- Mathieugp 04:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me add that the ADQ party (leader: Mario Dumont) has tried a significantly different approach to the question of sovereignty: autonomy within Canada (Catalan style). However, even the ADQ's demands currently exceed what Canada would accept, and by far. By the way, René Lévesque's plan in 1976-1980 was not exactly about "instant independence". He genuinly wished to work with Canada in order to redefine the relationship between Quebec and Ottawa; in a way, he wanted a binational union (Czech-style), or a confederation of loosely bound states (Swiss-style). The sovereignist movement changed its focus after 1982, but some "soft sovereignists" or "autonomists", which were still in the Liberal Party in the late 80s, would influence Robert Bourassa's constitutional positions, and later quit and found the ADQ party. Oops, my argument has just formed a loop. Hugo Dufort 10:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The problems arise with the second, more complicated political manifestation of sovereignty.

I'll begin by addressing your numbered points.

1. As I mentioned, Meech did this, it can be done again. Clearly, unless someone has been living in a cave, Quebec is distinct. I should however point out that opposition to this in the past has almost exclusively been opposition to Quebec having status that the rest of Canada didn't. I have the feeling it was typically played up by separatists as rejection of the issue by the ROC. Perhaps you can elaborate on this, as I am curious what was said in French about this. I don't think the separatists have any problem with all other provinces sharing the rights that they want? For example language rights, vetos etc.? Of course, each side plays this issue to their own uses, very cynically. This needs to stop.

Does the majority of the people in the ROC recognize that Quebec is distinct and therefore has needs that the other provinces simply don't have? Does the majority of the people in the ROC understand that jurisdictional "equality" of provinces passes WAY AFTER the right to self-determination of peoples in Quebecers's values scale? My opinion is that Canadians were misguided and the person most at fault for this is Trudeau who intervened to make sure the Meech Lake deal didn't pass. -- Mathieugp 04:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

2. Notwithstanding clause solves this.

Not exactly. In practice, there is a high political cost to the governing party who is applying this clause and therefore they only reluctantly do it. That's Realpolitik. -- Mathieugp 04:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The notwithstanding clause is only valid for a limited period of time. It is not renewable; it exists mostly to provide a smooth transition when a law is contested and forcibly phased out. Hugo Dufort 10:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Tricky, since typically half the sitting court is not only Francophone, but Quebecois. What exactly is their problem? They don't like losing sovereigntist arguments before federalist judges? What I suspect the separatists really want is to seed the court with separatists. This is not about the law, as judges will interpret the law. This is about seeding the court with separatist activists. Those types of judges, who want to make law, rather than interpret it have no business sitting on the bench, let alone on the supreme court. Indeed, wasn't a Quebecois chief justice during most of the 90's? This is a straw man, but one that could probably be rectified politically if all they really want is guarantees of sitting Quebecois judges on the bench, since there has probably never been a time where they weren't a significant minority, if not fully half of the court. It is unlikely in my view that this is what the separatists want, but I could be wrong. Plus the Privy Council is an antiquated monarchist entity that will soon dissappear. Additionally, any cases that could have been heard by the Privy Council predate Quebec Sovereignty as it hasn't been a court of appeal for Canada for over 50 years.

The composition of the Supreme Court is as follows:

* The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C. Chief Justice of Canada (Alberta)

* The Honourable Mr. Justice John C. Major (Ontario)

* The Honourable Mr. Justice Michel Bastarache (New Brunswick)

* The Honourable Mr. Justice William Ian Corneil Binnie (Quebec)

* The Honourable Mr. Justice Louis LeBel (Quebec)

* The Honourable Madam Justice Marie Deschamps (Quebec)

* The Honourable Mr. Justice Morris J. Fish (Quebec)

* The Honourable Madam Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella (Germany, educated in Ontario)

* The Honourable Madam Justice Louise Charron (Ontario)

Source : http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/aboutcourt/judges/curjudges_e.asp

I noticed Anglophone Canadians regularily take Acadians and Franco-Ontarians for Quebecers because they generally have French names.

Regarding your theory about a Master Plan to seed the court with separatists, that's pretty amusing. Again, these are not the 5 minimal demands of the separatists. The separatists want a Supreme Court of Quebec (actually a Le Tribunal suprême du Québec) in a Republic of Quebec (La République québécoise) which will have a clear separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers.

At the present, all of Canada's Supreme Court judges are appointed by Ottawa in a partisan manner, same for the judges of the highest court in all provinces. -- Mathieugp 04:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

4. I want to make sure I completely understand this one, let me read what you referenced first. I don't see why this isn't possible, save possibly for some fundamental programs. Alberta would certainly love this as well, I don't see that this is much of a separatist issue either, but one of provincial vs. federal powers. Hardly a Quebec vs. ROC issue.

Most likely. Personnally, I would love for all cabinet members who authorised the spending of federal money in strictly provincial jurisdiction to be prosecuted in front of the Supreme Court for violation of constitutional law, however the Liberal Party of Canada's power to appoint judges stands in my way. I mean, if the fundamental law of a state cannot even be enforced, what's the point of it all? Call me radical. Grrr. ;-) -- Mathieugp 04:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

5. Quebec already has language laws that protect her language and force new immigrants to enroll their children in French language schools rather than English. While this is seemingly undemocratic, for the most part, these laws have worked. Indeed, if immigrants to Canada don't want to speak French, then they shouldn't immigrate to Quebec. I would need you to elaborate on this point more, because it was my understanding that this issue was more or less settled. Are there outstanding issues on immigration control? Does Quebec not have control over immigration to their province unlike any other province in Canada?

Ah! My favorite subject! Language demographics and linguistic transfers! Coincidence, there was a great article on this very subject in Le Devoir today (Tuesday, December 21, 2005). You can read it here :

http://www.ledevoir.com/2005/12/20/98074.html

I will translate it for you (and others) as soon as I have time. Basically, in terms of assimilation, the official raw figures are 110 000 transfers to French and 55 000 transfers to English for the period between the 1971 census and the 2001 census. However, the author, Charles Castonguay, a former professor of mathematics at the University of Ottawa, shows what the real figures might be once we consider those people who have migrated to other provinces, people who have died, people who were already assimilated to either French or English before they even got to Quebec etc. The transfers towards French shrinks to 30 000 and those towards English rise up to 75 000. In other words, the real capacity of Quebec's francophone to integrate newcomers is much less than what is needed to simply maintain the current balance between francophones and anglophones in Montreal where all the action is going. -- Mathieugp 04:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

So, if you choose to believe that the issues can't be handled within Canada, you are a sovereigntist, otherwise a federalist. Or am I wrong? This I should point out is a rather new manifestation of the sovereigntist movement, because Rene Levesque was certainly willing to accept that he lost the referendum and work toward a solution with Canada. It is the politicians that came afterward who chose not to follow his lead. Using Meech and Charlottetown as excuses, when both failed not so much on the basis of what was or was not offered by them, but because of cynical political machinations or disenchantment with leadership in general is disingenuous I think. There is no reason Canada can't offer everything that came before and more if necessary. Unfortunately, no one on either side seems interested in working for an accomodation. The simple fact that the BQ feels the need to state that a vote for them is NOT a vote in support of having another referendum should prove that there is much more going on here politically than separatism vs federalism. I am arguing that the separatism vs. federalism debate is not even being waged. We have politicians on both sides making hay from divisiveness. If we want to discuss the political side of this issue, then this needs to be mentioned. And lets face it, we can shred the statements of either side's politicians because neither of them have any integrity. If this article is to be about the philosophical issues that led to separatism, then that is good too. Maybe the two issues should be split. But again, I caution, that to write about contemporary claims from sovereigntists, as though they are legitimate separatist components is fallacy. The contemporary scene is replete with political machinations that cloud the issue. Few politicians on either side (if any) speak with any integrity at all.

I don't understand on what basis you claim that "to write about contemporary claims from sovereigntists, as though they are legitimate separatist components is fallacy.". I understand that it is very difficult to understand the issue through the fake political debates our politicans give us, but there are other places were debates go on, like in Cegeps and Universities. -- Mathieugp 04:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The best solution would be for each riding in Quebec to nominate citizens to congregate, and prepare a description of what they want, with no attribution of whether it comes from Federalism or separation, or sovereignty-association. This would then be given to congregants from each of the other provinces and territories, to produce their reply. Representatives of each province and territory would then get together and see if they could hash out any differences. What would result is the absolute best the ROC could provide. It would leave the separatists with a VERY clear and definable issue. They can give us A, B, C, but not D. Do you wish to pursue sovereignty? Honestly now. Do you think the separtists would EVER win that referendum? Most importantly, it takes the politicians out of the mix. The only hole in this plan is if radicals from Quebec and Radicals from the other provinces are nominated and elected as representatives. It only works if people of good faith are involved. Sabotage will lead to yet another Meech or Charlottetown.

The UFP current has a similar idea, but to a different end:

The UFP proposes the national independence of Quebec while favouring social emancipation, equity and social justice for all. Independence is not a goal in itself for those who promote it but is a means to realizing our project for society. Popular sovereignty will be brought about by the creation of a constituted assembly. To achieve this the Government of Quebec should organize the election of a Constituent Assembly, which will be responsible for drafting and proposing to the people through a referendum a Constitution for a progressive, republican, secular and democratic Quebec. -- Mathieugp 04:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Accents

Wouldn't it be better if we said "Québec" not "Quebec"? Tim Bray 08:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Not in an English article. HistoryBA 14:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the reasons for this is to allow people to click on the link "Quebec" to be taken to another Wikipedia article. It just makes things easier for quick browsing;)

Québec will send you to the Quebec article, but display Québec as the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.66.156 (talk • contribs)

The English word for the province is Quebec. This is an English article. HistoryBA 01:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, in Canadian English the norm nowadays is to write the accent in. I won't go through changing them all but it does look somewhat awkward to me. However I can see Quebecer being written without an accent. Dan Carkner 16:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, in Canadian English it is standard to write "Quebec", without an accent. See for example The Canadian Oxford Dictionary ISBN 0-19-541120-X. Most English-language newspapers, including The Globe and Mail, The National Post, and the Montreal Gazette, write "Quebec" with no accent. --Mathew5000 16:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Côte d'Ivoire is French for Ivory Coast. Why don't we change the name of that article to Ivory Coast? Same thing with Québec. Sure it's easier to write Quebec, but the proper term is Québec. People in the English newspapers are just lazy.

Be sure to contribute at Talk:Spain to tell them how lazy they are for not titling the article "España". And why doesn't the article on Japan refer to the country as "Nihon"? Laziness again. And what about Italy? Obviously that article should really be called "Italia", but that would involve typing one more letter. Can you believe such laziness? Renaming a country just to save one single letter. Beyond belief. --Mathew5000 03:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No need to be rude about it. There is only one word for Quebec--it's just a matter of writing the accent or not, we're not talking about obscure different names here. I was under the impression that it was becoming more normal in the last 10 years to write it with the accent, maybe I am mistaken.. Dan Carkner 12:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Biased?

Hello everyone. I removed the {{bias}} tag. I've been following the recent discussion and editing and it seems that folks are working hard to get this to be as balanced as possible, but that even with the concerns that have been raised, the work that has been done recently has ensured that it isn't currently an apology for separatists. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 14:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

i that it is biased toward the federal pov, as the tone and language of seperatists not being able to accept these undisputed facts, doesnt that sound biased?--Prunetucky 00:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you cite a specific example? HistoryBA 14:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I get the impression that there's a slant towards non-sov. when I read a great deal of counter-criticism from "the rest of Canada" in the intro. This isn't appropriate right at the start, it needs to be put elsewhere. I think the intro needs to be shrunk quite a bit (it's already far too big), and many of its paragraphs placed in an alternate section. Lucidish 01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I get the same impression. In the second to last paragraph of the "Sovereignty-association" section, this particular part clearly states a POV, as it explains, withoutthenecessary sources or facts, a possibly problematic outcome of Quebec sovereignty : "This again shows a disconnect between political reality, and the cynical manipulation of sovereigntist feelings by politicians. One of the main purposes of a "sovereign" Quebec is to sign its own treaties independent of Canada. Upon separation, Quebec would no longer be a part of Canada, and as such is not a signatory to NAFTA. They would be required to negotiate with the three NAFTA countries, and it is unlikely they would find this a pleasant experience. It would not be in Canada's best interest to make soveriegnty easy for Quebec, and the United States would not want to go down the slippery slope of supporting Quebec over Canada." Charlesbergeron 00:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The seperatists did play a lot of semantic tricks and have greatly divided Canada. I read the article and feel it's not harsh enough in it's review of the events.

If it is harsh, then it is not NPOV. Just because you don't agree with a political project doesn't make it wrong for the rest of the planet. Hugo Dufort 10:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Le Devoir article on the French language's real power of attraction in Quebec

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

The real force of French in Quebec

Charles Castonguay, retired professor of mathematics at the University of Ottawa

Some 30 years after (the adoption of) bill 22 and 101, it is important to correctly assess the real incidence of those laws on the rapport de force between the French and English languages. How many people were francized on Quebec's territory before 1971. How many were anglicized? There is no easy answer to those questions because the census data does not let us know where and when a person who declares himself/herself francized or anglicized has shifted his/her mother tongue for French or English at home.

The Conseil de la langue française published, last year, a collection of reflexions (entitled Le français au Québec) which contains only a rough analysis of the language shifts among the immigrants. However, the Office de la langue française had already published during this Spring a study (Les indicateurs de vitalité des langues au Québec 1971-2001) in which an attentive follow-up of the whole data sets had me conclude that "there were more - a lot more" shifts in favour of English than in favour of French on the territory of Quebec between 1971 and 2001.

The research supplemented since the realization of my study for the Office enables me to quantify my conclusion more precisely. I summarize here my analysis which has just appeared in L'Annuaire du Québec 2006.

When one compares the balance of language shifts for Quebec in the 1971 census with that observed in 2001, it can seem at first sight that more new shifts were carried out in favour of French (110 000) than in favour of English (55 000). However, when doing only that we are truly comparing two snapshots, which in addition were taken by the means of two different instruments of observation. Let us bring in turn all the adjustments which are necessary to see things more clearly.

Compared to the results of the censuses conducted between 1971 and 1986, the questionnaire introduced in 1991 has, in an artificial way, reduced the number of anglicized francophones and inflated the share of French among the shifts declared by the allophones. In my study for the Office, I measured the incidence of this change. I showed just as the additional modifications made to the questionnaire in 2001 again inflated the francization of the allophones. I estimate that the whole of the modifications made to the instrument of observation caused approximately 50 000 cases of francization and 10 000 cases of anglicization. It is advisable to withdraw them to the apparent gains in favour of French and English since 1971.

In the same study, I could also confirm that at least half of the shifts in favour of French or English declared among the immigrant allophones took place abroad, before their arrival in Quebec. According to my estimates, it is thus necessary to also withdraw, of the apparent gains for French, at least 30 000 cases of francization which did not take place in Quebec and to do the same for some 10 000 shifts in favour of English.

Alone, these corrections for the effects of the questionnaire and shifts which took place abroad bring back the shifts which occurred on the territory of Quebec since 1971 to 30 000 for French and 35 000 for English.

There is more. In 1971, Quebec counted approximately 25 000 francized allophones, but 70 000 anglicized allophones. Over the 30 years in question, a significant number of these anglicized persons passed away. Since the gains of English did not cease growing, these anglicized persons were all replaced by new cases of anglicization which it is necessary to add to the balance for English since 1971. The number of shifts which it is advisable to add to the balance for French to compensate for mortality is definitely less.

Moreover, thousands of francophones and allophones anglicized on the territory of Quebec migrated to the rest of Canada since 1971. More precisely, the censuses of 1976 to 2001 counted, outside Quebec, approximately 41 000 anglicized francophones and 33 000 anglicized allophones who all resided in Quebec five years before. For my analysis in L'Annuaire du Québec 2006, I estimated that the interprovincial migration thus subtracted to the balance of shifts for Quebec in 2001 at least 10 000 francophones and 5000 allophones who were anglicized in Quebec between 1971 and 2001. It is advisable to also add them to the shifts in favour of English realized in Quebec since 1971 and, correlatively, to withdraw the anglicized francophones of the balance of shifts in favour of French for 2001.

As a whole, these last two types of adjustment maintain the 30 000 gains in favour of French by way of new shifts which occurred on the territory of Quebec between 1971 and 2001, but provide for 75 000 corresponding gains in favour of English.

Obviously, the rapport of force between French and English in Quebec since 1971 are contrary to what an incomplete reading of the data can lead us to believe. It is regrettable that the Conseil initiated a reflexion on the linguistic policy of Quebec which does not present an overall picture of the recent shifts which truly took place on the territory of Quebec.

Original French language article : http://www.ledevoir.com/2005/12/20/98074.html

Standing joint committee on Official Languages in Ottawa (1998)

On the subject of assimilation, here is the reality of assimilation of francophones in Canada globally, again from professor Charles Castonguay : http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=50628

-- Mathieugp 03:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Attaining sovereignty implies secession

Attaining sovereignty implies secession. I don't think it makes much sense to write "attaining sovereignty or secession". For clarity's sake, we could write somewhere in the first paragraph that the method proposed by the sovereigntists "would lead to negociations for the secession of Quebec from Canada". -- Mathieugp 19:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There are shades of sovereignty. The Québécois movement is NOT absolutely secessionnist. For instance, Lévesque wanted to redefine the relationship of Quebec and Canada after a "YES"; he wanted either a binational federation (Czech-Slovak style), a confederation of loosely bound states (Swiss style), or a large autonomy with constitutional guarantees (let's call it "Meech with more curry")­. The movement doesn't call for immediate or forceful secession. Instead, the goal is to: write its own constitution, have its own constitutional court, and negociate ALL the rest with Canada. In fact, a sovereign Quebec could end up having much of its institutions and infrastructures shared with the rest of Canada. Let's say: industrial and commercial norms, joint territorial defense forces, shared road network, no formal border, common market, etc. However, the core institutions would be locally controlled in both nations (constitution, law, international politics, education system, embassies, treaties with other states, subsidies to arts & culture, health system, prison system, ...). This is what sovereignty is about: being self-governed for what is truly important, and teaming up with your neighbors for what is of mutual interest. In a way, Canada and Quebec could end up being... married! -- Hugo Dufort 10:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe this is accurate. First, the MSA produced a very clear and official definition of sovereignty which is "the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad". This definition is featured in the question used for the 1980 Quebec referendum. The sovereignty movement still defines sovereignty in those words today. The "exclusive power of" implies secession. The laws passed by the Parliament of Canada would not longer apply on the territory of Quebec. The fact that many sovereigntists wish for a new type of union with Canada, one that is "based on the equality of nations", is a complement to this fundamental position, not a dilution or a weakening of it. There are people who want a strong province of Quebec inside a reformed Canada. These people are not sovereignists, but the reasons they invoke for the desire of reform are often very similar to that of the sovereignists. -- Mathieugp 17:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well if you consider Lévesque's original project, which led to the 1980 referendum, nothing in it was even remotely related to secession. It was only about negociating a new partnership with Canada, and no hint was given about a possible secession. This is why Lévesque was willing to get into the "Beau Risque" with Trudeau in 1981-9182 (until the constitutional slap-in-the-face of 1982). It is only in the 1995 question that conditional secession was part of the project: first negociating with Ottawa and if it does not work after 1 year, making a formal declaration of sovereignty. No plan was ever sketched to secede from Canada right after a YES victory. This subtle difference has important political implications; in fact, without it the ADQ party wouldn't have joined the YES camp in 1994. And if you carefully read the BQ's political platform, you will find no reference to formal independence or secession; the Bloc advocates the emancipation of the Quebec's nation, without advocating a complete separation from Canada. I think these points have been widely misunderstood by a lot of sovereignist militants and by most Canadians as well. Sovereignty does not equal absolute independence. Hugo Dufort 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way Mathieu, I have the highest respect for your work in Wikipedia. It is nice to debate with you about these "spiky" subjects. -- Hugo Dufort 07:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I had never noticed your reply Hugo. Sorry. Here is what I didn't agree with in your original paragraph: "There are shades of sovereignty." Reading the subsequent sentences you wrote, I now see that by "sovereignty" you meant the movement. I didn't agree that there were many shades of sovereignty, but I do certainly agree that within the movement for sovereignty, there are people who do not wish for secession at all costs. That is almost an understatement. I agree with you I believe that Lévesque, his followers and the PQ/BQ militants in general, are ultra-moderates. The business interests backing these parties would most likely pull out were they to fear economic chaos even if only for a short transitional period. At least, that is what is generally believed by the moderates and even more so by the ultra-moderates of the PQ/BQ. As you correctly pointed out in the second paragraph you wrote, the "Beau Risque" episode provides evidence that Lévesque (and those who stayed with him) was willing to settle for less than sovereignty. However, Levesque was being respectful of the fact that 60% of Quebecers had voted no to the 1980 question. Now, let's pretend that Levesque had won the referendum. That a majority of Quebec voters had given him the mandate to negociate "a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations", would he have settled for less than equality? Nobody really knows for certain. Could Ottawa have refused to negotiate good faith? The people who voted YES were hoping that Ottawa would respect the wish of the majority of Quebec voters. There is much to speculate here too.

I believe that saying "a sovereign Quebec could end up having much of its institutions and infrastructures shared with the rest of Canada." is an exaggeration. They would share many institutions initially, that is for sure. But after 25 years, and even more so after 50 years, the diverging economic interests would have split the two States almost completely I believe. I agree that "It is only in the 1995 question that conditional secession was part of the project: first negotiating with Ottawa and if it does not work after 1 year, making a formal declaration of sovereignty." Parizeau was not at all afraid of economic consequences, on the contrary. He fears what will happen if we are stuck in the current system much longer. This assurance comes with greater knowledge of the economic system we are also stuck into. :-) -- Mathieugp 16:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Poll

I have a problem with that part; "A recent poll by CTV/Strategic Counsel showed that 49% of Quebecers are in favor of another referendum. However, only 43% would vote "Yes" if the sovereignty question is blunt or clear, as defined by the Clarity Act."

• What is the source ?
• What is the date ?
• And it seems biased, if I remember correctly, the issue is not whether the question is clear or not, it's about maintaining an association with Canada. Also, most polls I've saw in the last months were quite favorable to the sovereignists, it's probably time for an update. -PhDP 00:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that some sovereignists do not want another referendum for now. They think a YES victory wouldn't be guaranteed; they want to wait for the right time. Thus, a poll about a referendum is by no means an indicator on the level of support for sovereignty. Hugo Dufort 22:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a question for anyone supporting Quebec seperatism. If large communities such as the Jewish, Chinese or Italians living in enclaves in a metropolis such as Montreal can maintain their cultural identity (pass down their language etc.), why can't Quebecois continue to transmit their culture to younger generations without dividing the country? Whose fault is it but your own if other beautiful communtites can maintain their cultural identities but not yours? I'm not angry or against anything like some, but unfortunately I do feel sorry for you. This because the answer is loud and clear, and a sad one. Look into the beauty and vibrance of your own French culture (which i respect) and you'll find the not so pretty answer. It's your doing..not the Anglophones or anyone else. Don't blame us for the slow but steady death of a culture that is as beautiful as anbody else's..blame yourselves. "It" will never happen.

First, minority cultures in Montreal go through the process of assimilation. It is not accurate to claim that they "maintain" their cultural identity and pass down their language. In absolute numbers, they don't. They either end up adopting French as their main language or English. Using the 2001 census data, we see that the language retention for Francophones is 110 598 people, 151 079 for Anglophones and -261 676 for Allophone. We obtain these numbers simply by comparing mother tongue vs language most often spoken at home. With these numbers, we can see that there are two language communities attracting new "recruits": English and French.

In the past Italian speakers, Polish speakers etc., would lose a great deal of their members through assimilation, and still grow in numbers. That is because past generations were having a lot of babies: reproduction ratio was compansating for loss through language shifts. Currently, Anglophones, Francophones and many of the other language groups have a negative reproduction ratio. Only Anglophones, who are the "masters in the house", and Francophones who try to be "masters in the house" against the wishes of the real masters have the means to maintain their share of the total population because of their social organization. Anglophones and Francophones provide schooling and jobs to immigrants who need money to live like everyone else.

But comparing minority immgrant groups and Quebec francophones does not help us very much. Quebec francophones are organized to integrate immigrants to their community: they are not your typical minority group, they form a nation just like the Canadians and the First Nations. Like Anglophones and unlike the First nations, they have the whole range of institutions needed to built a pluralistic society, one in which the common language is the language of the majority (English in Canada, French in Quebec). However, we must keep in mind that in Quebec, English overlaps and competes with French, unlike in the other provinces.

Right now, the policy Quebec uses to avoid the destructive assimilation of its main language community fails at its objective. In order to simply maintain their share of Quebec population, 80% of language shifts would have to go to French. Mostly because of the competition with English, it is not happening. For sovereigntists, the reaons is simple. Inside the Canadian federation, English will always be a more prevalent language then French, even in Quebec where French is the sole official language. To reach the objective of maintaining, in the long run, a French majority in Quebec, we need a new political organization. Quebecers have already done everyting a province can do and more, the rest of the job has to be done by the federal government or outside the federation.

Regarding the preservation of the "beautiful" French culture, that is the job of French nationals. Quebec francophones are engaged in a struggle to preserve their language, Quebec French and their culture, the culture of Quebec. We wish all the best to the people of France, but there is not much Quebecers can do to help.

Could Quebecers keep their common language and culture within Canada? Of course. In a fictitious world, Canadian federal politicians would stop lying to Anglophones and admit that Quebec is a political nation. Starting from there recognize their right to self-determination and the legitimacy and soundness of Quebec's historical demands for constitutional reform in order to develop freely. Sovereigntists are those who have given up on trying to do this. We have been trying since at least 1867 if only considering the current constitutional framework. We consider it an utter waste of our precious time and ultimately a suicidal behaviour to beg for what we have the right and the means to give ourselves: a country of our own. -- Mathieugp 15:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• This illustrates what I consider some of the more damaging misconceptions that Canadians live under.
  • Multiculturalism is not a solution to the concerns Francophones have about their language. Ethnic groups are ethnic because they contrast with the mainstream group they belong to. They do lose some of their identity, and in the case of sexism, racisms and ethnic hatreds, which are regrettable but real elements of many cultures, they are actively encouraged to abandon them. There is, in fact, an anglophone multiculturalism and a francophone multiculturalism, and they have similarities but they also have differences. French Canadians are a nation and, quite rightly, will not accept to be a mere ethnic group in their own country.
  • Anglophones, who are the "masters in the house", is even sillier. It hasn't been true in generations, and even then fault was primarily the francophone education system, which was run by francophones, not anglophones. Interestingly, the candidates for "master in the house" usually include Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien....
  • Quebec is a political nation is simply not true. Some Quebeckers may like to talk about it, but it was rejected in three referenda. There are special challenges for bilingual communities, but Quebec is no longer alone in this. Quebec politicians cynically try to confuse Quebec, a mere municipal government, with French Canada, which actually is a nation.
  • It doesn't help, of course, that many English Canadians, especially if they don't actually live in a bilingual community like Ottawa, Montreal or Moncton, are not very clear as to what is Canadian (in a 'pan-Canadian' sense), and what is merely English Canadian.
  • The question is always simplified to Trudeau's vision of "English and French living together" and Levesque's vision of "English and French living separately". Neither ressembles the actual demographics of Canada, neither has been universally accepted, and neither works.
  • Peter Grey 19:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As a western canadian, I feel the emphasis on quebec as a distinct culture insulting. It generates enourmous anamosity between east and west when we preceave money flowing into quebec and have sepertists proclaim they wish to leave. The west has been abused by the federal government every bit as much as Quebec has and we don't seek to seperate. Action undertaken by the Sepertists seem facist, racist, and far from reasonable. It may be only the perception here but we feel Quebec is a spoiled child who should really be quiet and behave.

Of course, any nation that wishes to leave a large and successful country will be seen as a spoiled child. This is the point made by Micheal Ignatieff in one of his books, where he gives the same exact argument about Ukrainian nationalism: "why did Ukraine want to leave mighty, rich and culturally superior Russia? were they ever a distinct society anyway?" This is of course very insulting for Ukrainians, and it would seem bizarre from today's point of view (because Ukraine is a country now). Another example is when Slovakia divorced from the Czech Republic; people were asking "how will they ever make it by themselves, the Czechs have built all the infrastructure and provide most of the national wealth". Well, they are independent now and their economy goes quite well. One last example: Norway, which separated from Sweden a little more than a century ago. Again: why would they want to quit? They were poorer and less industrialized than Sweden, they spoke the same language and had a very similar (and common) culture, and they were seen as a "teenage nation" not able to take care of itself. Well well... they gained their sovereignty step by step, first constituting a National Assembly (the Storting), they started putting their own flag on commercial ships, and eventually they just slowly and carefully went their own way. Were all these nations fascist, racist, not realist, spoiled, childish, teenage, stupid or whatever? Nope. -- Hugo Dufort 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't seek to seperate? What about Alberta separatism? MartinToupin 14:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A few comments I would like to mention based on this conversation

-Norway's separation was at a time when economic integration was at a different level to that today. Additionally, not all secessionist movements are successful however if it does happen, yes a slow process is the way to attain it with the least damage done. There also needs to be a distinction between what defines a viable reason for separation. Israel for example has a reason to exist that is totally different than Quebec's. Essentially, should nations be created because the people believe it or for historical reasons or for future benefit. These are not always aligned and so even making comparisons with other places whether successful or not needs much caution. Making comparisons needs to be very specific.

-I don't believe this discussion section has made enough distinction between Quebecois and French Canadian. There are over 1 million Francophones in Canada outside Quebec and roughly 2.3 million that can speak French. I have a wonderful graph actually that I'd be happy to share with you if you like.

-What sorts of policies could Quebec implement if it were to be separate? Aren't smaller countries more vulnerable apart from any initial uncertainty?

-Anglophones being "masters of the house" isn't true nor is that a fair comment. Quebec has proportionately more seats in the house of commons than Ontario for example and there are many Francophone seats from other provinces. Quebec on its own holds 3 of 9 seats in the supreme court automatically. There are numerous other examples of Francophone over-representation by proportion. Additionally, all this is in light that Quebec's economic clout is less than the average Canada proportion handsomely.

-Quebec has not signed the constitution but other countries have provinces or areas that have not either. Take Germany for example, does this imply that they should secede (and some are in favour of it)?

-The definition of a nation is purely semantics. If Quebec is a nation then does it encompass Ontario too because that was part of New France. Are Les Acadiens or Inuit a nation? Is Newfoundland a nation because it's a generally common unique culture which already has domain over its own governmental affairs. Canking 00:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Countries against Quebec Sovereignty.

The article states that the U.S., The U.K. and Poland suport a strong canadian federation, but why these countries? in particular why Poland? Is there some Historical links or should it be removed? Ken 22:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be removed, or at least citations should be added. I know that Bill Clinton was in favor of a "strong and united Canada" - see http://www.cbc.ca/breakingpoint/chapter8_5.shtml . But the Clinton administration isn't in power anymore, and I never heard anything about Poland or the UK opposing. MartinToupin 01:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think if you want to say that a country has a position regarding Quebec sovereignty, you need something more official than an opinion expressed by a former leader. If this is all the facts we have, then we should say "Bill Clinton once said he was in favor of a "strong and united Canada"", not "USA are against Quebec sovereignty". NotLoggedIn 67.69.13.58 21:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well U.S. President Bill Clinton did come to Quebec t urge Quebecers to vote non in 1995 so I think it is safe to say that he was in favour of a strong Canadian country and against Quebec sovereignty; to things which go hand in hand for federalists. I cannot see why the Republican administration of George W. Bush would reverse this policy! But you're right citations are needed, that does not mean necassarily that it should be removed however. The United Kingdom on the other hand as the head of the Commonwealth of Nations supports the territorial integrity of every member nation. Poland I have absolutely no clue about - Chris Gilmore

The UK is not in any sense the head of the Commonwealth of Nations. The Queen has the title Head of the Commonwealth, but no country has special standing within that organization. --thirty-seven 17:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Precursor ideas and events

For the section "Precursor ideas and events", just an idea, but wouldn't "Québec"'s being part of New France be some kind of precursor, since it wasn't always ruled by English Canada? National groups wanting sovereignty often look to another era where they lived in a different arrangement, even if it would be meaningless in today's world..Dan Carkner 16:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely agree with this. Interestingly, in New France the term "Canadien" was used when refferring to a local French-Canadian.--Darielab 01:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Canadian" identity was almost strictly "French Canadian" until the 1940s, as were symbols such as the beaver and the maple leaf. Books such as "Les anciens canadiens" and songs such as "Un canadien errant" are examples of this identity. The English-speaking Canadians often referred to themselves simply as "British", till the first half of the 20th century. There was great pride and respect towards the British Commonwealth, as can be seen in many publicities from that era (for instance, I saw a car poster from the 1950s which stated that the car was "the safest of the whole Commonwealth"). Modern Canadian identity-building truly started in the late 1940s, and gained steam with visionaries such as Lester B. Pearson. -- Hugo Dufort 07:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of the French word "canadien" often did (and still does) imply "French Canadian" or "Quebecois". And a stronger British identity was much more prevalent among English-speaking Canadians in the recent past than it was today. In fact, until a few decades ago, all Canadians legally were "British subjects" (a separate status from "British national" or "British citizen"), a legal status that has not changed but has simply been renamed to "Commonwealth citizens".

However, I disagree that English-speaking Canadians did not have a "Canadian identity" until recent times, or that the maple leaf was a primarily French Canadian symbol. During the Confederation talks, when a few people proposed some new, often strange, names for the proposed new federation, Thomas D'Arcy McGee derided, "Now I would ask any honourable member of the House how he would feel if he woke up some fine morning and found himself, instead of a Canadian, a Tuponian or a Hochelegander?" The idea seems to be that they were Canadians, so to be called anything else was preposterous. As for the maple leaf as a national symbol, according to wikipedia it originated among Canadians of English, Scottish, and/or Irish ancestry who nevertheless wished to use it to distinguish themselves from the English, Scottish, and Irish national plant symbols. --thirty-seven 08:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I never stated that Canadians still feel "British" today (although I've met older Montrealers who were very "British Canadian" in a peculiar way). However, this feeling was very prevalent in some regions of Canada until the mid-20th century. Mostly in regions where the "old English aristocracy" was very well established: Montreal's downtown, parts of the Niagara peninsula, Victoria in BC, etc. As for the mapl leaf symbol (and the beaver!), there has been some debate. It all depends which sources you consult; English language sources will say one thing, French language sources will say the opposite. However, we can see that these symbols were already used by the Patriots in the mid-1800s [3]. Hugo Dufort 19:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I realized that you were not claiming Canadians feel "British" today, and I acknowledged that a stronger "British" identity did exist among many Canadians in the past. It seems that there was also a Canadian identity. Anyway, now that you've mentioned them I plan on looking into other sources about the beginnings of the maple leaf and the beaver as national symbols. I hope it is not as simple as all English-language sources say X and all French-language sources say Y; I would hope good sources would be less biased than that, but I have been disappointed before. Thanks. --thirty-seven 21:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I had my share of disappointments towards many sources that were supposed to be "trustable", too. Some subjects are painful to reconsider. For instance, was the raid on Dieppe a glorious moment or a needless and bloody tactical failure? Opinions vary considerably. American scholars usually consider the raid a failure. Canadian scholars (in French and English textbooks alike) talk about heroes and martyrs. It is almost impossible to properly weight the pros and cons on such a "delicate" subject. Other subjects related to "nation building" get a similar coating. For instance, the Battle at Châteauguay. Minor skirmish or glorious moment? The defense of Quebec City against Benedict Arnold: first joint French/English Canadian military action or people merely fighting for their city? I don't have absolute answers for any of these symbols that helped shape our identity. I think it often gets too lyrical. As for the "egg or chicken" question for the symbols (beaver, maple leaf), I'd be careful. I have seen considerable discrepencies on the subject in both English and French language texts. I think I'll try to come back with some guidelines (sketchy at first) on the usual Canadian sources when it comes to Canadian politics. How biased or balanced each source is, their editorial alignment, and so forth. Cheers, Hugo Dufort 06:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Constitutionality

I came to this article looking for information about how the sides of this issue view and argue about the constitutionality of sovereignty/separatism, but unfortunately I cannot find this mentioned in this article. My understanding is that even if Quebec held a referendum with a clear and blunt question to politically separate from Canada, and it passed by a large margin, and the gov't of Quebec negotiated with the federal gov't and reached terms of separation that both governments agreed to and ratified, it would have no effect, constitutionally. Doesn't the Constitution of Canada require two-thirds of the provinces to approve such a change? If this is largely undisputed, it should be mentioned in this article. If there is a dispute, then the arguments of both sides should definitely be included. --thirty-seven 00:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It is undisputed that constitutionally only the "Canadian House of Commons, the Senate, and a two-thirds majority of the provincial legislatures representing at least 50% of the national population (the 7/50 formula)" can amend the constitution. The dispute is over the Clarity Act which gives the House of Commons the power to decide that a winning referendum on the secession of a province is to be discarted and ignored if the House finds the question unclear or the majority insufficient. You should find the information you are looking for by reading (and following the external links found in) Reference re Secession of Quebec, Clarity Act and Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State. -- Mathieugp 16:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Mathieugp. This confirms my understanding of the constitutionality of it. What I am interested in, then, is how the sovereigntist movement deals with this. What are common or widespread sovereigntist explanations or plans as to how the constitutional amendment process to acheive political independence would be achieved or bypassed. I think these plans should be included in this article. (This is based on my assumption that getting 7 provinces to approve such an amendment would be highly unlikely.) --thirty-seven 00:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

One question that should be answered is: Since Quebec hasn't signed the 1982 Constitution, and since the Quebec government has taken care never to cite it in any law (thus, avoiding to indirectly recognize it)... is the Constitution applicable when it comes to Quebec laws and political decisions? The fact is that scholars can't seem to agree on this one. -- Hugo Dufort 06:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is certain that, under the law, Quebec is bound by the constitution.

* The Constitution Act, 1982 was not a new constitution, but a group of important amendments - the two main ones being the Charter and the amending formulas. So even if the 1982 and subsequent constitutional changes were not applicable to Quebec, certainly the pre-1982 parts of the constitution are. These older parts of the constitution is where the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments is found, and where Quebec is made a part of the federation.

* After the federal government and the other nine provinces reached an agreement on the 1982 package, the Quebec government asked the courts to state whether Quebec could veto the changes. The Supreme Court ruled that no, Quebec could not veto them.

* From 1982 to 1985 every law passed by the Quebec legislature invoked the Notwithstanding Clause as a protest against the 1982 Constitution Act. Since the Notwithstanding Clause is part of the 1982 Act, the Quebec legislature would have had to cite part of it to use the Notwithstanding Clause.

I understand that there is a point of view that Quebec should have a veto because the French Canadians were one of the two "founding peoples" of the Canadian federation, but it seems clear that this is not the case under the law. I'd be interested in reading about any scholars who disagree with this. --thirty-seven 07:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Jacques Parizeau (Doctorate in Economy + former PM of Quebec) has advocated that citing the 1982 Constitution in the Nitassinan treaties with the Innus would mean implicitely signing the said constitution. Whether you like Parizeau or not (and it's not the point here), his arguments are interesting. His views were considered by constitutionalists (including expert and scholar Louis Bernard) when they negotiated with the Innus. Unfortunately it is difficult to find this information translated in English; articles were published in La Presse and Le Devoir. I can dig up the articles if you're interested. As to the application of the Constitutional law in Quebec, the province is bound to the 1867 Constitution (and thus, to decisions taken by the supreme court), but could technically (emphasis) refute what was added in 1982. This is especially important when signing treaties with the First Nations, because these treaties could bind them to Canadian Law (over any provincial provisions) and make their territories literally "untouchable" in case of secession. The constitutional situation is far from simple. -- Hugo Dufort 21:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

At the end of the 20th Century

I removed this paragraph:

A large reason why the independance movement continues is that the Quebecois feel isolated in a country that essentially consists of two different peoples; the Quebecois and the English. Therefore, the Quebecois make little distinction between cultural differences across Canada (ex. Newfoundlanders, Acadiens). This is evident in the recently successful film Bon Cop Bad Cop.

I removed this for several reasons:

• It seems like original research.
• Stating as a fact that Canada is "a country that essentially consists of two different peoples" to explain why the independance movement continues is begging the question. If we could find an example to cite (which should be easy) to show that separtists and/or other Canadians think of Canada this way, divided between English and French, it would certainly be appropriate to note this as a reason for an ongoing independance movement.

--thirty-seven 19:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Rest of Canada

I don't presume to have solved all the problems with this part, and it needs sources for a lot of statements, but I have tried to clean it up and maintain the thrust of the content, even if I have toned down what I think were some excessively biased pro and anti-sovereignist slants. I added a link to the Quebec bashing article. The reference to Manitoba legislation restricting access to French language education in response to the sovereignty movement doesn't ring a bell, but I've left it alone (other than editing for grammar). I presume the original author wasn't reaching back into the 19th century and the Manitoba Schools Question issue Corlyon 00:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Corlyon

Hispanics in the United States?

Removed: "However this belief is questionable given that in other parts of North America, such as California, the Hispanic culture has been preserved and Spanish has become a semi-official language. appended by an anon user to the cultural aspect of the pro-sovereignty movement. To suggest that there are parallels between Francophones in Quebec/Canada and Hispanics in the United States is specious at best. The Spanish-speaking population of the United States is largely comprised of first or second-generation immigrants who emigrated to the United States in the 20th century, the Francophones in Canada are mainly descendants of the French who settled Canada in the 17th and 18th century, prior to the arrival of the Anglophones. Future generations of Hispanics will likely be absorbed and become largely indistinguishable from American Anglophones in the melting-pot of American culture. There is not a state in the United States in which the Spanish-speaking population represents about 90% of the total population, as French does in QC. Spanish is not "semi-official" language of the United States. Vanillagorillas 07:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing this from the article. It is editorializing and inappropriate for this article. Whether or not the comments are a good argument are irrelevant to that. --thirty-seven 18:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Seperatism or Sovereignism?

I missed the part in the discussion where there was a consensus should not be named "Quebec Separatism", so I moved it accidentally to the mispelled word "seperatism". I then moved it back to the original name.

Naming it "sovereignism" is highly POV because it is only used in Quebec and in very narrow academic circles in Canada. Nobody outside Quebec will understand the word. Any objective measure of the words usage shows that "Quebec separatism" is more common usage in English, as is the case with Basque separatism, Catalan separatism etc. It is not POV As a matter of fact, it could be argued that using "sovereignism" is POV towards the "sovereignty-association" vision of Levesques" for which there is no consensus among seperatists.

By using the term "separatism" on the grounds that it "is more common usage in English" we would commit the logical fallacy of Appeal to the majority (Argumentum ad populum), that is a "fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it." Also, claiming that separatism is "more common" based on absolutely no evidence is unlikely to be true, and is more likely to be a Faulty generalization, that is an inductive fallacy. -- Mathieugp 03:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that arguing that "separatism" is a more accurate or less POV label because it is supposedly the more common usage is an example of the ad populum fallacy. However, arguing that we should use "separatism" in the title of this article because it is the more common usage is not a fallacy, since I believe that how common or well-known names are is an important factor in deciding which name to use for an article. Of course, there are other factors to consider, but the relative use of the terms "separtism" and "sovereigntism" is an important factor to consider. I also agree that right now we do not have evidence for which, if either, of the terms is significantly more predominant. If someone really thinks we need to change the title of this article, I'd suggest a search of the terms in newspaper/magazine/journal articles.

My personal opinion is that neither term is "highly" POV; both are acceptable. I find "sovereigntism" slightly euphemistic and "separatism" more straightforward, but not enough in and of itself to justify changing the title. --thirty-seven 03:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

---

An interesting argument about separation versus soverignty: [4] Quite original thinking, I'd say, especially from a Monarchist! -- Hugo Dufort 06:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Economics

I believe that the economics of separation should play a larger part in the discussion and quite possibly encompass a separate article. Hence a small paragraph to summarize the possible economic difficulties of separatism. In the new referenced section, an outline of economic factors that would be prevalent in Quebec separatism would be covered from both perspectives (currency, costs of separation etc.). There are several articles online that discuss this, notably an economic report done in the early 90's by the Fraser Insitute: http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/critical_issues/1994/public_debt/debt.html Canking 02:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In order to counter-balanced the view from the Fraser Institute (which is a well-known neoliberal think-thank), it would be nice to include the "Rapports Le Hire", which were produced by the YES side prior to the 1995 referendum. It is important to cover both views; some "pro-separation" economical arguments are more difficult to refute than others (i.e., they are correct). Even Jean Charest's Liberal Provincial (federalist) government has openly stated that an independent Quebec would be economically viable. (He made this statement while on a trip to Madrid in summer 2006, I think; it should be easy to find on Google.)-- Hugo Dufort 06:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly correct that both sides need to be covered. Unfortunately I could not find the Jean Chretien article (sorry don't have a lot of time to look this week, my sincere apologies). Of course, an economic article should be about the factors of separation and what the clear and also controversial economic arguments are. Not just about who said what. For example, how would Quebec factor into Nafta and would Quebec/Canada have to make compromises for now changing the agreement? According to Paul Martin, this would be very likely. To some others, perhaps not. Anyways the whole thing is that there are many questions and many sides to the issue. Therefore, should this article cover purely economic factors or encompass other important points of note? Thank you, Canking 00:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the economic documents in hand. However, about the NAFTA I remember that the Bélanger-Campeau Commission (a neutral commission mandated by Robert Bourassa, Liberal PM, to study the politics and economics of independence) [5] produced a report which contained interesting insights about the possible continuity of transnational treaties in case of independence. The text is shore and easily readable. However, I can't find an English-language version right now. I'll keep searching. -- Hugo Dufort 07:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem at all, I am fluent in French so if you provide me with a link to the report, I would be eager to look over it. I was thinking that the format of the article should be listed as a time line. For example, it would begin with initial costs of separation (Canada/Quebec) and then discuss the economic benefits of separation (Canada/Quebec). Do you believe another format would be more appropriate?

Additionally, should the cultural impact on the rest of French Canada be assessed in this article or just made mention to (which is why I was unsure of keeping this strictly as an economic article)? For example, what kind of economic and cultural impact would this have on Les Acadiens? Should this be discussed or simply referenced to? Thank you, Canking 10:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Bélanger-Campeau documents (updated in 2002) are all here but in French only:

http://www.saic.gouv.qc.ca/institutionnelles_constitutionnelles/mise_a_jour_etudes_1990-1991_en.htm

Also, here is the English translation of the Budget for and independent Québec prepared by François Legault of Air Transat fame:

http://www.pq.org/tmp2005/finances_english.pdf

Have fun! Don't forget that financial prospectives, whether positive or negative, are all speculation. The entire world economy could crash tomorrow! :-) -- Mathieugp 14:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it cannot be said that everything is simply speculation. There are certain things which are bound to happen and there are certain things which by consequence need resolving. I will definitely use your articles when creating my new article, thank you. While I am against separatism, I will try my best to be as impartial as I possibly can and represent both views fairly. If you can however find articles which discuss some things such as the impact of money etc on an indenpendent Quebec/Canada then that would certainly be useful as some of the links on that page you provided aren't there. If possible, additionally, any material that would demonstrate not just the benefits of seperation economically but the costs associated with separation would also help me give sufficient weight to each side. For example, moving three quarters of the Canadian Space Agency from Longueuil to Ottawa, the costs for Quebec/Canada of this and the impact this will have on Longueuil. Hence, I'm not only looking for a macro purely quantitative description but also the methodology in which those numbers were obtained. Thank you, Canking 21:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the example of the Canadian Space Agency, we can certainly quantify the value of it, but determining the impact on St-Hubert and Ottawa of a potential relocation is largely dependent on the political aspect. Basically, after secession, federal agencies operated on the territory of Quebec are not longer Ottawa's jurisdiction. This is sure to be negociated between both parties and maybe, much like in Europe, the Canadian and the (new) Quebec space agencies would consider it in the best interest of the Moon and Saturn (;-) to collaborate and not to duplicate. The 2005 Budget of Canada announced funding of $111 million over 5 years for the CSA. Let's hope the two countries would increase it because $22 million a year doesn't seem like much compared to the €2.977 of the ESA and the €13 billion of the NASA... :-) -- Mathieugp 05:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Canadian Space Agency has on its website gross spending of 357.5 million in spending this year. Yes it should be increased:) Quebec keeping the Canadian Space Agency (and of course renaming it) is not likely becuase of intellectual property rights, cultural etc. Hence if some had to be moved, that is clearly in the interests of Ottawa and not in the interests of St. Hubert. As for corporations and such, I am supposing (but of course can't be clear of) that the Canadian Tennis Masters would move to Toronto (because of population and money) fully instead of being split with Montreal as it currently is. Maybe this is a better example of a corporate decision instead of one that has to do with the government. Canking 07:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As per my comment above, I was thinking about including the following topics in the following format (purely economic impact):

Dollar, Transfer payments, Personal emigration/immigration, Corporate emigration/immigration, Corporation costs/benefits, Separation costs/benefits, Separation within Quebec, Tourism, Cultural financing, Rest of Canada, Rest of French Canada, Impact on U.S. and World, Further separation within Canada

Initial Costs/Benefits (Necessary, Potential, Direct, Indirect)

Long Term Costs/Benefits (Necessary, Potential, Direct, Indirect)

Please feel free to provide feedback as this will take some time. Additionally, again any further articles which are relevent to this topics would surely be helpful. Thank you, Canking 21:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In find this all interesting, but it looks like it could be original research. You'll have to be careful not to violate the Wikipedia:No original research policy. In Wikipedia, you are allowed to write "Such study conducted on such topic by such institution during such period have such researchers conclude such conclusion(s) in light of such analysis conducted on such sample of date". That way you are properly referencing your article and provide a way for readers to distinguish what are the facts and what are the opinions (Wikipedia:Verifiability). Naturally, most Wikipedia articles are not there yet, but those that have been tagged featured articles are. -- Mathieugp 23:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Mathieu, I will do my best to cite every source. Instead of actually creating comparisons however, do you believe it would be insufficient to at the minimal create a framework from which a full two sided view can be based? Essentially, I would add categories that would be appropriate for the discussion and then over time, others of course would contribute and make changes. Please let me know if you believe this is unplausable as I am not as familiar and accustomed to Wikipedian standards as you. Thanks Canking 02:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

For certain, considering a case where all parties are reasonable and honest, there are undisputable consequences of secession (those consequences that would necessarily occur no matter what possible scenario you chose) as well as likely and less likely consequences, which are more open to debate. However, seeking a neutral point of view implies more than just two sides. There are rarely only two sides in any political question. You can certainly propose what you have in mind here in the talk page. I'll be glad to comment. -- Mathieugp 05:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the material that you gave me and here is a summary of my thoughts about the PQ article (I haven’t read the other one yet, sorry).

- The article is completely based on the view that things will stay just as they are and everything will work out seamlessly. Hence there is no mention of consequences of people/corporations leaving for example and what the economic impact of this would be. Therefore, the article also assumes that no behavioural consequences will be present (like people and corporations leaving) and what the “multiplier effect of this will be and in light of this, Quebec’s ability to either keep up services or pay down the debt. Furthermore, all economic trade agreements will be assumed to remain completely intact such as NAFTA (current members would likely want concessions for the switch) and these consequences.

- I assume that you have only read the document drafted by the PQ which is not a study, but a temptative budget of a sovereign Quebec. The serious studies covering all aspects (political, judicial and economic) are surprisingly rare but they exist. I can help you find them online, but I suspect some are only in print and possibly in French only. Some studies are clearly partisan while others are significantly more neutral. Among those that are more neutral are those conducted by the Belanger-Campeau commission which unfortunately appear to be available in French only, at least online. The link I gave you above contains only an English summary. The reason these studies are considered more neutral is because they were ordered by a commission that received unanimous support from the members of the National Assembly during a short-lived coalition of Quebec's two main parties, the PLQ (federalist) and the PQ (sovereignty). You have a lot of reading to do with just these studies. I hope you have a lot of free time! ;-) -- Mathieugp 04:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am fluent in French so that's not a problem (Ontario does have the second largest french population in North America). But yes, that is a lot of time and as I said, this is partly the reason why I would like to present some format or framework for the article but also include a few points. Orelse it would take forever lol Canking 06:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

- The article never discusses aspects such as who’s Money shall be used which has severe economic consequences.

- The PQ favors keeping the Canadian dollar. They of course rely on that assumption. For a short while, some key members of the BQ supported the adoption of the US dollar for a short while, but after what happened to Argentina we stopped hearing about it for some reason... ;-) -- Mathieugp 04:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

- Native issues (Some Quebec Natives would like to be part of Canada which I can prove) were not addressed.

- All these political/legal issues were addressed by the Belanger Campeau commission and are widely known by all sides. -- Mathieugp 04:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

- Federal transfer payments are for the fact that the Quebec economy isn’t strong enough to pay for the Canadian standard. In the article, they suppose that they are overall payments but it is in fact the opposite. In other words, these payments are due to the fact that Quebec’s economy isn’t strong enough to pay for current services, not because Canada doesn’t give Quebec its proportion (It in fact therefore gives more).

I know that this is what is commonly perceived in Canada, but that is not at all the perception that Quebec has on this issue. I guess Wikipedia could be a good way to clarify all this, with figures. Here is in short and as far as I know how Quebec sees the issue of transfert payments: Transfer payments are there, in the first place, because Ottawa taxes more than it needs to and the reason it does that is to implement pancanadian policies with more liberty going as far as to ignore the constitutionally defined jurisdictions exclusive to provinces. Quebecers are already overtaxed, there is no way Quebec could collect more taxes in the current context, that is for as long as Ottawa taxes to the level it taxes. However, were Ottawa to perceive less taxes in Quebec (or stop perceiving taxes assuming independence) the Quebec state could raise taxes accordingly and find itself directly handling these revenues and use it according to its own priorities, which have nothing to do with Ontario or any other provinces' priorities. But right now, and for the past four decades at least, Ottawa has been collecting a LOT of tax money which it has used to plan key aspects of the economy. It is an undeniable fact that Ottawa invests and has invested significantly more R&D money per capita in Ontario than in Quebec, among other things. (I'll look for the astonishing figures I remember seeing.) In Ontario and Quebec's post-industrial economies, public (and private) R&D investments combined have enormous direct and indirect impacts on creation of wealth in the short to middle term. Essentially, what Ottawa and Ontario have been doing is centralize key aspects of the Canadian economy in Toronto and Ottawa, both in the same province, at the expense of all provinces. Pretty much all provinces have economies based on natural resources and it would not have made sense to invest great sums in R&D in all but two provinces: Ontario and ...Quebec. By using Quebecers' tax money to plan the economic future of Ontario, Quebec finds itself underperforming in many aspects of its economic development and then Ottawa sends a yearly "cheque for the poor" as compensation. -- Mathieugp 04:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I actually believe quite firmly that Ontario gets the worst of all the provinces and I suppose this is the reason why Dalton McGuinty preaches that Ontario has a 22 billion dollar fiscal imbalance with Ottawa. As for Toronto, it accounts for 1/5th of Canada's GDP but has 1/6th of Canada's population. This is not due to government handouts but rather greater productivity. All in all, Bombardier is probably the greatest recipient of government handouts. I would even say intuitively, it makes sense that Quebec recieves additional benefits such as money to help reduce seperatism. Quebec as you know has more seats in Parliament proportionately than Ontario. And most of the Ottawa government jobs are in Gatineau as far as I know. I honestly believe that Quebeckers have been conditioned into thinking that the money is not spent on Quebec as a tool to promote a separatist ideal (basically gives weight to it). Funnily enough, Ontariens don't have a problem in spreading Ontario's wealth somewhat to poorer provinces but Quebeckers (if they believe it goes there) would never want their money to go to other provinces. But these are the two debates that will/should be presented in the article Canking 06:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

- Assumption that “what lies in Quebec” is therefore going to be owned by Quebec is impossible and these costs. Concessions will have to be made on both side as to who gains and has entitlement to what. It’s not just a simple divide. For example, Quebec cannot just retain ¼ of the Canadian Space Agency because in all practicality for many reasons, ¾’s would have to be moved to Ottawa (cultural, intellectual property rights, research jobs etc.). If these costs were factored into the article (and I doubt they were), there is no mention of how they derived them into their figures. This does relate back to my first point of assuming things work out “seamlessly”.

- Of course the PQ assumes things work out following the plan they have made public in the 1990s : 1) We get the greatest amount of legitimacy for our action though a referendum. This puts enormous pressure on Ottawa, a country that presents itself to the world as a great democracy. 2) We initiate negociations with Ottawa and give one year for these negociations to reach some conclusion. No matter what the result of the negociation is, we formally declare independence. After that declaration, from a strictly legal perspective, everything that is on the territory of Quebec is the juristiction of Quebec and that is it. Assuming a doomsday senario, we could see Ottawa refuse to negociate secession with Quebec, Quebec seceeding on its own account and seek international recognition. Of course, Ottawa could violate international law by commiting and act of agression on Quebec. Quebec would then have no choice but to defend itself against the agression. Partisans of sovereignty assume that the human beings on the other side are reasonable, is it a mistake? Would Canada, the contry of peacekeepers, attack Quebec after it gaining independence democratically? The PQ answers to these last two questions, and assume a division of assests as suggested by the studies of the Belanger-Campeau commission. (Another good reason to read it.) -- Mathieugp 04:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Legitimacy for acting democratically is not exactly true. Firstly, the PQ government left out thousands of people on the voters ballots. I have friends even to prove this and they say they wanted to UN to intervene (and yes canada did also bring in immigrants from what seperatists have told me). Secondly, a question that is completely unclear such as (would you be open to the idea of) is not a democratic question. It is a tricky and rhetorical question (legal perspective). Thirdly, as Lucien Bouchard said I believe, to assume that 50% + 1 would result democratically in Quebecs independance is impossible. Half of the people would still send their taxes to Ottawa thus making separation amazingly difficult. 55% would be needed if I remember correctly according to him. Essentially, it needs to be decisive. Just declaring independance is suicide economically. Therefore, ligitimacy for democracy has not necessarily been the case for Canada or Quebec. I could give further examples but I'm sure this is sufficient. If you believe that a definitive timeline of say 1 year of talks is some sort of reasonable resolution, a declaration of independance on something so controversial would have massive economic reprecussions and with that sort of circumstance, it would be likely the Canadian military would be on the street. Hence, everything resorting nicely is kinda rediculous if things aren't clear and decisive (and yes, I must read that Belanger-Campeau report) Canking 07:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

- Money saved through reducing duplication does not mention the opposite argument that money is saved through “economies of scale” because all Canadian provinces use the same federal service.

I would consider this a good argument if bureaucracies did not completely kill the possible advantages of “economies of scale”. ;-) -- Mathieugp 04:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well you could say that about everything and why stop at provinces even Canking 07:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

- Lastly, the assumption of Quebec’s natural economic inefficiencies was not addressed. For example, Quebec’s ability to attract for investment will be less because the marginal benefit for companies entering Quebec will greatly diminish. This is due to Quebec’s lower productivity than in Canada and additional international language barriers, laws and higher taxes. By being part of Canada, these things are somewhat reduced. Could explain further.

Quebec would deploy and international network of ambassies on 5 continents, do its own advertising to investors and attract less investment? How is that even possible? With 94% of the people speaking French as first, second, or third and almost half speaking English as first, second or third, what language barriers are we talking about here? Am I not the one speaking to you in your language? Isn't Quebec's economy heavily integreted to that of the North Eastern States? -- Mathieugp 04:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For one, part of it has to do with size. Corporations and such have limited focus and much of it is on markets that have large amounts of current growth and growth potential. Therefore, China and India with huge populations. Also, places like Alberta who's growth is currently at like 8 percent I believe this year. Deploying an network of embassies doesn't mean anything. What your saying is what Quebec and every province and duristiction does and no matter how much money you throw at it or try to encourage it, it doesn't mean that people will invest. It could easily cost you more money to do that. People will invest if they can make good returns. With a fragile economic situation, given that markets/people are fickle, they will put their money somewhere else. As for some other inefficiencies, high corporate taxes dont help and yes French is a barrier to international investment somewhat. Having to make separate packages etc in French for a very small particular market within a large market, it might not be worth it as their is a greater opportunity cost. As for integration, yes Quebec's economy is highly integrated with the Northern US States but that doesn't create Foreign Direct Investment. Comparative advantage and incentives create that. Canking 07:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that I’m not just trying to bash Quebec separatism and these points that I just made are just my interpretation of some of the things the PQ article left out as an economic assessment. It is not that I am opposed to using an article by the PQ, it’s just that I believe they are very selective with the types of things they put into their articles to achieve their goal (could they ever state that economically (not culturally), separatism wasn’t a good idea? I doubt it). This article, and the Fraser Institute article both carry bias. While I believe the Fraser Institute carries less bias, the point here is to show all points of view as you said. The Wikipedia article needs to be subjected to the most intense scrutiny reflecting all aspects of economic consequences/benefits.

They were certainly selective. The purpose was to present the potential benefits. I am afraid I cannot agree that the Fraser Institute is less biased however. They are a private organization in the circle of power and they are defending their clients very well, too well... In a trial, the side that can buy the best lawyers has a significant advantage over the other, however it says nothing of the truth. -- Mathieugp 04:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No no my purpose was not to present the potential benefits with my critique of the PQ article. It was to demonstrate that I don't believe it is necessarily objective enough to qualify as a comparative article and to properly demonstrate the benefits of separation. I don't find the trial example to be fitting. The PQ certainly buy wonderful commisions to prove separatism the greatest thing ever but says nothing of the truth. Hence, it can be applied to both sides. Which side however has the most to benefit? That's another debate lol. Canking 07:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In light of these criticisms, I shall attempt to contact the PQ and the Economists who wrote this article. I shall inform them (and this is true), that I intend to summarise, compare and contrast the main economic arguments with that of the Fraser Institute (amongst others) for a Wikipedia article and possibly a doctoral economic dissertation to be conducted by myself.

If all is done respecting Wikipedia's highest standards of quality, I have no objections. In fact, I encourage you to do it.

Finally, I believe that a grand summary of all effects (economic being one of them) should be given its own page. Each effect (economic, cultural etc.) will encompass a small summary of the many viewpoints and the reader can further delve into that particular effect on each more detailed page. Of course this is much more work to doJ For example, in a particular section (cultural, historical), how the history of separation has thrown support to the “will” of separation as some Quebecois believe that they ‘must’ follow through with the ideal of Les Patriots? Is this a sufficient reason for separation? Thanks, Canking 00:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Canking 00:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of books were written on the subject, but most of it are in French. I think independence will occur before such a project is completed... ;-)

Here are more links:

Jean-François Lisée, lots of slides and articles presenting many aspects of Quebec society through statistics. I am convinced that if you e-mail him, he will be glad to direct you to sources I am not even aware of. :-) -- Mathieugp 04:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Report of Commission on Fiscal Imbalance and Supporting Documents

More general, but certainly helpful:

International Association of Quebec studies

• Quebec Directory of Public Research
• Main Economic Indicators - Institut de la statistique du Québec -- Mathieugp 04:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I will take a look at these for the article and for my own interest:) Canking 07:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for not writing earlier. It is taking me quite a while to go through all the material and it will still be a longtime before I'm able to include a new article demonstrating both sides of the argument (as per other commitments). Again, if anybody is interested in undertaking this task in the meantime, they are more than welcome. Canking 20:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A nation within a united Canada

I think the new definition of Québec as "a nation within a united Canada" deserved mention in this article. This is a landmark in Canada-Québec relations, albeit not the largest. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Here is what was added on the French language article recently:

Le 27 novembre 2006, le Parlement du Canada a adopté, à 266 voix contre 16, une motion reconnaissant que « les Québécois forment une nation au sein d'un Canada uni ». Le 30 novembre, l'Assemblée nationale du Québec adoptait à l'unanimité une motion reconnaissant « le caractère positif » de la motion adoptée par Ottawa et proclamant que ladite motion ne diminuait pas « les droits inaliénables, les pouvoirs constitutionnels et les privilèges de l'Assemblée nationale et de la nation québécoise. »

This literally translates to:

On November 27, 2006, the Parliament of Canada adopted, with 266 votes against 16, a motion recognizing that "the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada". On November 30, the National Assembly of Quebec adopted a unanimous motion recognizing "the positive character" of the motion adopted by Ottawa and proclaiming that the aforementioned motion did not decrease "the inalienable rights, the constitutional powers and the privileges of the National Assembly and the Quebec nation".

Naturally, this literal translation is not what I suggest for the English article, but something along those lines would be good I think. -- Mathieugp 18:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The French article should be corrected: it was a motion of the House of Commons alone, not the whole Parliament (the Queen and the Senate were not involved). Indefatigable 05:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that was the case. All the news sources I checked only mentioned the House of Commons, and I wasn't sure if it had gone any further than that. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

True. I will correct it in the French article right away. -- Mathieugp 15:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Forget that. Indefatigable did it already. Thanks. :-) -- Mathieugp 15:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Quebecers

Is not the word Quebecois?

Criticism

Can someone care to explain how, in the spirit of staying neutral, can the criticism part of this article, primarly it's first paragraph, remain what it is.

I would also like to understand why Stephane Dion's letters are even mentionned if nothing of what they contain is even discussed.Vineon 04:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

FLQ and October Crisis?

Hmm... How are there no links or information in this article out to the October Crisis, and related events? It's weird the section on the 1960's is entirely devoid of this.

Quebec sovereignty movement in fiction

The section about the novel "Separation" is way too long. It is not normal that so much details are given about a minor fiction work written in 1976 that is only loosely related to the "real-life" Soverignty movement. Maybe it deserves a separate articles in Wikipedia. Hugo Dufort 10:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be cut down to a couple of sentences at most. I don't think the novel/movie is notable enough to deserve its own article.--Boffob 12:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There is another factual error in the article. The Parti républicain du Québec wasn't founded after the 1966 Quebec general election, but after the 1962 Quebec general election. The PRQ folded in 1964.Mattcliche 01:55, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)