Talk:Politics of Canada

New articles have appeared for Political families of the world and List of US political families. This seems like a natural for some Canadian content, especially with Martin about to take charge. Any volunteers? Edmilne 01:35, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

I really think the giant 'National Unity' section with all its history of Quebec referenda (quite well done, I think!) needs to be somewhere else. History of Canada? A new National Unity? The huge emphasis on Quebec without corresponding Maritime, Prarie or other issues is bias-by-content. This page should be the facts about Canadian politics and refer to much more detailed articles elsewhere. ZviGilbert 21:43, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree. There should be a short summary and a link to a relevant article dealing with the political history of Canada/Quebec. -- Mathieugp

Tried to update the 'National Unity' section more relevant from its last version. Added information on western separatism and linked to articles on constitutional reform (meech lake and charlottetown) as well as added links to a lengthy article on secessionist movements in Canada. As well, tried to give some currency to fears about separatism being on the rise in Quebec again. I hope this somewhat mitigates some of the concerns here. 9jrl1 June 2 2005

Moved some old talk to Talk:Politics of Canada Archive 1

I admit I have only quickly glanced at the above comments but one thing for sure it appears that the never-ending debate over Quebec extends beyond Canadians. I made some minor adjustments only to this page because, and I will be polite, it was anti-English Canada propaganda bullshit. Pure and simple. I plan to rewrite this one day soon but I suggest for non-Canadians who admit they known nothing about Canada but then insert comments, that they read my work carefully when done. It will be NPOV and factual to a fault. And, I write with extensive knowledge and authority on the subject. I suspect that Eclecticology is 1) a former resident of Quebec, who 2) left not long after 1976, and 3) is from Hampstead or Cote. St. Luc?....DW - October 23/02

So now DW is expecting us to take his speculative imaginings as truth. Eclecticology

P.S. For American readers: Britain does not have a Constitution. Canada did not either until 1982 despite it commonly being referred to as "patriation." In fact, Canada existed as a Dominion under an 1867 British act of Parliament referred to the British North America Act. (BNA Act).

Why is it that people like DW, who have already convinced everyone that they don't know what they're talking about, want to keep trying to prove it?Eclecticology

Britain has a Constitution as did Canada before 1982. In the case of Britain most of the Constitution is unwritten, although small parts like the Magna Carta are written. Even if a Constitution is unwritten it still has almost the same force as a written constitution. The only reason that Trudeau had to work with most of the provinces when he wanted to bring in the Constitution was because of this. He did not consult or take the provinces very seriously and they took the issue to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that while it was not unconstitutional based on the BNA act for Trudeau to repatriate the constitution without consulting the provinces that it went against the unwritten constitution. It didn't say that all of the provinces representing a majority of the citizens had to agree however. This particular fact is how Trudeau managed to get the Constitution Patriated despite the fact that he did not have the agreement of the government of Quebec.--Marcie 02:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dear Eclecticology: I was responding to a request by TokerBoy to comment on this issue. I shall, for the moment, bite my tongue at remarks that come from a certain narrow segment of the population. However, rather than espouse intellect, Eclecticology might consider demonstrating it by actually editing properly the subject page so that others may then see real knowledge at work....DW

To hell with it. I have a question for Eclecticology. The subject page here, the page on the province of "Quebec" and the page on Canada, were all propaganda with a clear and distinct anti English-Canadian bias but worded so that unsuspecting Americans or others from around the world, might think it to be factual. How come, you who claim to be from British Columbia, in all the time this crap was sitting here, did absolutely nothing to correct the lies and innuendo until I came along? I believe that is called being a hypocrite....DW Esq.

I haven't looked at the other pages you've mentioned, DW, but checking the history on Politics of Canada, your (recent) edits seem to be entirely clarifying the political structure of Canada and have nothing to do with correcting any bias. That is, of course, welcome, as is correcting any real or percieved bias. I would like to point out that Eclecticology was the only person who helped me NPOV the article as described above; you may disagree that that is what we did, if so specific POV quotes from the article are most welcome. I also thank you for your comments on the British/Canadian Constitution (or lack thereof). I don't think this changes what the article should say, but I could be wrong and some clarification on that point in the article itself would be welcome. If you would like to NPOV the national unity section, I welcome the discussion. Tokerboy 21:12 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

"Propaganda" is a term that has been used by both sides in this article, and, as I pointed out much earlier in this page, an expression such as "separatist government" is informative when used only once, but propagandistic when constantly repeated. Certainly, DW, your participation in a page does draw attention to a subject, but not for the reasons that you may wish to believe. There are many articles with "crap" on them, but failing to notice that or even failing to do anything about it doesn't make anyone a hypocrite. Some of us don't have the time, and some of us would prefer to be more thoughtful in our responses. Eclecticology

Now, I'm very confused. In Talk:Quebec, You (DW) typed: "The cost to defend his rights enshrined in the Constitution of Canada in 1867, bankrupted Hyman Singer." 1867 is significantly before 1982. Tokerboy 21:15 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

The BNA Act of 1867 has always been referred to as Canada's Constitution by the population at large, the politicians, and the media. Hence I did too. But, it is not, even though the BNA Act is a massive document that outlines in much the same manner as a formal constitution, the manner in which Canada would function as an "independent" Dominion. I am only popping in bits here and there that bother me the most until I can do a well researched and accurate rewrite vis-a-vis on one I could do off the top of my head.....DW

Amongst numerous initiatives, the conference members examined the recommendations of a Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission, the question of a Charter of Rights, regional disparities, and the timeliness of a general review of the Constitution (the BNA Act).

Do you (DW or someone else) mind explaining what the BNA Act is some point before you mention it in the national unity section? I tried to explain it based off what you told me, but I decided it would be better to let someone with firsthand knowledge do it.

the Parti Québécois was founded by René Lévesque, whose Mouvement souveraineté-association

Is the capitalization of Mouvement souverainete-association correct?

In French, capitals are a rare thing, even months and days of the week aren't capitalized."

"The Government of Québec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Québec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad - in other words, sovereignty - and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; no change in political status resulting from these negotiations will be effected without approval by the people through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Québec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Québec and Canada?"

Is this the official English version?

I don't know, but it appears to be --am looking for it."

Despite losing the vote to secede from Canada, the separatist Parti Québécois government of Quebec made specific demands as minimum requirements for the Province of Quebec.

I don't like this sentence, though I'm not entirely sure why. First of all, which vote does this refer to? I think the primary problem is the "despite." If the province lost the referendum for independence, I would expect them to make demands for changes to the provincial status. The "despite" makes it seem like the vote was for no change, and Quebec went ahead and demanded changes instead.

Actually a long standing (and i think valid) argument is part of this. When the first referendum was occuring in Quebec Trudeau (among other folks) made promises to Quebec about them having more control in their province if they did not seperate and that a new type of relationship would be created. He then went on. He followed this for a short time but later decided he wasn't interested...hence he didn't feel it necessary to get Quebec's approval of the proposed Consitution Act. Mind you he didn't bother originally to get any of the provinces permission as i've noted above. However it stings a lot worse when less than two years ago you were told you would be taken seriously and given more autonomy.--Marcie 02:58, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These demands were all accompanied by a requirement that taxes collected by the federal government be handed over to Quebec to pay the costs.

This might just be my ignorance of Canadian taxes, but did the money come above and beyond whatever the standard allotment is for Quebec to run its multifarious programs, or do provinces not otherwise recieve federal money for such things? Also, just to verify, the money in question came from all over Canada and just Quebec's taxpayers, right?

Actually this is multi-levelled:1) The Federal Government collects taxes all over Canada and gives some of it to the poorer provinces so as to maintain some degree of economic balance. In the case of Quebec, the Province receives more from the Federal Gov't than it pays in. 2) When Quebec is asking for new powers, it needs the money to pay for them. The inference using the phrase with "despite", is that Quebec, as part of Canada, with the powers to the provinces the way they were, has prospered, enjoying a far better standard of living than 99% of all other countries, including France. I'll add a note about decentralization shortly, because the Federal Gov't of Canada has already granted the Provinces more individual power than any industrialized democracy in the world ---and now many see it has been to Canada's detriment because as one example, there are more trade barriers between Canadian Provinces than there are bewteen Canada and Mexico!...DW

I changed "despite" to "after" and moved the funding issue to the list with the other demands. I don't really understand what you mean by the inference. If there are facts missing, add the facts but I don't think inferences have any place in an encyclopedia. Each statement should mean exactly what it says, no more and no less. Tokerboy 19:44 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)

The separatist government of Quebec, in line with its policy of the duality of nations, objected to the new Canadian constitutional arrangement of 1982, with its formula for future constitutional amendments that failed to give Quebec absolute veto power over all constitutional changes including those unanimously supported by both the federal government and the nine other Provinces.

The presence of this paragraph before the section on the patriation of the constitution implies that the "constitutional arrangement of 1982" was a separate event which took place before the patriation. Is this deliberate/correct?

"constitutional arrangement of 1982" (not my words) IS the patriation....DW

I've reorded the paragraphs and made this clear (I think). Tokerboy 19:44 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)

failed to give Quebec absolute veto power over all constitutional changes including those unanimously supported by both the federal government and the nine other Provinces.

"Absolute veto" is detailed enough. I'm deleting the "unanimously..." clause as an unnecessary duplication.

Actually, unanimously is proper -- under the Constitution it requires less than unanimous approval to amend the Constitution. The point being made that even when unaimous 1 province Quebec wants a veto over the other nine.

That's the definition of the word "veto," at least as I understand it. Does the word mean something different in the Canadian Constitution? The fact that the president of the US has veto power means he can stop legislation that is unanimously supported by Congress. Anything less would not be veto power. Tokerboy 19:44 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)

Quebec's provincial government, then controlled by a party who advocated remaining in Canada on certain conditions, endorsed the accord (called the Meech Lake Accord).

What's the name of the party?

Liberal Party of Quebec.

I put it in. Tokerboy 19:44 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)

The high profile of these two separatist parties led to a second referendum in 1995 in which the province's separatist governing party declared that a result of 50% plus 1, meant a victory for the party's goal of separation from Canada.

This makes it sound as though the referendum was on the 50% plus 1 thing, and not on independence. I am rewording it to "The high profile of these two parties led to a second referendum on independence in 1995. The Parti Quebecois declared that a result of 50% plus 1 (person) in favor would be a victory."

This referendum, was a major concern for the country as the question posed was not only ambiguous, but declaring the basis of a 50% plus 1 result meant that 12% of the citizens of the Province Quebec were able to determine the fate of the entire nation of Canada. Held unilaterally in Quebec on October 30, 1995 the referendum resulted in a narrow 50.56% to 49.44% victory for Quebec staying as part of Canada versus breaking up the country.

The 1995 question was: "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership?". Explain the ambiguity here, because even though English is my second language, I seem to clearly understand the question. -- Mathieugp

At this point, there is a fundamental shift in what is being discussed. What is the connection between Quebecois independence and Canada's future existence? Why isn't it possible for Canada to exist with nine provinces and three territories, instead of ten and three? I've often heard that Quebecois independence might or probably would mean the disintegration of Canada, but I don't see why it is inherent.

First, all of Canada belongs to Canadians. Just as Abraham Lincoln would not allow the United States to be split, Canadians too feel it is wrong for one part to break up a great nation, particulary when nine provinces have no vote in the matter. Most people find it hard to rationalize the idea that Canada (or any country) can be broken up by a vote of just 12% of its citizens. Too, the breakup of a Nation by a Province is unheard of and contravenes the U.N. charter on the sovereignity of nations. That is why NATO was careful not to side with the rebel forces in the Province of Kosovo to break away from Yugoslavia after our intervention there. In fact, because Koso was a Province, NATO debated interfering in the affairs of another nation but did it for the first time ever.

Also, look at a map. Quebec would control the vital St. Lawrence Seaway (now under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and its original construction and annual upkeep costs are all paid for by the Federal Government with taxes from all Canadians) and could bring the economy of Ontario (Canada's largest economy by far) to its knees almost overnight by blocking access (Quebec Government or Quebec Unions over which Canada would have no authority) through the St. Lawrence Seaway shipping route to the Atlantic ocean. Too, if Quebec separated, the economically depressed Maritime Provinces (N.B., N.S., P.E.I.) would be isolated and have no choice but to join the United States. Then, only God knows what Newfoundland would do. Next, British Columbia could decide to go it alone, as could Alberta who already has had a Western Separatist Party, plus the current leader of the Federal Canadian Alliance party has already said that (rich - oil & gas) Alberta should put a wall around it (much the same as U.S/. Presidential Candidate Pat Buchanan said about putting a giant wall along the US/Canada border. Plus, what happens to the English speaking citizens of Quebec? They already have lost basic rights that other Canadians, Americans, Brits, Aussies, and even French in France, take for granted. For starters English-speaking Canadians in an independent Quebec would lose their Canadian citizenship. What happens to investments from the rest of Canada? Federal government assets? Quebec's share of the National Debt and what happens if Wall Street won't finance it? The return of the Ungava territory that makes up for 80% of the Province of Quebec, (see details inQuebec) and countless other things when breaking up a country. Look at the lesson of Czechoslovakia.

All that may be true, but the way it is worded makes it sound like those were the two choices on the ballot. "Break up Canada" or "Stay in Canada." Is that the question that people actually answered on the ballot, or was it "Independence for Quebec" vs. "Stay in Canada." The statement would false because it says that 49.44% voted to break up Canada. Did they? Or did they vote for Quebecois independence? Unless the ballot actually said "break up Canada" or something to that effect, the statement is not true and should be changed. Tokerboy 19:44 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, this has a name. We call this a "false dilemma". It is a type of fallacy. Read about it here Logic and Fallacies. How to spot a problem argument (http://www.geocities.com/safacta/fallacies.html) -- Mathieugp

Reply, Nov.4/02: Actually, from a legal point of view, Independence for Quebec is in fact and in constitutional law, the break up of Canada. One cannot be accomplished without the other. The question on the 1980 and the 1995 ballot was neither. One of the major issues (as mentioned in the parts of the article I wrote) is that the question was always unclear (lawyers subtle legalese) but done in such a way that the Separatist Government (elected by less Quebecs than the opposition party, and much less than the total vote) could translate it the way it wanted. Many in Quebec (as evidenced by TV reporters numerous interviews) thought the referendum as only a tool to get more power from Ottawa, not independence. Hence the referral to the Supreme Court who stated the question in any future referendum must be clear....DW

The leader of the separatist cause immediately vowed to hold another referendum, saying "It's true we have been defeated, but basically by what? By money and the ethnic vote."

Can you name the leader and be more specific about the "separatist cause?" Is he a representative of the Parti Quebecois (as I assumed on reading it) or something else?

Based on this infamous racist remark, immigrants and English-speaking citizens of Quebec and in the rest of Canada expressed great concern...

I don't think this is neutral. Unless there is more to the statement, I don't see why it is necessarily racist to say that the referendum lost because non-francophones voted against it. That is exactly what I would expect to happen, and the "ethnic vote" seems an appropriate way of identifying it. Am I missing something?

No you are not. Unless you are already convinced that the "separatists" are evil and that Quebec nationalism is the equivalent of nazism, you can only see a frustrated man who refers to a frustrating statistical reality: when people don't speak French in Quebec, they do not support the independence of Quebec. When they speak French, then we see the result of an actual debate on the question: in 1995, 60% voted Yes and 40% voted No. Another important point: francophones (Quebecers) are a multiethnic population just like anglophones (Canadians). This is even more true since Quebec gained partial control over immigration with Rene Levesque after the 1982 referendum. When immigrants arrive in Quebec today, they are welcomed by Quebecers who tell them "Bonjour, bienvenue au Quebec!" as opposed "Hello, welcome to Canada!". The new generation, the children born after Bill 101 is highly francophone and despite them not having ancestors born in Quebec, they identity to Quebec like other francophones and they too support its independence in high proportions. -- Mathieugp

I reworded and added a few tidbits and clarifications elsewhere. The only things I forsee any possible debate on are listed above. If I am wrong, DW or Eclecticology or someone else can feel free to add to the above list. Tokerboy 18:55 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing the point. All citizens have the right to vote in a democracy, in Canada we do not discriminate who can vote between Indo-Canadians, WASPS, etc. and the remark by the Premier of the Province of Quebec would be the equivalent of the Governor of Texas saying he would have won the election if it weren't for the Black vote. Too, the "money" is an inference to a perceived English-Jewish business elite in Quebec. This racist statement caused a national outrage and led to the Premier's resignatio....DW

That is totally untrue. This was a remark made by a columnist which is supported by no evidence. The "money" referred to the $4 million spent by branches of the Canadian government during the campain. This goes against Quebec's law on public consultations, which imposes a maximum amount on the spending of both the Yes and No side to give an equal chance to both options to present their point. The federal government violated this law in 1982 and in 1995, claiming that this was only a "provincial law" therefore not worth respecting. [-- Mathieugp

I have reworded it to make that clear. Tokerboy 19:44 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)

I added a few maps on the Quebec page....DW

As it stands now, more than 50% of this page is about Quebec/national unity and gives the impression that that is the only thing that Canadians ever discuss. That isn't even true in Quebec. Maybe we should move all the material about the unity question to another page. - Montréalais

I agree. There's a lot more to Canadian politics than domination by central Canada. ☮ Eclecticology 19:08 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

I agree, but what topics should be addressed? Healthcare is an easy one, as is foreign affairs and the military. Trade historically, but I don't know if there's much disagreement there anymore (if the NDP still against free trade/NAFTA?).

There are also, of course, a bunch of 'minor' issues - same sex marriages, drug policy, death penalty, etc. - that get people riled up. Maybe they could all be grouped as "social policy"?

In general, I think the reason unity and centralization vs. decentralzation gets so much play is that Canadians tend to agree on just about everything else :) It's amayzing to watch politics from the US and Europe and note that the different sides tend to disagree much of the time! The only arguments we ever seem to have in Canada deal with 'degree' rather than 'kind'. -- stewacide 08:09 20 May 2003 (UTC)

As someone who lived in Montreal for the 1995 referendum, and was an anglo with a franco girlfriend, I'd say that the current article is fairly NPOV and reflects my understanding of the situation quite well, except for one thing: the role of Ovide Mercredi in the defeat of the Meech Lake Accord, and in general the role of the First Nations people in the second referendum. As I recall, the Manitoba legislature was about to ratify Meech Lake when Mercredi, an MLA at the time (he was later elected Chief of the First Nations) stalled the ratification by loudly demanding in the press that, if Quebec was granted "distinct society" status, so too should the First Nations. This act mobilized opposition to Meech and prevented it from being ratified in Manitoba, which prevented it from being ratified at all (that's my memory of it, anyway; I may have the details wrong).

Also, during the second referendum, the Cree Nation in northern Quebec held its own referendum on whether or not to secede along with Quebec, or to declare that they would remain with Canada. They voted 96% to immediately secede from Quebec if Quebed seceded from Canada, in order to remain in Canada, and to claim something like 25% of Quebec's territory, a contiguous territory along the Hudson Bay shore in the north ("If Canada is divisible, so is Quebec"). The Quebec government, needless to say, opposed this position. The Cree referendum mobilized anglo opposition in the south of Quebec to secede-back-to-Canada on a municipal level, with some townships passing resolutions to that effect (legally dubious, but of great symbolic value in the media). Together, these two actions created the impression among undecided Quebeckers that separation would not be nearly as smooth as the Parti Quebecois was promising.

I also recall a minor diplomatic scandal comparable to de Gaulle's proclamation in 1967 (?) on his visit to Montreal "Vive le Quebec... vive le Quebec libre!" ("Long live Quebec... long live Quebec freedom!"). Sometime around the second referendum itself, Premier Jacques Parizeau had a secret meeting with the Prime Minister of France, who promised immediate recognition of Quebec as a sovereign nation upon Quebec's declaration of independence. The revelation of this deal brought to light Parizeau's plan, on winning the referendum, to immediately declare unilateral independence (Parizeau was quoted as saying that a victory in the referendum would be like throwing a lobster in a pot--no going back), even though the second referendum question was vague, and, according to internal PQ polls, left even many separatists believing that after separation, Quebec would still send MPs to the Canadian parliament.

I'm going on memory for all this, so there's a lot of detail to verify, but I think these are significant details to the overall story. Justin Johnson 20:38 Oct 17, 2003

I am completely speechless. This is by far the most accurate and neutral summary of the Canada/Quebec constitutional issue I have ever read in English. Whoever wrote it, congratulations. I think what is missing now is a few references to international law on the subject of peoples right to self-determination. I believe there could be some improvements made to few passages dealing with the Clarity Act. My opinion on this subject is that of the people who signed these two documents :

Open Letter in Support of Québec's Right to Self-Determination (http://pages.infinit.net/mseymour/apage/ap_openletter.html)
Common Declaration of Québécois and Canadian Intellectuals (http://www.cam.org/~ipso/doc/declcommune_an.html)

However, beyond the opinions expressed in these two texts, there are undeniable facts like the right of Quebec to determine it's political future and the 50% + 1 rule for a referendum. If you want to discuss this, just come on my talk page. Mathieugp

I read the item on national unity and found it lacking in objectivity in a few places (e.g. bad choice of vocabulary: "breaking up the country," etc). It also contains a few erronous statements and a misquote. So I did what Wikipedia encourages us to do and made the item a bit more neutral while adding important background information.

Here are some of the most significant modifications:

>> "Canada and its provinces have several different political parties and its electoral districts are on a "winner takes all" rather than proportional representation. In 1976, in the Province of Quebec, three major parties contested the election. Two parties won a combined 59% of the popular vote, but the separatist Parti Québécois won enough strategic electoral districts to take power with 41% of the popular vote, which is very common with first-past-the-post voting methods."
- This paragraph contains either misleading or erronous information. The electoral results were as follows: Parti Québecois: 41,4%, Parti Libéral: 33,8%, Union Nationale 18,2%, other parties: 6,6%. The PLQ and UN's combined result was 52%, not 59%. The paragraph could be clarified and condensed by saying the PQ won with a 41% to 33% margin over the PLQ, but is it really that relevant?

>> "The proposal advocated independence for Quebec with the exact terms of association with Canada to be decided after independence."
- It's the other way around. The referendum was only about getting a mandate "to *negotiate* a new agreement with the rest of Canada." Once agreed upon with Canada, these new terms of association would be subject to "another referendum" as clearly indicated in the question's text.

>> "Speaking to his crowd, he said roughly "...""
- Removed the "rough quote", since you can't really have one of those in an encyclopedia :P. I replaced it with the actual text.

>> "In a 1980 referendum, the Parti Québécois unilaterally sought a mandate from the people of Quebec to support "sovereignty association"."
- removed 'unilaterally'; How can a political party bilaterally seek a mandate, or anything for that matter?

>> "..that failed to give Quebec absolute veto power over all constitutional changes."
- removed 'absolute' and 'all' redundant/opinionated: by definition veto power is absolute

>> "Mulroney,(born in Quebec)"
- irrelevant and implies a bias on his part.

Tremblay

History of Quebec sovereignist movement

I began a History of Quebec sovereignist movement article. I invited the person(s) who wrote on the same subject here to contribute to it. If there is a general consensus on the move, we could transfert all that pertains to this subject over there and shorten the paragraph dealing with Quebec in Politics of Canada. There is also a History of Quebec independentist movement in preparation. Mathieugp 21:09, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I say move the whole kit and cabbodle from this article to there. It's far too long in this one, and we need a bit more balance to an 'umbrella' article like this. Further subjects below can be added as developed (ie Same-sex marriage in Canada exists and can be popped right in). Radagast

- I agree. Mathieugp 16:25, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why should there be both History of Quebec sovereignist movement and History of Quebec independentist movement? What's the difference? Aren't sovereignty and independence synonomous, or so nearly synonomous that they can both be covered in one article?

Yes, the words "sovereignty" and "independence" are pretty much synonymous, but they are two distinct movements. The independentist movement officially started with the Alliance Laurentienne in 1958, whereas the sovereignist movement started 10 years later. The sovereignist movement, which began as the sovereignty-association movement, is, so to speak, a sub-group of the independentist movement. There are a few "marginal" independence organizations that were erased from our history when the PQ became a serious party. The sovereignty project of the PQ, especially since it has failed twice, doesn't get the approval of a large chunk of the pro-independence population because to them the PQ advocates a re-confederation disguised as independence. This point of view is discarded by the leadership of the PQ, but it clearly exists. However, beyond the many POVs (which do not belong in Wikipedia) and the silly accusations of not being truly independentist, there are historical facts which can help people understand the nature of the opposition between, for example, the supporters of Lucien Bouchard and those who literally call him a traitor and a sold out. In any case, I know that the difference is not well-known in English Canada, but you can trust me, right now, from the inside, the debate is raging on and heads are rolling (figuratively speaking of course ;-).

If there is a good reason for the second article, the title History of the Quebec independence movement would be much more idiomatic English.--Indefatigable 03:39, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Really? I thought it sounded ok. We can move it if it is bad English. I guess we should also have a History of the Quebec sovereignty movement then. Mathieugp 16:25, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, independentist follows the rules (if there are any rules) for creating new words, and most literate English-speakers should figure it out after a short pause. However, it hasn't been used enough yet to "sound natural" or to make it into dictionaries. Sovereignist and sovereigntist were in a similar situation 20 years ago, but they became part of Canadian English during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Time will tell if the same will happen for independentist.

One thing is certain: the titles should contain the definite article: "History of the Quebec ... movement".--Indefatigable 16:40, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Given the legitimate questions here about "what's the difference?", wouldn't it be more appropriate to have both the sovereignist and independentist material on the same page to discuss the difference? While the difference may be obvious to those on the inside, the confusion of those on the outside begs for some sort of 'compare and contrast' type entry. At the very least, some sort of umbrella page covering the two should exist; I lived in Montreal for the 1995 referendum, and wasn't aware there was such an ideological split, so how many people who aren't familiar with the situation will even know to look?--Justin Johnson 12:36, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I understand. However, I think that detailing the history of both movements will allow people to compare and see for themselves. The differences between the political views of the self-proclaimed sovereignists and the self-proclaimed independentists are primarily ideological and strategical. It's really a split between the PQ's social democrats and liberals and those more on the left, a lot of whom quit to start the UFP. I don't think I could write a good article comparing the two. I personally find these disagreements silly, although I clearly support the UFP on a lot of issues. The PQ has made numerous strategical mistakes that they are slowly beginning to admit just now. There are a few things in English on http://www.ufp.qc.ca/ I believe.

However, the facts remain that Bourgault, of the RIN, often came into conflict with Levesque, and in light of the failures of the PQ, he publicly said that his dismantling the RIN was the biggest political mistake of his life. When the PQ started to become a serious party in the 70s, all agreed to follow the party rules even if they didn't agree with the leadership and the official positions. Mathieugp 16:09, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Moving constitutional crisis section

Any opposition to the moving of the constitutional crisis and quebec sovereignty paragraphs to their own articles (leaving a short summary here)? Same for the condensed history class under the History of national unity pre-Confederation subheading?

Mathieugp 19:06, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I support that move. Tremblay 02:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I moved everything over. This page is now ready to adopt a structure similar to the other "Politics of ..." pages. Currently, it makes no sense and definitely needs to be expanded. Mathieugp 21:38, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Canadian political scandals

For those familiar with the political history of politics, the list of Canadian political scandals is in need of lots of help. Thanks! --Alex S 18:51, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Judicial Independence

I just noticed that there is no mention of the judicial independence of Canada when discussing independence whether here or elsewhere on wikipedia (e.g. Canada). When I learned Canadian history, when speaking about Canadian independence, we always discussed four events: internal independence, BNA Act, 1867; external independence, Statute of Westminster, 1931; judicial independence, Supreme Court becoming court of last resort, 1949; constitutional independence, Canada Act, 1982. Did others learn it differently or should it be included with the other three? Telso 07:42, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Substantive Rewrite

I've added a bunch of political information on Canada's political functioning, including the current minority government, changes in federal funding to parties, past minority government (although if i want to get more specific i'll have to hit the books its been a while). I especially spent time on how the new federal funding formula is and or can be having an effect on Canadian Politics.

I've read through the talk page. Actually it was Jaques Parizeau that blamed the loss the 1995 on "money and ethnic voters". He made the comment in French from memory. The actual inference of the Jewish community was not made by him. I was watching when he said it (i'm a political hawk). He appeared to be possibly slightly drunk but not enough to justify the comment. It was widely condemned in Quebec by folk who want an independent Quebec and by Federalists. Nobody thought it was appropriate and it created a bit of a stirr. Quebec has over the years been quite clear that while they want independence they are not after getting rid of minorities and that minorities would have rights in an independent Quebec, so the wording was very unfortunate, and offensive to both sides.

As to the conflict on Question wording. I don't remeber the 1995 wording. The difficulty with the 1980 wording was that it asked if Quebecers wanted to be independent after an economic union had been reached with Canada. It was made clear that for absolute sovereignty there would be a second referendum. The difficulty lay in the fact that it was worded strangely (i could find it somewhere likely) and was long and complicated. And of course it didn't ask for sovereignty just the right to start negotiating it.

I did notice Wiki complaining about the length of the page from what i added. Also i'm not sure if i put in the the right "spots" on the page. But the information i added is not on the political culture page or on the Quebec page, and i think its on the basic side. I'm open to suggestions on how to hive it off though and yes i do expect it will get edited, although i put a couple of hours into the changes so hopefully not too badly!(lol) I've tried to keep POV out. I imagine its clear i'm in support of a minor party...i wasn't quite sure how to write it totally without reference...however i would be curious if there are guesses on NDP or Green Party (one of the ways i was trying to balance...i'm a member of one and someone i dated was a member of the other).

Also i don't have accents on my keyboard, or more likely they aren't printed on it and i don't know where they would appear if i asked the operating system to change the keyboard. Bloq Quebecois is therefore missing the accents.--Marcie 14:19, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Federal-Provincial spending, dynamics and changes

I put this in at an earlier spot and then realized the comment was a couple of years old...so i'm moving it here. Also i'm sure that the number of small changes i did on the page might be annoying in a look at what has changed way. But I have the impression (in fact it was suggested i do so) that small edits were easier for folks to work through (ie you don't have to look all over the page to see the changes...only in one section at a time). Doesn't look like many folks have been here in a month....or maybe just not a lot of talk...the end of this DOES have relevance to the page, but i'm not sure how the heck to put it in a NPOV way for a good part, and i'm not sure if it some areas should be hived off.

Actually it gets even more complicated than that. All of the provinces except Quebec allow the federal government to collect the taxes and then give them a portion of their taxes (hence if you live in Ontario you fill out one tax form but there are seperate sections where your provincial taxes and credits are fed in and another where the Federal taxes are done.) I don't think that Quebec actually collects the Federal taxes and then turns them over to the province. I don't remember for sure and i could be wrong. But if you live in Quebec you file at least part of your taxes directly with Quebec and pay them directly to Quebec. Also the QPP fund is run independently of the CPP fund and the government of Quebec has shown a lot of smarts in using it to build up the (mostly) francophone businesses in Quebec as well as getting a MUCH larger return than the CPP fund has ever managed to do. If you leave Quebec than the amount you put into the QPP is transfered into the CPP for when you retire. If you move to Quebec the amount you have put into the CPP gets transfered into the QPP fund---so it doesn't cause a mobility problem. From what i remember all of the provinces were given the option on the CPP thing, but none were interested but Quebec(although Quebec wish was why it was introduced that way).

There are several problems with the tax issue. First off the fact that the provinces have the residual power except when there is a war. That basically means that anything that wasn't assigned to the federal government and came up after 1867 became the right of the provinces to decide what to do with. Although i think it started earlier it was when a type of unemployment insurance was passed by the Mackenzie King government in the 40's that the issue became less clear. Basically the CCF was pushing for it and they could get leftish votes of the Liberals to have them loose the election and so he stole their ideas right left and centre (such as medicare). The federal government basically said that yes it was the provinces rights in these areas but that they wanted to have a system that was Canada wide. So they would put some of their tax money (federal tax) into the programs provided that the provinces followed certain rules. A look at the funding of Medicare in the last 20 years gives an idea of the problem. Trudeau passed the Canada Assistance plan which required many things of the provinces in return. The federal government would pay half of the cost of things covered in the CAP as long as the provinces followed the rules. Welfare was not to have residency requirements, there was not to be any "workfare". Medicare was to be portable across Canada (ie use it wherever and the province that is currently covering you will pay the other province---and the individual doesn't pay out in the meantime), it was to be universal (all citizens and landed immigrants and refugees), you couldn't "buy" your way to the front of the line of for extra special service (although you can get yourself a semi private room at a hospital so there was some inbetween). If the provinces did this than the federal government would cover 50% of their costs in these areas (and that's a lot of money and that is what got them some say). Mulrooney put a "CAP" on the CAP program when he was in office. For the 4 richest provinces he declared that he wouldn't give them any more money if their costs went up (and hence 50% was no longer covered). This was just before or at the beginning of the recession. This is one of the reasons that Ontario had such a big deficit after the NDP government got it (not the only one but a big part). Because of the recession many more people were using the services that were in the original CAP program. The provinces still needed to follow the original rules in order to get 50% of their costs (or the top limit they had if they were a "have" province) back. The programs however cost a hell of a lot more (lots of more folks on welfare during a recession especially when you make it a lot harder for them to get UI AND reduce UI benefits). There were other political reasons for the deficit which also included following Keynsian economic policy (which says if there is a recession you spend because it should stimulate the economy and then you save during a boom to slow it down some and reduce inflation....unfortunately governments rarely get around to the "save" part). For example they started a program to build more affordable housing. Not only did that mean that there were more affordable house it meant that people were building the houses. Presumably the people building the houses would not all have been employed or would have made a lot less if the program wasn't in place, and then they will hopefully use some of their income to buy things and the people they buy things will have more money as a result etc etc.)But greatly increased costs didn't help.

I believe it was 1995 when the Federal government changed the funding formula. before it had always been based on what each program cost. So cutting welfare did not get you more money for say health care. The federal government drastically cut the amount of money they were investing and then put it into something called "block grants". The block grants was a single amount that was to be used for welfare, healthcare, post secondary education and a few other thing (i think). Now this did two things. First they stopped giving provinces all that much money. So they no longer really had all that much of a say. And they didn't have a say where exactly the money went. Causes that are popular with the middle classes (health care and post secondary education) were hit and had problems, but it was on the backs of those on welfare that the system really hit.

that is because politicians tend to take the feelings of the middle classes more seriously. They want health care and they want universities. They don't really care about welfare and the people that are poor are less politicized and political. And a lot (not all) of the middle class really don't care how people on welfare or barely off it live or their quality of living. The # of people on welfare that voted for Harris, despite the fact that he had proclaimed he would reduce their benefits by 20% was fairly large. There are lots of reasons for that...they could be from the family that always votes tory or maybe they think it will save money and that is more important. But it does seem somewhat against their best interests. (to point out i'm not trying to condescend about the poor i AM among the poor...although not one that voted for Harris)

Thats how provinces were able to do things like reduce welfare by 20% (in Ontario) and require workfare. The feds still had some say. At one point Alberta was giving welfare recipients bus tickets to go to BC (which had a better welfare system). BC was getting flooded with folks and put a residency period in before you could get welfare (6 months i believe). Here the federal government DID step in and said that they would decrease their funding by every dollar that the BC government saved. They changed the policy. But CAP was changed a lot and the feds had less say (and were less interested from my personal POV). They actually do still penalize some provinces for not providing some medical services. I know either Nova Scotia or New Brunswick (i think its Nova Scotia) looses a lot of money in transfers each year because of how it funds abortions as well as some other programs(mostly abortions). Its talked about on the abortion in Canada page, and discussed more in length on the talk page. But it isn't consistent. PEI funds no abortions and isn't getting penalized...likely there is some technical reason but it gets complicated.

Of course then there is the whole issue of equalization payments that i don't have the time to write about today, which is also seperate and connected. The idea is that all provinces should have the same amount of money (well close) to provide their citizens with needed services from. So some of the taxes of the richer provinces are redistributed to the poorer provinces. This is another spot where the provinces really do end up getting a say in how the money will be used.

Why bother to put all this in? Well i spent a while learning it, and it seemed to be on topic and not really addressed. I'm sure my bias is obvious although i've provided the facts as i know them---wether you are left or right...of course the interpretations i put in are all my own. Also it seems to be one of those issues that people feel is technical and they don't follow much. People on the centre and the left watching knew there was big trouble when the block funding was introduced. But unless you had bothered to follow the pattern from the CAP to the "CAP" on the CAP fund etc it wasn't all that obvious. Just like the Conservatives did manage to deindex pensions eventually in a sneaky way after being told off so badly at the beginning. What they did was index it (ie increase it at the rate of inflation) only after a certain amount of inflation (i think its 3.5%). So any year that the inflation rate is less than 3.5% there is no indexation, even though two years of inflation at 4% will decrease your pension by 4% unless its indexed...and if it happens over two years it isn't indexed. Its slower but it got a lot less criticism.

Are people interested in equalization payements?...i think the section on the page could be fleshed out. I would prefer to see it that way than hived off...but what is the general opinion. Some further discussion of it here before it hives off (if it does) would be good. Also i would like to get some of the above stuff in, but i think a discussion would be a better move than me trying to write it on my own. Its long and how to work it all in a NPOV way is something i'm not exactly sure how to do...although some stuff is obvioulsy POV--Marcie 03:55, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Someone (an annon user) has asked that the parentheses in one section be correct (the edit said please help by correcting..i'm sure you saw it). I wrote that section and i do expect to be ruthlesslly edited so if its better another way fine...but can someone explain what the problem with how i used the parentheses () was...is it a Wiki style thing, grammar...can't fix things you are doing wrong unless you know how they are wrong...thanks--Marcie 03:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I need someone to clear something up for me, relating to the canadian government. It says in the politics of Canada article that Canada is a federalist nation, which makes sense to me. If this is true, then why does the online CIA factbook list canada as a "confederation with parliamentary democracy?" Anonymous User, 7 Feb 2005

Confederation and federalist mean the same thing. Earl Andrew 23:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3 Quebecers required on the Supreme Court?

"Quebecers ... must hold three of the nine positions on the Supreme Court of Canada."

I don't believe that this is true. That was a part of the Charlottetown Accord, which was defeated in a referendum. It is a convention that 3 of the 9 justices are from Quebec, but not law as far as I know. Can someone confirm this either way? I'm hesitant to make a change unless I'm sure. --Ryan Stone 22:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Supreme Court of Canada Act: "At least three of the judges shall be appointed from among the judges of the Court of Appeal or of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec or from among the advocates of that Province." (R.S., c. S-19, s. 6; 1974-75-76, c. 19, s. 2.) HistoryBA 00:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Structure of the article

I believe the structure of this article is quite a mess. The headings we currently have are as follows:

1 - System of government
2 - Executive
3 - Parliament
4 - Provincial governments
5 - Judicial branch
6 - Canada: political information
7 - Principal government officials
8 - Political conditions
9 - Changes to law regarding funding of Federal Parties and partial and possible impact
10 - Other impact of funding changes
11 - How funding for the 2004 election was decided
12 - Effect of language on federal politics
13 - Federal-provincial relations
14 - National unity
15 - Current issues
16 - See also
17 - External link

I suggest we reorganize this along the lines of the pretty good Canadian politics floating box. I propose something like this:

Blablablab intro

Executive

Monarchy

Governor General

Prime Minister

Cabinet

Legislative

Parliament

Senate

House of Commons

Judicial

Supreme Court

Constitution

Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Provinces

Municipal

Territories

International organisations

Political life

Parties

Issues

National Unity

All comments welcomed.

-- Mathieugp

Your changes look good, I also wanted to suggest that we address the political organizations of the First Peoples, and discuss how they affect the Politics of Canada. The First Peoples consist of the First Nations, the Métis, and the Inuit. The First Nations are represented by the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis are represented by the Métis National Council, and the Inuit are represented by the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. A new header may be required into your proposed framework to accommodate these additions. Kurieeto 15:28, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I am not sure where to put it. The recognition of the First Peoples is a one liner in the constitution. Beyond that, everything else is under Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (so I guess under Prime Minister / Cabinet) (and the equivalent at the provincial levels). As you probably know, the First Peoples have no real political powers. I guess we need a heading to place the federal government bodies and under the Indian and Northern Affairs Department describe the Indian policies. -- Mathieugp 17:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

April 20 deletion

The comment about PMs coming from Quebec for 40 of the last 50 years is correct: while Campbell, Clark, Pearson and Turner did not come from Quebec, they governed for relatively short periods. (In the case of Turner and Campbell, the blink of an eye.) Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien governed for much longer periods. I have removed reference to Martin being an anglophone as I don't know if he sees himself that way. He grew up in a franco-Ontarian family, probably speaking English much of the time, but would he call himself an anglo? Mulroney preferred to call himself an allophone because he grew up completely bilingual with an anglo father and a franco mother. Ground Zero 23:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Politics_of_Canada"