There are many arguments for and against keeping the cross. This could be a very sensitive subject for many. The cross is a religious symbol which was placed there in the 1930s by then-premier Maurice Duplessis.It is located on the wall directly behind the Speaker's chair in what's known as the legislature's Blue Room. A lot of people say its been there for a really long time and it's a very special symbol for society in Quebec.The Canadian national post wrote an article and talked about Francois Legault and his opinion on the issue. He is the leader of the Coalition for Quebec's Future and he said the cross should stay."We have a Christian heritage in Quebec and we cannot decide tomorrow that we can change our past," Legault told reporters."I
The Meech Lake accord was a set of constitutional amendments that were designed to persuade Quebec Province to accept the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 (Brooks 152). This accord derives its name from the Meech Lake, where these negotiations were held by Mulroney Brian, the Canadian Prime Minister, and the ten premiers of the ten Canadian Provinces (Brooks 211). By the time the Canadian constitution was being implemented, Quebec was the only province that had not consented to it. Somehow, the partition of the constitution in 1982 was carried out without Quebec’s agreement, but it was still bound by the same law. Attempts were made to persuade this province to sign the constitution, which it agreed to do but only after its five demands are fulfilled by the Canadian government. Unfortunately, these demands were not met and this accord failed in 1990, when two provincial premiers failed to approve it. This paper answers the question whether Quebec asked for too much during the Meech Lake Accord negotiations.
As its own state Quebec would have the capacity to act, consolidate and further create their own cultural identity (Heard, 2013). For example, Quebec could foster the national language to be French. By gaining independence from Canada, Quebec can then create their own laws, own immigration rules and levy taxes (Heard, 2013). This would allow Quebec to be completely independent from the rest of Canada, but they would have connecting boarders like the United States and Canada do.
Municipal control or an alternative delivery method? This is the question that has intrigued all levels of local government and created intense debates between taxpayers across municipalities. The services that municipalities provide are often vital to the existence of a local area. The issues of accountability, cost savings, quality of service and democracy often arise when choosing the best options to deliver services to a municipal area. In recent years the concepts of privatization, alternative service delivery and public-private partnerships are often promoted as ways cut down on overburdened annual city budgets and promote a higher quality of service to citizens. Municipalities have historically always provided basic services such as fire protection, water purification/treatment and recreational facilities. However, would private companies or another municipality be able to better deliver the same services more efficiently or at a lower cost? The city or town often provides a political grass roots approach to most local problems. Municipalities are better positioned and have a wider scope to provide services to their constituents in order to ensure quality of service that does not erode accountability and transparency, or drive the municipality deeper into debt.
Quebec’s social identity and defining characteristics contradict and conflict with those of rest of Canada. Since the genesis of our country, the political, social disagreements, and tensions between Quebec and the rest of Canada have been unavoidable. Utilizing Hiller’s key contradictions in the analysis of a Canadian society, we will compare and contrast the nature of the societal identity in Quebec compared to that of rest of Canada, emphasising on the major differences and tensions between the province and the rest of the country.
For nearly two centuries the inhabitants of New France lived their day to day lives
The Trans Canada Highway became a visible nationalistic figure that set apart Canada from other countries. The highway was built to reinforce a newfound nationalism, however, there were oppositions in the building of the highway. In order for the highway to run from coast to coast, every province had to sign and agree to an Act that was enforced by the federal government. Every province agreed to the Act and the implementation of the highway except for Quebec, who at the time was governed under Premier Maurice Duplessis. Duplessis opposed the idea of the highway because under the Trans Canada Highway Act, the federal government would have complete control over road regulations when previously it was the responsibility of the provincial and municipal governments. This created a problem for the highway as the road needed to go through Quebec in order for it to be able to include the east coast provinces. The Quebec premier was challenging the unity and nationalism that the “new” Canada wanted to have. It wasn't until Duplessis passed away and a Liberal government c...
To decide what to do after Quebec separates, First Ministers and the ROC, must first look at why it happened. Perhaps Quebec's profound nationalism and unique national identity conflicted with citizens in the ROC; in order to gain understanding of their decision the ROC must look at Quebec's past. Quebec was not always treated fairly nor where they given many rights in regards t...
“Let us be English or let us be French… but above all let us be Canadians.”
Each country has a different healthcare system, or lack of system that results due to that country’s history of politics and cultural norms. For example, France’s system includes universal coverage, wide degree of choice of the consumer, and a mixed private and public system that reflects the societal standards of France, including liberalism and social security. On the other hand, the United States’ system leaves much of the responsibility of healthcare to the consumer and believes that a competitive market should be applied to healthcare, as well. These characteristics are representative of the ideas of capitalism and individuality that prevail in the nation. This paper will argue that the French system is the superior system of the two,
In the contentious world of politics the actors at times find themselves at an impasse, unable to move forward between their conflicting visions. In these moments the courts may be asked to mediate between the different levels of government by providing constitutional or legislative advice. These scenarios can become perilous because since the courts must provide insight on issues that are political without stepping outside of its jurisdiction. Regardless of their dangers, however, I would argue that the reference instrument has proven to be a valuable tool in preventing political chaos. In the Patriation Reference and the Quebec Secession Reference the courts ++++---In order to illustrate the importance of reference cases in the Canadian system, despite their shortcomings, I will first look at the history of the advisory mechanism with a view to explain the roll of the courts. I will then look at the constitutional perspectives the courts took in several reference cases, especially the Patriation Reference and the Quebec Cessession Reference. In the next section I will explore the ways in which the courts opinions in these cases impacted Canadian federalism to determine the constitutionality of their advice. Finally I will explore the eventualities of a system without reference cases to demonstrate why they are so important. Attention will also be paid to the reference system of the United States in order to provide a comparative view. I will argue that in reference cases the Supreme Court takes on an important role as a mediator between political actors, however, the Court must act with caution as these are perilous grounds where suggestions can cross into political territory. – Indeed, political actors can abuse the system, >re...
The premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard has been attempting to separate from Canada for quite sometime. If he had it his way this topic would be old news by now. His main problem is the Federalist, English speaking citizens of his province. They have been very vocal on their stance to stay apart of Canada. They have sent around several resolutions stating this. It all started in Allumette Island East, which has a population of 458. It has since spread to municipalities along the borders with Ontario and the United States, and in the Montreal area. Unfortunately this means very little considering the fact that these municipalities only represent approximately 6% of the province’s population. When the Parti Quebecois government called for the first referendum on secession in 1980, only 40% were in favor of separatism. When the party took over control again in 1995 the approval rose just about 49%. The fear of the PQ is that if several of the floating voters out there feel that a sovereign Quebec must mean a partitioned, patchwork Quebec, the separatists might well fall back to 40% if that.
Looking at the positive sides, Quebec would become politically independent and need only to learn one language. On the negative side, Quebec would lose Canadian funding, gain debt and maybe get boycotted. However, learning from the Pakistan history, the separation that happened in Pakistan in 1971 and the outcome, secession might be a smart move for Quebec. Evaluating the pros and the cons it may be fair to say that at present the economical cons outweighs the independent pros, but it is still a relatively close race and only the future would tell
It is without a doubt that Canada is considered one of the most welcoming and peaceful countries in the entire world. Individuals fleeing conflicts from different continents, on opposites sides of the planet, view Canada as a safe haven, a place to thrive, succeed, and safely live life to its fullest potential. Excellent healthcare, education, and proper gun control are just some of the many priviledges freely given to those who are lucky enough to call Canada their home. The Rights and Freedoms of Canadians are incomparable to those of individuals living in other countries, and with freedom of religion being one of them, it becomes crucial that we respect and show acceptance of different religions. However, it is saddening to see that in
“If the state is to be neutral, its agents are to appear neutral” – Daniel Turp. In the interview posted on YouTube, Daniel Turp, a politician in Quebec, Canada, discusses how the state of the nation must remain neutral. Not only are they asking people to remove religious symbols but they are also removing them from buildings. He also understands that there is a heated debate but says that there is a rational reason behind it. And that is to keep the entire state equal and neutral. Turp even said that the cross will not be allowed either at national assemblies, on buildings and to be worn. Therefore, the charter will be applied to all religions. When asked about Catholics and Muslims, he said that it depends on eac...
Canada is a great place to live, because it is very diverse. country. The sand is a sand. It is multicultural, it’s considered a Melting Pot. Many people from many nations come together to make this country special and unique to us.