Talk:Politics of Quebec

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Governments of Canada
This article is part of the Governments of Canada WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
Quebec
Quebec Portal
This article is part of the Quebec WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

Contents

[edit] "The Most liberal area of Canada", C'Mon

"The Greater Montreal Area is the most liberal area of Quebec (and all of Canada)" Unless that could be proven, it should be changed. Metropolitan areas usually tend to be further Left than rural areas, many people would say the same about the Greater Toronto Area or I am sure, Vancouver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.85.176 (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"However, even there, it is not as conservative as most of western Canada, or even rural Ontario or New Brunswick." Again, proof? I don't see any. Western Canada maybe I could believe, but that statement is far to vague and generalized to be taken seriously. I mean certain areas of rural Ontario are bastions of NDP support, while the region in the not so distant past has gone entirely liberal. As far as religious and moral beliefs go I've lived in rural Quebec and small town Ontario and I can't say that I have seen that much of a differance regarding way of life or theology being applied to everyday life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.85.176 (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC) "

"I completely agree, it should either be supported with evidence, which there isn't, or removed immediately". Jagdfurst (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civil Unions and Same sex Marriage

The whole part about Quebec legally recognising same sex marriage before Ottawa is good evidence to support the argument that the province tends to be very left-leaning on certain social issues (so long as they do not relate to multiculturalism:) However it's mentioned that civil unions had already been legally recognized in Quebec before hand, weren't they originally recognized by the federal government in 2000 or 2001? I don't think Quebec led the way with civil unions, but I could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.85.176 (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"This is true, Quebec and civil unions was not gay marriage, but rather secular marriage." Jagdfurst (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this the CORRECT title for this entry?

I would argue that the title "Politics of Quebec" implies a discussion of the political culture and party political competitions within Quebec. A more accurate title would be "Government Structure in Quebec" (avoiding the term "Provincial government structure" because that would not meet the impartiality rule, Quebec's continuing status as a Canadian province still being the main bone of contention in Quebec political debate). Ken Burch 09:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Should this article include information about Quebec's representation in national Canadian politics such the rise of the Bloc? It now focuses entirely on its politics as an isolated structure. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 03:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

How is it done for the other federated states of the world? Is there a convention on this in Wikipedia at this point? It seems to me that everything that occurs in the House of Commons is Canadian politics and everything that occurs in the National Assembly is Quebec[ian] politics. They are two separate scenes with different sets of priorities and targets, same for what goes on in municipal politics. At least in theory, that's the whole point of creating all those levels of government.
Nevertheless, it would also make sense to write on Quebec's role within the Canadian federation for the same reason that the article Politics of Canada could logically talk about Canada's role on the international scene. -- Mathieugp 20:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganized page - added more recent politcal history

I think it made sense to add more recent political history. The Fall of the Meech lake accord introduced a whole new generation of political actors for the 1990's that are still dominant forces today in some cases. A few suggestions:

  • The history section is a little long. Maybe it could be sent to a new page. Maybe it could be shortened with the view of only explaining current ideologies within the Quebec political spectrum. For example, I'm not sure how relevant the FLQ is.
  • Need to discuss the left/right dichotomy in Quebec politics; the role of unions and Quebec Inc etc.
  • put government and Politics in different articles

[edit] Reason for revert

  1. The placing of Political system, Institutions under Government is nonsensical. The government is the executive branch of the political system.
All other wiki sources do this ... besides, if you think this; check any country or province ... the political system is always described in wiki pages under "Government"; it's a question of uphilding wiki conventions --Soul scanner 19:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
A quick look at Politics of Canada, Politics of France, Politics of the United States, Politics of Alberta, Politics of the People's Republic of China etc. clearly demonstrates that your assertion that "the political system is always described in wiki pages under "Government" and even more that "it's a question of uphilding wiki conventions" are not founded on facts. -- Mathieugp 03:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote; I'll repeat it; on almost all wiki pages, the political system and its structure is described under "Government of" not "Politics of"; see the following Government of France,Government of Canada, Government of Canada, etc. It makes sense to separate "Government" from "Politics" in this way. Moreover, of you disagree with the structure, please edit what I wrote instead of resorting to reverts. It shows that you are at least considering what I am writing.
You wrote "All other wiki sources do this ... besides, if you think this; check any country or province ... the political system is always described in wiki pages under "Government";". With undisputable evidence I showed that this is not the case. Anyone can see for themselves that there is no such convention for articles of the series "Politics of ...". Now you are changing your statement, yet it is still false. You write "on almost all wiki pages" and then show two examples of another series of articles, "Government of ...". It makes No sense to place everything under government. The Government is already under Institutions. This is simply common sense. -- Mathieugp 05:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. The expansion of the recent political history section with unsourced POV material is not a good move and breaks Wikipedia's fundamental policies. --Soul scanner 04:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Please, what in the history rewrite is not backed up in the wiki links provided? And if so, why do the reverts have no references either? Also, why is the Present-day politics (which has references) deleted as well? Again, revert is malicious and unjustified. At least respect the work done and justify all questionable statements --Soul scanner 19:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Malicious and unjustified reverts is what you are doing by taking out the POV tag. If you are honestly not aware of the NPOV policy (I see that your account is new), you can read this: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. -- Mathieugp 03:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I am very aware of the NPOV policy. None of what I added is POV . I have deleted nothing of what existed before, and you failed to point out what facts in my edits were POV. You have also not mentioned what facts that I posted were non-documented. For instance, I don't see what aspects of the facts regarding the Meech Lake accord are not common knowledge. Wiki articles do not generally have footnote for every factoid. this is only one example of the malice in your revert. Please have a little respect for my work by editing and justifying any deletions you wish to make. I respect your edits in this way.

--Soul scanner 04:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You clearly do not respect my edits as you changed the diagram I had updated to the old one and continued to revert back to your version and add more editorializing content to the "Recent political history" section in spite of my adding a POV tag and a warning of unsourced material (which you removed). Your sentences are not written with a neutral voice, they contain generalizations, take popular political opinions for facts, sumarize in one liners complex legal and philosophical questions. You want me to continue? -- Mathieugp 05:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC
I have pointed out that all my materials are well sourced. I provide ample links to other Wikipages that elaborate on the presented facts. I missed your political diagrams. I will include them. I expect that you will justify all the facts that you delete with discussions if you choose to do so. I present no political opinion as facts. You will have to specify. --Soul scanner 07:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If people are interested in adding more on the history of Quebec, they can start by improving the History of Quebec article which badly needs some help. -- Mathieugp 19:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Not interested in that page. Ancient history bores me. --Soul scanner 19:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see how one can write anything of value on current history without an understanding of the past. -- Mathieugp 03:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand the past. I'm just not interested in rehashing it with the politicized ideologues that trash the page regularly --Soul scanner 04:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yet you seem very good at doing just that. -- Mathieugp 05:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Quite the contrary. I post only well documented facts presented elsewhere on Wikipedia. --Soul scanner 07:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a good reference!!! Source your facts. Assert only what you can prove. -- Mathieugp 17:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malicious Reverts

I've restored my additions. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm perfectly willing to accept additions and deletions, provided that they are justified. If you truly disagree with a fact in good faith, then please add a [citation needed] link. Please do not put in 101 requests for documentation for things that you know are facts.

In particular, I think it's important to mention that there are hard-line "indepentistes pur et dur" within the PQ and Bloc who do not believe in Levesques or Bouchards "Association" and "Partnership". We should not ignore them, especially since important figures like Jacques Parizeau and Bernard Landry were among them. Just because you believe in "Association" does not mean that all sovereignists do.

Moreover, I think the Meech Lake accord merits special mention. It's failure precipitated the creation of the Bloc Quebecois, the ADQ, the collapse of the PC's, and two constitutional referenda. It made Lucien Bouchard, Mrio Dumont, and Jean Charest household names in Quebec. --Soul scanner 04:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bouchard effect

Scientific analysis vs the spontaneous theories turned in truths by journalists. At least one study made it abudantly clear that the Bouchard effect is a myth. I'll have to find it again. In the meantime, you can read this:

LOL. Scientific analysis by politicized sociologists from an old unpublished manuscript. The fact is, Lucien Bouchard started campaigning on his own before Parizeau stepped aside. Assuming that the Bouchard effect started when Parizeau stepped aside is intellectually dishonest. It is little more than conjecture at best, partisan spin at worst.--Soul scanner 08:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a common fallacy to discredit the source when we don't have arguments against the thesis. This is a 2001 Working Paper of the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, School of Policy Studies, Queen's University. You are fabricating facts when you claim it is an old unpublished manuscript. It is not old as it dates 2001 and it is published material unlike what you claim. There is no logical reasoning behind your statements. What is your proof? Because you believe it at some point it became true? When I have more time to waste, I'll search for the study I was referring (I think it was Université de Montréal). Isn't it obvious that a study conducted years after the event, with all the relevant data properly collected, an a cold head by academics is likely to produce more accurate results than a bunch of paid journalists working with paid politicized just-in-time analysts and looking to make the news? -- Mathieugp 14:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite and proper referencing needed

I inserted the FIRST ever reference(s) in this article today. Looking at various Quebec related articles, it is a repeat of much from others, is filled with personal opinions and/or unsourced claims, and, like many others, is overloaded with "Separatism" material. It is sorely lacking in actual political content. Phinius T2 16:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding sources is not enough. You must also pay attention to what the sources claim, and not turn theories, opinions or propaganda into truths.
1. The CBC source contains a factually wrong statement which Phinius T2 repeats in this article. It says "The same stats show that the population of those whose mother tongue is English has dropped from 789,000 in 1971 to 190,000 in 1996." That is such bad journalism it's not even funny. Anyone can see for themselves on StatsCan that the number of Quebecers who claimed English as mother in 1996 was 614 372 and 557 040 in 2001. Talk about misinformation!
2. Between 1971 and 2001, the drop is of 185 471 TOTAL (from 768 035 to 582 564). These people are not being assimilated, they are not being tortured, they are not being deported, they are given job opportunities in their native language in the neighbouring province. The adoption of the Charter is not the main cause of the population relocation. The main one is employment. That is why you see a great number of people move from the Maritime provinces to Toronto during the same period of time. Failure to mention this fact is pure propaganda.
3. The sentence "Under pain of financial penalties, all businesses in Quebec having more than fifty employees were required to obtain a certificate of francization [Reg.139-140] and those businesses with over one hundred employees were obliged to establish a Committee of francization [Reg.136] " is using non-neutral language and should be rephrased.
4. The sentence "Bill 101 transformed Quebec from a traditionally bilingual province into a unilingual French province. The law made anglophone Quebecers feel unwelcome and uncomfortable in a province where they had had roots for several hundred years and where 18th Century English and Scots-Quebecer immigrant entrepreneurs, and their descendants built the business infrastructure that allowed the province to keep pace with the growth in the new United States and turned Montreal into an economic powerhouse and the finance capital of all Canada" is the 1977 opinion of the CBC news reporter, not encyclopedic information. This is a POV and worst one that tries to manipulate the emotions of its viewers (evidently with some success). The facts are: it is the goal of the Charter of the French language to make French the common public language of Quebec citizens in a federation where the English language is dominant. There is more than enough evidence to prove that this goal has not (yet) been achieved and that Montreal is still largely bilingual despite some progress. Being fluent in French, something rather unknown to English-speaking Quebecers before 1977 is now something ~66% of them claim to be today. That is what changed. Please fix. -- Mathieugp 22:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, nowhere in the Charter does it say that the goal is to make French a "common" language. The Charter very purposely used the words "normal" and "usual" language, which is quite different than "common". These mean that French should be used most of the time, and would flow out of the rights of the francophone majority to work in their mother toungue. "Common" would mean that everyone would be required to work in French, even anglophones talking to anglophones. The law simply isn't that radical. You are citing the opinion of some hard-line nationalist ideologues as to what the purpose of the language Charter SHOULD be. "Common language" is a very POV and politicized wording used by a narrow, radicalized and anglophobic sector of nationalist Quebec academics. Unless this is mentioned, I think the wording should not be used. It is however a fact that the effect of the law (intentionally or unintentionally) is to make most anglophones (and most allophones) feel unwelcome in their own province. That is indisputable. --Soulscanner 02:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
You are making stuff up as you go. You are making a distinction between "common" public language of Quebecers and the "normal and everyday" language of Quebecers which does not exist. The Charter defines the rights of all persons in Quebec, irrespective of race, religion, native language etc. Chapter II, section 2 to 6 define the fundamental language rights of Quebecers. For example, chapter II, section 2 reads: "Every person has a right to have the civil administration, the health services and social services, the public utility enterprises, the professional corporations, the associations of employees and all enterprises doing business in Quebec communicate with him in French." A "person" is any human being in Quebec. The charter was drafted after the publishing of the report of the Gendron Commission which recommended a law that would make French « [...] la langue commune des Québécois, c'est-à-dire une langue qui, étant connue de tous, puisse servir d'instrument de communication dans les situations de contact entre francophones et non francophones. ». Which translates to " [...] the common language of Quebecers, that is to say a language which, being known to all, could be used as a communication instrument in situations of contact between francophones and non-francophones."
There is nothing radical about the Charter (a moderate law that has yet to prove it is able to achieve its goal) especially since this goal is made public and being persued through legitimate legislative means within a society known for its love of liberty, justice and peace.
The Charter of the French language is a law that aims to reorganize the hierarchy of languages in the public space, so that the language of the majority, French be the common language instead of English. In Ontario, English is the common public language. This reality is undisputed and there is no reason to dispute it. Is it only wrong for a majority to speak its language freely and expect people who do not know it to learn it when this majority lives in Quebec?
After regaining their independence, the Baltic states gave themselves language laws meant to do, for their respective national languages, essentially what Quebec did. They elevated their languages above the Russian language in the public space, with the goal of undoing the wrong that was done when this strong language was forced upon them following their annexation to the USSR. Who called those nations radical then? Is is radical to redress an injustice done to a people?
Quebec allophones are already about 120 000 to have adopted French as their home language. Some 66% of anglophones and 74% of allophones claim to be able to handle a conversation in French. It is obvious from this that there is a French speaking host society in Quebec and that it is a welcoming one. The only people who could possibly feel unwelcomed in Quebec are those who would like to live among its people without ever having to lower themselves to speak French to them. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of Quebecers who do not have French as their mother tongue are decent human beings who do not feel such contempt for Quebec. -- Mathieugp 07:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] School board claim

It seems incredible to me that Jews and Muslims would have been barred fron Catholic schools until the late 90s, so I've placed a "dubious" tag next to that statement. Joeldl 06:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

   Well if it helps, my Socials 11 text book claims that Jews and Musmils were barred from Catholic schools... "Canadian Issues" A Contemporaru Perspective, Oxford, by Daniel Francis, Jennifer Hobson, Gordon Smith, Stan Garrod, Jeff Smith.

Avalik (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, my parents agreed I would attend a French Roman Catholic church, and the English Protestant school system in the 1960's to 1970's. I was asked my religion by a teacher one time and I responded "Catholic" to which she replied "What are you doing here? This school is only for Protestants and Jews." Now, I understand this doesn't state official policy for the 1990's, but it may help to show that the statement may have a basis in fact. DAG 17:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

General political culture - "Quebec is arguably the most left-wing region in Canada and all of North America." This statement is ridiculously unfounded and offensive. This is based upon 'all french are left-wing' stereotypes. Quebec, being staunchly Roman Catholic, notably anti-immigrant, and especially the voting of a far-right conservative party (Action démocratique du Québec) seemingly out of nowhere, indicates that Quebec is 'arguably' 'the most' conservative and right-wing region in Canada, and yes, 'all of North America'. With no sources, and no more than 10 minutes of research indicating the exact opposite, I do not see why this hasn't been removed already. I have personally lived in both rural and urban Ontario and Quebec (St. Catharines, Toronto, Rimouski, Montreal and Quebec City), and Ontario, especially Toronto, is notably more left-wing and liberal than Quebec. Furthermore, recents events, such as in the 'Reasonable Accomodation' in Hérouxville is unparalleled, to my knowledge, in North America. Furthermore, the argument that "Support for military action is much lower in Quebec than any other province" is clearly taken out of context. Quebec lack of support for 'military action' has more to do with an English-French faultline that opposition to war. This statement is trying to over-generalize issues within Quebec for the sake of portraying Quebec as leftist. Isolationist and anti-war are two very different things. Quebecers 'anti-war' tendencies comes from general skepticism of what French Canadians see as being dragged into a war they feel Anglophone Canada in for a country they do not feel apart of. This is in no way similar to left-wing anti-war pro-peace politics. Statesments like "Support for same-sex marriage, abortion and gun control is significantly higher in Quebec than other provinces." have no source, and in the case of 'support for same-sex marriage' and 'abortion' id argue is the exact opposite - there is little support for either other from the people itself, especially outside of Montreal. I will personally remove these unfounded claims that Quebec is 'the most left-wing in Canada and North America' and hopefully we can compile a new, educated and well founded article on Quebec's General political culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagdfurst (talk • contribs) 14:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General political culture - "Quebec is arguably the most left-wing region in Canada and all of North America."

"General political culture" 'Quebec is arguably the most left-wing region in Canada and all of North America.' This statement is ridiculously unfounded and offensive. This is based upon 'all french are left-wing' stereotypes. Quebec, being staunchly Roman Catholic, notably anti-immigrant, and especially the voting of a far-right conservative party (Action démocratique du Québec) seemingly out of nowhere, indicates that Quebec is 'arguably' 'the most' conservative and right-wing region in Canada, and yes, 'all of North America'. With no sources, and no more than 10 minutes of research indicating the exact opposite, I do not see why this hasn't been removed already. I have personally lived in both rural and urban Ontario and Quebec (St. Catharines, Toronto, Rimouski, Montreal and Quebec City), and Ontario, especially Toronto, is notably more left-wing and liberal than Quebec. Furthermore, recents events, such as in the 'Reasonable Accomodation' in Hérouxville is unparalleled, to my knowledge, in North America. Furthermore, the argument that "Support for military action is much lower in Quebec than any other province" is clearly taken out of context. Quebec lack of support for 'military action' has more to do with an English-French faultline than opposition to war. This statement is trying to over-generalize issues within Quebec for the sake of portraying Quebec as leftist. Isolationist and anti-war are two very different things. Quebecers 'anti-war' tendencies comes from general skepticism of what French Canadians see as being dragged into a war they feel Anglophone Canada in for a country they do not feel apart of. This is in no way similar to left-wing anti-war pro-peace politics. Statesments like "Support for same-sex marriage, abortion and gun control is significantly higher in Quebec than other provinces." have no source, and in the case of 'support for same-sex marriage' and 'abortion' id argue is the exact opposite - there is little support for either other from the people itself, especially outside of Montreal. I will personally remove these unfounded claims that Quebec is 'the most left-wing in Canada and North America' and hopefully we can compile a new, educated and well founded article on Quebec's General political culture." Jagdfurst (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No doubt that the paragraphs were full of generalizations that didn't make much sense. However, many statements that you arbitrarily removed could have easily been neutralized by removing the weasel words and sourced in less than 10 minutes. Unfortunately, your anti-Quebec bias will prevent you for searching for the truth and someone else will have to do it. Your own statements, as unsourced and biased as those you removed, are even more prejudiced and offensive. Let's hope they remain confined to the talk page. -- Mathieugp (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not have an 'Anti-Quebec' bias. I've always been stuanchly pro-Quebec and nothing in my talk page or what I posted on the page itself is anti-Quebec in any way. In what was was it prejudiced and offensive? I don't know why you're on the attack; perhaps you think I was attacking Quebec for being Conservative, while in fact I was praising it. If I did come off as hostile, it was probably because I was so offended that Quebec was being shot down as being 'liberal' and 'left-wing', which, to me, is an insult. Thats my only bias right there. Jagdfurst (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)