Judicious Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail repeats (see near end of this post) a simple truth that most in the RoC–especially politicians, pundits and the professoriat–still refuse to acknowledge:
…
Quebec…has already achieved de facto sovereignty association within Canada, and cares little about Canada as a political entity. By voting Bloc Québécois six elections in a row (soon to be seven), French-speaking Quebeckers have withdrawn from the governance of Canada. All they apparently want from the federation is a passport and money. They are almost exclusively interested in Quebec, period.In the next provincial election, they’re likely to return the Parti Québécois to office…
Mark
Ottawa
This Yank has come to believe that Canada and Quebec would both be ultimately better off after an amicable divorce. The paragraph above from Simpson’s concise, articulate article summarizes my view.
I’d go even beyond that, Canada sans Quebec also needs a new Constitution. The current Constitution vests the bulk of power in a by-population House of Commons, with a weak Senate. This allows the population plurality of Quebec and Ontario to essentially control Parliament, to control government power and the public agenda. It can become, and has become in certain aspects, not a ‘tyranny of the majority’ but a ‘hegemony of the plurality’ of Central Canada. I’m referencing what western Canadians have said and written over the years, egregious e.g. the NEP, perceived by many Albertans and other westerners as ‘loot Alberta to payoff Quebec’.
I recommend that the Australian Constitution would be hugely beneficial democratic model. This would reflect the very real similarities between Australia and Canada. Both are huge countries with small populations, which are concentrated in a few regions. The rest of the population live in lower populated, more rural states or provinces, with much fertile land and natural resources.
The advantage of the Australian Constitutional model of Parliament over the current Canadian one is with a balanced diffusion of power. There is a real, empowered Senate, with an equal, fixed number of elected Senators per province. A HofC is elected on a per capita basis. They would share powers, split between the Houses in a checks and balances system, with federal powers explicitly stated and limited. Non-specified powers would reside with ‘We the People’ as a national citizens and as citizens of their respective provinces.
(I could go on and on with other “whistles and bells”, term limitations for MPs and PMs; a budgetary line-item veto for the PM; a provision for national referenda for laws and repeals of laws. As Acton said, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Orderly checks and balances minimize this tendency and place responsibility on citizens to be Citizens, not Subjects, of the State.)
[...] on Military and Other News (changed title). I was surprised the Anglo-Franco (more PC-speak, really RoC/Québec) split is so small–and quite depressed about the immigrants. And the young people. [...]
[...] Earlier: Canadiens? Non! [...]