0
What else can I help you with?
What is 'Long live Quebeckers' when translated from French to English?
"Long live Quebeckers!" in English is Vive les québecois!in French.
Why is Quebec's character predominantly french?
England attacked Quebec city and won. England was afraid of a rebellion in New England, what is now the USA, so they let Quebeckers keep the french culture and language out of fear they would rebell and England may have to fight a war on two fronts.
How is Quebec's French culture reflected in the province's public policies?
Quebec wants the French Language to be first and foremost in transactions, with English secondary. Most Quebeckers, especially in the Montreal area speak English. The predominence of French is due mostly to the presence of "Allophones", immigrants from other countries who speak neither French nor English and want to send their children to English speaking schools, as some of the more affluent French have also tried to do. The Office de la Langue Française, (The French Linguage Office) has also noticed that some Montreal Anglophones were starting to put their signs in English in larger type than in French and some laws, such as Bill 101 were instituted. D
What type of person was Mackenzie King?
He was an excellent politician who could persuade many people to do what he wanted through compromise. He convinced Quebeckers to vote for conscription (with the help of Louis St. Laurent), even though they weard dead set against it. He was also a very wierd man, his hobbies included trying to connect with his dead mother through a psychic and his most beloved companion was his dog. He lived a solitary life as no one wanted to get too clost to him because of his position and because he was very cunning. However he was very democratic and a positive leader. Canada flourished under his rule. During his term, Canada was brought out of the Depression, and he dealt with one of Canada's toughest periods: WWII. He was Prime Minister for the longest time: 22 years and in 1999 was voted best Canadian Prime Minister.
Should Quebec receive special status or recognition in order to keep Quebec in Canada?
No. Quebec uses its "distinct society" status to its full advantage, abuses the term and collects much more than its share of national wealth.Many people within Quebec (myself included) realize the rest of the Dominion is sick to death of the nationalist movement.In my opinion, Quebec nationalists should come to terms with the fact that they are part of the Dominion of Canada because France ceded the territory to Britain after losing a war. Quebec has been subjugated and is the best treated subjugated territory in history.Lastly, the "Distinct Society" tag is frustrating for many anglo-Quebeckers, who share neither the French ancestry nor the separatist ideals.In 2009 separatists have even used terrorist tactics to shut down re-enactments to the Battle of Quebec. Thereby denying historical fact and hurting the economy of the whole province.Yes. That status is presently called "distinct society" and has been symbolically conferred to the province recently. A stronger "special status" would be that of "sovereignty-association" with Canada, as René Lévesque's 1980 referendum was based on, or a vote for independence with a promise of a plebiscite on the matter, as was the case with the Parizeau/Bouchard 1995 consultation and, finally, if all else fails, a unilateral declaration of political independence since Québec is a nation in its own right.
Why did the Charlottetown accord rejected among the canadians?
There is not a simple answer to this question as different parts of the country and different segments of society reacted to the proposed Accord in different ways. But some of the reasons are these: 1. In Quebec, there was a belief that some provisions, such as that of the previous Meech Lake Accord's provision that Quebec constituted a "distinct society" within Canada had been watered down. Also, the Charlottetown Accord's provisions for a Triple-E Senate, even the proposed compromise version, did not adequately protect Quebec's distinctiveness going forward. 2. In BC and the West almost the opposite was believed: that the Accord "gave away" too much to Quebec. Even a watered-down "distinct society" provision, tucked away as it was in a broader "Canada Clause" would allow Quebec to expand it's powers at the expense of both the federal government and the other provinces. The proposed Senate reform, which should have found broad support in BC and the West (as it was their chief issue) was seen as a badly compromise- weakened in power and largely negated by assigning Quebec a set percentage of the seats in an expanded House of Commons. 3, In BC the provisions regarding "aboriginal self-government" were feared. At this time in Canadian history, there were no legislative or judicial rulings providing any guidance to what this entailed. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the Delgamuukw decision were still years in the future. Consequently these provisions were taking as providing a "blank cheque" towards aboriginals. Given the lack of treaties covering BC, these provisions raised great uncertainty in BC above all other provinces. 4. There was suspicion in many quarters of the apparent consensus supporting the Accord. In addition to all three major political parties (the ruling Progressive Conservatives as well as the opposition Liberals and NDP) virtually all media, business, labor, feminist, aboriginal (and other social activist groups) in English Canada supported the Accord. In Quebec, the support and opposition views were better represented, as the province was, at least initially, even split. This consensus of various societal and political actors who had never before come together in this way appeared to be an elite formation at the expense of the ordinary Canadian. This suspicion would give rise to new political parties, such as the Reform Party in BC and the West as well as the Bloc Quebecois in Quebec, and discredit those who advocated for the Accord's passage. 5. Opposition came from people that believed the Accord would have dramatically weakened the powers of the federal government vis-a-vis the provinces (mostly outside Quebec) and those that thought it did not give the provinces enough new powers (a view dominant in Quebec.) 6. The chief proponent of the Charlottetown Accord, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had become deeply unpopular with Canadians across the country (and he would become even more so after the Accord's defeat.) His government had risked much to win a second majority in the 1988 Free Trade election and many of the opponents of free trade had become cemented into their opposition of Mulroney's Progressive Conservative agenda. Mulroney had further angered Canadians with his passage of the GST. The Meech Lake Accord (precursor to the Charlottetown Accord), which in his first mandate was seen as an agreement between federal and provincial governments had become more closely scrutinized after the 1988 election. With the Meech Lake Accord's defeat in 1990, there was a feeling that Mulroney had picked a scab that was would have been better to have been left alone- that of Quebec's place in Canada. But since Quebec was resentful of the Accord's failure and was threatening a referendum on something in 1992, be it separation or another proposal, which became the Charlottetown Acord, Mulroney began a frenzy of constitutional negotiations. Finally, when the proposal seemed to be losing support in the lead-up to the referendum, Mulroney offended many when, at a speech in Sherbrooke, Quebec, he held up a ream of paper (symbolizing the Accord itself) and tore it in half, calling those who opposed the accord "enemies of Canada." 7. The structure of the Accord itself became a focal point of opposition. Even supporters recognized that the Accord was flawed, containing provisions that were vague and seemingly contradictory. When pressed, supporters could not, or would not, give satisfactory answers as how to resolve these flaws. Former prime minister Pierre Trudeau captured this sentiment in a speech in Montreal's Maison Egg Roll when he described the Accord as " a big mess that deserves a big no." Trudeau was seen to have great credibility on the constitutional file, having seen the successful Patriation of Constitution from Britain in 1982 and the simultaneous passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so his opposition carried great weight in the court of public opinion. 8. Beyond a profound dislike for Prime Minister Mulroney, his party, the Progressive Conservatives were increasingly disliked. The party was seen to be filled with Mulroney "cronies", suspected to be corrupt (whether or not this was true), divisive, tired and had lost touch with the interests of Canadians. At this time the economy was in recession and many Canadians believed this issue was being given short shrift in favor of a complex constitutional proposal. The party that had given them a divisive Free Trade Election, Meech Lake, the GST and the Oka Crisis produced an deep resentment within the Canadian electorate. 9. The actions of individual politicians served to discredit the proponents of the Accord. One example was the leak of two bureaucrats in the Quebec government who had suggested that Premier Bourassa had "caved-in" to the rest of Canada. This sentiment was later reinforced by BC cabinet minister, Moe Sihota, who said that Bourassa had been "out-gunned" in the negotiations. These statements weakened Bourassa at a critical time, as it made him look incapable of standing up for Quebec. Another example was that of a young Progressive Conservative cabinet minister who was caught by the media saying one thing to conciliate Quebeckers when speaking in French in that province, and saying contradictory things in speeches given in English in other parts of Canada- his name was Jean Charest, now the Liberal Premier of Quebec. These are just the most general reasons, each province and territory had their own specific reasons, in addition to these, as to why they voted against the Charlottetown Accord. These event are all matters of record, but even this brief answer cannot communicate the feelings of unease and confusion that reigned across Canada in the lead-up to the Referendum on October 26, 1992. There came to be a real feeling that the country was at stake. But it was unmistakably defeated, and Canada is still here.
