Talk:Quebec

See also Talk:Quebec/archive 1

The Change of colonial powers section is not realy accurate, theres no word on the effect of it for first nation or the mention of any battle between people. The french article in wikipedia contain much more information and talk about first nation.

It looks like if Inuit is in the list, it must be a list of First Peoples, not First Nations? or is the article on First Nations wrong? -- Someone else 07:26 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

I have no problem with First Peoples. My objection was to making that a link to Native Americans. ☮ Eclecticology

For the present, I've removed the link to a "separatist statement" that was added. I don't think it's especially valuable just to link to some individual separatist's statement. Even an official link would be best served under, say, Parti Québécois for example. - Montréalais

National Assembly 1948

Talking about the National Assembly in 1948 is an anachronism: Quebec still had a Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly at that time. Not sure how to revise the page, though. Which house made the unanimous vote? Both? Indefatigable 22:44, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I like the Arrêt sign under "symbols" =D I have it on decent authority (a European who's been a lot of places) that PQ and NB are about the only places where a stop doesn't say Stop. Even in Russia - I've seen photos - they say "CTO(pi)".

This is an old comment, but...

here's a Spanish stop sign from Puerto Rico (PARE): http://www.hawaiihighways.com/PR-stop-sign.jpg
here's an Arabic stop sign from Morocco (قف): http://www.alientravelguide.com/history/language/229026.jpg

Excessive maps

Resolved

Why are there so many different maps of Quebec on here? Surely one can be removed. It looks strange having so many different versions.

Agreed, too many are just confusing. There are 2 that are completely identical in content and scope, except in colour. So I moved that one away. And I also moved a historical map to, suitably, History of Quebec. --Menchi 03:58, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Voltaire

Voltaire did not say that Canada was quelques arpents de neige, as he's popularly quoted to have said. He said that Acadia was quelques arpents de neige near Canada. Bearcat 02:12, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The exact Voltaire quote I've seen is: La Nouvelle-France: quelques arpents de neige qui ne valent pas les os d'un grenadier français. Not Acadia, but Nouvelle-France. So I'm restoring it. P.T. Aufrette 13:59, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The correct quote is Vous savez que ces deux nations sont en guerre pour quelques arpents de neige vers le Canada, et qu'elles dépensent pour cette belle guerre beaucoup plus que tout le Canada ne vaut. [1] [2] Note also that if you google on it, the "vers le Canada" version exists in a number of actual footnoted Voltaire reference pages, while the "Nouvelle France" version can only be found as an isolated, anecdotal quote. This is a case where a variety of versions are remembered (you can also find pages where it's claimed that he wrote quelques arpents de neige, habités par des barbares, des ours et des castors), but none of them are what was actually said. Bearcat 16:05, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In French, vers would mean "towards", but in the sentence of Voltaire, it means more "around" or "nearby" or "in the surroundings of". This could mean Acadia I guess, but I find it far fetch. Voltaire never named Acadia. I think he probably was referring to the disputed borders between New France and the British colonies (which indeed is Acadia). Snow was pretty much a feature of le Canada in the imaginary of the French at the time. It is unfortunately still the case today. According to them, we are all riding skidoos, getting stuck to each other when we kiss (because of the cold), we all know how to make igloos (!?!) and we are all related to an Indian somehow. :-) Mathieugp 18:19, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I created an article on the few acres of snow quotation this morning; I've added the link to the "See Also:" section here. Bearcat 22:42, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NPOV s. bill 101

I don't feel comfortable starting a counter-edit war being new here, but I sort of question the anonymous removal of among Anglophones. It doesn't seem to me like a significant amount of Francophones are against the Charter. -- Valmi Dufour 15:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Valmi Dufour.

Furthermore, this phrase is not correct: "Often known as "Bill 101", it defined French as the only official language of Quebec". French is the official language of Quebec since the (non-separatist) liberal prime minister Robert Bourassa voted Bill 22 in 1974 (July 31rd) (reference). The french version of the page has the same error.

It should be mention also that all main political parties in Quebec since the fifties were nationalist except the Equality Party, a marginal Montreal west-islander anglophone party formed in 1989 (I think they're dead now, they didn't win any seats at the national assembly since 1994). The thing is not all of them were promoting independence. There should be a link to the History of the Quebec sovereignist movement page.

Further agreement ...

In 1977, the newly elected Parti Québécois government of René Lévesque introduced the Charter of the French Language. "Often known as" (awkward ... should be; refered to as, the Bill name, that received favorable passage by the popular and democratically elected government) Bill 101, it defined French as the "only" (if only one language is recognized "only" is redundant. Plus the point is just wrong) official language of Quebec. "To this day it remains controversial," (opinion, plus it is unclear what is, in the editors opinion, controversial ... the Bill or the French language) "and widely misunderstood both inside and outside Quebec." (judgement and opinion, no given proof, then again, pick a bill at random, Bill 32 ... any clue, either inside or outside, simple cojecture and rather empty value:)

Quebec Act

It should be mentioned that the Quebec Act of 1774 contributed to unrest in the Thirteen Colonies prior to the War of American Independence.

some thoughts

The article mentions that bill 101 is "to this day still controversial and widely misunderstood inside and outside Quebec". I would say that inside Quebec today, the bill would only still be controversial to anglophone and allophone communities, at most. I feel the initial fears have dissipated since the bill's adoption.

The article mentions "widespread complaints of the destruction of NO ballets "(sic). There was widespread complaints from both sides about the other side's illegal dealing in this referendum. I think mentionning only one side's is very partial and reflects a point of view, which I believe should be avoided in "encyclopedia format".

What do you think ? should these be editted ?

1. Bill 101 is still misunderstood inside Quebec. Obviously, people who only get their daily information from the English language press are more in the dark then the others, but nevertheless a lot of people do not know the contents of the law and the regulations passed under it.

2. Yes, you are right. This is not NPOV at all. It was added recently by some anonymous. It should be removed in my opinion.

-- Mathieugp 16:21, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why not Québec?

I understand this is the English article on Québec, but in Canadian government, the province is referred to as Québec (with the accent). Perhaps the article could be moved from Quebec to Québec.

That is not correct. The federal government's English style guide (The Canadian Style) specifies that the province is "Quebec" in English, "Québec" in French. This matches the centuries-old common practice of English-speaking Quebecers, and the no-accent style is the most common spelling of professional editors everywhere. Indefatigable 00:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Trudeau, the RCMP, and the FLQ?

I have never heard about this before I read this page. I believe I have a fairly wide ranging knowledge of the era and the incident and I would just like a source to the inquiry that says that Trudeau pushed the RCMP to inflitrate the FLQ to push them to violent actions. Much of the evidence of the time points to the idea that the RCMP had very little in the way of background on the FLQ and it was part of what led to the massive confusion on the part of the federal government at the time.

I could not find it in English (of course), but here it is in French:

http://www.vigile.net/00-10/octobre-grandchamp.html (last article at the bottom)

You can use Google or Babelfish to get a rought translation. I will translate it myself this weekend.

The name of the inquiry is the McDonald Commission. They also mention a Keable Commission in 1977.

In English, I only found this one good article:

http://www.vigile.net/01-1/flq-citizen.html

-- Mathieugp 12:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I found a radiocast on the subject of the MacDonald commission in the online archives of Radio-Canada:

http://archives.radio-canada.ca/IDCC-0-9-1500-10144/guerres_conflits/espionnage_canada/

-- Mathieugp 15:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of the debate surrounding the level of crisis. What I am not aware of is information about Trudeau using the RCMP to infiltrate the FLQ and push it to violent activities. I did not read anything about this in the links provided. I really think if this can't be substantiated that it should be removed. Benw

OK. I guess you cannot read French. In the night of July 26, 1974, Robert Samson, then working for the secret services of the RCMP, accidentally triggered the bomb he was going to set up behind the house of Steinberg's president in Ville Mont-Royal. (If you never lived in Quebec, Steinberg was a chain of grocery stores). Then he was arrested and lated tried. It of course made the news. His revelatations during the trial is the beginning point of all we know. He was being payed by the RCMP to do criminal acts which would later pass as crimes committed by the FLQ. Premier of Quebec René Lévesque set up the Keable Commission, mandated to inquired on the illegal activities of the RCMP on the territory of Quebec. Trudeau immediately setup a competing McDonald Commission. A lot of evidence was brough to light at that time. The Keable commission started to inquire, but was blocked on many levels. Many of the documents they demanded from the federal government were kept secret. The federal government of Trudeau tried to shut down the Keable commission and succeeded. The government asked the Supreme Court if a provincial government had the power to inquire on the operations of the federal government. The supreme court ruled in favor of the federal government. After that, the lawyers of the government reduced the inquiring powers of its own McDonald Commission.

In 1992, a lot of the documents that were given to the Keable and MacDonald commission in the 70s were finally made public. These documents contradicted the version of the story that Trudeau had given to his MacDonald commission. The cabinet reports for October 14 and 15 has many ministers expressing their opinion that the government has not demonstrated that there exists a threat of insurrection. Three ministers demanded evidence that the War Measures Act was necessary.

Reg Whitaker, professor of political science at York University, member of the Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence Studies published a memoir on the subject in August of 1993, but the English language media largely ignored it as Pierre Trudeau published his biography around the same time. The memoir stated that the security comitee of the cabinet authorised the RCMP to compile information on the members of the RIN as soon as the middle of the 1960s. Under the Trudeau goverment, the RCMP was instructed to treat the separatist movement as a whole (which in their definition included the FLQ and the PQ) the same way the communist Party was being treated.

Regarding the PQ, the Secret Services of the RCMP stole their list of members in January of 1973 at the explicit request Trudeau's cabinet. The cabinet emitted a directive for the RCMP on this subject during its meeting on December 19, 1969.

-- Mathieugp 2 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)

Historical Corrections Sabotaged

I've put back my modifications concerning the 1837 "rebellion" of the french canadians.

I am an historian who devoted his whole life to this brief moment of Québec history and I find it offuscating and frustrating to see a complete denial of the real story.

Most of the sources can be found in Normand Lester's Le Livre noir du Canada Anglais and are factual proofs.

Please respect the people that horribly died in this dark period...

"Je me souviens"...

Lester's book is hardly a reputable source; it has been widely criticized by both francophone and anglophone historians -- at least those who take time to comment on it. HistoryBA 23:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way, since you raise your own qualifications to justify your position, would you mind expanding on them? What do you mean when you call yourself a "historian"? HistoryBA 23:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Le livre noir du Canada anglais

This book has valid sources, and most of what is written in it is valid too. However, it is a pamphlet. Its avowed objective is to demonstrate the hypocrisy of these Anglophone columnists who desperately try to stain the reputation of Quebec nationalists while remaining silent on the wrong doings of Canadian nationalists. That being said, the history of the "rebellions" is complex enough that it can't seriously be summed up in a short biased paragraph like the one added by the anonymous user.

-- Mathieugp 03:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not questioning its sources, but rather using it as a source. It is simply not a reliable NPOV source. We should be very suspicious of using any statements from the book as fact, unless they can be properly verified or corroborated by a reputable historian. HistoryBA 03:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should be very suspicious of it only because it has a point of view. At least, Normand Lester had the honesty of making his objective with his book quite clear unlike so many other people before him. We should simply be aware that it is a pamphlet and not the work of a historian, but a journalist: big difference. However, on the whole, the information in the book is well-referenced and, as such, his own references are worth digging into. The dumb sentence written by the anonymous user is of course nowhere to be found in the book! You will however find all kinds of interesting and factual details on the episode of the burning of the Parliament of Canada in Montreal ( and the fanatics who later repeatedly tried to kill Lafontaine and the other politians who supported the Rebellion Losses Bill), the antisemitism of the elite of Canada before and after the second world war, the KKK in the West and all kinds of details I didn't even know about.

Also, relying on a "reputable" historian is something you want to do only if you intend to commit the logicial fallacy of appealing to the authority. I would advice we all bother to take the time to find out what's true and what isn't on our own instead. -- Mathieugp 14:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the anonymous editor is not citing the sources used by Lester, but citing Lester himself as an authority, which he is not. I agree that we need to verify facts ourselves, but we often need to rely on published sources, such as those written by established historians. After all, Wikipedia has a policy against publishing original research. HistoryBA 23:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A. Lafontaine's version of Quebec history

User A. Lafontaine, which is believed to be yet another incarnation of DW/Angelique, is at it again telling us what the history of Quebec really is all about. Since I have a few minutes to spare, I will take the time to refutate what he has written:

"In 1774, the British Parliament passed the Quebec Act that helped ensure the survival of the French language and French culture in the region. The Act allowed Quebec to maintain the French civil law as its judicial system and sanctioned the freedom of religious choice, allowing the Roman Catholic Church to remain."

What a distorsion of events. All of a sudden, the governors of Canada and the British Parliament of the 18th century are concerned with the faith of the Quebec people, concerned with 20th century concerns over the fragility of its language and culture in the era of globalisation. In its infinite generosity, the always enlightened politicians of England would have allowed the "French" of Canada not to be deprived of the most basics human and civil rights. What wishful thinking.

Are we, the descendents of the Canadiens supposed to thank the British Parliament of the time for recognizing, finally, after 11 years of illegality, the rights it was supposed to have already recognized with the Montreal Articles of Capitulation? Quoting Louis-Joseph Papineau, here is what really happened between 1760 and 1774:

The aristocracy, armed with the sword of Brennus, and his Vae Victis roaring, issued that English laws would be those of Canada "for as much as the circumstances allow it."

There was an odious and studied ambiguity, which delivered everything to arbitrary rule, and left to the judges the possibility to always decide for the friend, the party, the purchaser, always for the English, since "the circumstances allowed it."

The public offices were openly sold with rebate, by the holders to their substitutes.

The General (James Murray), shocked by the violence of the Judge-in-chief, had to suspend him and send him back to England. All the English population of Canada was irritated by the Governor's action, while the few Canadiens who took part in the events expressed their confidence in him.

Disgusted by the task he had to accomplish, he wrote to England: "Under the pretext that the exclusion laws against Catholics in England and Ireland are applicable to Canada, the new subjects are excluded from all public offices. There is only among the English and Protestant population that magistrates and juries are taken. This population accounts for 450 men, the majority despicable by their ignorance. They are drunk on the unforseen importance that has fallen upon them, and hasten the excercice of their new powers with ostentation and rigour. They hate the Canadien nobility, because it is respectable, and the rest of the population and me, because I prevent a little of the wrongs they would like to accomplish."

The merchants of London, influenced and blinded by those of Canada, demanded the recall of Governor Murray and obtained it. His commission was revoked because he had become sympathetic to the Canadiens. He asked for an enquiry, and, after examination, the Privy Council decided that the charges brought against him were not founded.

Finally, the law officers of the Crown were consulted. In 1766, they repudiated the ordinances of 1764 which had excluded the new subjects from any participation in the administration of justice, and passed one which enabled them to be jurors and lawyers.

This is the limit to the amount of justice that was granted to them at the time.

And then everything remained chaotic and in disorder until the Quebec Act or Bill was adopted, after the officers in law of the Crown had formally declared that the King alone was not a legislator; that He was legislator only with the two Houses of the Parliament; that the proclamation of 1763 and all that had been done of supposed legislation under His authority were as many unconstitutional and null acts.

Thus, the most perfect government in the world according to Montesquieu, Blackstone and Delorme, had remained twelve whole years in the ignorance of its ignorance, its usurpation, its incapacity and its negligence to govern by law rather than by arbitrary rule, always armed with the sword of injustice, never with the balance of justice.

---

DW then continues on to let us know that:

"Like there counterparts in Upper Canada, in 1837, English and French speaking residents of Lower Canada, led by Robert Nelson, formed an armed resistance group to seek an end to British colonial rule. Their actions resulted in the Lower Canada Rebellion. An unprepared British Army had to raise a local militia force and the rebel forces were soon defeated after having scored a victory in Saint-Denis, south of Montreal."

First of all, the invasion army lead Robert Nelson, that's in 1838. The 1837 events do not start by the actions of the "rebels". The starting point is when the unelected colonial government issues mandates to arrest 26 leaders of the Patriotes. The people who come to arrest them are not the police, they are the army. The law is being violated by those who enforce the law.

Prior to this, the loyalists of Montreal had already begun to organise themselves in militias. They were parading in the street and were very provocative. In reaction to this, some Patriotes created the Association des Fils de la liberté to arm citizens so they could defend themselves in case things got worst. We must remember that British soldiers had already shot three unarmed citizens in 1832. Everybody knew that at the time. Many men could not tolerate to see Loyalist thugs menace their families.

It is the approval of the Fils de la liberté by the leader of the Patriotes, LJ Papineau, that would have given the governement an excuse to unleash the troops of John Colborne on the population. It is on the news of the military intervention that the Upper Canada rebellion started. When civil rights were suspended, all there was to do was to cross the border over to the US or resist. The battle of St-Denis was not part of a military strategy on the Patriotes side. There is a possibility that some Lower Canada patriotes were hoping to organize themselves appropriately and kick the British goverment out. There is however no substancial evidence of this. When the mandates of arrest were issued, the Patriotes are still in the middle of their boycott strategy.

--

DW then tells us something we didn't know about Durham's report:

"After this clash, Lord Durham was asked to write a report on this incident and gave the opinion, in laguage traditional of the day, that the French population were "without history and culture of any kind" and were "to be assimilated". However, the British Parliament did not agree with Durham's opinion and maintained all the rights accorded the colony's French-speaking citizens under the 1774 Quebec Act."

The British Parliament did not agree with one part of the report, that is granting ministerial responsibility to the new merged colony. However, they agreed with the assimilation policy and that is why the two colonies were indeed merged together. To claim the opposite is plain wrong.

-- Mathieugp 6 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)

Open letter to A Lafontaine

Mister,

Since you've been busy modifying the history section lately, I'll consider that you didn't read the discussion titled "A Lafontaine's version of history".

So, I'll let you revert your latest modifications by yourself, hoping that your obsession with Mister Durham and his fascist opinions is not chronical.

Sincerly yours

Removal of unsubstantiated text

I removed:

1)"Interestingly, Laporte's kidnapping happened a few days before he would have been formally indicted for racketeering, since Pierre Laporte had powerful connections with organized crime."
2)"it should be noted that kidnapping Pierre Laporte conveniently avoided the embarrassment of having a government minister indicted as a member of organized crime."

Documented facts are needed as such unsubstantiated allegations do not conform to Wikipedia:Policy. A. Lafontaine 16:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about the Province of Quebec. I removed/changed inappropriate titles not suitable for this article such as "Towards soverignity" which is covered in great detail elsewhere. A. Lafontaine 16:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed:

"mostly thanks to extensice efforts by the Federal Government to grant citizenship to many more immigrants than the normal rate, as well as efforts by Casper Bloom to entice canadians from other provinces to register on the electoral rolls by exploiting an electoral law loophole; as a result, more than 30,000 persons who do not have residence in Québec (they were not listed on the Medical Insurance records which, by definition, lists every Québec resident) were nevertheless able to vote in the referendum."

Snide remarks are unacceptable in Wikipedia and documented facts are needed as unsubstantiated allegations do not conform to Wikipedia:Policy. 16:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed:

1)"without due process - none of which had any connection with the FLQ; actually, plenty of them were political opponents of Pierre Trudeau."

2)"Martial law was imposed and civil liberties suspended."

The War Measures Act is not martial law. Documented facts on exactly who was arrested and proof they were not connected to the FLQ is needed as broad unsubstantiated allegations do not conform to Wikipedia:Policy. A. Lafontaine 16:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WAR MEASURES ACT - I inserted the numbers arrested under the War Measures Act plus those charged. This is taken from the McGill University Website [3]about the October Crisis written by a senior Quebec Cabinet Minister at the time and McGill University Law Professor, William Tetley. User:Marc Allaire

you put the same thing on the october crisis page. As I asked, whats make you think that comments made by someone who at the time was in the government would be less "unsubstanciated" then those in a position paper made by a large union central ?--Marc pasquin 14:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i looking for a flag of Quebec please contact me at : crackwindobe@voila.fr