|
|
Post by markgjesdal on Sept 30, 2010 10:42:15 GMT -5
In class we talked about whether Quebec should stay or leave. Quebec has been described as a have-not province because they don't give back much to the country they are in. In Quebec's case I think if they don't want to be there then they shouldn't be forced to. It would be a major blow to both Canada's identity and history. Quebec almost seems comparable to a small child when they don't want to be somewhere. If they are somewhere they don't want to be they will not produce what or how much you want and just go through the motions
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Delainey on Oct 1, 2010 10:53:08 GMT -5
It's not quite as simple as just wanting to go and then going. All of Canada's provinces and territories need to be consulted; moreover, there's a sizable population of First Nations people in Quebec who have territorial agreements with the Government of Canada (not Quebec). Therefore, the process of separation would be quite complicated in the end (which doesn't mean it won't happen just that, well, it's not just a case of leaving).
In terms of understanding "have" versus "have not", have provinces make more money than they spend and have nots spend more money than they make. Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, etc. are have provinces--money from these provinces goes to other provinces like Quebec, Newfoundland, etc. to help maintain a minimum standard of living from coast to coast to coast.
|
|
