|
|
Post by franko on Jul 5, 2004 6:58:06 GMT -5
I think the question should be . . . Agree. One clear question, once and for all: In or out? If out, so be it, but the idea of a separate country with all of the benefits of being within Canada just doesn't cut it for me. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 5, 2004 7:03:13 GMT -5
Canada is one of the most decentralized states on the planet. Other than Belgium, you'll have a hard time finding a state that has devolved more powers to localized provinces or states. But of course, that wouldn't fit the agitprop that's shovelled down everyone's throats here. Except the decentralization is one with limits. The Feds say "we'll keep out of your way; here's your transfer payments", then say "and here's how we expect you to spend that money". It isn't "here's money to improve public transit"; it's "here's money to improve public transit by improving bus service". No, wait, it's even more intrusive: it's "here's money to improve public transit by improving bus service by buying more buses from Bombarier". Transfer payments should come with no strings attached. Then[i/] I'd believe the decentralization myth. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 5, 2004 7:53:42 GMT -5
I think the question should be "Do you agree that Quebec, an original actor responsible for the creation of the Canadian state in 1867, should now unilaterally revoke it's status as a Canadian province and become an independent country?" That's it. None of this association garbage, none of this negotiations garbage. You ask the people a clear question. I mean, geez, it's a question regarding whether you want to tear apart a country, not which movie you want to go see! I never mentionned anything about association, nor was there anything about that in 1995. The constitution we *were* imposed is the one of 1982. |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Jul 5, 2004 8:55:40 GMT -5
I never mentionned anything about association, nor was there anything about that in 1995. I never said that you mentioned it, however your memory of 1995 is a bit hazy. Here is the 1995 Referendum question in full: Sorry. The buzzword in 1995 was "partnership", not association. You'll note the negotiation overtone, which I mentioned as well in my original post. Well, considering that the Prime Minister (a Quebecois!) and 74 out of 75 Quebec MPs supported the consitution of 1982, that would essentially mean that the majority of elected Quebec officials actually supported the constitution. Besides, I consider the use of the notwithstanding clause by the Quebec parliament in 1989 (to run over the rights of a minority - I don't care what the justification of it was) - a notwithstanding clause that was only brought into existence by the 1982 Consitution - a sort of de facto acceptence of that consitution by the Quebec parliament. I mean, if they didn't recognize the legitamacy of the Consitution, why bother using one of it's tools? But I digress. The point is, the federal government had every right to bring over the Constitution without the consent of any province - that was a Supreme Court decision - however it was decided to bring the Premiers together to try and hammer something out. Shockingly, the serparatist premier who had no intention whatsoever of ever approving any Canadian consitution ended up being left out of the final approval process. Quebecois seperatists like to gloss over history - they clearly use propoganda to advance their goals, in the spirit of nationalists throughout history. Whenever anybody dares to question their assertations, they react as if the Quebecois people themselves are being brought into question, which is absurd. One thing I love also is how Quebec seperatists like to pretend that Quebecois are some of the most gullible, stupid people on the planet. To them, everything that has happened to Quebec has been at the hands of evil English Canadians, or the British, or whatever. Quebecois people have been put through these trials for hundreds of years, yet did nothing for the vast majority of these years because, apparently, they were sheep. That's crap. Quebecois are some of the heartiest, strongest survivors on the planet. From the harsh environment they were able to farm, to the abandonment by the French government in 1760 (the British offered to give Quebec back in exchange for Guadaloupe and Martinique but the French liked sugar more than colonists back then), to negotiating with British authorities the right to keep their Church and civil law (Quebec was the first British possession, including Britain and Ireland themselves, to legalize the Catholic Church, and certainly the first British colony to have it's own set of laws - this plus the enlargment of the Quebec colony in 1774 was one of the Intolerable Acts that spawned the American revolution - American colonists hated the French as well as the Catholic Church); It was Canadiens who were the Chateau Clique in those days - English merchants in Montreal in the early 1800s were fed up with successive English Governors who listened to the French (a defeated people? Hardly!) instead of themselves. Then they pushed for a representative council of the people - this led to the twin 1837 rebellions in both Lower and Upper Canada, and those Quebecois fought side by side with their English brethren (a fact often ignored)... They survived Lord Durham's awful report of 1840 about the rebellions, which suggested uniting again the two Canadas so the French fact could become lost in the larger English fact; Yet this union of the two legislative councils gave les Canadiens more power than they ever had alone - anyone wishing to pass legislation absolutely had to have the support of either Le Parti Bleu (conservative Quebec faction, later joined the Conservatives) or Le Parti Rouge (Radical Quebec faction that later joined the True Grit Party to form the federal Liberals). This situation, needing the support of Quebec for any legislation to pass, is as true today as it was then. It was the Quebecois who pushed to bring in the Maritime provinces into Confederation when those colonies talked of unification - because of Quebec, Canada truly was "from sea to sea". Quebecois survived the Church's increasing attempts at control of their lives, they survived Maurice Duplessis, one of the worst examples of power run amok ever to take office in Canada, they survived the Montreal anglophone community's control of the economy for much of a century, later becoming Maitres Chez Nous - they have survived and survived and thrived! So when you hear of a Quebec seperatist talking about the poor Quebecois, as if they are dogs in the street, ignore him. Better, laugh at him. Because I'm a proud Quebecois, and a proud Canadian, and I'm no dog! |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 5, 2004 18:44:36 GMT -5
Scenario: NHL Draft day 2004. Gary Bettman announces that the Washington Capitals have traded their first pick to the Montreal Canadiens for Pierre Dagenais and Yanic Perreault. Question: Is it Montreal’s fault that the Capitals accepted the deal, poor as it is for Washington? This is not the same. I am talking contract law wording, you are talking about consideration. A more accurate example would be: If you were to sign a contract with a person and the name, or a clause, had a mistake in it (a name spelt wrong) is the contract enforceable? Well when a mistake has been made it must be brought to the attention of all parties. A court will more than likely not enforce a contract with a mistake, especially if the mistake is onerous on the other party. They would not draft another contract for the parties, or even correct the mistake, but they would tell the parties to draft another contract. Of course the Quebec/Newfoundland contract will still be enforceable I would think. But seeing how we are on the poopy end of the stick here, what is to stop Newfoundland from ceasing to send power to Quebec via the 735 lines? Any sane person can see that this contract was piss poor, and should be renegotiated. And trust me if Quebec seperates that is exactly what will be brought up .... no negotiation , no power, no new country. Smallwood accepted this deal to keep his buddies in Brinco happy. The Newfoundland people had nothing to do with it. Smallwood had shares in Brinco. He mad money off the deal, Newfoundland did not. Ol Joey thought his was king of this rock, he was a dictator. Papa Joey was an arrogant bast@rd. He used old time propaganda techniques to dupe alot of people who were not well educated. The old people loved him because of this ..... you have to understand back in 1949 most people in NL couldn't read or write, and the educated bunch were in Joey's pockets. Someone tell me how you draft a contract for oil, or electricity and not tie the revenue/profits into the marketplace. We are getting the same value today from Labrador electricity as we were back in the 1970's. And any economist can tell you that is bad when the price of electricity has soured through the roof. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 5, 2004 21:07:37 GMT -5
I never said that you mentioned it, however your memory of 1995 is a bit hazy. Here is the 1995 Referendum question in full: OK, ok, there was a mention - but it was really just a clause to make the question more friendly-sounding, it was essentially to say that before separating, Canada would get a last chance. ie, unlike in 1980, the question wasn't "do you want a kind of wishy-washy sovereignty" but a clear "do you want a country (and yes we'll try and talk to Canadians see if we can work something out" In fact, at the time my hope was for a narrow Yes win, after which the type of compromise Quebec was interested in (ie, Meech Lake) might have seemed mighty attractive to ROC. Of elected, FEDERAL officials. There was no bloc back then. Well, we might not like the constitution of 1982 nor want to use it, but like it or not it remains the current constitution for the country; we gotta use the tools we have. Still, once you decide to start a consultation and bring others into a formal process, you have to see it through. What's the use of negotiating if, when things don't go your way, you do it your way and claim you didn't need the others anyways ? That's how I used to see it too, then I read up a bit more. Quebec was there, at the table, negotiating in good faith. Keep in mind that Lévesque's referendum had clearly lost, so he wasn't thinking of winning a referendum in his lifetime. Quebecers wanted Lévesque to sign something that made sense. Often people want a compromise, but trust hard-liners to do it without sacrificing their beliefs, hence Lévesque's re-election despite a clear referendum loss. Accounts vary, but Quebec was explicitly excluded from the final talks. The killer of the deal is that the Alberta premier apparently almost backed out because of this backstabbing, but Trudeau talked him into staying. If that Alberta premier had stuck to his guns, the issue wouldn't be QC VS ROC, it would be provinces vs Ottawa, which is easier to solve - namely when the SOB at the head of the country lost an election or finally died. Trudeau caused a huge rift that's been the cause of many of the country's problems for the past 22 years. Why the whole rant ? And it's not as if propaganda isn't used on the other side too. I still get a good laugh out of those studies that claim that an independant Quebec would rank somewhere along the likes of Botswana economically.... or those studies made saying that no country attained sovereignty without violence, the same day that the Czech's and Slovak's waved goodbye fairly nicely.,,, |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 5, 2004 21:14:45 GMT -5
Of course the Quebec/Newfoundland contract will still be enforceable I would think. But seeing how we are on the poopy end of the stick here, what is to stop Newfoundland from ceasing to send power to Quebec via the 735 lines? The law ? I mean, what's to stop Quebec from sending the Sureté into Newfoundland to cut down the best trees and lay waste to the land ? Well, when it was signed it was a steep price and Quebec was taking a bit of a gamble. Newfoundland lost in the end, but that's your own fault for having an inept leader. If contracts aren't valid, then I guess we don't have to respect contracts either. I guess Canada can pay the entire Federal debt without us. If Quebec doesn't get respect of contractual obligations and its share of Federal goods (ie, Federally held land, F-18s, etc), then we won't take our share of Federal liabilities, either. And it would be an awfully good deal for us, BTW, so go ahead and block the electicity contract and the F-18s, Quebec will win big time. |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Jul 5, 2004 21:42:52 GMT -5
Why the whole rant ? And it's not as if propaganda isn't used on the other side too. I still get a good laugh out of those studies that claim that an independant Quebec would rank somewhere along the likes of Botswana economically.... or those studies made saying that no country attained sovereignty without violence, the same day that the Czech's and Slovak's waved goodbye fairly nicely.,,, I wholeheartedly agree propaganda is used on both sides. The problem is that it's often taken as literal truth here in Québec. Why the whole rant? I'm fed up with the cute phrases, the unjustifiable justifications, the "Québec as powerless victim" lies. Québec, more than perhaps any conquered territory in world history, has always been master of it's future. It's something to be proud of, yet we are told to hate that history - we are told that we were either gullible or stupid or betrayed or just plain ignorant. I'm fed up of it. So whenever I talk to someone who thinks of Canada as a seperate entity, I fully remind them that Québec was and is Canada - remember, It used to be Canadiens in Québec and British in the ROC. Of course, when the ROC finally came around to calling themselves Canadian, nationalists were quick to denounce the use of Canadien and began using Québecois to ensure the people of Québec were as alienated from the ROC as possible. So when I hear talk of seperation, to me it's like the architect of a great society deciding he wants to leave that society. To me, that takes a lot of thought and pause for consideration - because if Québec leaves Canada, I swear it will leave part of it's soul as well. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 5, 2004 21:50:15 GMT -5
So when I hear talk of seperation, to me it's like the architect of a great society deciding he wants to leave that society. To me, that takes a lot of thought and pause for consideration - because if Québec leaves Canada, I swear it will leave part of it's soul as well. Look at Meech Lake. The architect is getting kicked out of his own home, or at least told to shape up and stop being such a pain, and speaking *French* and all those annoying things that stop us from being good old-fashioned rednecks.... |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Jul 5, 2004 23:20:48 GMT -5
Look at Meech Lake. The architect is getting kicked out of his own home, or at least told to shape up and stop being such a pain, and speaking *French* and all those annoying things that stop us from being good old-fashioned rednecks.... Oh puhleeze... Putting aside the questionable contents of the Meech Lake accord (ridiculous amounts of decentralization of an already decentralized state, the elevation of one province above all others constitutionally, etc...); Meech Lake was actually passed by eight of the ten provinces, including Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, among others!The failure of Meech Lake can be tied to the non-recognition of native peoples at all, even though later attempts at amendments that catered to native peoples were made. Essentially, natives were fed up with being excluded from any sort of negotiations as to the makeup of the Canadian constitution, so Manitoba MLA Elijah Harper, a native person, decided not to allow the Meech Lake accord to be voted upon in the Manitoba Legislature. Legislature rules in Manitoba require a unanimous consent to allow closure for consitutional issues that are not first put to the people in a referendum, explaining how Harper was able to block the Accord for three weeks. When Newfoundland's Premier, Clyde Wells, saw this, he decided not to even bother tabling the Accord [even though he was going to finally support it after opposing it] because it required the consent of all ten provinces. Got that? 8 out of 10 provinces supported Canada bending over backwards to accomidate Québec to the point it would have a special veto over consitutional matters (no other province would have had this right - and what the hell does that have to do with recognizing that French-Canadians were co-founders of this country?) - yet because it failed due to the oversight of natives in constitutional matters [you would think Québecois nationalists would have recognized this argument] it was barely defeated. Instead of acting like adults and admitting that they had come close, the nationalists claimed that the entire state of Canada, all the provinces, all the people in this great country, failed them. Even in the face of the incredible unpopularity of the Accord for many federalists, who decried the further decentralization of the Canadian state not that French-Canadians would be recognized as "distinct". Distinct, in case you don't get it, would further serve the nationalist cause of alienating Québecois people from the rest of Canadians, setting them apart, which is essentially the very goal of Québec seperatists; this alienation is then used as a primary motivator to encourage people to vote for seperation. It's historical revisionism as we've never seen - because the history was revised before it was even written down to paper. It's crap. Anyone who believes that Meech Lake was a slap in the face of Québec has believed the propaganda: Hook, line, and sinker. Modifications: My memory was faulty - it was Newfoundland, not New Brunswick... Clyde Wells, not Frank McKenna. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 5, 2004 23:54:46 GMT -5
Oh puhleeze... Putting aside the questionable contents of the Meech Lake accord (ridiculous amounts of decentralization of an already decentralized state, the elevation of one province above all others constitutionally, etc...); ... Above all others ? No, not above, but beside them, as the only guy in a province of women (or flip the sexes if you wish - just saying that non-identical doesn't imply a hierarchy). Quebec has an excellent record of dealing with its native peoples, had that been the only sticking point in a generally accepted document, an amendment wouldn't have been a problem. What is has to do is that French-canadians have serious weight in only one province, and that province could be outweighed, demographically and democratically, by the others. Quebec wanted to have an opt-out to avoid being stomped on by a Reform-type government. Well, it's not as if the rest of the country had been ready to re-do Meech with a couple of touches. When Meech died, far too many people in ROC were happy to see it die. Disagree. The Distinct Society clause would give Quebecers the right to be different within their own country. Give the Quebec Liberals Meech Lake, and they have the tools to stop separatism. Why go through the bother of separating when we have the key controls that we want, already ? The problem is that ROC is stuck on the Trudeau vision of a fully-billingual country (ie, French immersion in Alberta) whereas Quebecers think (and facts on the ground show) that there's a fairly clear line between the two solitudes. They can get along, but they can't be forced into becoming 50% of the other. Well, as I see it, Meech Lake was Canada saying No to Quebec (through not ratifying it, nor trying to put together a slightly revised version when it fell apart), so right now IMO Quebec shouldn't feel linked to Canada, hence separation is a real option. And just so you know, I tend to read highly Federalist news sources - the Gazette being a prime one, so it's not as if I were a propaganda-brain-washed flag-waiver. IIRC, McKenna is perhaps the one with the most blame for the non-ratification, because he was the first to seriously show opposition, which allowed others to show the same opinions. Even if he signed later on he opened the door to opposition. Kinda like Dean in the US who was against Iraq and made that a viable opinion for all other Democrats. |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Jul 6, 2004 9:38:36 GMT -5
Above all others ? No, not above, but beside them, as the only guy in a province of women (or flip the sexes if you wish - just saying that non-identical doesn't imply a hierarchy). The consitutional veto would effectively give Quebec more powers than the other provinces. The only guy, yes, and the only one allowed to vote. The point was that they were completely ignored, and this pissed them off. Again, it's a question of pride - and a common argument amongst Quebec nationalists. Not true. Quebec's demand for a constitutional veto would have effectively allowed it to veto consitutional amendments - an action that means that one province could decide to derail an amendment even if all nine of the other provinces supported it. I agree that Quebec should get special consideration based on it's status (but don't ignore the Nouveau-Brunswick Acadians when you speak of serious weight in a province) - but Quebec shouldn't be able to derail consitutional amendments by itself. Unless, of course, you give every province that veto, but then good luck getting anything passed. Of course! They realized it was a ridiculous devolution of powers when they actually realized the implications of the language used in the document. Are you angry that the popular will was actually listened to? What you mean here is that if Quebec effectively has gained soverignty-association without so much as a referendum - why seperate? Well, I suppose it might not be first on the list of priorities, but I would imagine Quebec nationalists would eventually push for it - and the fact that Quebecers are "distinct" (different) than everyone else would be their major argument. You're absolutely wrong. Many in the Western provinces think the same way as many Quebecois about there being "two solitudes". I am of the opinion that having two major languages and cultures strengthens and enrichens the Canadian union, that diversity is no weakness - it is a pillar of our society. Of course, nationalists [on both sides] argue that this is not true - the argument goes that the more monolithic a state is the stronger it is. I would argue that this is a slightly xenophobic point of view - there are plenty of examples of unitary states made up of differing cultures that have been very strong. While it might be easier to govern a nation-state, as opposed to a state made up of many different nations, it is not necessarily better. I'm a firm believer that anything worth doing is going to be tough. Look, if Canadians, whether they be Albertan, Quebecois, Ontarian, Nova Scotian, British Columbian, whatever (Quebecois who call everyone else Canadian as if they're one big bunch of people are as ignorant as outsiders who call Quebecois no different from France's French) - if Canadians can't keep this country together, then the world might as well degenerate into thousands of nation-states, because the great experiment will have failed. I'll say it again: Even though it was a highly questionable accord, 80% of the provinces representing 94% of the population of Canada supported it. They did try to put together a slightly revised version of it (it was called the Charlottetown Accord and that was defeated by popular vote - even in Quebec! If the failure of a constitutional process means to you that Quebec shouldn't feel linked to Canada - well, that's truly depressing. I've tried to explain and demonstrate that Quebec is an integral part of Canada, and here you are tossing all of that in the garbage heap because of a stupid argument about the amending of the consitution. As if Meech Lake should wash away 250 years of history, as if it were that important when taken in the larger context. As if Meech Lake were some sort of manifesto from the rest of Canada stating that Quebec should speak English and observe a curfew and pay a special "French Tax" to everyone else. I know you're not brain-washed. I'm not saying anyone in Quebec is brain-washed. I'm saying that there will be a slant taken in the news reporting that is subtle yet influences public opinion in a very clear way. I knew there was a reason I was mentioning McKenna. Thanks for the refresher! I think it's pretty obvious we're on different sides of the fence on this issue. Still, it's nice to be able to debate it in a civilized manner, no?  |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jul 6, 2004 13:58:30 GMT -5
...Interesting debate.
If I can add my 2 cents... IMO, the biggest issue of this country lies in the old model and ways that, as shown by the recent elections, is kept together only by the Ontario and Maritimes. It is quite clear that both Quebec and Western Canada wishes for deep political changes that can no longer be brought forward because of the peculiar political deadlock where Quebec and the Western Canada polarizes the vote allowing Liberals to be elected in what seems to be shaping up into a never ending fashion.
I live in Quebec but I have always been (and voted like) a convinced Federalist... that is up until the last election. Frankly the choices were a rotten party of thieves who's idea of Canada has not evolved in 50 years (and that take pride in that), a party that will strongly push for the vision of the Canada as seen by the Westerners or a party that will strongly push for the province of Quebec. I now have a deep feeling that this country is on it's last mile as I feel there is no more universal political view among Canadians, there are 2 parties ready to confront each other and blow everything up and one that plunders in the meanwhile. The Reform party Conservative party will eventually take on the Ontario and that will be the beginning of the end for the Canada, as we know it.
I know all it will take here, in Quebec, is for one provincial party to take a new look at how the independence could be done, without the pre-made extremist thoughts of old coocoos like Landry, Parizeau and cie and that party could win the trust of many deceived federalists.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 6, 2004 22:30:54 GMT -5
The consitutional veto would effectively give Quebec more powers than the other provinces. The only guy, yes, and the only one allowed to vote. The problem is, the ROC already has a veto - as the clear majority in the country, if something doesn't work for them it'll never even be considered. And before anyone takes offense or exception to my throwing all ROCians together, sociologically, French and English speakers are different groups altogether, with just about every existing tool for measuring groups being off the charts for Quebec - marriage rates being way, way down, for example. Just one of those is just a number, but when just about every existing indicator has Quebec as the outlier, that means something. My point was just that Quebecers would have been open to reworking the whole thing a tad for Native support, but for that there had to be a consensus that Meech was mostly good. That wasn't there. Well, every region was given a veto in the Charlottetown accord, which basically killed it right from the start, IMO. Not at all, I'm angry at what the popular will actually was. Quebec has many soft nationalists (such as myself); given a solid place for Quebec in Canada the PQ wouldn't have had a chance. I expressed myself badly, the Alberta immersion was to show an example of Trudeau-type thought (which I find ridiculous when it reaches that extreme) I agree, but for that both groups need to have room to grow. When the partnership is between roughly same sized groups things can work. But those countries rarely have a minority of 6 million surrounded by 325 million of another group... I agree. But the ROC doesn't seem willing to give Quebec any kind of room. "You're a province, same as the others and exactly the same". Equality is fine, but not when it means being identical. Well, I for one think political independance should come first, after which economic integration goes much smoother. See my mention about the vetoes above. Well, it's not just Meech Lake. It's the 1982 constitution (coming 2 years after Quebecers clearly said they wanted to stay in the country, that kind of slap in the face wasn't warranted nor deserved...) Just realise that whatever your sources are, they will influence you as well. Yup, though I feel pretty soon we'll be disagreeing on principle and there won't be much to discuss. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 6, 2004 22:32:01 GMT -5
...Interesting debate. I know all it will take here, in Quebec, is for one provincial party to take a new look at how the independence could be done, without the pre-made extremist thoughts of old coocoos like Landry, Parizeau and cie and that party could win the trust of many deceived federalists. Had I been a cynic, I would have been praying for Harper to win as the best chance for Quebec to separate..... But that would be like booing when Audette scored - counter productive. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 6, 2004 22:37:49 GMT -5
there are 2 parties ready to confront each other and blow everything up and one that plunders in the meanwhile. The Reform party Conservative party will eventually take on the Ontario and that will be the beginning of the end for the Canada, as we know it. I think not. Or maybe just hope not. There has been great dissatisfaction in the west since Trudeau told the western population they were number one in his view  and nothing has been done to fix the problem. Disaffected westerners, disaffected Quebecers, disaffected Maritimers . . . and the Liberals continue to win the battle by scaring Ontarians by telling them that Canada will be blasted apart by any other government (stupid Ontarians. Oops -- I'm one). The Conservatives (not a party member; didn't vote for them) do indeed have some scary members . . . but are they any more scary than the Liberals who will do just about anything to hold on to power? The thing I like about the Conservatives is that their people (some of them idiots) can speak out, whereas Liberals have to toe the party line. They will try to decentralize (a la Montrealer) -- but why is that a bad thing? Some things have federal jurisdiction; other things provincial. Why must the federal government have its finger in every pie? Yet here we are, still discussing and debating the same things that have been discussed and debated for the last (2004-1867=) . . . yah, 137 years. Is it possible to move on? To accept the fact that we're different yet united (I did not use the term "distinct" intentionally) . . . and that we live in the greatest country in the world?!! |
|
|
|
Post by LoupDogg on Jul 8, 2004 7:54:19 GMT -5
and that we live in the greatest country in the world?!! I liked what Duceppe said after he swept Quebec in the last election. "Our [the Québec] nation is not better, nor worse than the others. There is not, in the world, a nation superior to the others. We're only different, and equal to the others. No more, no less. The country that we want will not be the first [leading] country in the world. There is no "first" country in the world... the best country for the French is France, for the Brits it's England, for the Americans it's the States, for the Canadians, it's Canada and for the Québécois, it has to be Québec." Enough with the greatest country of thw world. We just want our own. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 8, 2004 8:32:40 GMT -5
Enough with the greatest country of thw world. We just want our own. The fact that we can even have this conversation gives credence to my opinion (and I do admit, it is only my humble opinion, though somewhat coloured by the fact that I have lived my adult life only in Canada, though I did live in Europe as a child) that Canada is . . . OK, one of the best places in the wrold to live. Go to the US: melting pot -- everyone become like "us". Go to France: your culture / religious tenets are to be subjugated to the state's way of thinking (you have religious freedom only in a religious setting, not it day-to-day living in society). Perhaps "the best country for the French is France", etc, but what if you are not French but want to live there? Xenophobia rules supreme in many countries . . . here, at least, we at least try to be welcoming and accepting. Are we a perfect nation? No on your life! But I'd rather live here than elsewhere. As to a Quebec nation . . . would it really work (a serious question, by the way). Are Quebecers willing to accept the responsibilities of true nationhood as well as the rights and the privileges? I'm just looking for a little clarification here -- how can a separate and distinct nation still use Canadian money, Canadian passports, etc? And the question that continues to come to my mind: how far do you go to preserve Quebec culture (I guess that question is for a Quebec inside of Canada as well)? Do you put up walls to keep non-Francophones out (some people think those walls are in place now)? Do you eradicate the English language from the courtry? If so, do you expect tourists to speak French when they visit? I am open to be eduated, as I am . . . um, too many years from living in the province (there are not many of my family left there). |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 8, 2004 10:08:01 GMT -5
I liked what Duceppe said after he swept Quebec in the last election. I remember him having to take over from Lucien Bouchard and that was an extremely tough act for anyone to follow. But, since then he's gradually moved out of that shadow and had developed into quite an effective leader. Honestly, of all the major parties, Duceppe and the Bloc ran the best compaign. Oh, and keeping with the thread Mr. B started, happy-seven-days-after-Canada-Day.Cheers (la) |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 8, 2004 10:31:01 GMT -5
As to a Quebec nation . . . would it really work (a serious question, by the way). Are Quebecers willing to accept the responsibilities of true nationhood as well as the rights and the privileges? I'm just looking for a little clarification here -- how can a separate and distinct nation still use Canadian money, Canadian passports, etc? IMHO, Quebec would have done just fine as a soverign nation if there were a successful referendum vote. And, I say that with confidence. Quebec City is probably, ney, definitely, the most European-like city we have in Canada. I mean, I spent five years in Germany and lived only ten minutes drive from the French border. To me, the whole attitude of the city seems to be European. French ladies dress to the nine's and that doesn't bother me one bit. The cafés are excellent and if you try to speak French even so much as a tad, people really appreciate it. There's another side to Quebec city, granted. This was in the late 70's, but I've had a door to a nightclub slammed in my face because I spoke English. "You're English? You can't come in here." But, not two minutes later a young guy, our own age, saw the whole thing unfold. He knew that we didn't really know what we were doing or where we were going. In his broken English (and he was trying folks), he asked us if we wanted to listen to some music. We said, sure, and he took us just a short ways to a smokey place (ahem, both kinds, legal and otherwise) with quart-bottles, and rock and roll music. Now, the afore mentioned situation is not a direct reflection on the City or it's people, please. This sort of thing happens in every major city, Anglo, Franco, Spanish, et al. To think otherwise is niaive me thinks. Still, I enjoy Quebec City and their European-like attitude. I've been there many times and plan on going back. There's a lot of history there as well. Well worth the trip. And, yes, I love having that culture as part of the Canadian identity. Cheers and happy-seventh-day-after-Canada-Day |
|
|
|
Post by LoupDogg on Jul 8, 2004 10:34:22 GMT -5
As to a Quebec nation . . . would it really work (a serious question, by the way). Are Quebecers willing to accept the responsibilities of true nationhood as well as the rights and the privileges? I'm just looking for a little clarification here -- how can a separate and distinct nation still use Canadian money, Canadian passports, etc? The Canadian money, passport and all is not exactly the big issue in the national debate. There would probably be a transition period, in which the canadian money would be used, but this is technicality speacking. Not that technical issues don't matter, but I think we're missing the main point if we go there. And the question that continues to come to my mind: how far do you go to preserve Quebec culture (I guess that question is for a Quebec inside of Canada as well)? Do you put up walls to keep non-Francophones out (some people think those walls are in place now)? Do you eradicate the English language from the courtry? If so, do you expect tourists to speak French when they visit? I am open to be eduated, as I am . . . um, too many years from living in the province (there are not many of my family left there). I think a sovereign Quebec would not have to go the "preserving the culture" way no more. We could (already can, actually), from that point up, continue to build the Quebec culture. Which includes and welcomes the significant apport the immigration brings. French Quebec is not monolithic pure-laine no more. The independance project isn't ethnic either. We see more and more childs of the Bill 101 joining the ranks of the independentists. The Bloc had a Cameroun-born deputy elected, as well as a half-chinese candidate and a native. These three persons are no less Québécois than the next white french guy. They realised it, and more and more "hardcore" separatists are realizing it too. A sovereign Quebec would not fear the different cultures, english included. Yes, Montreal is great because we got two lively cultures here. If they could link a little more, the better. I think that the english population in Québec is well treated. If only the francophones in the ROC had the same opportunities, their decline would be significantly slower. My two (canadian) cents. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jul 8, 2004 11:47:02 GMT -5
IMHO, Quebec would have done just fine as a soverign nation if there were a successful referendum vote. And, I say that with confidence. Quebec City is probably, ney, definitely, the most European-like city we have in Canada. I mean, I spent five years in Germany and lived only ten minutes drive from the French border. To me, the whole attitude of the city seems to be European. French ladies dress to the nine's and that doesn't bother me one bit. The cafés are excellent and if you try to speak French even so much as a tad, people really appreciate it. There's another side to Quebec city, granted. This was in the late 70's, but I've had a door to a nightclub slammed in my face because I spoke English. "You're English? You can't come in here." But, not two minutes later a young guy, our own age, saw the whole thing unfold. He knew that we didn't really know what we were doing or where we were going. In his broken English (and he was trying folks), he asked us if we wanted to listen to some music. We said, sure, and he took us just a short ways to a smokey place (ahem, both kinds, legal and otherwise) with quart-bottles, and rock and roll music. Now, the afore mentioned situation is not a direct reflection on the City or it's people, please. This sort of thing happens in every major city, Anglo, Franco, Spanish, et al. To think otherwise is niaive me thinks. Still, I enjoy Quebec City and their European-like attitude. I've been there many times and plan on going back. There's a lot of history there as well. Well worth the trip. And, yes, I love having that culture as part of the Canadian identity. Cheers and happy-seventh-day-after-Canada-Day Excellent read. Thanks for that Rick. As I said, I don't consider myself a separatist but just as well I can't (won't) ignore how the political landscape of Canada is, at this point, unsatisfying, not only for Quebec, but for a great deal of Canadians. A sovereign Quebec would have it's up and downs, it's strenght and it's weakness just like any other country. I can't help but think that a great deal of Canadians would be releived if Quebec would part, releived that that this nation old dispute comes to a conclusion. An independant Quebec would always keep strong ties with Canada and IMO, in such a scenario, all that would be left for Canadians and Quebecers to do would be to benefit and enjoy from what both nation can offer to each other without the continual political disputes. |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Jul 8, 2004 12:41:33 GMT -5
I liked what Duceppe said after he swept Quebec in the last election. "Our [the Québec] nation is not better, nor worse than the others. There is not, in the world, a nation superior to the others. We're only different, and equal to the others. No more, no less. The country that we want will not be the first [leading] country in the world. There is no "first" country in the world... the best country for the French is France, for the Brits it's England, for the Americans it's the States, for the Canadians, it's Canada and for the Québécois, it has to be Québec." I thought this to be slightly illogical... What is the best country for the Basques? For the Corsicans? For the Bretons? For the Lapplanders? For the Mohawk? For the Cree? For the Inuit? For the Métis? For the Newfoundlanders? For the Albertans? For the Acadians? I've always been a big optimist - I believe in people working together for the common good. I believe that a diverse unity is much richer than a monolithic construct. I've always thought it to be better to live in a state made up of nations than a simple nation-state. I think an argument could be made about Québec being the best country for the Québécois, but it was certainly arrogant of him to say that it has to be that way. Insulting, even, to people who believe in unity like myself. |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Jul 8, 2004 12:53:59 GMT -5
Excellent read. Thanks for that Rick. As I said, I don't consider myself a separatist but just as well I can't (won't) ignore how the political landscape of Canada is, at this point, unsatisfying, not only for Quebec, but for a great deal of Canadians. A sovereign Quebec would have it's up and downs, it's strenght and it's weakness just like any other country. I can't help but think that a great deal of Canadians would be releived if Quebec would part, releived that that this nation old dispute comes to a conclusion. An independant Quebec would always keep strong ties with Canada and IMO, in such a scenario, all that would be left for Canadians and Quebecers to do would be to benefit and enjoy from what both nation can offer to each other without the continual political disputes. The political landscape of this country is the direct result of the electorate. I find it ridiculous that 40% of people don't vote claiming that it won't make a difference - yet if that 40% put their support behind a party of their choosing they would have won a majority government. In any case, my thoughts on this issue are clear - I believe Canada is strong due to it's dualist history - a story of people coming together, not in war or bloodshed, but in a democratic way - to create what is unquestionably one of the best places in the world to live. An independant Quebec would be successful in comparison to many countries - it would be a progressive, first world nation. So would Canada without Quebec. But to me, it would still be one of the greatest failures that our peoples would ever create. It would serve notice to the world that nationalism and disunity are the future - reconciliation, cooperation, and unity would be dealt a heady blow. The worst of it is, I would have no interest in remaining in a soverign Quebec nor a Canada without Quebec - yet where else in the world would I go? I love Montreal, I love Quebec, and I love Canada. The thought makes my heart ache - it would truly be a divorce that would tear apart people's lives. So, what's my point? Please, if you are a supporter of Quebec's independance - Please, consider the value of creating two new countries (because a new Canada would be unrecognizable) by tearing apart this one. Consider the reasoning - are you truly unhappy to be Canadien? Do you have no pride in the accomplishments of Quebec within this confederation? If you still decide to support independance, well, there is nothing more I can say at this time (though I will always plead the cause of unity). I will support your democratic right to your opinion to my death - there is nothing worse than a country that suppresses dissent to stay unified, as we have seen throughout history. I love the fact that I live in one of the only countries on the planet that would allow such an open debate on the merits of it's existance, so I welcome these debates. Though they are Agonizing. These are the questions that make me feel much, much older than my twenty-six years on this world. |
|
|
|
Post by LoupDogg on Jul 8, 2004 13:45:54 GMT -5
I thought this to be slightly illogical... What is the best country for the Basques? For the Corsicans? For the Bretons? For the Lapplanders? For the Mohawk? For the Cree? For the Inuit? For the Métis? For the Newfoundlanders? For the Albertans? For the Acadians? granted that most of the above ask for a form of autonomy, they can't be thrown in the same basket. Idependance doesn't score too high in the Basque Country, and most of the people ask for what the Catalan have. A government inside the government. A strong entity inside Spain. As for the Corsicans and the Bretons, the independance feeling isn't too strong there either. They basically ask for their culture and language to be repected and taught in school. Tha native populations have similar concerns. It's basically all about respecting a smaller nation that lives within a country with another dominant culture. Quebec feels that it is not respected in Canada (heck, the parliement never even wanted to attest that the Québécois are indeed a nation). The traditional demands of Quebec have been put front many years ago, and there is a consensus at the National Assembly about that (federalists and sovereignists together). We had demands in Meech, they were rejected. We lowered them to a ignominous stage in Charlettown, yet it is still too much to ask for the ROC. Nobody in Ottawa wants to fix the Constitution for the years to come. So the country is in a dead end, want it or not. But it's not going to be a cahotic end. Cooperation and frendship can exist on the basis of equity more than vassality, so I don't see why your dreams of a special relashionship between Canada and Quebec would die after a Yes. I'm an optimist too. But the saying is "When something is working well, don't fix it". The Canadian federation needs some fixing. The renewal avenue have been taken, and we face a permanent red light. Why would the left exit to independance be so scary and disapointing? And, on a side note, since when does Alberta constitute a distinct nation? I think an argument could be made about Québec being the best country for the Québécois, but it was certainly arrogant of him to say that it has to be that way. Insulting, even, to people who believe in unity like myself. Don't be offended too fast. We suffered far worse comments from Canadian press or leaders, comparing independentists leaders to Hitler. Duceppe also said that Canada was a great nation. Just not one where he, and I, and half of the population of Quebec, feel at home. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 8, 2004 13:51:25 GMT -5
Although I had promised myself that I’d said enough and should let this rest, here I go again . . . I think a sovereign Quebec would not have to go the "preserving the culture" way no more. We could (already can, actually) So why the need for sovereignty? If only the francophones in the ROC had the same opportunities, their decline would be significantly slower. Francophones in NB do have the same opportunities, as do Francophones in Ontario. And in Manitoba where there are only small Franco-communities there is an appreciation for the culture and an understanding for the need to preserve it. Honestly, what is needed is some Francos (with a "c"  ) to move out into TROC (particularly the west) and share the culture/lnaguage with those out there. There is absolutely no hope of a bilingual Canada with the people who are teaching French in Alberta, because they learn their pronounciation from a text book -- and it . . . is . . . BAD! |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 8, 2004 13:53:53 GMT -5
I can't (won't) ignore how the political landscape of Canada is, at this point, unsatisfying, not only for Quebec, but for a great deal of Canadians. You most certainly have that right! For all our talk of unity there is still a lot of single-mindedness. Sometimes I think that our politicians continue to allow this to fester so that they can swagger against “the enemy of the day”. Look how Martin played the election: watch out for the Quebec separatists – Canada needs the Liberals in power because we’re the only ones that can bring Quebec back into/keep them in the fold yet at the same time saying watch out for those westerners – Canada needs the Liberals in power because we’re the only ones that can protect the east from them. He did well with that. An independant Quebec would always keep strong ties with Canada and IMO, in such a scenario, all that would be left for Canadians and Quebecers to do would be to benefit and enjoy from what both nation can offer to each other without the continual political disputes. Sorry . . . can’t agree with that at all. There would still be continual political disputes, just of a different variety (Newfoundland Power vrs. Quebec, for example -- Skilly's renegotiation with a new country ploy)). I’d like to think that independence would settle the difficulties, but I’m afraid more issues would arise (again, let the politicos get involved and whammo!, more disputes. Case in point: our “good” relationship with the US. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 8, 2004 13:55:23 GMT -5
consider the value of creating two new countries (because a new Canada would be unrecognizable) by tearing apart this one. Unrecognizable indeed, but eventually Three countries: Canada West, Quebec, and Atlanticus – I’m afraid that the tie between TROC and the Maritimes would be tenuous and eventually disappear (Prime Minister/President Skilly, anyone?) Or maybe even four countries: Canada West becomes two countries: The True West, and Ontario (hey, Mel Lastman wanted to make Toronto it’s own province!). Or maybe no countries at all – eventually we’ll be swallowed up by the US – a scenario I don’t like to think about.  |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 8, 2004 13:56:19 GMT -5
My biggest concern: what would my NHL hockey team be called ?
And in keeping with the theme of the day, happy-fourtenth-day-after-St.-Jean-Baptiste/seventh-day-after-Canada-Day
|
|
|
|
Post by LoupDogg on Jul 8, 2004 14:51:09 GMT -5
My biggest concern: what would my NHL hockey team be called ? And in keeping with the theme of the day, happy-fourtenth-day-after-St.-Jean-Baptiste/seventh-day-after-Canada-DayAt the last referendum, the Montreal canadiens issued a very formal statement saying that the team would keep its name. And it's allright like that. Lest not forget that it's the french that first called themselves Canadiens, in this country. It was an identitary statement. Happy 6 days before July 14th. (France) |
|
and nothing has been done to fix the problem. Disaffected westerners, disaffected Quebecers, disaffected Maritimers . . . and the Liberals continue to win the battle by scaring Ontarians by telling them that Canada will be blasted apart by any other government (stupid Ontarians. Oops -- I'm one). The Conservatives (not a party member; didn't vote for them) do indeed have some scary members . . . but are they any more scary than the Liberals who will do just about anything to hold on to power? The thing I like about the Conservatives is that their people (some of them idiots) can speak out, whereas Liberals have to toe the party line. They will try to decentralize (a la Montrealer) -- but why is that a bad thing? Some things have federal jurisdiction; other things provincial. Why must the federal government have its finger in every pie?
) to move out into TROC (particularly the west) and share the culture/lnaguage with those out there. There is absolutely no hope of a bilingual Canada with the people who are teaching French in Alberta, because they learn their pronounciation from a text book -- and it . . . is . . . BAD!