|
Post by franko on Jul 8, 2004 16:22:57 GMT -5
At the last referendum, the Montreal canadiens issued a very formal statement saying that the team would keep its name ah . . . Happy 17 days before I go on holidays (that's not "Happy 17", because I'm not sure how happy he is ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) )
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 10, 2004 18:54:19 GMT -5
As an allophone (neither French or English as a mother tongue) ex-patriate first generation Québecois, I must say this:
The francophone inhabitants of Canada historically have far greater justification for grievance against anglophone government than vice-versa.
I think what scares most non-francophone Canadians is that francophone Canadians recently have dared to assert their democratic right to govern where population warrants. Unfortunately, that would be democracy in action. And it represents a blow to the collective ego, which in turn colours views of the matter.
What further bothers a lot of non-francophone Canadians is the fact that francophones just won't play fair and accept that they "lost". Once defeated, always defeated. But for the Québecois it is a question of losing all the battles but ultimately winning the war. What could be more Canadian than that: Being argued into submission.
I just hope that I am able to hold dual citizenship.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 10, 2004 21:04:20 GMT -5
Right now Canada has the potential to be a blueprint country of tollerance in this world. It is home to many, many ethnic groups; First Nations, French, Asians, Indo-Arabic, et al. And, I feel when it comes to either ethnic, racial or religious tolerances, we might have a little more maturing to do. And that maturing process isn't a reflection on only one group.
More specifically, that process has to start at the political level. Many of the perceptions some of us share have been nurtured by those politicians who "represent us." I'll even go as far to say that political ideologies are responsible for many of the problems that linger today. Until that is sorted out, we'll continue to bicker about the same drivel in a repetative cycle; a cycle that is dictated to us when those who "represent us" feel the time is right to do so.
But for the most part, we're a lot further down that "tolerance road" than most other countries. And we are lagging behind some others as well. Be that as it may, we have a few problems to sort out, but they're nothing compared to the problems other countries have experienced, or are currently experiencing now.
Multiculturism isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it now starting to define Canada as a nation. And that might be the blueprint other countries should emmulate.
Happy-nine-days-after-Canada-Day.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jul 13, 2004 22:11:42 GMT -5
Re: Right now Canada has the potential to be a blueprint country of tollerance in this world. It is home to many, many ethnic groups
Too true. There is no other way. I read an earlier posting holding that an english majority nationally gives some kind of mandate for an english language dominance. This power-based rationale ignores the greater power;that of reason and further ignores not just fundamental human rights, but hman life itself.
Quebecers have always and continue to present the world with the spirit of tolerance and acceptance that underlies a deep maturity. Quebecers inform Canada with this spirit. Canada is very much a work of Quebecers, and is so very much the richer for it. I salute all Quebecers including of course those who (I hope incorrectly) would seek to withdraw from this foolish venture that is us, that is Canada.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 13, 2004 22:55:32 GMT -5
éééé I read an earlier posting holding that an english majority nationally gives some kind of mandate for an english language dominance. This power-based rationale ignores the greater power;that of reason and further ignores not just fundamental human rights, but hman life itself. The world is ruled by power, and right now anglophones have the power in the country through simple weight of numbers, which is why I want either a Meech-Lake type of deal or Quebec independance, so that we can't see ourselves pushed aside in what is supposed to be our country, as well.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jul 13, 2004 23:29:19 GMT -5
It is of course a truism that power rules the world......after a fashion and I have always been of the opinion that Canada offers a larger, stronger and numbnuts and morons notwithstanding, a more accommodating base for beautiful Quebec, a larger framework in the power game. Lots of english Canada isn't enjoying much power. Ontario abuts a major US industrial power, Alberta has oil. Quebec is a leader in major industries. Economic power is only one measure of power. To me it seems always a byproduct of more significant and sometimes accidental forces. For example, I think it likely that a spreading western ethos (of which I am not an uncritical fan) derived from European civilization will inflate China's population power. The Soviet Union wasn't overpowered: it had some flawed reasoning about human life.
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Jul 14, 2004 0:31:34 GMT -5
I don't want to get into the specifics right now, mostly because I have to go to sleep and it'll be a long post, but I would argue that Québec (and the French language in North America) is much stronger as part of an officially bilingual nation of 31,500,000 people than as a Francophone nation of 7,500,000.
That being said, I am a supporter of a Meech-Lake style accord that would recognize Québec's distinctiveness within the Canadian federation, and would allow Québec to sign back into the constitution, as long as
-The amending formula for the constitution is fair and just for all Canadians -Native peoples are also recognized as distinct within the Canadian federation
I think the simpler the better - leave Senate reform and the question of our Constitutional Monarchy status for after such an agreement, to allow the new amending formula to take effect.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 14, 2004 6:49:39 GMT -5
Re: Right now Canada has the potential to be a blueprint country of tollerance in this world. It is home to many, many ethnic groups Too true. There is no other way. I read an earlier posting holding that an english majority nationally gives some kind of mandate for an english language dominance. This power-based rationale ignores the greater power;that of reason and further ignores not just fundamental human rights, but hman life itself. Quebecers have always and continue to present the world with the spirit of tolerance and acceptance that underlies a deep maturity. Quebecers inform Canada with this spirit. Canada is very much a work of Quebecers, and is so very much the richer for it. I salute all Quebecers including of course those who (I hope incorrectly) would seek to withdraw from this foolish venture that is us, that is Canada. Welcome to the board, TH. Please take a moment to review the board Code of Conduct on the main page. Good to have new members on board. All of us look forward to reading your ideas and opinions. Again, welcome. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by LoupDogg on Jul 15, 2004 8:37:02 GMT -5
So why the need for sovereignty? That comment was from days ago, but I just forget to answer it. Because, at the present stage, we can build a hut to accomodate the Quebec culture in all its diversity. Yet, Quebec's culture needs a house to prosper and to live well. The materials to build it (complete political powers) can only come with sovereignty, or with a very very assymetrical form of federalism that the ROC will never grant. I'm glad that we all expressed our opinions about this matter with the due respect our opinions deserve.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jul 15, 2004 22:54:12 GMT -5
Hey PTF
Think twice. Who could want to be part of a country that no longer had Newfies. Alberta, maybe, but no more Newfies?! Utterly unthinkable. Quebecers are ultimately too wise to suffer such a tragedy.
My first Candadian ancester arrived with France's marine corps to help save Montreal's eight hundred or so French inhabitants from annhilation. It may be that I am simply uncomfortable with the very idea of Quebecers choosing not to continue being Canadians, and God knows I could think of a few reasons why that might at least seem a good thing. It may be that my reasons in defence of our Canada are more emotional and personal than altruisticly rational. I don't believe that, but my strong love for Quebec and Canada are probably more powerful than putative arguments pro and con. I don't doubt for a minute but that all Canadians, including Quebec would soon be speaking American. I am completely certain that "Canada" would not exist if Quebec were to "separate". or more accurately, divorce. And there is the crux of the matter. Our mutual divorce as was beautifully expressed in an earlier posting would be a tragedy of world proportions and would be accurately perceived and felt as such by the people of our world.
It would be an immense spiritual failure leaving us all much smaller and meaner than before. While there must be sacrifice, give and take, in all relationships, the brilliant French thinker Teilhard de Chardin observed considering the rise of live in our cold universe, "Everything that rises must converge." Let's rise, together.
I do not of course intend to paint those who disagree with me as servants of a lesser god, but there can be no doubt but that the world would rightly experience and perceive an immense failure. I pray that we all continue rising.
I really enjoy reading the thoughtful observations and responses offered here.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 15, 2004 23:11:50 GMT -5
It would be an immense spiritual failure leaving us all much smaller and meaner than before. While there must be sacrifice, give and take, in all relationships, the brilliant French thinker Teilhard de Chardin observed considering the rise of live in our cold universe, "Everything that rises must converge." Let's rise, together. I'm all for "rising together", but it's a question of Quebec and ROC going up together and not of having Quebec being absorbed within the ROC over time. if the ROC won't give Quebec a Meech-type accord, I can't want to stay in Canada. And remember this - economic integration best happens after political independance. Modification: that last statement is my own personnal observation. Look at Europe - smaller countries, once they're given a free reign on their own affairs, are fine with joining a bigger whole. Doing so as a minority within a bigger country wasn't quite as attractive.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jul 17, 2004 14:04:02 GMT -5
I'm all for "rising together", but it's a question of Quebec and ROC going up together and not of having Quebec being absorbed within the ROC over time. if the ROC won't give Quebec a Meech-type accord, I can't want to stay in Canada. And remember this - economic integration best happens after political independance. Modification: that last statement is my own personnal observation. Look at Europe - smaller countries, once they're given a free reign on their own affairs, are fine with joining a bigger whole. Doing so as a minority within a bigger country wasn't quite as attractive. Quebecers are of course free, like Albertans and PEI'ers to leave and lose their Canadianism. It is my view that this would be a truly incalculable loss to all of us Canadians no matter which province we are in. I am not an expert on government or constitutions, but the idea of people in Quebec being a minority has never even crossed my mind. Quebecers have been running Canada throughout our history, and have done a great job of it too. Those in other provinces are experienced by us, not as they (or we), are but essentially as impressions and ideas, notions that often say more about the observer than the observed. Canada is no monolith. It is a very loose federation with very limited powers. The Europeans haven't gone from a necessary political freedom to economic union. They've gone from going steady to getting engaged. We're married. Romantic siren songs, however appealing, lose their lustre rather quickly once pursued. Time to renew our vows. I Ontario take you Quebec and Newfoundland to be.....I promise to...
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 18, 2004 0:49:40 GMT -5
It is my view that this would be a truly incalculable loss to all of us Canadians no matter which province we are in..... We hear this over and over, yet whenever Quebec wants to negotiate a bit of breathing room in Canada we run into a brick wall. What's the point of "diversity" if we're all going to be put in the same anglo-canadian straightjacket anyhow ?
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 18, 2004 12:00:12 GMT -5
We hear this over and over, yet whenever Quebec wants to negotiate a bit of breathing room in Canada we run into a brick wall. What's the point of "diversity" if we're all going to be put in the same anglo-canadian straightjacket anyhow ? I agree with your straightjacket question: how can there be diversity in uniformity? The great thing about Canada is the realization of uniqueness within the unity. Now . . . specifics, please: we tend to rhetoric too much, I fear. Freedom, decision-making power, the fight against cultural assimilation, Meech Lake-like powers -- what do all these mean? I was a westerner (albeit an eastern westerner, if you follow my drift) for too long. Alberta jealosy of Quebec's demands (forgive the term) colours open discussion Question: what does the average Quebecer (not talking about separation-or-nothing) want?
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jul 18, 2004 12:33:07 GMT -5
We hear this over and over, yet whenever Quebec wants to negotiate a bit of breathing room in Canada we run into a brick wall. What's the point of "diversity" if we're all going to be put in the same anglo-canadian straightjacket anyhow ? Two different points. The loss of Canada, which is what would happen is, I repeat utterly incalculable. It would be very good to hear this over and over again. I am aware of absolutely no issue or problem or putative solution to anything that even remotely warrants so destructive and catastrophic a "solution". There is no "anglo-candadian" straight jacket. I would of course agree that there are cultural differences between French and English heritages, and I would further state that I overwhelmingly prefer and am more sympathetic to French culture as I believe I understand it. I am at heart a Quebecer, no matter where I go or live, and I am forever a Montrealer and would have it no other way. Who could? These are closer to my personal sense of self than my nationality, just as families are more formative than neighborhoods, but this truism doesn't imply that anyone would be the richer by diminishing and devastating one's most fundamental relationships and rights. The tendancy towards individuation is common in our times and unless justified by traumatic abuse, is ultimately merely destructive and sterile.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 18, 2004 12:38:01 GMT -5
I agree with your straightjacket question: how can there be diversity in uniformity? The great thing about Canada is the realization of uniqueness within the unity. That's a typical anglo-Canadian view, which I can understand and respect, but it lacks the asterisk for Quebec's distinct heritage and culture. As I tried to explain to a guy of Italian descent when I lived in Ottawa, using a color-based analogy - your POV views Canada as a large red canvas, and you can throw colours on it (given the lack of colours I'm forced to generalise, but you get the idea) - say Green for Italy, Yellow for oriental, Dark Red for Indians, pale brown for Muslims, Blue for francophones. And all get to live happily ever after in a land of diversity and multi-culturalism. That's an excellent model and that's how most non-Quebecers seem to view the country, and they see it as a strong and stable model, and in a way they're right. Yet the idea stays, that as the immigrants integrate into the country over generations, they fade into the Red from the canvas. Sure they might change the tint a tad, but it stays a red canvas. My friend wasn't in any way Italian anymore, except for his name. Essentially, he'd gone from Green to Red over a generation or two. Maybe following tons of Muslims joining the red will be a tad lighter, but most people don't see a problem with that - but it's still mostly red. And there's the rub - Quebecers aren't just another colour thrown on a red canvas, they want their share of the canvas to be blue. We're not just another group joining a country (as wonderful as it may be), we're a part of the base canvas that shouldn't be treated like a latecomer which is fated to slowly fade away and integrate into the majority. Freedom to not be stomped out by the majority who make their decisions based on a red canvas. To give you what examples I can.... For the French majority to survive, we've needed some language laws (people usually think about the signs as being the crux of the matter, but it's more a question of who's allowed to go to English-language school) - most of those aren't acceptable and Quebec had to use the veto-equivalent we've barely got to keep things as they were. But what's to say some new law won't be imposed Federally (say by a Conservative majority government) that we won't be able to get out of ? After an Engineering-school massacre something like 12 or 15 years ago Quebec wanted a gun registry - country-wide would be best, but something for just the province would do just as well. Given western objections it looks like it'll never work. Our solutions and the rest of the country's often don't fit. Re-inserting young criminals. The rest of the country (ie, the red canvas), wants a tough law for kids who commit crimes. Quebec already has a system in place for re-inserting them and getting them back on track - and in Quebec, it works, and it's not at all a "tough" system as wanted elsewhere. What happens when some PM, after a 12 year old participates in a gang massacre, wants to toughen things up, and doesn't have time to listen to objections to just a handful of deputies from Quebec ? These are just off the top of my head, there are many more. Quebec is a "distinct" society in that its problems and needs are fundamentally different to the rest of the country; sociologically it's hard to distinguish between most other provinces, but in every respect Quebec is "off the chart" compared with other provinces - marriage, divorce, suicide rates, whatever. It's not always a "good" difference, but it means Alberta has problems we don't and Quebec has problems Alberta doesn't have - or has and wants solved fundamentally differently. For that to work, you need either sovereignty or some kind of reformed federalism, where Quebec isn't told to just "be another province and shut up". Quebec needs the possibility to opt-out of Federal programs and just get the money. Chrétien had a huge grants project to help university education... but Quebec already had a very generous grants program set up, and university costs are much lower anyhow. It was a total waste of money in Quebec. Just another example that what's good for the ROC isn't always good for Quebec. This means Quebec needs to know and feel that this difference is known and respected in the rest of the country. Lip-service along the lines of "we love you, don't go, it'll be a terrible loss if you leave, you'll be destroying the country" seems terribly shallow when you know that the people uttering it aren't open to a compromise solution (ie, a Meech-Lake style accord). Diversity and billingualism are seen to be worth a lot, and yet, no one is willing to compromise to keep it. Edit: And just one last point.... The reason this needs to be in the constitution is that Quebec won't always be in a position of "strength". Right now, Quebec can feel relatively well listened to, well enough to stay in the country. But as years go on, the demographic balance is changing.... the West is growing, the East isn't. If Quebec no longer has a large voice at the Federal level (say Quebec is down to 15% of the population of the country) and a Western-based party takes power (say with modest Ontario support), we want our rights to be defined solidly enough that there won't be too much of a problem. In other words, the fear of the "red canvas" majority isn't for tomorrow morning, it's for years and generations to come.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 18, 2004 13:44:36 GMT -5
That's a typical anglo-Canadian view, which I can understand and respect, but it lacks the asterisk for Quebec's distinct heritage and culture. As I tried to explain to a guy of Italian descent when I lived in Ottawa, using a color-based analogy - your POV views Canada as a large red canvas, and you can throw colours on it (given the lack of colours I'm forced to generalise, but you get the idea) - say Green for Italy, Yellow for oriental, Dark Red for Indians, pale brown for Muslims, Blue for francophones. And all get to live happily ever after in a land of diversity and multi-culturalism. That's an excellent model and that's how most non-Quebecers seem to view the country, and they see it as a strong and stable model, and in a way they're right. Yet the idea stays, that as the immigrants integrate into the country over generations, they fade into the Red from the canvas. Sure they might change the tint a tad, but it stays a red canvas. My friend wasn't in any way Italian anymore, except for his name. Essentially, he'd gone from Green to Red over a generation or two. Maybe following tons of Muslims joining the red will be a tad lighter, but most people don't see a problem with that - but it's still mostly red. And there's the rub - Quebecers aren't just another colour thrown on a red canvas, they want their share of the canvas to be blue. We're not just another group joining a country (as wonderful as it may be), we're a part of the base canvas that shouldn't be treated like a latecomer which is fated to slowly fade away and integrate into the majority. Freedom to not be stomped out by the majority who make their decisions based on a red canvas. To give you what examples I can.... For the French majority to survive, we've needed some language laws (people usually think about the signs as being the crux of the matter, but it's more a question of who's allowed to go to English-language school) - most of those aren't acceptable and Quebec had to use the veto-equivalent we've barely got to keep things as they were. But what's to say some new law won't be imposed Federally (say by a Conservative majority government) that we won't be able to get out of ? After an Engineering-school massacre something like 12 or 15 years ago Quebec wanted a gun registry - country-wide would be best, but something for just the province would do just as well. Given western objections it looks like it'll never work. Our solutions and the rest of the country's often don't fit. Re-inserting young criminals. The rest of the country (ie, the red canvas), wants a tough law for kids who commit crimes. Quebec already has a system in place for re-inserting them and getting them back on track - and in Quebec, it works, and it's not at all a "tough" system as wanted elsewhere. What happens when some PM, after a 12 year old participates in a gang massacre, wants to toughen things up, and doesn't have time to listen to objections to just a handful of deputies from Quebec ? These are just off the top of my head, there are many more. Quebec is a "distinct" society in that its problems and needs are fundamentally different to the rest of the country; sociologically it's hard to distinguish between most other provinces, but in every respect Quebec is "off the chart" compared with other provinces - marriage, divorce, suicide rates, whatever. It's not always a "good" difference, but it means Alberta has problems we don't and Quebec has problems Alberta doesn't have - or has and wants solved fundamentally differently. For that to work, you need either sovereignty or some kind of reformed federalism, where Quebec isn't told to just "be another province and shut up". Quebec needs the possibility to opt-out of Federal programs and just get the money. Chrétien had a huge grants project to help university education... but Quebec already had a very generous grants program set up, and university costs are much lower anyhow. It was a total waste of money in Quebec. Just another example that what's good for the ROC isn't always good for Quebec. This means Quebec needs to know and feel that this difference is known and respected in the rest of the country. Lip-service along the lines of "we love you, don't go, it'll be a terrible loss if you leave, you'll be destroying the country" seems terribly shallow when you know that the people uttering it aren't open to a compromise solution (ie, a Meech-Lake style accord). Diversity and billingualism are seen to be worth a lot, and yet, no one is willing to compromise to keep it. Edit: And just one last point.... The reason this needs to be in the constitution is that Quebec won't always be in a position of "strength". Right now, Quebec can feel relatively well listened to, well enough to stay in the country. But as years go on, the demographic balance is changing.... the West is growing, the East isn't. If Quebec no longer has a large voice at the Federal level (say Quebec is down to 15% of the population of the country) and a Western-based party takes power (say with modest Ontario support), we want our rights to be defined solidly enough that there won't be too much of a problem. In other words, the fear of the "red canvas" majority isn't for tomorrow morning, it's for years and generations to come. I want to avoid a big controversy where none is needed, but the main problem of immigrants joining the Red instead of Blue is caused because that is what the immigrants choose. Francophone Quebecers remain loyal to their heritage, a noble point of view. Immigrants, given a choice, generally choose Red as the path to success. We say that the government should not coerce citizens to assimilate into the Red fabric and culture and it doesn't. Should the government force immigrants to join the blue? I am thousands of miles away and it is no longer my problem, but as a distant observer it seems that a government is forcing the population to think and act in a particular cultural way through legislation. I'm not lecturing, but I disagree with legislation that unnecessarily is restrictive on personal liberty and freedom. When I lived on the West Island, I saw English as the preferred language and many of my friends, Eatons and many workplaces were unilingual English. I certainly don't advocate a return to the "Bad Old Days", but the inequities weren't entrenched in law and formally enforced by the government. I really don't think the people in Calgary and Newfoundland wake up every morning thinking of ways to oppress the French minority in the country. Fortunately the polarization has diminished from the days of the "referendum du jour"! Canada is an example of a country which has solved many differences between it's factions with compassion, understanding, and a minimum of violence. Ireland, Iraq, Cypress, Korea and Paki9stan could learn from the Canadian example.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 18, 2004 13:45:53 GMT -5
Thanks for the speedy reply. You'll understand if I take a day to give a careful response (something I don't always do, I'll admit). However, let me say that I don't think we're to far apart on some issues, though there's probably a vast chasm between us on others.
You are right that many Canadians are in the "please don't go" mode but really aren't careful thinkers about why ("My Canada includes Quebec, but too many Prime Ministers have been from there). However, not all are unthinking sheep.
You anology of the colours rings true -- unfortunately. many Canadians are proud that "we aren't like them Yankees (with apologies to HFLA and others)" -- we're multicultural and invite everyone to retain culture, ot a melting pot, yet at the same time ask "why don't you learn English and learn/follow our customs?"). So let me reconsider my realization of uniqueness within the unity thought. In theory that may be where we are; in practise . . .
Gun registry? I don't like it, but I've lived in a culture where shooting gophers is sport (not that I've participated, but its better than poison). In an urban culture it makes sense, so why not have it a regional issue (my bias coming through: limited federal government -- no, limited government period. In Kanata/Ottawa there was a by-law that prohibitted backyard clotheslines. How ridiculously intrusive). I don't understand why the registry couldn't have been initiated provincially . . . in fact, if it had been it may have given impetus for TROC to jump on board (an aside: the whole registry process could have worked if Ottawa hadn't mandated it/ordered the west to participate.
Criminals? Its the punishment mode that many are in favour of, which is stupid. Rehabilitaion is the way to go (doesn't work? How do we know?). But that's another issue.
I've already said more than I had planned to. I hope I haven't put my foot in my mouth and have to backtrack. I do think this, though: compromise must go both ways. I'm not sure what I'd ask of the people of Quebec in their compromise for renewed federalism, but realization that there are distinctives is necessary from both sides of the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jul 18, 2004 13:53:37 GMT -5
We hear this over and over, yet whenever Quebec wants to negotiate a bit of breathing room in Canada we run into a brick wall. What's the point of "diversity" if we're all going to be put in the same anglo-canadian straightjacket anyhow ? Two different points. The loss of Canada, which is what would happen is, I repeat utterly incalculable. It would be very good to hear this over and over again. I am aware of absolutely no issue or problem or putative solution to anything that even remotely warrants so destructive and catastrophic a "solution". There is no "anglo-candadian" straight jacket. I would of course agree that there are cultural differences between French and English heritages, and I would further state that I overwhelmingly prefer and am more sympathetic to French culture as I believe I understand it. I am at heart a Quebecer, no matter where I go or live, and I am forever a Montrealer and would have it no other way. Who could? These are closer to my personal sense of self than my nationality, just as families are more formative than neighborhoods, but this truism doesn't imply that anyone would be the richer by diminishing and devastating one's most fundamental relationships and rights. The tendancy towards individuation is common in our times and unless justified by traumatic abuse, is ultimately merely destructive and sterile.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 18, 2004 14:20:44 GMT -5
Two different points. The loss of Canada, which is what would happen is, I repeat utterly incalculable. It would be very good to hear this over and over again. I am aware of absolutely no issue or problem or putative solution to anything that even remotely warrants so destructive and catastrophic a "solution". So, if tomorrow there were a referendum on a new constitution, basically giving Quebec, and Quebec only, a constitutionnal veto on anything concerning Quebec (ie, not limited to one province) along with an opt-out clause on any and all federal programs so that we get back our share of the funds, would you vote for it ? 'cause that's what it takes to keep Canada as a whole and kill serious discussion of sovereignty in Quebec.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jul 18, 2004 14:41:10 GMT -5
That's a typical anglo-Canadian view, which I can understand and respect, but it lacks the asterisk for Quebec's distinct heritage and culture. As I tried to explain to a guy of Italian descent when I lived in Ottawa, using a color-based analogy - your POV views Canada as a large red canvas, and you can throw colours on it (given the lack of colours I'm forced to generalise, but you get the idea) - say Green for Italy, Yellow for oriental, Dark Red for Indians, pale brown for Muslims, Blue for francophones. And all get to live happily ever after in a land of diversity and multi-culturalism. That's an excellent model and that's how most non-Quebecers seem to view the country, and they see it as a strong and stable model, and in a way they're right. Yet the idea stays, that as the immigrants integrate into the country over generations, they fade into the Red from the canvas. Sure they might change the tint a tad, but it stays a red canvas. My friend wasn't in any way Italian anymore, except for his name. Essentially, he'd gone from Green to Red over a generation or two. Maybe following tons of Muslims joining the red will be a tad lighter, but most people don't see a problem with that - but it's still mostly red. And there's the rub - Quebecers aren't just another colour thrown on a red canvas, they want their share of the canvas to be blue. We're not just another group joining a country (as wonderful as it may be), we're a part of the base canvas that shouldn't be treated like a latecomer which is fated to slowly fade away and integrate into the majority. Freedom to not be stomped out by the majority who make their decisions based on a red canvas. To give you what examples I can.... For the French majority to survive, we've needed some language laws (people usually think about the signs as being the crux of the matter, but it's more a question of who's allowed to go to English-language school) - most of those aren't acceptable and Quebec had to use the veto-equivalent we've barely got to keep things as they were. But what's to say some new law won't be imposed Federally (say by a Conservative majority government) that we won't be able to get out of ? After an Engineering-school massacre something like 12 or 15 years ago Quebec wanted a gun registry - country-wide would be best, but something for just the province would do just as well. Given western objections it looks like it'll never work. Our solutions and the rest of the country's often don't fit. Re-inserting young criminals. The rest of the country (ie, the red canvas), wants a tough law for kids who commit crimes. Quebec already has a system in place for re-inserting them and getting them back on track - and in Quebec, it works, and it's not at all a "tough" system as wanted elsewhere. What happens when some PM, after a 12 year old participates in a gang massacre, wants to toughen things up, and doesn't have time to listen to objections to just a handful of deputies from Quebec ? These are just off the top of my head, there are many more. Quebec is a "distinct" society in that its problems and needs are fundamentally different to the rest of the country; sociologically it's hard to distinguish between most other provinces, but in every respect Quebec is "off the chart" compared with other provinces - marriage, divorce, suicide rates, whatever. It's not always a "good" difference, but it means Alberta has problems we don't and Quebec has problems Alberta doesn't have - or has and wants solved fundamentally differently. For that to work, you need either sovereignty or some kind of reformed federalism, where Quebec isn't told to just "be another province and shut up". Quebec needs the possibility to opt-out of Federal programs and just get the money. Chrétien had a huge grants project to help university education... but Quebec already had a very generous grants program set up, and university costs are much lower anyhow. It was a total waste of money in Quebec. Just another example that what's good for the ROC isn't always good for Quebec. This means Quebec needs to know and feel that this difference is known and respected in the rest of the country. Lip-service along the lines of "we love you, don't go, it'll be a terrible loss if you leave, you'll be destroying the country" seems terribly shallow when you know that the people uttering it aren't open to a compromise solution (ie, a Meech-Lake style accord). Diversity and billingualism are seen to be worth a lot, and yet, no one is willing to compromise to keep it. Edit: And just one last point.... The reason this needs to be in the constitution is that Quebec won't always be in a position of "strength". Right now, Quebec can feel relatively well listened to, well enough to stay in the country. But as years go on, the demographic balance is changing.... the West is growing, the East isn't. If Quebec no longer has a large voice at the Federal level (say Quebec is down to 15% of the population of the country) and a Western-based party takes power (say with modest Ontario support), we want our rights to be defined solidly enough that there won't be too much of a problem. In other words, the fear of the "red canvas" majority isn't for tomorrow morning, it's for years and generations to come. Like a typical Quebecer, I agree with you on virtually all points. I think your red canvas analogy is pretty good too. I think the "notwithstanding clause" provides a means for addressing most potential areas of conflict. I strongly support a gun registry and careful control. (Are guns less dangerous than bicycles and dogs?). I believe provinces can pass and enforce laws for this and more intelligent and compassionate approaches to youth problems. Quebec has provided the model for federal initiatives worth emulating and Canada very much needs this. Culture and language are intimately entwined and both are worth protecting and preserving. While the public face of the bloc says it's not about french, it is of course about french and should be. I have a Quebec ancestor who was intimately involved in rebllion against English rule, and another segment of my family had to move to the US following an act of rebellion. I approve of both. Should we divide and divorce on the following grounds; Albertans so they can elect a senate of all the dumb ideas and thereafter enjoy a US style federa; executive (vastly more centralized than Canada's and with an individual at the top who weilds more personal power than any sane nation should permit...one can imagine a scenario wherein a dangerous moron might just lead a nation into a war for nothing but personal motives...I know that's too preposterous.) Newfies because they heard the voice of Cod telling them to. Ontario so they can enjoy thier industrial power and beat up on youthful offenders undisturbed. B.C. so they can hoard the Pacific and not have to look past the Rockies Sakatchewan so they can continue the belief that the world is flat Manitoba so they won't have to share Winnipeg with us PEI so they can continue their coast enlargement project and the bridge to Europe project. My point is that everyone has reasons to be unhappy. A world without such reasons was described by Thomas More and called Utopia....which means Nowhere. It is not simplistic to say, Don't worry, be happy with the wonders we enjoy in this most blessed of nations, and by all means advance and promote those areas that need it, as in this forum. Quebec is already libre. So is PEI. So are you and I. The world shrinketh and everything that rises must converge. (Teilhard de Chardin)
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jul 18, 2004 15:17:44 GMT -5
So, if tomorrow there were a referendum on a new constitution, basically giving Quebec, and Quebec only, a constitutionnal veto on anything concerning Quebec (ie, not limited to one province) along with an opt-out clause on any and all federal programs so that we get back our share of the funds, would you vote for it ? 'cause that's what it takes to keep Canada as a whole and kill serious discussion of sovereignty in Quebec. If I understand you correctly and I'm not certain that I do, there seems little difference to me (and I may be wrong in this) between saying what you have said, and saying. We will be a part of Canada so long as we don't have to be a part of the country constitutionally or institutionally. What's left? A further point is that I generally loathe the idea of referendi and really lament that so many North Americans fail to grasp the import and necessity of representative democracy and party systems, imperfect though they be. So, if Canada were to pass a constitutional ammendment calling for a necessary sixty or sixty-six and two thirds percent assent requiremnt for secession and the Quebec assembly du jour didn't like it, you would think it shouldn't apply. I don't want some Ralph Klein or other to be able to opt out of federal health act programs either. Why would I wish such potential havoc on my brothers and sisters in Quebec, by giving their temporary provincial leaders such arbitrary power? I would however be supportive of discussion of particular powers reflective of partiular needs. I would not insist that Sask. participate in the reporting aspects of the Atlantic salmon programs, though I might insist that they participate through general revenue. I don't know if this addresses or answers your question well enough, but our ability to revisit such responses is a sort of notwithstanding clause. I am a Canadian. I will not lightly have any provincial party or politician arbitrarily deprive me of my legitimate heritage, rights or reponsibilities as a Canadian.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 18, 2004 16:07:11 GMT -5
If I understand you correctly and I'm not certain that I do, there seems little difference to me (and I may be wrong in this) between saying what you have said, and saying. We will be a part of Canada so long as we don't have to be a part of the country constitutionally or institutionally. What's left? Laws, taxes, the army, most federal programs since opting out is still a pain. I agree, the referendum example was to make it personnal - is the person calling for everyone to get along willing to compromise? I think Quebec should have the right to veto it, yes. Unless the amendment clearly established that somehow it didn't apply to Quebec, in which case it's not any of our business. Here we have a difference in perspective - Quebecers view their "premier" (I hate that expression, in French both provincial and fed. are prime ministers) as their real captain, and the Ottawa guy as a kind of distant admiral. We don't see the local leader as being any less responsible than the clown in Ottawa. I fully agree with having some common sense in all of this. But that doesn't stop the need for Quebec to know that it has a last-ditch defense of its prerogatives if the clown in Ottawa is akin to the current unilateral clown in Washington DC. I don't think we're that far apart, but you seem more willing to give full trust to the federal level than I ever would. Then again, I'm part of the minority, and I know that a prime minister with a strong majority could still have no one from Quebec on his cabinet. Which is why I don't want to count on "re-inventing" as we go along. That can work for a country which is more balanced (say Belgium, which is much closer to 50-50 than we are), but not for a country with a clear minority.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 18, 2004 16:13:40 GMT -5
Like a typical Quebecer, I agree with you on virtually all points. I think your red canvas analogy is pretty good too. Thx. I always thought it was a nice analogy, but it goes over best in writing, so you can slip in the needed provisos, otherwise it looks like a description of a melting pot. Well, I agree, but I think we're getting off the point (I don't want to get into individual issues) I agree, and I know an independant Quebec won't be heavenly, it would be awfully close to what we have now. The difference is, the rest of the country is socially similar enough to be able to work out common solution, but they often won't work in Quebec. Agreed. I always thought the first sentence in a referendum victory for sovereignty should be to thank Canada for being such a free country that we could discuss all this and have a vote on it. And thank Canada for being a good adoptive parent, but that the time has come to move out. Canada is 90% of the country that we need, but that final 10% just can't come while we're constrained by confederation. 90% is far above what we could have anywhere else in the world, but we still want that 10%. And Quebec's heritage will always be very much British/Canadian, and we won't turn back on that. As I've said in the past, economic convergence comes best when countries have political independance.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 18, 2004 16:15:30 GMT -5
I want to avoid a big controversy where none is needed, but the main problem of immigrants joining the Red instead of Blue is caused because that is what the immigrants choose. Francophone Quebecers remain loyal to their heritage, a noble point of view. Immigrants, given a choice, generally choose Red as the path to success. No longer, thanks to Bill 101. If Immigrants want to join the Red group, they should immigrate elsewhere.... the laws been there for decades now, there's no reason for people not to be aware of it when they decide where to go.
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Jul 18, 2004 18:27:50 GMT -5
And thank Canada for being a good adoptive parent, but that the time has come to move out. Quebec was just as much to blame for Canada's creation as Ontario, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia (actually, much more to blame than Nova Scotia). So if there is additional thanks, it should be to Canada for being a good co-operative, not a good parent.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jul 19, 2004 0:07:24 GMT -5
As a newbie PTH , I don't know how to take selective quotes from an item, but to elucidate a little, I don't have boundless faith in any governments, but do not at all share the widespread cynicism of most North Americans. I believe that most people are motivated to get into politcs out of pretty genuine intentions to make things better for all. I usually find most of them to be fairly thoughtful and articulate, and more circumspect than most of their critics.
However...more to the point, there are few things a political party or individual can do that cannot be undone. You would include even the countries themselves in this as would I. My point is that most political works can be politically reworked.
Unless I have missed something, I have not seen any compelling reason to deprive yourself, or your fellow Quebecers of their country; the ten percent you claim to be lacking is not visbly lacking to me. A further point is that my family is a Quebec family. They are blue, a very true blue. And they are also canadiens and would have it no other way. This is no parent - child relationship we are describing here, it is a quite mature interdependent and democratic nation of considerable world reputation in which Quebec has played a profound and vital part. Quebec has exerted vastly more influence inhternationally as a pivotal part of what it is to be Canadian, than could ever have been the case otherwise. The corollary is also true. Canada could never have achieved her singular status without Quebec being part of her heart. It is a wonderful privilege:one we of course take for granted with along with good health, family and every other good thing in life.
Should Ontario have a veto? Alberta? PEI? What would Quebec need a veto for? An opoting out provisal? Perhaps, but is that a vital need for anything. Most Quebecers, most "blues" are "also reds". There is this imperfect and great thing that is Canada, that is you and me, that is us. Admittedly there are some who just don't get it, but that's just too bad. One doesn't design a country around the dumbest common denominator, but rather over it and despite it. I don't see the particular challenges confronting the beautiful province of Quebec as in any way trivial. Most of the concerns are shared by all Canadians, for they are universals shared by mankind. Countries largely are responses to these challenges. The means for their resolution are already there. In this respect, I see the separatist purpose as immature and frivolous. This is not intended to imply that those who embrace the idea are such. A great many "blue" also view it similarly.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 19, 2004 14:06:04 GMT -5
Thanks for the speedy reply. You'll understand if I take a day to give a careful response (something I don't always do, I'll admit). However, let me say that I don't think we're to far apart on some issues, though there's probably a vast chasm between us on others. You are right that many Canadians are in the "please don't go" mode but really aren't careful thinkers about why ("My Canada includes Quebec, but too many Prime Ministers have been from there). However, not all are unthinking sheep. You anology of the colours rings true -- unfortunately. many Canadians are proud that "we aren't like them Yankees (with apologies to HFLA and others)" -- we're multicultural and invite everyone to retain culture, ot a melting pot, yet at the same time ask "why don't you learn English and learn/follow our customs?"). So let me reconsider my realization of uniqueness within the unity thought. In theory that may be where we are; in practise . . . Gun registry? I don't like it, but I've lived in a culture where shooting gophers is sport (not that I've participated, but its better than poison). In an urban culture it makes sense, so why not have it a regional issue (my bias coming through: limited federal government -- no, limited government period. In Kanata/Ottawa there was a by-law that prohibitted backyard clotheslines. How ridiculously intrusive). I don't understand why the registry couldn't have been initiated provincially . . . in fact, if it had been it may have given impetus for TROC to jump on board (an aside: the whole registry process could have worked if Ottawa hadn't mandated it/ ordered the west to participate. Criminals? Its the punishment mode that many are in favour of, which is stupid. Rehabilitaion is the way to go (doesn't work? How do we know?). But that's another issue. I've already said more than I had planned to. I hope I haven't put my foot in my mouth and have to backtrack. I do think this, though: compromise must go both ways. I'm not sure what I'd ask of the people of Quebec in their compromise for renewed federalism, but realization that there are distinctives is necessary from both sides of the issue. I recently read the definitive difference between Canadians and Americans. Canadians and Americans were both legislated by their governments to adopt the metric measurement system. Today roadsigns in Canada are metric and those in the US are not. Canadians saw the benefits of worldwide use of the metric system and obedience to the law. Americans didn't like the law and ignored it. I'm not saying either one is better, but we are different.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 19, 2004 20:54:35 GMT -5
As a newbie PTH , I don't know how to take selective quotes from an item, but to elucidate a little, I don't have boundless faith in any governments, but do not at all share the widespread cynicism of most North Americans. I believe that most people are motivated to get into politcs out of pretty genuine intentions to make things better for all. I usually find most of them to be fairly thoughtful and articulate, and more circumspect than most of their critics. I don't agree or disagree, but I think there's a tendency in the ROC to see premiers kinda like city mayors - maybe well intentionned, but they shouldn't have too much power. That view isn't in Quebec. Well, a consitution that has a strict amendment formula is one thing that can't be reworked without the proper consent. Well, this could be interpreted however we want, should Quebecers be deprived of the country they're sharing, or should they be deprived of having their very own country ? The 10% was just to illustrate that Canada is very good, but that I think an independant Quebec or a Canada with a reviewed, Meech-type constitution, would be better. Well, if the rest of the country saw things the same way, we wouldn't have a problem. Because of the very real possibility of getting stomped on by a majority government that includes little or no Quebec representation, a government that would view the country as a "red canvas". Yes, to me, it is. Again, because of the "red canvas". What's to stop the next PM from funding a huge program that simply doesn't work in Quebec because Quebec is socially fundamentally different, and waste our share of that program when we could have used it properly ? Well, to me the problem is that those who don't get "my view" or the majority.... ie: "Quebec is another province that has its challenges and like all other provinces will face them to the best of its ability", ie, "Quebec is just another province and should stop whining" The separatist purpose is to maintain Quebec's culture, and we just don't trust Canada to allow us to do that in the long run. It could be done of course, but Canada has refused to seriously look at the question. I'm not a hard-core sovereignist, but given the attitude from the rest of the country I don't see a solution to the current constitutionnal impasse. Let's keep in mind that the current constitution is unacceptable to Quebec governments. --------------------- Note for All:Guys, it's great to have this debate rationnally, but I'm getting tired with just about everyone having dissenting opinions, not that I'm suprised, given that this is an English-language forum - I'm just getting exhausted replying. I think if people want to understand my POV they should read over my posts in this thread, they pretty much contain a response to most replies.
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Jul 19, 2004 21:48:31 GMT -5
Note for All:Guys, it's great to have this debate rationnally, but I'm getting tired with just about everyone having dissenting opinions, not that I'm suprised, given that this is an English-language forum - I'm just getting exhausted replying. I think if people want to understand my POV they should read over my posts in this thread, they pretty much contain a response to most replies. Thanks for the debate, PTH, I enjoyed it. I had the same ennui about continuing it, so I know where you're coming from. We might have different opinions, but I think we respect each other, and I think that's the important thing.
|
|