|
Post by UberCranky on Apr 16, 2005 10:24:21 GMT -5
The Gomery inguiry has brought the Fib'erals fortunes to the ground and paved the way for the Seperatist party to win a clear majority in Quebec in the next election. Another vote for separation will NOT be far behind. Top it off with a probable Conservative majority and I can see clearly a broken Canada by 2008. What saddens me is that I like Canada as it is. It is not perfect, but it IS my country from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Sadly, it may not survive another 4 years. A country broken by petty self interests. The-Little-Corrupt-Liar-From-Shawiniggan once proclaimed that he was the best man to keep Canada together. His blind self interest, his blind desire for power, his lack of true vision, his inability to understand his actions and their consequences will bring my Canada to it’s knees. SCREW YOU Mr. Cretien, a broken country will be YOUR legacy. Tell me I'm wrong, tell me that it will not happen. ![:'(](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cry.png)
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 17, 2005 4:45:05 GMT -5
I'd thought separation was pretty much dead, but if the Conservatives are elected, I might want to separate from Canada myself. At this point I'll be suprised if there is a Conservative majority though, but perhaps I'm just in denial.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 17, 2005 6:21:58 GMT -5
I think you're somewhat right: separatism was pretty much dead, though there are pockets and people where the hard-core ideal was firm. This has just rekindled the debate: Buy us off? What do you think we are?
Don't worry about a Conservative majority -- they'd have to sweep Ontario (which means Toronto) and it ain't going to happen. So we'll flounder for the next decade, going back and forth with minorities. Unless Quebec does separate, in which case it'll take less seats to win the majority, and the Liberals will regain power -- not because of policy (see: the last elections(s)) but because of the continued fear tactics used re: the Conservative hidden agenda.
Better idea: VOTE GREEN
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 17, 2005 7:40:33 GMT -5
In Québec the popularity of the concept of independence ebbs and flows; it will never vanish.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Apr 17, 2005 7:52:56 GMT -5
I think what you guys are missing is the pending Bloc majority.
Some separatist Quebecers feel that the Liberal money machine stopped their dreams and now, a lot of Quebecers feel that the Liberals are too corrupt to run the country. Sooooo do many Canadians! If the Liberal vote is diminished in Quebec, the Cons'ervatives are NOT going to take those seats, the Bloc will.
They Bloc has 54 of 75 seats now and likely to have 65 of 75 seats in the next election. To the Bloc and the hardline seperatist this is as much a climate in favor of a yes vote as there will ever be. If they do NOT have a referendum after the next election, they may never have one for decades.
Thus you build the scenario.......
With a Bloc majority and a possible "YES" vote, the Conservatives have already stated in the past that they will negotiate for separation. After all, it is in their best interest to do so. With Quebec and it’s seats gone, they have a Western powerbase to counterbalance Ontario for the foreseeable future.
Except…..every Canadian will know WHO where the mf’ers who proceeded to separate Canada.
Yasssir! The Fiberals and The-Little-Corrupt-Liar-From-Shawiniggan and Prince Martin need to pay with the destruction of their party but at this point, we do not have anyone to replace them (no, NOT the laughable NDP). The country DESPERATLY needs another Center or slightly left of Center party. Will it form in time? No.
There is a wild card and it is a potential for economic blight to develop that will force everyone into a more conservative thinking. Do we hope for a massive recession to counter balance a countries breakup? Sheesh....
In the end.......
I keep looking into my crystal balls and the hazy outcome seems to be that in four years, my Canada will be very different from what we know now. I hope this is one of those predictions that I will NEVER, EVER have to say, "I told you so".
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 17, 2005 15:03:31 GMT -5
The Conservatives need a Diefenbaker or better yet, George "W" Bush to unite the Red Provinces against the Blue one!
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 17, 2005 17:40:17 GMT -5
What are the chances of national electoral reform? BC will soon be voting on whether to adopt a "single transferable vote" system and I think it would be a great improvement. It should put an end to strategic voting, which would probably hurt the Liberals and help the NDP and the Green Party.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 17, 2005 20:17:16 GMT -5
In Québec the popularity of the concept of independence ebbs and flows; it will never vanish. It's got a basic 35-40% rating in just about any election. That's why when you see the PQ or the Bloc doing badly in the polls, they fall back on their hard-core that they might be wary of losing for that election if they went out on too much of a limb and just looked like a "normal" left-leaning party.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 17, 2005 20:18:50 GMT -5
SCREW YOU Mr. Cretien, a broken country will be YOUR legacy. If Chrétien's legacy is going to lead to a succesful referendum, then I might have to go from hating Chrétien to just mildly disliking him.
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Apr 19, 2005 8:58:18 GMT -5
If Chrétien's legacy is going to lead to a succesful referendum, then I might have to go from hating Chrétien to just mildly disliking him. Interesting use of the word successful.
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Apr 19, 2005 16:30:54 GMT -5
Another possibility is that Québec will not secede but will serve as a swing vote in a government that lacks a parliamentary majority and has to form a coalition. It would be able to wring a lot of concessions while giving up very little.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 19, 2005 16:43:51 GMT -5
Another possibility is that Québec will not secede but will serve as a swing vote in a government that lacks a parliamentary majority and has to form a coalition. It would be able to wring a lot of concessions while giving up very little. That has been standard practice for many decades.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 19, 2005 20:05:28 GMT -5
...To make matter worse Cranky, the PQ is right now governed by a provincial liberal government that cumulates goofs and blunders one after the other and that will throw us back into a deficit after we struggled for years to make it to 0 deficit and despite an anti-deficit law… The government of Jean Charest is the worst I have seen in this province and a close second in my book to worst ever to Mulroney’s year that brought Canada on the edge of bankruptcy… Next election will have a separatist party take on Quebec. Whether it’s the PQ or the ADQ. At a federal level, as you said, the Bloc already has an outstanding majority and will end up getting only more seats as there are no alternatives in Quebec. When the next referendum will come who the heck will defend the benefits of Canada ? Martin and his crooked/corrupted Liberals ? The Conservatives who hold no roots in Quebec and are basically a spin-off of the anti-Quebec Reform Party ? Jean Charest ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) Nope. You are right Cranky, Canada as you’ve known it is on its dying years. I’ve been a federalist all my life and voted NO to every referendum I could vote on. I’ve changed in recent years and now truly believe that Canada can develop better without having to deal with the specifics of Quebec and that Quebec could develop better if it had more power on item that are specific to it. I’m not even talking language and culture that only serves the rhetoric IMO; I’m talking about economic paths and the possibility to drive a smaller boat in seas that pertain to us. I think Canada and Quebec will forever have strong economic and social ties but its time they no longer share a common government.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 19, 2005 22:18:06 GMT -5
...To make matter worse Cranky, the PQ is right now governed by a provincial liberal government that cumulates goofs and blunders one after the other and that will throw us back into a deficit after we struggled for years to make it to 0 deficit and despite an anti-deficit law… The government of Jean Charest is the worst I have seen in this province and a close second in my book to worst ever to Mulroney’s year that brought Canada on the edge of bankruptcy… Next election will have a separatist party take on Quebec. Whether it’s the PQ or the ADQ. At a federal level, as you said, the Bloc already has an outstanding majority and will end up getting only more seats as there are no alternatives in Quebec. When the next referendum will come who the heck will defend the benefits of Canada ? Martin and his crooked/corrupted Liberals ? The Conservatives who hold no roots in Quebec and are basically a spin-off of the anti-Quebec Reform Party ? Jean Charest ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) Nope. You are right Cranky, Canada as you’ve known it is on its dying years. I’ve been a federalist all my life and voted NO to every referendum I could vote on. I’ve changed in recent years and now truly believe that Canada can develop better without having to deal with the specifics of Quebec and that Quebec could develop better if it had more power on item that are specific to it. I’m not even talking language and culture that only serves the rhetoric IMO; I’m talking about economic paths and the possibility to drive a smaller boat in seas that pertain to us. I think Canada and Quebec will forever have strong economic and social ties but its time they no longer share a common government. Very sad comentary on the status of Canadian leadership. Bush will be available in four years. Kerry is available now and he's Liberal enough for Canada. Al Gore is available too when he's not busy inventing the Internet. Maybe the US system with all it's faults, voting machines, Red and Blue states isn't that bad?
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Apr 20, 2005 2:27:16 GMT -5
Very sad comentary on the status of Canadian leadership. Bush will be available in four years. Kerry is available now and he's Liberal enough for Canada. Al Gore is available too when he's not busy inventing the Internet. Maybe the US system with all it's faults, voting machines, Red and Blue states isn't that bad? It is not an issue of political systems, it's an issue of politicians. Like I said earlier, the current slate of federal politicians are the embodiment of politics for the sake of power.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Apr 20, 2005 4:01:35 GMT -5
...To make matter worse Cranky, the PQ is right now governed by a provincial liberal government that cumulates goofs and blunders one after the other and that will throw us back into a deficit after we struggled for years to make it to 0 deficit and despite an anti-deficit law… The government of Jean Charest is the worst I have seen in this province and a close second in my book to worst ever to Mulroney’s year that brought Canada on the edge of bankruptcy… Next election will have a separatist party take on Quebec. Whether it’s the PQ or the ADQ. At a federal level, as you said, the Bloc already has an outstanding majority and will end up getting only more seats as there are no alternatives in Quebec. When the next referendum will come who the heck will defend the benefits of Canada ? Martin and his crooked/corrupted Liberals ? The Conservatives who hold no roots in Quebec and are basically a spin-off of the anti-Quebec Reform Party ? Jean Charest ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) Nope. You are right Cranky, Canada as you’ve known it is on its dying years. I’ve been a federalist all my life and voted NO to every referendum I could vote on. I’ve changed in recent years and now truly believe that Canada can develop better without having to deal with the specifics of Quebec and that Quebec could develop better if it had more power on item that are specific to it. I’m not even talking language and culture that only serves the rhetoric IMO; I’m talking about economic paths and the possibility to drive a smaller boat in seas that pertain to us. I think Canada and Quebec will forever have strong economic and social ties but its time they no longer share a common government. I think that Quebec will NOT be better off economically without Canada. Forever anda day, Quebec has wrung economic benefits in many forms. Besides the direct transfer of monies, it has also taken form in "not so public" subsidies and grants. Example......... Bombardier LIVES on government handouts and in fact fiercely and publicly supports them. CEO, Paul Tellier screams to the world that his company could not exist without them and needs the PROTECTION of Canada to exist. Needless to say, it will be the end of the rest of Canadian support/protection. Needless to say, Bombardier will die a painful death without subsidies and protection. Quebecers are expecting a provincial government to run with no deficit, great, but now you need to raise an additional 5 billion in taxes to displace the equilization payments. Plus there are hidden moneys in the form of grants and subsidies to industry that amount to another billion dollars or more. Plus 2-3 billion for Quebec's share of country wide costs like military program. That is 10 billion or more in ADDITIONAL taxation. If the Quebec "tax free" date was in August, it will land up in the month that turkeys fear for their lives. I am not involved in Quebec affairs but I heard that Quebec is looking into the Irish model of granting tax hiatus to new industry. Great, bring in the companies and don't raise any taxes from them. That will help the provincial budget even more. Industry is much more fluid then even in the recent past. They will come to Quebec is it suits them and leave the moment it doesn't. Remember one thing about the Irish model, Quebecers were NOT the equivalent of European poor and are not starting from the basement. Further, Ireland did this when China was not the economic investment vacuum it is now. Do you really think that you can compete on the world stage for industrial investment? China will give every concession Quebec will AND 25 cents an hour labour. Can you compete with that? Then of course, Vermont, New York, Ontario, New Brunswick and others can also create THEIR tax free zones AROUND Quebec and suck out existing Quebec companies. How can Quebec compete with states and provinces backed by the US or Canada? Everyone will suffer for the race to the bottom of the well but the other states and provinces have their respective countries to pull them back out. Who will Quebec have? Then there is the question of paying for other services. Will Quebec raise and feed an army? You need another 2-3 billion for that. You want Canada to keep an army? You share is to pay 2-3 billion. You say you don't need a army and let Canada pay for it. Sure. That will make the rest of the country even more intransigent when it comes to negotiate any economic agreements with Quebec. After all, one of the corner stones of separation is that it can use the Canadian dollar and open borders. Why? If you are not part and not willing to pay part of joint necessaties then why expect the free ride? Then there is the argument that Quebec can "negotiate" favorable terms of separation including the use of the dollar. Why is that? Have you ever heard of divorce that was sweet and generous. The rest of Canada will act for it's own self interest AND will be a very unwilling and uncooperative partner. After all, most Canadians will feel resentment that the country as they know is breaking up and will want no part in "generous" terms. I hate to use the term but "economic revenge" may be the most suitable term. Then there is the US. Next time they impose a lumber tariff, there will be no Canada to fight for it. In fact, any negotiations will the US will be a study of the 800 pound economic gorilla talking to economic squirrel monkey who NEEDS their forest to thrive on. It’s bad enough to be a Canadian chimp…….. In the past, there where arguments to be made that Quebec needed independence to preserve it's identity. That it has and does not "seem" to be the selling focus of separatism anymore because in large part, Quebecers see that within Canada, they do have the ability to preserve their identity. It now centers around "economic" benefits of separation. Quebecers should careful it is not a bill of goods that will cost Quebec society. Like all political parties and pokitical movements, politicians will lie and lie and then lie some more to convince their constituents that they are the uber solution. Seperatist can wind the Jack-in-the-box and tell Quebecers that when it pops everything will be great. The reality is that when that box pops open, NO ONE can predict what will come out. It is just as likely when that box opens, it can be a vacuum that will suck the economic life out of Quebec. Is not the world wide uncertainty and very rocky future bad enough? The US is printing money like crazy and ready to collapse. The economic oil-blood is running out and ready to send Western economies into a mess. Is that not enough to huddle together as.........Canadians? Anywho..... Don't shoot me, I'm just tossing some opinions in the stew. What I find painful and amusing is that the man who kept telling us how HE was so important in keeping Canada together is actuall the one who is wound the bomb that can blow us apart. SC**W YOU Mr. Little Guy.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 20, 2005 12:00:04 GMT -5
It is not an issue of political systems, it's an issue of politicians. Like I said earlier, the current slate of federal politicians are the embodiment of politics for the sake of power. I think it goes deeper than that. The Canadian system is conceptually superior to the American system with the two party limit and checks and balances. In practice, the Canadian system allows a party like the Liberals to stay in party since Julius Ceasar was a choir boy. The opposition is fragmented and the Liberals, although disliked, remain the mainstream in power. Power corrupts, but there is no opposition to pose a viable alternative. It's like when you have too many choices and can't make up your mind. I want a Ford Mustang GT in black. Mustangs come in forty colors, but if I choose Black, I get Red interior which I don't want and if I choose GT, I can't get a single CD player with leather. Too many choices and I'm upset that I'm paying a lot of money and not getting what I want. Take away all the permutations and combinations and I happily choose the color and options available. I want Cardinal John Ratzinger to become Pope Claven, but I'll settle for Benedict XVI.
|
|
|
Post by HardCap on Apr 20, 2005 12:33:43 GMT -5
I think it goes deeper than that. The Canadian system is conceptually superior to the American system with the two party limit and checks and balances. In practice, the Canadian system allows a party like the Liberals to stay in party since Julius Ceasar was a choir boy. The opposition is fragmented and the Liberals, although disliked, remain the mainstream in power. Power corrupts, but there is no opposition to pose a viable alternative. It's like when you have too many choices and can't make up your mind. I want a Ford Mustang GT in black. Mustangs come in forty colors, but if I choose Black, I get Red interior which I don't want and if I choose GT, I can't get a single CD player with leather. Too many choices and I'm upset that I'm paying a lot of money and not getting what I want. Take away all the permutations and combinations and I happily choose the color and options available. I want Cardinal John Ratzinger to become Pope Claven, but I'll settle for Benedict XVI. Funny you should mention that: Cliff Clavin (John Ratzenberger) explains the "buffalo theory" to his drinking buddy Norm (George Wendt): "Well ya see, Norm, it's like this... A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But, naturally it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers."
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 20, 2005 19:27:11 GMT -5
I think that Quebec will NOT be better off economically without Canada. Well, that's something economists on both sides have argued about over and over, with no clear conclusions. Both sides can dispute the others findings. Well, AFAIK the "handouts" that go Quebec's way get more publicity than they should. The same subsidy gets Quebec and Ontario a contract. Ontario gets a contract ? Big deal, they're the economic powerhouse of the country. If Quebec gets it ? well, there they are, living off handouts..... even though both came from the same program. I'm oversimplifying, but the kernel of truth is there, IMO. The auto pact basically gave Ontario a chockful of jobs as well, and Quebec payed its share of federal taxes to subsidize those car plants. So what ? It means that QC would stop subsidizing other industries in other provinces, too. Since you aren't taking into account all the money we're sending up to Ottawa, the math is a little biased. It's like saying you'd move and change apartments yet keep on paying both rents forever. If Canada can't, what's worse with being independant ? Well, all that is already going on, again, how will being independant be different ? No, we don't need one, period. As to shared borders, we get a border patrol and customs. Actually, the Czech republic and Slovakia had a pretty amiable split up under far worse circumstances. well, ROC can hurt Quebec while hurting itself just as badly. The problem is that the country "as they see it" isn't the country it is. Otherwise we would have been able to agree on a constitution by now, and every time a new proposal came up "distinct society", "asymetrical federalism", etc, it wouldn't get shot down. Interestingly enough, Quebec might have the big end of the stick in a way. If reasonable terms can't be agreed on Quebec could just leave and not take its part of the debt. The ROC would be in trouble then, not Quebec. Being part of a tiny country or being a smaller country really amounts to the same thing. Disagree big time. Every time Quebec has tried to get the tools it needs to protect itself from assimilation we've been stopped. Interim measures are brought up and do the job for right now, but it wouldn't take much for us to have a Conservative-type government with no representatives in Quebec, and then Quebec feels that it could be crushed. We either need a toolset (constitution-enshrined) or we just won't be safe. Just like we can have doomsday scenarios that claim that Quebec will fall apart. Neither extreme is at all likely to happen. The problem is that there is no singular Canadian identity. As Quebecers we're perfectly willing to huddle with the rest, but it means being taken into account seriously. That just hasn't happened in my lifetime. We've been listened to like parents listen to a whiny 8-year old. The parents might be exhausted, but nothing has been done to fix things.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Apr 20, 2005 20:55:33 GMT -5
Interesting replies. I like to debate the economic matters further but right now I am dead beat tired.
However.....this caught my attention the most.
We've been listened to like parents listen to a whiny 8-year old. The parents might be exhausted, but nothing has been done to fix things.
I think that Quebecers perception that Quebec is treated like an 8 year old is wrong. I think the ROC view is that no matter what you discuss with Quebec, there is more just around the corner. I do not know if there is more perception then reality or it is reality and intended to alienate ROC into submission. I suspect that there is some truth of both.
"The problem is that there is no singular Canadian identity. As Quebecers we're perfectly willing to huddle with the rest, but it means being taken into account seriously."
So, here with the above statement as a fig leaf to debate, what is there that can not be achieved within Canada? An equal partnership? That is going to be difficult to achieve. Quebec is 20% of the GDP and it will be hard for the ROC to adopt economic policies that suit or favor only Quebec.
As an example:
Quebec may want a massive tax break for aerospace and lumber industries. It is not fair for ROC.
The separatist argument would be that this is precisely why Quebec has to have independence. If they controlled it’s destiny, they could do what favors Quebec.
My response would be that the separatist argument is hollow and disingenuous. Quebec can NOT afford to favor one industry so much that it gives away precious tax dollars to the detriment of it’s citizens. Bombardier has consumed $772-million in federal grants and repayable loans and multi-billions in loans or guarantees provided through Export Development in about 20 years. That would practically consume the entire Quebec education budget.
So….from a cultural standpoint.
What is real and honestly doable? What more can be achieved in an independent school system? Cultural control? Language rights? Will independence bring real and substantial changes that have not already been achieved? Or is the political separatist rhetoric larger then the results? The old “grass is greener on the other side” even though the grass on this side is green with a few brown patches.
On the economic front…..
What would Quebec want? Total control of all taxes? Will there be enough money? Will it be able to meet an agreed Canada wide medical standard? Education standard? What about it’s fair share of the military cost? What about disasters? What about tariffs?
One of the problems that I can not get my head around is the promise of the separatist side to expect an equal partnership AFTER the breakup. Why? Is it not more likely that ROC will look after it’s own interest much more and see Quebec as outsiders?
Rebuttal?
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 20, 2005 21:46:48 GMT -5
I think that Quebec will NOT be better off economically without Canada. Forever anda day, Quebec has wrung economic benefits in many forms. Besides the direct transfer of monies, it has also taken form in "not so public" subsidies and grants. Actually I think Quebec would do just fine on their own. They have quite bit of Canadiana (museums, etc) moved into the province over the last little while. And, they have quite a good industrial infrastructure made so by the awarding of many federal contracts. Also, Quebec City is the most "European" of the Canadian cities and will remain a major tourist draw. Well, no one, not only Quebec, will be able to compete with China in the future me thinks. Gwynne Dyer forecasts that China will be THE economic power of the future with the USA in second. He's not far off. Right now Wal*Mart receives 174,000 containers a day from China and that's only one company. France. And in exchange for what Quebec needs, France will rape Quebec for what they need the most, natural resources. Actually, the last referendum was an eye-opener for many in the Canadian Forces. First, some Francophone soldiers I had worked with for some time came out of the closet saying they'll be part of the new Quebec Armed Forces if in the event of a successful vote. We were at first caught off guard and then blindsided after the vote. A memorandum went out to the Quebec-based 5 Brigade (some 3,500 soldiers give or take) on the eve of the referendum. In that paper it basically stated that soldiers staying loyal to Quebec's new army would retain rank, pay and seniority. What's even more odd is that some of these soldiers are still in uniform and defending the rights of Canadians abroad. But, they are willing to jump ship to another country's army in a moment's notice. Well, that was a sore point for sure. But, looking ahead, the powers to be might want to look at the Euro Dollar and its success. And, you can't go wrong with the USD either. It will eventually bounce back though later than sooner me thinks. Interestingly enough, there were PQ politicians flogging Quebec passports with one of the province's major trading partners, Mexico. However, Mexican politicians wouldn't touch it. My dad was dating a very nice lady who lived on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River in Aylmer. She moved all of her cash assets to Ontario-based banks just before the referendum, because she was afraid the PQ would freeze personal assets so as to stabilize their currency if in the event of a drop due to a successful referendum. Parizeau promised that wouldn't happen. However, after the referendum it was learned he, and the who's-who of the PQ, had moved all of their personal assets into the USA (turned into USD at that). Why would he do that? I honestly don't remember him bragging about that to tell you the truth, HA. In fact, I think he severely miscalculated PQ momentum and when he did finally realize it, it turned to panic. The city of Montreal, not Chretien, not Charet, was what saved the federalist bacon me thinks. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 20, 2005 21:59:03 GMT -5
We've been listened to like parents listen to a whiny 8-year old. The parents might be exhausted, but nothing has been done to fix things.I think that Quebecers perception that Quebec is treated like an 8 year old is wrong. I think the ROC view is that no matter what you discuss with Quebec, there is more just around the corner. I do not know if there is more perception then reality or it is reality and intended to alienate ROC into submission. I suspect that there is some truth of both. I was referring to the ROC perspective, rather than the Quebec one. Actually, your reply proves my point. Canada sees the dialogue as: "that no matter what you discuss with Quebec, there is more just around the corner" whereas Quebec hears that whatever we try, we still get back to square one. We fought for Meech Lake and got squat, yet the ROC acts as if it was constantly giving concessions. Agreed, but Quebec needs rock-solid garantees that it can opt out of a policy if it so desires. That's being done on a case-by-case basis now, Quebec needs something that it can make work even with an uncooperative federal government. And you'll note that plenty of federal programs come into play when Ontario has problems, but when those same issues appear in Quebec they slip under the radar. Quebec made a HUGE decision in backing hydro-electricity and is now reaping some of the benefits, and now that Ontario is having electricity issues, the federal government wants to put in a nationwide power initiative (ie, finance Ontario's new plants or perhaps just force Quebec to sell at a discount). Of course some policies will be good for us and others bad, yet somehow too often they seem to ignore all knowledge of Quebec. Like the raw milk-based cheese law a few years back. The ROC didn't care, but it was a big issue in Quebec, but no one had even bothered to check; we're a country with 2 large groups, yet one group consistently forgets about the other. And Quebec's invested millions of its federal tax dollars to Hibernia or the auto pact. Proportionately Quebec's given roughly as much in subsidies, just distributed differently. But you have a point - a smaller country has less weight to put on the table, yet given the size of the US, being 7 or 30 million changes squat. But in principle I'd rather have a Canadian Federation. The problem is that the federation is only seen as such by Quebec, the ROC wants a strong central leadership with a singular vision for the Canadian Nation. That's fine, but that's not us. Actually, it's largely a question of protecting what we have now, rather than going for anything more. The problem is that English Canada smothers French-speaking Quebec, even while it's trying not to. Just ask anyone in the government in the Ottawa area - sure French has been made a requirement, but that's all it is, an administrative need to babble a few words. Of course, that's the very premise of independance. We don't want an army, for the rest we take our share of the money we invested into all those initiatives federally and take it home; perhaps if Canada is cooperative we can set up some joint ventures but it's not a requirement to independance. Well, we're treated like outsiders now anyhow, so there's not much to lose. An independant country is harder to look down upon as being just another case of "tribal nationalism". Also, once we're independant the threat to take our toys and leave will actually be more than some idle threat.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 21, 2005 7:08:25 GMT -5
The problem is that the federation is only seen as such by Quebec, the ROC wants a strong central leadership with a singular vision for the Canadian Nation. That's fine, but that's not us. What is "you"? That depends very much on the ethnic demographic (and treatment of distinct minorities) of a country. The more ethnically homogenous a country is the greater the likelihood is that its existence is owed to the ethnic solidarity of "tribal nationalism". It is usual for ethnic minorities to be alert, wherever they live. It is especially important to be vigilant in times of political or economic unrest, since that is when scapegoating tends to reach its most vehement and dangerous levels. Meanwhile, back at the debate...
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 21, 2005 7:38:59 GMT -5
Quebec made a HUGE decision in backing hydro-electricity and is now reaping some of the benefits, and now that Ontario is having electricity issues, the federal government wants to put in a nationwide power initiative (ie, finance Ontario's new plants or perhaps just force Quebec to sell at a discount). Skilly? I have . . . seems we're talking to different people. --- One question I have on the language issue is just how much English will be pushed down/suppressed (I'm not trying to be snarly or negative towards French -- it is an honest question) in an independent Quebec. I wonder only because I imagine that tourism will still have a part to play, which means that non-French speakers will need to be communicated with. How would that work? This I ask because last time I was in the Quebec City area I ran into people who would laugh at my attempts at French and speak English, and I ran into people who turned their backs on me (I was shopping and needed help from the clerk!) and walked away because I didn't speak their language. It is an issue to be dealt with. --- Some of the questions/feelings you raise are felt by those in Alberta as well -- some of them would be happy with separation because of the Ontario-centric nature of our country.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 21, 2005 8:29:11 GMT -5
One question I have on the language issue is just how much English will be pushed down/suppressed (I'm not trying to be snarly or negative towards French -- it is an honest question) in an independent Quebec. I wonder only because I imagine that tourism will still have a part to play, which means that non-French speakers will need to be communicated with. How would that work? This I ask because last time I was in the Quebec City area I ran into people who would laugh at my attempts at French and speak English, and I ran into people who turned their backs on me (I was shopping and needed help from the clerk!) and walked away because I didn't speak their language. It is an issue to be dealt with. Unfortunately some people confuse impolite and rude behavior with national pride. Insecurity and fear usually aren't far below the surface in these individuals and tends to manifest itself as hostility toward that which is different. This attitude may also be a result of culturally reinforced xenophobia, based on stereotyping, political propaganda, etc. Did you make it to the running-dog lackey, cosmopolitain and corrupt island of Montréal? Sure, bang on the nail that sticks out. ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png)
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Apr 21, 2005 8:50:45 GMT -5
I have . . . seems we're talking to different people. --- One question I have on the language issue is just how much English will be pushed down/suppressed (I'm not trying to be snarly or negative towards French -- it is an honest question) in an independent Quebec. I wonder only because I imagine that tourism will still have a part to play, which means that non-French speakers will need to be communicated with. How would that work? This I ask because last time I was in the Quebec City area I ran into people who would laugh at my attempts at French and speak English, and I ran into people who turned their backs on me (I was shopping and needed help from the clerk!) and walked away because I didn't speak their language. It is an issue to be dealt with. --- Some of the questions/feelings you raise are felt by those in Alberta as well -- some of them would be happy with separation because of the Ontario-centric nature of our country. There's irony in your encounter with francophile chauvinism. People from Québec City who visit Paris might not enjoy the look of amusement on the visages of the Parisians when they speak their patois. I think I have already posted the anecdote about Phil Watson. He and his wife vacationed in Europe years ago. Their first stop was Italy, where Mrs. Watson deftly used her Italian. Phil said his turn would come when they reached Paris. The couple went to a bistro and Phil attempted to converse with the waiter. The garçon said, "Monsieur, please speak English."
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Apr 21, 2005 9:12:33 GMT -5
If Canada is divisible, then so is Quebec....
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 21, 2005 9:20:04 GMT -5
One question I have on the language issue is just how much English will be pushed down/suppressed (I'm not trying to be snarly or negative towards French -- it is an honest question) in an independent Quebec. I don't have a crystal ball, Franko, but I think the language police would significantly soften their stance especially if it meant getting the ball rolling with regards to tourism. Continuing their present policy would probably kill tourism in Quebec. Once the doorman found out our group was English, we had a nightclub door slammed right in my face in Quebec City, but that was in the late 70's. Fast forward to the late 90's, I went to La Collessée (spelling sorry) in search of some souveniers for a Nordiques buddy of mine back in Kingston. I asked the lady at the counter, "Parlez-vous Englais?" To which she replied an adamant, "Non!" Right then and there I broke into a bastardized form of French. But, she was extremely receptive the attempt. The point is, I've ran into hard ass*s in Quebec City, but we have them in Ontario and out west as well. I've also had some who didn't mind speaking English to me at all (the little artist alleyway not far from the Hilton). But, whenever I attempted to speak French in Quebec it was very well received. Yes. And in many parts of the west if you say you're from Ontario their whole attitude changes as they're talking to you. This is especially prevalent in BC. They have no time for Ontario arrogance. That's not an aboslute truth, but more of a generalization. No offence guys. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 21, 2005 9:42:04 GMT -5
Did you make it to the running-dog lackey, cosmopolitain and corrupt island of Montréal? Actually, I try to avoid the urban nightmare. I guess once you get past the ongoing road destruction construction it isn't bad, but it would be nice if the repair crews would finish just one job!
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 21, 2005 9:47:58 GMT -5
People from Québec City who visit Paris might not enjoy the look of amusement on the visages of the Parisians when they speak their patois. I think I have already posted the anecdote about Phil Watson. He and his wife vacationed in Europe years ago. Their first stop was Italy, where Mrs. Watson deftly used her Italian. Phil said his turn would come when they reached Paris. The couple went to a bistro and Phil attempted to converse with the waiter. The garçon said, "Monsieur, please speak English." This very thing happened to my wife on one of our frequent trips to France back in the late 80's, early 90's. They would perfer you spoke English rather than bastardize their own language. I spoke of arrogance in a previous post and this is also prevalent in France. As with many Quebecers the French are very protective of their language. However, unlike some present-day Quebecers who appreciate the attempt, the Parisians are not tollerant of any Western dialects. Salut à tôe la! ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|