|
Post by Skilly on Nov 23, 2006 20:01:09 GMT -5
As Canadians, we can call Quebec a Nation, inside Canada, but will the rest of the world recognize Quebec as a nation? If we do not get this question settled, amicably for both Quebec and the rest of Canada, we will be slipping down the road to an Ordnance of Secession and an end to the Canadian federation. What Mr. Harper is doing is fair to all involved. Many in the west won't like it, but they have to compromise a bit to make the Quebecois welcome in all parts of Canada. There also has to be an understanding in Quebec, that there are no special laws or standing. Separate, but equal, should be the motto for this country. Open up the constitution and you invite disaster. Just think about all of the Native Land Claims and all of the evening of scores that will happen from each region of the Country, if you try to get it entrenched in the Constitution. Nothiing will happen to the Native Land Claims. Most of them are signed off on and have nothing to do with the provinces. In fact, the Innu Nation is now recognized as a nation inside of Canada, complete with their own land. Quebec, Newfoundland, whoever ... would not be the first "nation inside a nation". Lesotho is a nation inside South Africa. And I believe (although I could be completely wrong) that the Basques are recognized as a nation inside Spain. And there are probably more depending how you want to look at it.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Nov 23, 2006 20:56:40 GMT -5
I still believe what Harper is doing is right and just for the Country. He can't get a break in the press, because it is run by the Liberal elite in this country. I read a piece in the Globe the other day, by John Ibbitson, saying as much. For too long, this elite has been trying to run this country as a Liberal Utopia, glossing over what is wrong and never doing what needs doing. We've had a long run of Central Canadians, primarily from Quebec, running the show, in Ottawa, with their approval. I remember the Meech and Charlottetown Accords and how hard the elites pushed for these flawed documents to be incorporated in the Constitution. They were soundly defeated in the last National Referendum in the fall of 1992, by the bread and butter people of Canada. These pricks just keep doing this stuff to Canadians, to hold their privilege and prestige, at the expense of the little folks. We still see it, after Harper put an end to income trusts, that the Liberals tried to sneak through the day before the election call happened. The little guy was going to be on the hook for all of the taxes, while millionaires and big business were going to get a free tax ride. What did we hear? Moaning about Harper taking money from the economy, read the rich and powerful. They are out to get the man, because he stands for fairness. It only took 40 years to correct what Trudeau and his elites did to this country and we are still paying the price for these freeloading bastards. Their next white night will either be Bob Rae or Michael Ignatiff, both Central Canadians with ties to these same people.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 23, 2006 22:05:32 GMT -5
Skilly: The Colony of Unrequited Dreams: realistic?
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 23, 2006 23:32:08 GMT -5
Skilly: The Colony of Unrequited Dreams: realistic? I never read the book franko, so the reference is lost on me. But a country of colonies ... yes it is possible if done right. Native reserves, Innu nation, the four territories, .... and countless "little ones" (chinatowns , etc) all proves that nations inside a country can work together if done in a manner respectful of each other. Just look at our neighours to the south. Even though it is not the same (since they are actually working towards federalism, and we are moving at loggerheads), they currently have nations inside nations. Puerto Rico, Guam, Midway, ....all nations inside the US. They are US territories but currently recognized as distinct entities. Are we saying the Americans can do it, but we can't? Or are we not willing to study to make the American model better?
|
|
|
Post by LoupDogg on Nov 24, 2006 6:43:53 GMT -5
Question: would Quebecers in general (and separatists specifically) be happy with constitutional ammendments? Depends how separatist you are. I think that taking the door and standing up for ourselves (as a nation would) is the only vital option. But I do think that constitutional arrangements could fix the issue. If ten PM could agree on that. And then Canadians in referendum. But looking at Meech and Charlettown, how can you be naive enough to believe in that option? Dion may just slide up the middle and win. That would be a total disaster for the Liberal Party. And a hell of an argument for separatists. PTH made his views plain a couple of years ago on this issue (I appreciated it). My question to you, then: what is needed so to keep Canada unified with Quebec as a satisfied partner? And if nothing will satisfy, is Quebec willing to "go it alone" as a sovereign nation not riding on Canada's coat-tails? If you ask my own opinion, I would say that nothing would satisfy me in Canada. A lot could be done to improve, but that would be patchwork. Like asking your parents to build an extension on their house where you could live instead of moving out. I'll gladly vote for separation. And I know it's not going to be a joy ride if we win. Building a country's difficult. It takes courage.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 24, 2006 7:04:15 GMT -5
And that's the reason that so few people in Canada drive Hondas. ;D You sure you dont mean the Nissan X-Trail Bonavista? By Tunderin Nope, I meant Honda: too many people don't like the Accord.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 24, 2006 7:11:45 GMT -5
Skilly: The Colony of Unrequited Dreams: realistic? I never read the book franko, so the reference is lost on me. A fictionalized account of Joey Smallwood's life, by Wayne Johnston. I realize that it is fiction (an interesting read: on the recommended list), I just wonder how much is fiction and if it acurately portrays his ego and idiocy. Lots of discussions on pros and cons of statehood as well. Last vote (non-binding) by the PR people: 46% for. Just keep voting and eventually . . .
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 24, 2006 7:17:13 GMT -5
If you ask my own opinion, I would say that nothing would satisfy me in Canada. A lot could be done to improve, but that would be patchwork. Like asking your parents to build an extension on their house where you could live instead of moving out. I'll gladly vote for separation. And I know it's not going to be a joy ride if we win. Building a country's difficult. It takes courage. Appreciate your honesty. And your willingness to be courageous. TROC asks: do you (that's the "royal" you) really want to move out with all its inherent responsibilities and problems and go it alone, or do want dad's credit card when you go? Its been years since I lived in Alberta, but I remember the "let them go" chants -- but Quebec as a sovereign nation meant sovereign: own money, own passports, etc. Separateand distinct country, period. No phone calls to dad for help when things got tough.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Nov 24, 2006 8:33:35 GMT -5
TROC asks: do you (that's the "royal" you) really want to move out with all its inherent responsibilities and problems and go it alone, or do want dad's credit card when you go? Its been years since I lived in Alberta, but I remember the "let them go" chants -- but Quebec as a sovereign nation meant sovereign: own money, own passports, etc. Separateand distinct country, period. No phone calls to dad for help when things got tough. There are Dads that make their son's life miserable when they leave out of spite or I don't know. They cut bridges and they're happy to see their own children struggling because they can say "I told you so, you should have listen to me and stay here, see you're nothing without me". There are Dads that recognize their sons must be set free in order to grow and when the time has come to move one, they do all they can to help out, knowing it will all come back and more. These Dads cement their relation with their Sons forever. When your son is ready to leave which Dad do you want to be ? A lot of Quebecers are soft separatist. Be it people, like me, who don't believe Ottawa knows what's best for Quebec, NF, Alberta, etc..., who have grown angry at the fiscal imbalance and at the Liberal's corruption and arrogance. If Steven Harper can solve the fiscal imbalance problem, can get ROC to recognize that Quebec is unique and that giving them the recognition, tools and prileges to protect and promote that unicity is not somthing that takes anything away from ROC, then Harper will have shot deadly blows in the separatists movement that will only be left with "les pures et dures" that is a minority in Quebec.
|
|
|
Post by LoupDogg on Nov 24, 2006 8:35:10 GMT -5
If you ask my own opinion, I would say that nothing would satisfy me in Canada. A lot could be done to improve, but that would be patchwork. Like asking your parents to build an extension on their house where you could live instead of moving out. I'll gladly vote for separation. And I know it's not going to be a joy ride if we win. Building a country's difficult. It takes courage. Appreciate your honesty. And your willingness to be courageous. TROC asks: do you (that's the "royal" you) really want to move out with all its inherent responsibilities and problems and go it alone, or do want dad's credit card when you go? Its been years since I lived in Alberta, but I remember the "let them go" chants -- but Quebec as a sovereign nation meant sovereign: own money, own passports, etc. Separateand distinct country, period. No phone calls to dad for help when things got tough. I think that those are matters that will come with time. yes, politicians promise that we keep the canadian dollars, economists back them, and all the yadiyada. But given time, those distinct money and passport and post things would come naturally. It's a shame that no one gives a real image of the options when it comes to the separation question. Canada paints itself as the best country in the world for us, promising everything, and Separatists can't say that it's going to be harsh.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 24, 2006 9:18:14 GMT -5
It's a shame that no one gives a real image of the options when it comes to the separation question. Canada paints itself as the best country in the world for us, promising everything, and Separatists can't say that it's going to be harsh. Yup. "Canada" says "you can't live without us and if you try you'll fail miserably". "Quebec" says "we'll be much better off without you". Neither side says why -- its all just rhetoric and fancy talk (and threats). How about if honesty prevailed (OK, rose coloured glasses). But how about if "Canada" said "these are the benefits we see of you staying and these are the benefits we see of you leaving" and if "Quebec" said "these are the benefits we see of staying and these are the benefits we see of leaving". I know it is simplistic, but let's put it all on the table. Again, I am a federalist in favour of a united Canada celebrating the uniquenesses of "the people". If we are not a melting pot why do we try to force everyone to be the same? [different rant, I know]. My background: former Quebecer (left as a child); mother born and raised in Quebec (fluently bilingual); father's roots in Quebec traced back to late 1600s on fathers side and Acadian on mothers side. Very few family members remain in Quebec. The Montrealers moved to Ontario after the first referendum, the Quebec Cityers (what do youcall them, anyway?) stayed and are there still.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 24, 2006 11:46:07 GMT -5
A fictionalized account of Joey Smallwood's life, by Wayne Johnston. I realize that it is fiction (an interesting read: on the recommended list), I just wonder how much is fiction and if it acurately portrays his ego and idiocy. . One can never overestimate Joey Smallwood's ego and idiocy .... this is the guy who tried every hair-brained idea he could think of to "trick" Newfoundlanders into believing that "our day will come". Every time Joey was slipping in the polls he would claim that he was bringing in a new company to build a factory to employ Newfoundlanders. Rubber boot factories, chocolate factories, hockey stick factories .... and the sad part is people fell for it hook-line-and-sinker each and every time. This guy was the most corrupt politician in history. I am willing to bet we would have a strong case that we were brought into Canada under illegal means and therefore it is null and void ..... I just dont think anyone wants to open Pandora's Box.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 25, 2006 1:22:17 GMT -5
If Quebec was recogniozed as a nation within a country, what would Canadians debate about in the long dark winter nights and what would the youth do without referendums and parades to march in? Canada is one of the most fortunate, rich countries in the world. A country where even global disasters like global warming would benefit almost all. Iraq and Iran have never protested Canada like they do Denmark and Norway. Only Switzerland and Iceland are seen as more neutral. Free hydro electricity, lots of natural gas, the worlds biggest supply of oil (so the sands cost a little more). Enough land for all. A 2,000 mile wide border crossing from Mexico. Happy Thanksgiving!
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 25, 2006 11:27:57 GMT -5
If Quebec was recogniozed as a nation within a country, what would Canadians debate about in the long dark winter nights and what would the youth do without referendums and parades to march in? Canada is one of the most fortunate, rich countries in the world. A country where even global disasters like global warming would benefit almost all. Iraq and Iran have never protested Canada like they do Denmark and Norway. Only Switzerland and Iceland are seen as more neutral. Free hydro electricity, lots of natural gas, the worlds biggest supply of oil (so the sands cost a little more). Enough land for all. A 2,000 mile wide border crossing from Mexico. Happy Thanksgiving! Sarcasm? Et tu Brute? Free hydroelectricity? Where? Sign me up. I know we have one of the biggest hydro developments in Canada here in Newfoundland and we are paying close on 9 cents per kilowatt hour. Nothing free about that my friend. The thing about appearing neutral is that it only takes one idiot to ruin it. I think the youth of Canada, let alone Quebec, will have plenty to do and play a major part in ensuring this is the greatest country or country of countries (if you like) to live in.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Nov 25, 2006 13:26:03 GMT -5
So, do the First Nations in Québec then effectively become third nations in Canada?
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 27, 2006 13:56:19 GMT -5
And so it begins. Aboriginal group upset by Harper's Québécois motion Last Updated: Monday, November 27, 2006 | 1:24 PM ET CBC News
Prime Minister Stephen Harper should clarify a motion that recognizes the Québécois as a nation within a united Canada to ensure it does not trample upon the status of Canada's First Nations, an aboriginal leader said Monday.
Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, told CBC News the AFN is concerned about the motion expected to be voted upon by MPs on Monday night.
The motion was proposed last week by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to thwart a motion by the Bloc Québécois on the same issue but which lacked a reference to Canada.
"It is our hope that when parliamentarians rise to speak to this issue that they will state very clearly that they recognize the unique status and unique rights of First Peoples and that this motion in no way is designed to diminish those rights," he said.
"Any action that elevates the status of one segment of Canadian society over another is completely wrong. There is a real appreciation in Canada that we don't do nation building in this way."
Fontaine said the Aboriginal Peoples have rights enshrined in the Constitution and the AFN would like the motion to be withdrawn and amended so that it clarifies its impact on First Nations and their constitutional rights.
He said the AFN is concerned that the motion reinforces the outdated notion that Canada is made up of two founding peoples, with two official languages, that was promoted by the Meech Lake Accord, an attempt by the federal government to bring Quebec into the Constitution. The accord died in 1990 when the Newfoundland and Manitoba legislatures refused to pass it.
Fontaine said he recognizes that the Québécois have their own distinct culture and language in Canada, but that position should not supercede the culture and languages of First Nations, which are also nations within a united Canada.
"What is unfortunate about this motion is the omission of any reference of first peoples. We should not be seen as peoples of a lesser status than others in Canada, including the Québécois," he said.
The motion has the support of the Conservatives, most Liberal MPs, the New Democrats and the Bloc.CBC reportsWhat did the PM expect. Makes his initiative look more like a flinch than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 27, 2006 15:31:11 GMT -5
And the effects within the Tory party itself. More to follow. Harper to lose cabinet minister over Quebec vote Updated Mon. Nov. 27 2006 3:20 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
A Conservative cabinet minister appears set to resign his post over Prime Minister Stephen Harper's stand on Quebec.
Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Michael Chong will reportedly announce his resignation at a news conference later today.
Chong opposes the motion, set to be voted on in Parliament this evening, that the Quebecois constitute a nation within a united Canada.
Independent MP Garth Turner and other sources told the Canadian Press about Chong's impending move.
More to come ...Yep, sounding more like a flinch decision now. CTVCheers.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Nov 27, 2006 16:06:00 GMT -5
What's a flinch ?
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Nov 27, 2006 16:56:02 GMT -5
A lot of Quebecers are soft separatist. Be it people, like me, who don't believe Ottawa knows what's best for Quebec, NF, Alberta, etc..., who have grown angry at the fiscal imbalance and at the Liberal's corruption and arrogance. If Steven Harper can solve the fiscal imbalance problem, can get ROC to recognize that Quebec is unique and that giving them the recognition, tools and prileges to protect and promote that unicity is not somthing that takes anything away from ROC, then Harper will have shot deadly blows in the separatists movement that will only be left with "les pures et dures" that is a minority in Quebec. That's the Brian Mulroney strategy from 1984 and 1988. Mulroney appealed to decentralization-minded people in Quebec and the West and bypassed the traditional Liberal base in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. It worked like a charm until Meech (a perfectly reasonable accord, BTW, until it was torpedoed by Clyde Wells) and Charlottetown collapsed, obliterating the Tory position in Quebec. Of course that strategy was helped by the fact that Mulroney had a somewhat reliable ally in Robert Bourassa who tried to walk the fine nationalist/federalist line. Canada is a weak federal system that gives maximum power to provinces to control their agendas – way more than in the US. The fact that we don't even have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that supercedes provincial jurisdiction is proof of that (see the notwithstanding clause). People railed against Quebec's language laws of the 1970s and 80s but people don't seem all that troubled that the Canadian constitution makes it permissable for Quebec, or any province, to override the Canadian charter. But Quebecers support the laws and that’s just part of living in the “distinct society” About the only real value provided by the federal government is to run the health care system (into the ground). I think Canadians have an overly romantic view of what power the central govt really has. By the same token as long as Quebec is generally left alone, I don’t know why Quebecers would want to be a separate country when they already have it pretty good (including being a net beneficary of federal transfer payments, I believe, Doc).
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 27, 2006 17:00:28 GMT -5
About the only real value provided by the federal government is to run the health care system (into the ground). Be nice if there was indeed some directioninthe health care system. All the feds do is pay out and let the provinces do what htey want. Other than a "tsk-tsk" if Alberta talks about private health care (which Quebec and BC already have in some ways) they don't have much to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 27, 2006 19:11:55 GMT -5
A lot of Quebecers are soft separatist. Be it people, like me, who don't believe Ottawa knows what's best for Quebec, NF, Alberta, etc..., who have grown angry at the fiscal imbalance........ What do you mean by fiscal impbalance? Hasn't Quebec been a net recipient for as long as I can remember? Or should we strip the Alberta oil treasury? Should we put a special tax on the oil to benefit all Canadians? And of course we should do the same to Quebec's hydro...and lumber....
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 27, 2006 21:46:52 GMT -5
That's the Brian Mulroney strategy from 1984 and 1988. Mulroney appealed to decentralization-minded people in Quebec and the West and bypassed the traditional Liberal base in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. It worked like a charm until Meech (a perfectly reasonable accord, BTW, until it was torpedoed by Clyde Wells) and Charlottetown collapsed, obliterating the Tory position in Quebec. Of course that strategy was helped by the fact that Mulroney had a somewhat reliable ally in Robert Bourassa who tried to walk the fine nationalist/federalist line. Canada is a weak federal system that gives maximum power to provinces to control their agendas – way more than in the US. The fact that we don't even have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that supercedes provincial jurisdiction is proof of that (see the notwithstanding clause). People railed against Quebec's language laws of the 1970s and 80s but people don't seem all that troubled that the Canadian constitution makes it permissable for Quebec, or any province, to override the Canadian charter. But Quebecers support the laws and that’s just part of living in the “distinct society” About the only real value provided by the federal government is to run the health care system (into the ground). I think Canadians have an overly romantic view of what power the central govt really has. By the same token as long as Quebec is generally left alone, I don’t know why Quebecers would want to be a separate country when they already have it pretty good (including being a net beneficary of federal transfer payments, I believe, Doc). Clyde didnt torpedoe the Meech Lake Accord ... he questioned it .... It was defeated in the Manitoba legislature. Not Newfoundland. Newfoundland was in favour of the "distinct society" clause, with the caveat that we are also a distinct society ... being a Nation that joined Canada. (In fact, there are actually people still alive in Newfoundland that have on their birth certificate under country of birth, Newfoundland. My father is one. And there are alot of people who would insist they were not born in Canada, that Canadian citizenship was forced upon them. But I digress) What Newfoundland questioned was the veto Quebec wanted. We wanted it explained. How it could be used, and how it couldn't. If they could veto such things as health care funding to the provinces or transfer payments (which they could say were items affecting Quebec) then yes we weren't for it ... but if the veto was to protect their culture we were for it ... but its significance and its loopholes were never explained and we would have voted against it, but we never had the chance since Manitoba derailed it first.
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Nov 27, 2006 23:21:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 28, 2006 0:55:33 GMT -5
You are right, I was mixed them....
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Nov 28, 2006 6:57:48 GMT -5
And so it begins. Aboriginal group upset by Harper's Québécois motion Last Updated: Monday, November 27, 2006 | 1:24 PM ET CBC News
Prime Minister Stephen Harper should clarify a motion that recognizes the Québécois as a nation within a united Canada to ensure it does not trample upon the status of Canada's First Nations, an aboriginal leader said Monday.
Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, told CBC News the AFN is concerned about the motion expected to be voted upon by MPs on Monday night.
The motion was proposed last week by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to thwart a motion by the Bloc Québécois on the same issue but which lacked a reference to Canada.
"It is our hope that when parliamentarians rise to speak to this issue that they will state very clearly that they recognize the unique status and unique rights of First Peoples and that this motion in no way is designed to diminish those rights," he said.
"Any action that elevates the status of one segment of Canadian society over another is completely wrong. There is a real appreciation in Canada that we don't do nation building in this way."
Fontaine said the Aboriginal Peoples have rights enshrined in the Constitution and the AFN would like the motion to be withdrawn and amended so that it clarifies its impact on First Nations and their constitutional rights.
He said the AFN is concerned that the motion reinforces the outdated notion that Canada is made up of two founding peoples, with two official languages, that was promoted by the Meech Lake Accord, an attempt by the federal government to bring Quebec into the Constitution. The accord died in 1990 when the Newfoundland and Manitoba legislatures refused to pass it.
Fontaine said he recognizes that the Québécois have their own distinct culture and language in Canada, but that position should not supercede the culture and languages of First Nations, which are also nations within a united Canada.
"What is unfortunate about this motion is the omission of any reference of first peoples. We should not be seen as peoples of a lesser status than others in Canada, including the Québécois," he said.
The motion has the support of the Conservatives, most Liberal MPs, the New Democrats and the Bloc.CBC reportsWhat did the PM expect. Makes his initiative look more like a flinch than anything else. So, there it is. It's about time that white folk get kicked off their comfy axes and realize that the world wasn't built to service them.
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Nov 28, 2006 8:00:54 GMT -5
Hmmm, our beloved Ken Dryden voted against it yesterday, I wonder if the Habs will still want to retire his number in January?
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 28, 2006 9:03:56 GMT -5
What's a flinch ? Just my perception of how the PM came about his decision, Doc. IMHO, he realized what the Bloc was going to table and tried to beat them to it. I don't know if he acted unilaterally or not, but I feel he didn't have enough time to consider the implications of his decision. Some call it a brilliant strategy, some call it bogus. Either way, I call it a quick impulsive reaction or flinch, and he has to deal with the fallout now (which I believe he didn't see coming). Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by HabSolute on Nov 28, 2006 10:38:09 GMT -5
So, do I have a double nationality this morning ? ;D What happens if I am a Quebecois living in Ontario ? Is Quebec a new Nation of the Quebecois form a new Nation ?
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 28, 2006 11:15:27 GMT -5
So, do I have a double nationality this morning ? ;D What happens if I am a Quebecois living in Ontario ? Is Quebec a new Nation of the Quebecois form a new Nation ? It gets even more confusing. What if I am Acadian in New Brunswick? What if I am Francophone in Manitoba?
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 28, 2006 11:44:52 GMT -5
So, do I have a double nationality this morning ? ;D What happens if I am a Quebecois living in Ontario ? Is Quebec a new Nation of the Quebecois form a new Nation ? It gets even more confusing. What if I am Acadian in New Brunswick? What if I am Francophone in Manitoba? What if you were born in St. Pierre et Miquelon to Newfoundland parents and moved to Newfoundland and was raised in Newfoundland?
|
|