Riverwind

Seperatists claim they only need to pay 17% because Quebec is entitled to 25% of the assets of the Canadian gov't. This argument is sophistry since most gov't assets are intangibles that are difficult to place a monetary value on. Haggling over the what is an asset and what is a fair value will take years. In the meantime higher interest rates caused by the uncertainty will cause the debt to balloon. At that time, Canadians could ask Quebec for compensation for the higher interest rates. I think that would set a really good precedent for the world: ethnic groups that already enjoy complete democratic and cultural freedoms within an existing democratic state but still want to have their own state because of the nice 'fuzzy' feelings that go with it must pay for the cost of the break up.

Requiring passenger lists for Canadian domestic flights is completely unjustified. US paranoia is getting out of control. We know what happened in the 50s when they let Senator McCarthy loose - a lot of innocent people had their lives ruined. Look at what happened to Maher Arar - sent by the US to Syria to be tortured because they decided that he must be a terrorist because he was born in Syria and the RCMP saw him talking to other suspected 'terrorists'. The standard of 'evidence' for putting someone on the US no fly list is much less. Would you be so willing to support the US action if it meant members of the Quebec sovereignty movement were no longer allowed to board planes in Canada? Don't laugh. The people who make up the no fly list have no accountability to anyone and no incentive to ensure accuracy and an attitude of better 'safe than sorry' even if it disrupts the lives of innocent people. It is not a stretch to imagine an ignorant FBI hack hearing about the 'separatist' movement in Quebec and assuming they are potential terrorists.

Quebec could do the rest of the country a big favour by publically opposing Canada Health Act provisions on private care. The Canada Health Act will be a huge sacred cow as long as Harper and Martin are engaged in a death match over Ontario (who knows when that will end). If Quebec starts demanding a little 'asymmetrical' federalism on this point, I think it would be hard to avoid giving it to other provinces.

There was a case in Manitoba where social services tried to lock up a drug addicted young mother who already had 3 FAS kids under the care of social services. The court ruled that they could not kept the girl in custody because she had commited no crime and a fetus was not a person in need of protection. This is really a case where the lack of compromise on abortion hurts society. We cannot have laws that declare a fetus a person because that would lead to abortion being banned. But we also cannot use the age of the fetus to justify intervention because alcohol abuse damages a fetus in the very early stages of pregnacy. One option I was thinking of was requiring high risk expecting mothers to make a choice between mandatory in-patient treatment for substance abuse or an abortion. In other words, society has no right to intervene until the woman makes the decision to carry the child to term. Once a woman makes that decision she must be bound by all laws which normally protect children from neglect by their parents. Any thoughts?

Gordon Campbell in BC did the exact same thing. The unions declared war on him but he was still re-elected because voters understood the unions were just protecting their own self-interest and not the interest of the public. I thought he was to confrontational but from the way you describe it sounds like Campbell was a diplomat compared to Charest. Are you certain that Quebequers will accept cuts to the social safety net if they have the righht leadership?

My understanding is Charest tried to be a right winger but clobbered by political outrage from the students and unions. Would a PQ right wing leader be able to do any better?

Have you noticed that political 'savoirs' always seem to go down in flames now a days. Charest, Martin ..... I suspect Bouchard knows this and will stay away while his reputation is still untarnished (at least in French Quebec).

You did not even click on the link! This is so absolutely hilarious I am literally ROFL. Yep, Dale Carnagie is a real rah, rah US author.

I fail to see the distinction. About 1000 years ago some marauding Saxons showed up in a little land called Anglia. Took the land away from the traditional Anglo chiefs and set up shop and they never left. I am sure the 'plight' of the Anlgos in Saxon ruled England was ever bit as bad as the plight of Natives in Canada. However, the anglos and the saxons eventually merged to create a new identity. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I shudder to think what England would be like today if their were still two classes of citizens depending on whether they were descendents of the Angles or the Saxons.

Bigdude, Here is a book I suggest you read. I am sure McKenna has read it. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846 Just because you disagree with someone does not mean you should look down your nose at them. Just because someone is willing to treat Americans with the respect does not mean that person agrees with them. IMHO, McKenna is the most competent US ambassdor we have had in a long time.

You exaggerate the wrong inflicted by Bill 101 - which I do agree is wrong. My position is that there are battles worth fighting and battles that are not worth fighting and Bill 101 is one that we should definitely forget about. Even if it was possible to 'win' the Bill 101 battle it would be a pyrrhic victory since it would just alienate a lot of French Canadians that honestly believe the law is necessary to preserve their language in North America.

Because I find myself surrounded by either people who already agree with me (my friends and family) or people that I cannot discuss sensitive issues with (co-workers and customers)

'Religious' is the wrong word. The benefits you associate above with religion come from 'spirituality' which roughly means a belief in a higher power. It is important to make a distinction between these two because spirituality does not come with a bunch of dogma based on old books written for a society that does not exist anymore. If you further analyzed the results of the studies you would probably find the people that were only 'religious' (i.e. only interest in religious dogma and symbols of their faith) did not receive the benefits you claim, however, the truely 'spiritual' (i.e. cared about their relationship with their high power) did receive the benefits. Talking about spirtituality, ethics and morals has a place in schools. Religion most definately does not.

The fight over Bill 101 is over and not worth fighting anymore. I find the provisions of the bill distasteful and unjustified, however, Quebequers have voted in several federalist and separatist governments that support the bill. That tells me that no one outside of Quebec has any business interfering with it. I am very glad that the Supreme Court of Canada is reading 'distinct society' into the constitution because that simply demonstrates how flexible and accomodating the Canada federation is - even without any further constitutional changes. This a cold hard fact that seperatists try to deny since it undermines their message of fear. What really bothers me about Quebec politics is it is dominated by a group of hard-core seperatists that would not be statisfied with anything less than the complete independence for Quebec. Even though this group of people makes up no more than 30% of the population of Quebec they manage to poison the political debate and make it impossible to have a reasonable discussion with the other 70% of Quebequers that are willing to find a reasonable compromise within the country. My original message is that if these seperatists will be in for a nasty surpise if they think that they can poison the political discussion with uncompromising, ethnocentric rhetoric for 30 years and expect that poison to disappear the day after getting 50%+1 in a referendum. We have a saying in English: "what goes around comes around" or "you reap what you sow". Of course, it does take two to tangle and there are elements in English Canada which have contributed to poisoned environment by over reacting to politics in Quebec or insisting on principals like 10-equal provinces. However, these people are a disappearing force in Canadian politics. As a result, I feel the main block to any resolution between Quebec and Canada today are those hard line separatists. Unfortunately, I have absolutely no idea what we can do about that problem.

A red herring. This entire discussion - whether Grewal was demanding posts or the Liberals offering perks is a political matter not a criminal one. Nor would it have made sense for the Liberals to immediately turn Grewal away because they needed the votes and they have every right to try to convince him to make the switch based on ethical terms.

You cannot claim to be willing to compromise if you claim a document produced by the Quebec gov't is the 'minimum' terms. In my dictionary, compromise is a two way street where both sides have to be willing to move from their initial terms. Saying that your original position represents 'minimum' requirements is simply a fancy way of saying 'we are not interested in compromise'. You have proven my point: seperatists are incapable of compromise and do not understand the realities of the Canadian position after a yes vote. How many Quebequers would vote for seperation if they knew that they would have to give up their Canadian citizenships? There can be no terms after a yes vote that includes Canadian citizenships for Quebec residents because Canada cannot afford to have its political process to be distorted by so many citizens living outside its borders. This is not hardline or punative - it is common sense from the perspective of Canadians. There will be hundreds of other similar issues which is why it will be near impossible to have a 'friendly' seperation. If there is a 'yes' vote, I predict that negotiations will break down pretty quickly and the Quebequer gov't will attempt a UDI and to then repudiate its responsibility for the nation debt. The Canadian dollar will go into a tail spin, wiping out the savings of most Quebequers. Emotions will flare, people will demand the partition of Quebec and Quebec may find it unable to exercise control over places like Hull that are so closely tied to the Ontario economy. It will be be one step away from civil war.

http://www.gurmantgrewal.ca/audio.asp That is the original offered by Grewal. Does additional tape 'discovered' after media reports claimed tampering.

I opposed Meech and Charlottetown but my views have changed since then - I think a lot of English Canadians have had a similar conversion. If a Quebec federalist that advocated some variant of the "Allaire" report came on the scene then a deal may be possible provided it put a permanent end to all discussions of sovereignty. But I am afraid that any such attempt would be undermined by the radical separatists that will be not satisfied with anything but a seperate seat for Quebec at the UN. That is why it is not possible for English Canada to propose a compromise at this time - it must come from federalists in Quebec and there must be some room to negotiate the details. Tabling the Allaire report and saying take it or leave it would get us no where.

There is no "problem" with the French in Canada that causes a high level of poverty and incarceration. Quite the reverse: the French Canadian society is extremely vibrant and successful culture (thanks largely to the very flexible and accommodating Canadian federation - the French in the US did not fair so well). The Natives were treated extremely poorly by the European settlers. That is a historical fact and we, as a society, do have to assume some of the responsibility for helping them out of the mess they are in now. The only question is how to do it. I agree with the poster that some sort of redress for those natives that were abused in residential schools is necessary and appropriate. However, I am dismayed a how the process which was supposed to help true victims of physical and sexual abuse has been high jacked by lawyers claiming compensation 'cultural' abuse and other debatable injustices. I also agree that some sort of formal recognition of native culture and society is also a useful thing to do. Negotiating treaties is also worthwhile provided they represent a final resolution to all historical agreements since these treaties could provide the basis for rebuilding Native culture. What I don't agree with is simply throwing money at the problem. Natives have to start using the tools they already have at their disposal to improve their lot. If they can't do that then no land claim or treaty settlement is going to help. In fact, there are many bands in Canada today who are able to do that. I don't have the exact band names handy but there are many - excellent examples of what Native people are capable of with the right combination of gov't assistance and people who are willing to help themselves. That said, the biggest problem facing natives today is alcohol - more specifically fetal alcohol syndrome. A frightening number of natives have this problem which means that they will be in and out of jail most of their lives since FAS impairs their ability to make judgments. Furthermore, these people are having more kids which also have FAS which means the problem is multiplying. I don't have any easy answers for this but I believe it will not be solved by throwing compensation money at people who will spend it all on booze and drugs. The FAS problem means that we should expect higher than average native incarceration rates for the foreseeable future and we should not panic trying to find a quick fix to an unfixable problem

They will never dig themselves out their situation as long as they think the only solution to their problems is to get white people to shower them with cash and land. Natives already enjoy huge entitlements that would make most whites and non-whites exceeding wealthy = but for some reason they cannot make use of them. The fact that they cannot solve their problems given the huge government benefits that they already have shows that more money and land is not going to solve a thing. This problem has to be solved by native leadership. It is out of our hands.

On the serious side, we could start being honest about why Natives are doing so poorly. For example, we should ask why other minority groups such as the Japanese and Chinese who suffered from the same kinds of racist policies in the first half of the 20th century yet do not suffer from the same malaise that Natives do. I believe that what is killing natives is the culture of entitlement and dependency created by the years of institutionalized racism represented by the department of Indian affairs. Simply handing over large tracts of the land and money to the 'Indian Elite' will also do nothing to address the problems for most natives since the treaty process just replaces the paternalistic department of Indian affairs with an equally paternalistic band council. What natives need to do is move beyond the culture of victim-hood and entitlement and recognize that they are responsible for creating their own destiny. Unfortunately this problem can be solved by good leadership from within the Native community.

I have seen couples promise to be reasonable work things out when they first decide to split only to have it turn nasty because each person is absolutely convinced that their demands are reasonable and it is the other one who is the problem. That is what will happen if Quebec tries to sepearate because separatists, by definition, are people who are unwilling to compromise. If they were people capable of compromise then they would be willing to work things out within the context of the federal system. Federalists, reacting to what they see as rediculous demands from the separatists, will respond by being equally uncompromising. A disaster for all concerned.

We could get more white people to commit crimes that would balance out the percentages.

You hit exactly on the nature of the problem. Ontario needs an alternative to the Liberals. The CPC has not been able to demonstrate this. I believe that Harper has undermined his party by pushing wedge issues like SSM and focusing on the corruption scandal. He should have been talking about a positive vision for Canada and letting the Liberals destroy themselves. Canada is a very different country politically than it was 30 years ago. I have heard many former opponents to Meech Lake reconsidering their opposition. Whether we like it or not we will need to re-open the constitution question in the next few years.

Martin == 'No Courage' Harper == 'No Heart' Layton == 'No Brain'