Evening Star

There is basically no whipping of individual reps in the US. I'm not even saying we should go nearly that far but it certainly seems reasonable to give MPs some more autonomy since they actually are who the voters voted for.

Cybercoma, we can find a large number of people who believe in any number of things. On this continent, for example, there are millions of people who believe that abortion is murder, that Biblical creationism should be taught in public schools, or that socialized health coverage is dangerous and oppressive. How far would you be willing to go to accommodate and compromise with them? The questions that have been posed to you seem pretty salient to me and your responses mostly seem to amount to "They feel they are right, therefore they are right." In order to justify Quebec having a greater level of sovereignty within the confederation (as opposed to outright separatism, which no one can stop if they choose it), it seems necessary to establish both that: i) Quebec is in fact so distinct from the other provinces that they need a greater level of autonomy in certain key areas (none of which have actually been specified on this thread afaict). ii) The current constitutional arrangement does not afford enough power to the provinces in order for Quebec to be able to realize its goals in these areas, within the bounds of fairness. Keep in mind that Canada is a relatively decentralized federation where provinces have jurisdiction over education, health, natural resources, civil/common law, and municipalities, as well as plenty of scope in the cultural sectors, with significant powers to levee taxes. As g_bambino has shown, provinces also have an effective veto over Constitutional amendments that affect them. Quebec also already has jurisdiction over immigration. I've lived in Quebec in the past and I work in the cultural sector myself. Ime, Quebec is tremendously rich culturally and already exercises plenty of independence in this area. So it is hard for me to see the need for greater decentralization. I guess I'm not completely clear on what people want when they ask for 'opting out with full compensation'. Do you literally mean that you want to be able to completely opt out of a federal programme, devise your own programme (or none at all) with no federal input or oversight, and still get full federal compensation?

I think Peter Milliken made some very good points: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/05/14/peter-milliken-parliament.html If our MPs really are our local representatives, it makes some sense to give them some more autonomy. My understanding is that even British MPs are less 'whipped' than ours?

I agree that it's tricky, actually, as an NDP supporter in Ontario. If the NDP actually does start pushing for retro-Mulroney constitutional shenanigans, they're quite likely to lose my vote.

Hm, perhaps you're right, especially considering that the Liberals had voted in favour of the corporate tax cuts anyway.

Good point! So, effectively, the provinces already have a veto power insofar as any Constitutional amendment affects them. That seems like plenty of power for the provinces to me, yeah.

Currently, most amendments only require the assent of seven provinces that account for at least 50% of the population of the country.

OK, well, at least Meech was fair in extending the veto power and ability to opt out with full compensation to every province. That's still too decentralized for my personal liking but I think it's much less objectionable than extending those powers to only Quebec.

Yup, plus opting out with full compensation, which was also part of Meech iirc.

He did list five demands tbf...

I agree. Benz is basically asking for Meech Lake again though. Maybe even more than that, since I believe Benz wants Quebec to have veto powers that go beyond the other provinces', where Meech just extended the constitutional veto to every province.

Actually, the NDP supported both Meech Lake and Charlottetown and has advocated 'asymmetrical federalism' since 2005.

It was clear that they would have even without the contempt charges. Every opposition party had openly said this.

Windsor, right now. Grew up in Ottawa, lived in Montreal, Toronto, and Buffalo NY.

If anyone gets picked on the worst, actually, it's probably Newfoundlanders ('Newfies') and Natives.

OK, we're on the same page there. Do you mean in this thread? I don't see much victimization of Quebecers. Sure, there are bigots in the country but virtually every group experiences some level of bigotry from someone. I don't see a systematic problem, really, and definitely don't think it would get better if Quebec separated. -- xpost Thanks g_bambino.

The article said "trigger an election", not "call an election". I think Harper deliberately provoked an election by putting out a budget the Opposition wouldn't accept and refusing to compromise. He also seemed to be deliberately spiting Parliament and provoking Speaker's rulings. The early attack ads seemed to show that Harper was anticipating an election.

What Bonam said + we're talking about it right now on this thread. The whole country spent Mulroney's second term talking about it. How much more discussion do you want, especially given that, since 1995, there hasn't even been that much initiative from anyone (except perhaps from Layton now?) to reopen the Constitution, whether from Quebec or otherwise.

Not everyone's desires are always fair or rational.

They voted against separation twice. If you see Quebec as a province like the others and believe it should be treated that way, it's hard to accept the conditions that Benz is talking about. It is possible to want QC to remain in the federation but to also bring conditions of your own to the table.

Peter, in what ways do you think Quebec is currently being victimized by the country?

(103, actually.) How effective were Clark's PCs from 1980-1984?

Yeah, the unsupported assumption that unrestrained neoliberalism will "maximize society's wealth" and "minimize poverty" seems pretty dubious to me too.

It's not stealing! That's my point! Calling it stealing assumes that there is some objective right to ownership that supercedes a democratically established social contract. But I think ownership is only even a meaningful concept within the context of this social contract. I'd consider voting for them... -- xposts I see Smallc has stepped in and made the first point more succinctly than I did.

I didn't say they should only be used for that purpose. I'm just saying that taxation is not theft: The concept of theft only means something if we have a commonly accepted definition of what constitutes ownership in the first place. This is only possible in our society through a social contract between the state and the individual that recognizes ownership rights and places certain conditions on ownership, including the payment of taxes (for whatever purpose the public as a whole agrees to be appropriate). Taxes should be used for whatever the public agrees that they should be used for. They do not constitute theft as long as the established procedures in the social contract are followed and taxpayers are not misled.