Bill C-12 dies

[Jack Weber]

And we already have that in the constitution's amending formula; only, Quebec's ability to potentially veto a change to the constitution is just the same as any other province's. I get the sense that not only are you dissatisfied with that fact, but think Quebec should have the final say on more than just constitutional amendments. Is that correct?

I suspect that's true,however all I got was that this type of provincial constitutional power would only strengthen our democracy....

Frankly,I find the idea ridiculous and his reasoning specious,to say the least.

The only thing worse than an out and out traitor is a traitor who tries to soft-pedal secession through the back door under the guise of "strengthening democracy"....

[g_bambino]

all I got was that this type of provincial constitutional power would only strengthen our democracy....

But that's the one place August has a point: in our federation the provincial governments are considered equal, not subordinate, to the federal government, and thus the former keep the latter in check; and vice-versa, I suppose. What I don't agree with (though I'm operating on an assumption of what August is getting at (he has a knack for circumventing his own conclusions)) is the idea that Quebec should be singled out as the uniquely dominant partner in the union, having more ability than any of the others to say what gets done and what doesn't.

[Jack Weber]

But that's the one place August has a point: in our federation the provincial governments are considered equal, not subordinate, to the federal government, and thus the former keep the latter in check; and vice-versa, I suppose. What I don't agree with (though I'm operating on an assumption of what August is getting at (he has a knack for circumventing his own conclusions)) is the idea that Quebec should be singled out as the uniquely dominant partner in the union, having more ability than any of the others to say what gets done and what doesn't.

I don't know if,in a country that has as low a population plus huge regional differences,that provincial constitional power is a good thing...

I take the opposite viewpoint that it would only serve to seperate those regions further.

As it relates to August,I suspect he's using the "other provinces" line as convenient cover for the idiotic "distinct society" crapola Quebec tried before...And by using that silly logic,setting Quebec over and above every other province...

In three easy words..

No Freakin' Way!!!!

[Alta4ever]

If your going to give the west fair representation, why not make it so in the maritimes as well? Why not have a nice even seat per 100,000 people and reduce PEI to one seat? Why keep a bias towards rural areas? If you're gonna open a can of worms like this, you need to have a well thought out plan.

This can never happen without a constitutional amendment. According to our constitution a Province cannot have less seats in the house of commons then it holds in the senate. You cannot reduce senate seats without a constitutional amendment as there is no mechanism built into our constitution to do it.

[August1991]

Still, it didn't help to prevent multiple war internments, residential schools, head taxes, etc. Not so much better after all.

You are right BC. No, it didn't. But then you Americans also interned fellow Americans of Japanese origin in the 1940s, and you bought and sold Africans in the 19th century - despite your constitution.

There is no guarantee of liberty. But rules and traditions can possibly prevent some forms of tyranny.

In Canada, it is a good thing to require approval from both English and French communities (as well as others). When one community objects, it is likely that the idea is bad.

I suppose that in this sense, I am a conservative. When it comes to matters of the State, I prefer to make change difficult.

Edited December 4, 2010 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

No, it didn't. But then you Americans also interned Americans of Japanese origin and Americans of African origin were bought and sold as slaves.

Yep...that's the point....you got it!

There is no guarantee of liberty. But rules and traditions can possibly prevent some forms of tyranny.

Not really...it is wishful thinking.

In Canada, it is a good thing to require approval from both English and French communities (as well as others). When one community objects, it is likely that the idea is bad.

You mean like Quebec resisting conscription for WW2?

[Jack Weber]

No, it didn't. But then you Americans also interned fellow Americans of Japanese origin in the 1940s, and you bought and sold Africans in the 19th century - despite your constitution.

There is no guarantee of liberty. But rules and traditions can possibly prevent some forms of tyranny.

In Canada, it is a good thing to require approval from both English and French communities (as well as others). When one community objects, it is likely that the idea is bad.

I suppose that in this sense, I am a conservative. When it comes to matters of the State, I prefer to make change difficult.

So what change was worse,vis a vis the events leading up to and including the events of October 1970?

The change in the the tone of The Quiet Revolution into violence and murder?

Or...

Mr.Trudeau's response to it at the request of Robert Bourassa???

[jbg]

In any case, Quebec doesn't have any real veto, does it? We have a Constitution and Charter after all. You're just arguing for some sort of de facto veto exercised via threats and blackmail?

They effectively have a veto because any majority government has a large Quebec component and every minority government knows that the Bloc's support or absence is key on money bill votes.

[g_bambino]

I don't know if,in a country that has as low a population plus huge regional differences,that provincial constitional power is a good thing...

Well, it's worked well for the last 143 years, beginning in a time when the regional differences were the same and the population was much smaller than it is now. I think strength lies in balance and a balance is, in general, what we have between the provinces and Ottawa under a single crown from which they all derive their authority equally. Requiring the agreement of all or a majority of the country's eleven governments to make constitutional changes necessitates dialogue and compromise, which, though it makes decisions more difficult to reach, is still more appealing than an authoritarian central government imposing its will on the others.

[+]

Edited December 4, 2010 by g_bambino

[Jack Weber]

Well, it's worked well for the last 143 years, beginning in a time when the regional differences were the same and the population was much smaller than it is now. I think strength lies in balance and a balance is, in general, what we have between the provinces and Ottawa under a single crown from which they all derive their authority. Requiring the agreement of all or a majority of the country's eleven governments to make constitutional changes requires dialogue and compromise, which, though it makes decisions more difficult to reach, is still more appealing than an authoritarian central government imposing its will on the others.

I agree with that...

What I don't agree with is some on the political right in this country,who would prefer the provinces to be almost semi-automomous states who basically should be able to do what they please regardless of the Federal government.

That works much better in the US because it has a much larger population And alot less land mass...And alot of history in that direction.

I think that type of devolution of powers in this country is a recipe for disaster...That type of constitutional autonomy is the one being propogated by the "Distinct Society" types in Quebec AND the "We should be able to keep our oil revenues for ourselves" types in Alberta...

Edited December 4, 2010 by Jack Weber

[CANADIEN]

So apparently I forgot Grade 8 history. Still, as Jack notes, nothing about the Quebec Act seems to give a precedent for the province having any kind of veto power. Provisions to protect the Catholic faith and French language and civil law do not grant a province the kind of constitutional power that August is talking about.

By the way, I don't share Argus's view of Quebec. I think it's tremendously fertile culturally and am disappointed by the sort of relationship it seems to have with the rest of the country.

Hear hear on all counts. Quebec's difference is no justification for a veto right that does not exist and is not needed.

[Battletoads]

Rather typical of Quebec. The idea that English Canadians should get as much representation as they do is an affront to their belief of cultural superiority.

[Wild Bill]

I agree with that...

What I don't agree with is some on the political right in this country,who would prefer the provinces to be almost semi-automomous states who basically should be able to do what they please regardless of the Federal government.

That works much better in the US because it has a much larger population And alot less land mass...And alot of history in that direction.

I think that type of devolution of powers in this country is a recipe for disaster...That type of constitutional autonomy is the one being propogated by the "Distinct Society" types in Quebec AND the "We should be able to keep our oil revenues for ourselves" types in Alberta...

I'll agree that some folks push the idea of provincial powers to an extreme, Jack. Still, it's easy for us in Central Canada to believe that the 'system' has worked just fine all these years. We're also the ones who have pretty well called all the shots all these years!

Some provinces HAVE been historically screwed! It's all very well to scold them and tell them to "suck it up and be Canadian!" but that's just not going to work. People have long memories. Look how so many of us Ontarioans still feel towards Bob Rae.

People in those 'screwed' provinces just don't trust Ottawa anymore. Well, actually, I guess a lot of people EVERYWHERE don't trust Ottawa!

Whatever, if you want those provinces to believe in a strong federal system then you'll have to show them it works well FOR THEM, in a manner they will believe!

[Evening Star]

Well, I'll bite. How are less-populated, and sometimes economically disadvantaged (less in SK's case), regions like SK/MB or the Atlantic provinces getting screwed by federalism (which includes equalization payments and often federal action to protect and promote industry in those areas)? In any case, they're rarely the regions that clamour the most for decentralization. QC, which seems to be the biggest source of decentralist sentiment, is part of Central Canada, is overrepresented in the House, and is a major beneficiary of federal spending. Strictly look at narrow, immediate self-interest, I suppose I could see AB's case a little easier, but I'm not sure that I think they're getting screwed per se. Nor do I think that comprehensive decentralization of power is justified because of one wealthy province.

[Evening Star]

There are several definitions of democracy but one is that the majority should not tyrannize the minority. Indeed, one measure of a civilized society is how the majority treats the minority.

In Canada, it is a good thing to require approval from both English and French communities (as well as others). When one community objects, it is likely that the idea is bad.

Btw, one of the chief arguments in favour of this reform was that minority communities, which are often concentrated in cities, are underrepresented currently.

[Evening Star]

They effectively have a veto because any majority government has a large Quebec component and every minority government knows that the Bloc's support or absence is key on money bill votes.

Right. So then this is what August is defending and what I am arguing against.

[Argus]

That's your perception, Argus.

It is a common perception among Canadians, and Quebec does its best to reinforce it each and every single year.

But is it bad if Quebec can prevent federal measures? Alberta eventually stopped the NEP.

Nonsense. It is never good when an individual province can decide that the federal government should do what is best for IT even though that is bad for the rest of the country.

----

Canada is a more civilized country because provincial governments check federal power, and it is also more civilized because the federal government must seek authority from two language groups.

In what possible way is more provincial power a key to civilization? Given the mentality of the provincial governments, be they Ontario's, Quebec,'s Newfoundland's, Alberta's, or BC's, I don't WANT them to have more power, much less a veto. These are small minded, venal people with little interest beyond immediate self-serving political advantage.

As for seeking authority from two linguistic groups, that fails as a measure of workable political use when one of those linguistic groups is made up of bigoted isolationists who care about nothing but themselves.

The Canadian federal government, without Quebec, could exercise power more easily.

But would that be to the benefit of remaining Canadians?

Of course it would. We'd have more equitable representation, money and a lot less whining.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

C-12 died because it was designed to increase the number of conservative MPs, not to reform the electoral map and make it as fair as possible

Is that what the Quebec media have been telling you? It's utter nonsense. Many of the seats would have been in Liberal and NDP strongholds in and around Toronto and Vancouver.

It died because parochial Quebec politicians realize that as their province slowly withers on the limb, while other provinces swell with size and wealth, their proportion of the population will continue to decline. And with it their ability to blackmail the federal parties into giving it special privileges. But being able to convince a pair of political cowards like Ignatieff and Harper only delays the inevitable. As Quebec continues to die of its own political and social ineptness it will become a smaller and smaller share of the population, and eventually the other provinces will be given a drastic boost in their seat numbers.

[Argus]

In Canada, it is a good thing to require approval from both English and French communities (as well as others). When one community objects, it is likely that the idea is bad.

It would be good if both communities had some care and interest in the others. Unfortunately, while the English Canadians have shown considerable care and interest in the well-being of the French community there is no reciprocal interest or care. Quebecers care about Quebecers and that's the end sum of it. They have no interest in the well-being of Canadians and pay little or no attention to Canada, considering Canada a foreign country, in essence. Few Quebecers ever travel outside Quebec, and those that do rarely go farther than Ottawa - the source of all that welfare money they've been living on for generations.

[Smallc]

Some provinces HAVE been historically screwed!

Outside of a couple cases from very long ago, no, they haven't. The system and the federation does work that well, despite your belief that it doesn't. As to this bill, this is simply the reality in a federation. One member complains, and everything changes because of it. It happens all the time in federations the world over.

[Guy M]

It would be good if both communities had some care and interest in the others. Unfortunately, while the English Canadians have shown considerable care and interest in the well-being of the French community there is no reciprocal interest or care. Quebecers care about Quebecers and that's the end sum of it. They have no interest in the well-being of Canadians and pay little or no attention to Canada, considering Canada a foreign country, in essence. Few Quebecers ever travel outside Quebec, and those that do rarely go farther than Ottawa - the source of all that welfare money they've been living on for generations.

Wow... Just wow.

I have vacationed in New-Brunswick, surrounded by other Quebecers... I've vacationed in Sandbanks ON, surrounded by other Quebecers... Cape Cod, Lake Champlain, the White Mountains... ditto. In Florida, they have french-language TV and newspapers...

I think you are casting a very wide net. Yes there is a cultural divide, and it works both ways. I've seen a study recently that looked at the opinions of people in Canada towards certain groups. 75% of Quebecers have a favorable view of anglophones. It the rest of Canada, 60% think favorably of Francophones.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/01/26/12622471.html

[charter.rights]

Wow... Just wow.

I have vacationed in New-Brunswick, surrounded by other Quebecers... I've vacationed in Sandbanks ON, surrounded by other Quebecers... Cape Cod, Lake Champlain, the White Mountains... ditto. In Florida, they have french-language TV and newspapers...

I think you are casting a very wide net. Yes there is a cultural divide, and it works both ways. I've seen a study recently that looked at the opinions of people in Canada towards certain groups. 75% of Quebecers have a favorable view of anglophones. It the rest of Canada, 60% think favorably of Francophones.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/01/26/12622471.html

Just ignore the little man behind the curtain. Argus doesn't get out much. That's what happens when you only aspire to become a mail clerk.

[CANADIEN]

Wow... Just wow.

I have vacationed in New-Brunswick, surrounded by other Quebecers... I've vacationed in Sandbanks ON, surrounded by other Quebecers... Cape Cod, Lake Champlain, the White Mountains... ditto. In Florida, they have french-language TV and newspapers...

I think you are casting a very wide net. Yes there is a cultural divide, and it works both ways. I've seen a study recently that looked at the opinions of people in Canada towards certain groups. 75% of Quebecers have a favorable view of anglophones. It the rest of Canada, 60% think favorably of Francophones.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/01/26/12622471.html

If I were you, I wouldn't worry too much about Argus. Actually, considering the long list of people he dislikes (gays, Blacks, Muslims, immigrants, the poor, anybody to the left of Attila the Hun), I would feel left out if he didn't have anything to say against Quebecers or French-speaking Canadians in general.

[Wild Bill]

Well, I'll bite. How are less-populated, and sometimes economically disadvantaged (less in SK's case), regions like SK/MB or the Atlantic provinces getting screwed by federalism (which includes equalization payments and often federal action to protect and promote industry in those areas)? In any case, they're rarely the regions that clamour the most for decentralization. QC, which seems to be the biggest source of decentralist sentiment, is part of Central Canada, is overrepresented in the House, and is a major beneficiary of federal spending. Strictly look at narrow, immediate self-interest, I suppose I could see AB's case a little easier, but I'm not sure that I think they're getting screwed per se. Nor do I think that comprehensive decentralization of power is justified because of one wealthy province.

I don't know if you're old enough to remember the National Energy Policy, ES. I still do. You can argue the politics of it but what the ordinary citizen in Alberta experienced was that they had been on a great roll economically and then one morning they woke up and they were being laid off left, right and centre! Exploration oil rigs were backed up at the border by the hundreds, going back to the States and abandoning Western Canada. Within just a couple of months Calgary went from construction cranes on every corner to having a commercial vacancy rate of over 30%! Mortgage defaults on people's homes were commonplace.

You have to live through something like that to properly understand how it made people feel. One day you're living in a big suburban house with 2 or 3 cars in the driveway and a summer cottage, perhaps. The next day you're on welfare!

When something like this happens to a person, they do NOT sit back and say to themselves "Well, this may be tough but in the grand scheme of political things I'm sure it's for the good of the country. Ottawa knows best, after all!"

That's why the bitterness has lasted all these years. Those people are terrified the Liberals will get in again because they fully expect they would do something similar to the West the first time it might buy them some votes in Eastern Canada.

The NEP was a relatively recent screwing. You might want to google up things like the Crow Rate. Basically, the feds had set things up over a hundred years ago for the Prairies to grow the grain but not be allowed to have the flour mills located locally. The grain had to be shipped back to Eastern Canada so that the East could make the lion's share of the money grinding the grain. What's more, the shipping charges were kinda' steep, as well.

Whole books have been written on this kind of stuff! Google up "western Canadian alienation" and you'll get pages and pages.

The Maritime provinces have been screwed in a different manner. First of all, for the first while of Canada's history Halifax was our major port for Atlantic shipping. The St. Lawrence Seaway took much of that away and gave it to Quebec and Ontario. Halifax took a major hit. It has somewhat recovered by herculean efforts to become a modern, containerized shipping cargo port but the glory days are gone forever.

Meanwhile, Ottawa has another scam. Suppose you've had a widget making business in Pictou, Nova Scotia. You've worked your butt off for years but it's finally doing ok. You provide a good living for maybe 40 or 50 employees.

One morning you look across the street and someone else has opened up a widget making firm! Since you proved that people could make widgets profitably in Pictou, the government gave someone a million dollars to open up another plant. Essentially, they bankrolled someone to be your competitor! Because they started out with being given a million dollars, they have it far easier than you did. So they can afford to undercut your prices.

After a while you start to feel the pain, so you ask the government for money too. You get turned down, 'cuz as an established company it's felt that you shouldn't need it. Your only choice is to wage a price war with the new guy across the street. You both lose in this sort of war and eventually you both go out of business.

You think up something else to make and apply for a loan. The government gives you a pile of money and off you go! However, it's not really a self-sustaining business so after just a few years it goes under.

No problem! You just come up with another idea and start the process all over!

After several decades of this approach we see very few examples of new, long-standing enterprise in the Maritimes. Rather, we see a lot of companies that are started on government money but only last a few years.

That's because the real goal isn't to make established businesses! It's to get the whole area dependent on government money! This system was started by the Liberals and it worked very well for them. Ordinary folks knew the score but what could they do? They had to feed their kids so they kept voting for politicians who would keep giving them 'development money'. A new job every few years might not be as good as the same job for your whole career but it was infinitely better than no job at all!

Don't believe me? Ask around in PEI and see how many businesses you can find that were started with government money and have lasted more than 10 years.

Those poor Maritimers are hooked! They "owe their souls to the company store". The system actually makes it harder to establish a long term business! Government money looks good in the short term but in the long term it just keeps them "on the dole".

The oil money out West and having Harper as PM is the first real shift in power out of Central Canada in our history. It'll be interesting to see how it eventually plays out.

[Evening Star]

Surely Diefenbaker counts as a power shift away from Central Canada in our history? (Will have more to say about the rest of this later on.)