Bill C-12 dies

[Argus]

A bill which would have done much to correct the ridiculous imbalance in voting in Canada is being allowed to die because Quebec, which is not growing in population like other areas, didn't like it.

There'll be a lot said, a lot of excuse made, but basically, the cringing, gutless leaders of the Liberal and conservative parties caved in and agreed to let the bill die out of fears that Quebecers might have punished them for it. They were also afraid their own Quebec MPs would refuse to support the bill, and that this would all contribute to the rise of separatism again.

So once again, Quebec's sniveling and bitching and whining succeeds. Stephen Harper, in his pathetic, desperate, forlorn efforts at somehow getting Quebec to cote for an Anglo leader - something they will NEVER and have NEVER done when an acceptably French political leader was available, rolled over and collapsed like a cheap bag of wind. Ignatieff, of course, lived up to expectations that he would surrender the moment he is challenged.

Quebec is not growing like the other provinces for multiple reasons, most of which are related to their inbred xenophobia about their crappy backwards language. They allow very few immigrants - only those suitably French - and no one else from the rest of Canada wants to move to a poor province full of French bigots. So while other provinces grow, Quebec declines. With its population continuing to fall as a percentage of the national population they ought to have less representation, but the cowardly leaders of the main federal parties are frightened to change the status quo.Thus some parliamentary ridings, especially in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, represent more than twice as many people as others. Taht situation is only going to get worse year by year.

Globe and Mail

[Evening Star]

You know, I actually agree with your main point but not so much with some of the rest of this rhetoric? At the least, I don't think it's fair to call the French language backwards!

[Argus]

You know, I actually agree with your main point but not so much with some of the rest of this rhetoric? At the least, I don't think it's fair to call the French language backwards!

Have you spent much time studying French?

[jbg]

There'll be a lot said, a lot of excuse made, but basically, the cringing, gutless leaders of the Liberal and conservative parties caved in and agreed to let the bill die out of fears that Quebecers might have punished them for it. They were also afraid their own Quebec MPs would refuse to support the bill, and that this would all contribute to the rise of separatism again.

Isn't that why Quebec gets its way all the time?

With its population continuing to fall as a percentage of the national population they ought to have less representation, but the cowardly leaders of the main federal parties are frightened to change the status quo.Thus some parliamentary ridings, especially in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, represent more than twice as many people as others. Taht situation is only going to get worse year by year.

Isn't their percentage fixed in the BNA, or is that only PEI when they signed on to the Confederation? Edited December 4, 2010 by jbg

[Topaz]

The parties will not do anything to hurt themselves and besides that, where would they put them. The Commons is filled now and can you imagine more? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/federal-parties-agree-to-scrap-bill-to-correct-voting-inequalities/article1823068/

[August1991]

A bill which would have done much to correct the ridiculous imbalance in voting in Canada is being allowed to die because Quebec, which is not growing in population like other areas, didn't like it.

Argus, the writers of the US Constitution - in their Enlightened wisdom - had the good sense to organize a democracy other than "one man = one vote". In the US, there are 100 senators, two from each state - whether NY or DE.

Democracy, a PC term if there ever was one, does not mean each person's voice is equal.

Argus, you're a non-PC kind of guy. What does "democracy" mean to you? Should the majority have the right to tyrannize the minority?

----

IMV, Quebec's representatives should in general have a veto on major federal decisions. Canada's existence depends on the federal government making decisions in the interests of people in Quebec.

With that said, one could make a similar argument about people in PEI.

[Jack Weber]

IMV, Quebec's representatives should in general have a veto on major federal decisions. Canada's existence depends on the federal government making decisions in the interests of people in Quebec.

Why should this be so,in your opinion?

[Evening Star]

Argus, the writers of the US Constitution - in their Enlightened wisdom - had the good sense to organize a democracy other than "one man = one vote". In the US, there are 100 senators, two from each state - whether NY or DE.

Representation in the House of Representatives - a better comparison to the Commons - is proportional to population though. It is good to have a check and balance on this - which the Senate does provide - but equal representation should not be neglected altogether.

Why should Quebec have a veto? Because it's more likely to threaten separation?

[August1991]

Why should this be so,in your opinion?

Why should Quebec have a veto? Because it's more likely to threaten separation?

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.

A Quebec veto ensures that Canada remains a civilized society. If people in Quebec largely agree with a federal measure, then Canada will remain a civilized society.

----

As the writers of the US Constitution understood, it is a question of restriction of State power. If the federal power cannot obtain Quebec approval, then maybe the measure is not wise for the country.

Edited December 4, 2010 by August1991

[jbg]

Why should Quebec have a veto? Because it's more likely to threaten separation?

Unfortunately I think that Britain made that decision in 1774 with the Quebec Act. And the Quebec Act was one of the "Intolerable Acts" that led to the U.S. deciding to go its own way. And from an unfamiliar part of our Declaration of Independence (link):

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

*******************

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

The American colonists were not about to sign up for that program. Other provinces felt differently and now that's part of the deal.

[Argus]

Isn't that why Quebec gets its way all the time?

Isn't their percentage fixed in the BNA, or is that only PEI when they signed on to the Confederation?

They have it fixed there that they will never lose seats. Now they are blackmailing us into ensuring no one else gains seats.

And yes, that is how they get their way, much like spoiled children everywhere who have bad parents.

[August1991]

The American colonists were not about to sign up for that program.

And yet Americans gave each state veto power in the initial Articles of Confederation.

[Jack Weber]

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.

A Quebec veto ensures that Canada remains a civilized society. If people in Quebec largely agree with a federal measure, then Canada will remain a civilized society.

----

As the writers of the US Constitution understood, it is a question of restriction of power. If the federal power cannot obtain Quebec approval, then maybe the measure is not wise for the country.

A more civilized society???

That may be the justification you've created in your mind,as it relates to a Quebec constitutional veto,but that's not the way most people see it..

It would simply allow for Quebec to seperate itself from this country in a more legislated fashion based on the specious "Distict Society" BS....

So let's cut the BS....

Why do you think Quebec deserves to be treated seperately,and over and above,every other province based on the fact that the British were historically charitable to those they conquered by allowing them to:

1.Remain Catholic

2.Keep their language

3.Keep the French Civil code

I mean,they very easily could have done to your ancestors what they did to the Acadians,and forcibly shipped you off to Louisiana...

What about those three things,which are quite distinct,in and of themselves,alow Quebec to be a province with special priviledges that the rest of the provinces don't have,and frankly,don't deserve?

[Argus]

Argus, the writers of the US Constitution - in their Enlightened wisdom - had the good sense to organize a democracy other than "one man = one vote". In the US, there are 100 senators, two from each state - whether NY or DE.

You deliberately ignore the fact the House of Representatives, which is the arena where bills are launched, is proportional to population.

Democracy, a PC term if there ever was one, does not mean each person's voice is equal.

August, you'd be screaming like a little girl if Quebec's representation fell below their population. And your entire province would be howling and threatening to leave.

IMV, Quebec's representatives should in general have a veto on major federal decisions.

Why? Quebec, imv, contributes nothing to Confederation and never has. It is a drain, a net loss, both culturally and financially. Quebecers are isolationists, arrogant bigots who think their ridiculously complex academic language - which almost none of them can actually speak with anything approaching proper grammar, makes them some sort of unique, superior people. Most want nothing to do with Canada other than to use its money, and rarely pay any attention to the country outside their backward province except where some perceived insult to them is shouted at them by the media.

Canada's existence depends on the federal government making decisions in the interests of people in Quebec.

Canada, without Quebec, would be a far superior nation, in every sense of the word. Quebec, meanwhile, would be North America's Bangladesh, constantly under the stewardship of the IMF.

[August1991]

They have it fixed there that they will never lose seats. Now they are blackmailing us into ensuring no one else gains seats.

And yes, that is how they get their way, much like spoiled children everywhere who have bad parents.

That's your perception, Argus.

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

----

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.

These checks make foolishness, and dictatorship, more difficult.

Canada, without Quebec, would be a far superior nation...

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

But would that be to the benefit of remaining Canadians?

Edited December 4, 2010 by August1991

[jbg]

The American colonists were not about to sign up for that program. Other provinces felt differently and now that's part of the deal.

And yet Americans gave each state veto power in the initial Articles of Confederation.

And that was one of the reasons that the initial Articles of Confederation didn't last long. in fact one of the impetuses for replacing them with the Constitution were Delaware's threats to bolt back to the British.

The initial Articles of Confederation were drafted hastily in the middle of a war. I honesly have my doubts that most of the Philadelphia delegates expected the U.S. to last long. I think many expected that a more equitable arrangement with England would be negotiated. Indeed, the U.S.'s independence was very fragile through the end of the War of 1812.

[jbg]

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

The N.E.P. stopped when the (other) Rest of Canada was going to have to pay Alberta money to maintain the floor on crashing crude prices. The N.E.P., from what I recall, had a floor mechanism as well as a ceiling and based on prices prevailing from December 1985 through at least 1990 and then again 1991-2000 was going to cost the rest of the country dearly.

[Jack Weber]

That's your perception, Argus.

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

----

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.

These checks make foolishness, and dictatorship, more difficult.

What horrendously bad federal measures have the fed's ever done to Quebec???

Almost all have done to allow it to integrate and "enhance" it economically...

The only one I can think of are the events of October,1970,and those were fully justified...

Edited December 4, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Evening Star]

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.

Unfortunately I think that Britain made that decision in 1774 with the Quebec Act. And the Quebec Act was one of the "Intolerable Acts" that led to the U.S. deciding to go its own way. And from an unfamiliar part of our Declaration of Independence (link):

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

*******************

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

The American colonists were not about to sign up for that program. Other provinces felt differently and now that's part of the deal.

[Evening Star]

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?

[August1991]

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?

ES, there is a perception in English Canada that Quebec holds Canada hostage - you say it yourself by using terms like "threats and blackmail".

I am making the argument that a Quebec veto, or any provincial veto, is good for Canada.

We should check central power. If the federal government cannot obtain approval from both French and English speaking Canadians, then maybe the measure is unwise.

Any dictator can impose a new system and new rules. I prefer changes that obtain general approval, across a broad spectrum. If the change does not meet that approval, then maybe it's not so good.

As long as Quebec is in Canada, and Canada remains a federal state, Canada will never have a dictator of the likes of Hitler or Mussolini or Stalin.

The US and modern Germany, both federal states, were designed in the same way to prevent dictatorship. We Canadians have done better - our federal state must meet approval from linguistic and even religious groups.

Edited December 4, 2010 by August1991

[Bugs]

Unfortunately I think that Britain made that decision in 1774 with the Quebec Act. And the Quebec Act was one of the "Intolerable Acts" that led to the U.S. deciding to go its own way. And from an unfamiliar part of our Declaration of Independence (link):

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

*******************

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

The American colonists were not about to sign up for that program. Other provinces felt differently and now that's part of the deal.

Outside of Quebec, what other provinces were there in 1774? Acadie is not Nova Scotia. Admittedly,there was a French colony in the area, but the Acadians weren't expelled until 1755 -- if I remember right.

The American colonists considered themselves British when Governor Shirley mustered an army and attacked. The major reason? The metropolitan French government had placed a bounty on 'English scalps' with the result, a lot of Massachuetts folks were getting haircuts.

The Quebec Act was mostly offensive because it prevented the American 'English' from expanding into the Ohio Valley.

At least that's the way I heard it.

[Guy M]

Why do you think Quebec deserves to be treated seperately,and over and above,every other province based on the fact that the British were historically charitable to those they conquered by allowing them to:

1.Remain Catholic

2.Keep their language

3.Keep the French Civil code

I mean,they very easily could have done to your ancestors what they did to the Acadians,and forcibly shipped you off to Louisiana...

What about those three things,which are quite distinct,in and of themselves,alow Quebec to be a province with special priviledges that the rest of the provinces don't have,and frankly,don't deserve?

As for the Quebec Act as discussed above, and the "generosity" of the British... it secured them the support of Quebec's population during the American revolution, and during the war of 1812. In theses wars, french canadian militiamen fought with the british to repel 2 American invasion attempts. It enabled them to keep Canada, and govern it without heavily militarizing it.

In the early days of Canada (1759-1774), the British were few in numbers... soldiers, merchants... They needed to deal with the French Canadians to establish their foothold... Laborers, doctors, nurses, food, guides...

It cost them almost nothing and gave them a functional colony.

I think you'll find very few Quebecers to argue that we need more privileges and more votes than other Canadians. I'd be happy / am happy with just equal. Do the bloc vote this way? No, they vote for what's in their best interest as politicians.

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.

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

Edited December 4, 2010 by Guy M

[bush_cheney2004]

....The US and modern Germany, both federal states, were designed in the same way to prevent dictatorship. We Canadians have done better - our federal state must meet approval from linguistic and even religious groups.

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

[g_bambino]

I am making the argument that a Quebec veto, or any provincial veto, is good for Canada.

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?