What happened to that so desired reform?

Benz · April 24, 2011

Okay. So I misinterpreted. You said that my ancestors oppressed the french. How can that be when, where my ancestors came from, there were no french to oppress? Why would you make such an accusation if you recognize that the people you are addressing have many different histories and cultures?

Then it was not addressing to you. I said that to gambino in the context where he denied what anglo authorities did such in Manitoba, NS and PEI. Do you deny it too or you are rather from elsewhere? You jump into the sandbox but I have no idea where you from and what ancestors you are talking about.

I took your reference to 'both' as a direct reference to 'just like you' and 'not just like you'. How should I have taken it?

I don't know you Molly. Help me a little bit. If you are from a Vietnamese family and your parents were born in Vietnam, you won't feel concern at all and that is perfectly understandable. If you are in Vancouver, you adopt the culture of the english canadian and respect their social choices and laws. Except perhaps for some individual or familial ones as long as they are not in contradiction of the laws. The people choosing to come in Canada have to assimilate canadian values. I will give you one example. Several women in Egypt have their genitals cut and until very recently, the government didn't do much to stop and ban that. The people coming from Egypt and wanting to live in Canada cannot expect the canadians would allow that to happen here. No matter how open you want to be regarding individual choices, there are limits. Same goes for those who wish to force their daughters to mary a man chosen by the family rather than by the girl herself. Arranged marriages are very popular and tolerated in several foreign cultures. In Canada, it must not be tolerated.

Although the french and english cultures are very similar if we compare them with other ones around the world, there are some differences. We dicussed about one that occured no long ago regarding the religion weapon in public schools. English and French are at the opposite ends on that matter. The normal thing would be that we respect each others and either the rule is rejected, or it is applied only in the english provinces. No, the english want to force it in the throat of the french.

The french are asking that the rules are no longer set by the english majority only. It is a legitimated claim.

When I say english majority, I say english majority. If you feel you don't fit in that group, I say ok. But what else can I say. Do you pretend you are part of a third group that is significant enough either in the actual country and canadian's history to be considered a nation that must have a say into the constitution other than the english or the french? Beside the natives, I fail to see. You gonna have to explain me what and how you considere yourself.

Benz · April 24, 2011

What are you going to do to stop the natives from leaving? Declare war on them? You want to make Oka and Ipperwash look like a Sunday picnic?

Why would they. They would lose everything they got since 2002. Are you too naive to beleive the natives feel they belong to the english canadians?

The natives will look after their own interests. They might join an independent Quebec but only after they have exacted some major consessions from the Quebec government. However, I doubt that - especially if seperatists refuse to acknowledge that they have a right to go if they want to.

La Paix des braves - 2002

TimG · April 24, 2011

Why would they. They would lose everything they got since 2002. Are you too naive to beleive the natives feel they belong to the english canadians?

Naive? Not at all. I said they would look after themselves and they will go for the best deal they can get. The La Paix des braves would be the starting point for negotiations - not the end. I would expect them to try and get a better deal from Canada and if they get it they would expect Quebec to accept their right to do so. Edited April 24, 2011 by TimG

cybercoma · April 24, 2011

Convention is that senators are selected by the PM.

PMs could select the Senators selected by the provinces, giving de facto power over selection to the provinces. This would not need a constitutional amendment, since it would be a tacit agreement.

TimG · April 24, 2011

PMs could select the Senators selected by the provinces, giving de facto power over selection to the provinces. This would not need a constitutional amendment, since it would be a tacit agreement.

I cant imagine any PM letting an opposiing provincial party appoint senators.

Bryan · April 24, 2011

What you gonna do? Declare war on us?

Funny that you'd want to bring that up. Is that the plan when you don't get what you want?

cybercoma · April 24, 2011

I cant imagine any PM letting an opposiing provincial party appoint senators.

One that would like to become insanely popular would, but I'm afraid you're right. The argument earlier was that it would require a constitutional amendment. I'm just pointing out the theoretical loophole.

bloodyminded · April 24, 2011

You live in the delusion that you own the natives and they wish to be owned by you. It is far from the reality.

I agree it's far from reality, and it approaches the opposite of what Toadbrother was saying.

g_bambino · April 25, 2011

Modifications we would want in the constitution now...

That answer doesn't relate to my question. I'll ask again: why does Quebec need this extraordinary veto power? What threat does it need protection from?

Benz · April 25, 2011

PMs could select the Senators selected by the provinces, giving de facto power over selection to the provinces. This would not need a constitutional amendment, since it would be a tacit agreement.

But then Harper can do it even if he does not have a majority. If it was something he wanted to, he would have done it long time ago. He rather used the system in his own advantage.

Benz · April 25, 2011

Naive? Not at all. I said they would look after themselves and they will go for the best deal they can get. The La Paix des braves would be the starting point for negotiations - not the end. I would expect them to try and get a better deal from Canada and if they get it they would expect Quebec to accept their right to do so.

You don't offer sh-t for centuries and now, out of the sudden, because Québec leaves and you offer them what, mountains of money?

What do you think you can offer after a winning yes that would make change their mind. Go on!

---

Funny that you'd want to bring that up. Is that the plan when you don't get what you want?

You lost track of the conversation. I am not the one who brought that up.

---

That answer doesn't relate to my question. I'll ask again: why does Quebec need this extraordinary veto power? What threat does it need protection from?

It is not extraordinary, it is a normal thing that normal nations expect from a union.

We need it because you proved us that we need it. In 1982 you modified the constitution without us, making these modifications we do not agree and never cared about the consequences ever since. It is simple and clear. You did it once, we do not want you can do it again. We can no longer blind trust you.

You should have think about it before you decide to change it on the basis of "eh, only Québec does not agree, the only french province, who cares! They are not important!"

g_bambino · April 25, 2011

Edited April 25, 2011 by g_bambino

TimG · April 25, 2011

What do you think you can offer after a winning yes that would make change their mind.

I don't know and don't really care. My point is the seperatists have tried to buy the support of the Cree and the Cree took what they offered but they may no guarantee that they stay with in independent Quebec. If anything, the paix du braves cements their right to determine their own fate. You can't control what they will do anymore than I.

g_bambino · April 25, 2011

We need it because... in 1982 you modified the constitution without us... You did it once, we do not want you can do it again.

But this still doesn't explain why Quebec needs to have a veto over every and all constitutional changes. Why should Quebec have had anything to say about the amendment that changed the name of Newfoundland, or that which created Nunavut, or the one replacing a ferry service to Prince Edward Island with a fixed bridge? Those were matters quite outside the jurisdiction of the Queen in Right of Quebec, with no bearing on the province whatsoever. So, once more, what threat is it you think Quebec presently faces and requires a veto power as protection from it? Be specific.

Benz · April 25, 2011

I don't know and don't really care. My point is the seperatists have tried to buy the support of the Cree and the Cree took what they offered but they may no guarantee that they stay with in independent Quebec. If anything, the paix du braves cements their right to determine their own fate. You can't control what they will do anymore than I.

You cannot guarantee Newfoundland won't leave either. Too speculative and hypothetical. You are wasting your time for someone who don't really care.

Benz · April 25, 2011

But this still doesn't explain why Quebec needs to have a veto over every and all constitutional changes. Why should Quebec have had anything to say about the amendment that changed the name of Newfoundland, or that which created Nunavut,...

There you go. You finally made a point. Indeed, some little details of the constitution might not concern Québec. They are rather the exceptions than the main rule.

or the one replacing a ferry service to Prince Edward Island with a fixed bridge?

It was in the constitution? I thought it was just a federal program.

Those were matters quite outside the jurisdiction of the Queen in Right of Quebec, with no bearing on the province whatsoever. So, once more, what threat is it you think Quebec presently faces and requires a veto power as protection from it? Be specific.

The functionality of the federal system, what powers belong to who, anything regarding individual rights, and so on. But indeed, Québec does not need a veto on another province's name and such sort of things that Québec does not matter a single bit. You can remove the Québec veto for those tiny details if it pleases you.

TimG · April 25, 2011

You cannot guarantee Newfoundland won't leave either. Too speculative and hypothetical.

Any discussion of Quebec seperation is speculative and hypothetical. It is rather silly to dismiss those speculations which make you feel unconfortable.

cybercoma · April 25, 2011

But then Harper can do it even if he does not have a majority. If it was something he wanted to, he would have done it long time ago. He rather used the system in his own advantage.

Which is one of the numerous reasons I will not vote Conservative again.

icman · April 25, 2011

Whether you like it or not, it does. A senate is meaningless if the senators are chosen by the prime minister.

In the constitution, it says one individual has the right to apply his religious belief at any circumstances. Above any other rules. This is a major flaw in the constitution.

No it is not.

English canadians + Québécois = 2 nations. The natives are a subject big enought to have its own thread, so I leave aside for the moment.

The english always used the imperialist argument that the french do not exist. Because they do want to control the constitution exclusively. The dictatorship of the number. The english outnumber the french, therefore, the english set the rules of the constitution with the french. You know what, you are not different from the former british that take over this land and reduced the french and the natives to third class citizens. Québec is a nation, wants to be respected as is and have a say onto those rules that are applied on every single individuals of this country.

If you want to stay into the denial, fine. You will have no one else than yourself to blame when this country will break appart. I swear it will.

Constitutional changes require unanimous agreement of Premiers (correct?) so if the Quebec representative (the Quebec Premier) does not agree to a constitutional change, that is in effect a veto.

Where is your problem with all of this? Why the veiled threats that Quebec will soon explode into blood and violence?

g_bambino · April 25, 2011

The functionality of the federal system, what powers belong to who, anything regarding individual rights...

Just as with every other province, Quebec already has a veto over these matters (assuming that by "functionality of the federal system" you mean "the way in which the federation functions"). Again: What threat is it you think Quebec presently faces and requires a veto power as protection from it?

icman · April 26, 2011

This thread is killing me. It is being added to faster than I can read it. Damn it all.

I'm still on page 7, so I don't know if this has been resolved.

Benz's problem, as I see it, is that the French culture, which once made up half of Canada, and is part of the convention of the origial Confederation, has dwindled to just Quebec. But nonetheless, it is a culture (at least a language) that has special status. It is one of the two official languages in Canada, and the reason for that was an unwritten acknowledgement of equality of status between English and French cultures at the onset of Confederation.

He is saying that there is a different level of interaction with Canada that is not entirely recognized by the makeup of our Westminster system, and that is one of culture. There are population divides in Canada as represented in the House. There are regional divides as represented in the Senate. But the cultural divide between French and English, which was once effectively represented roughly half and half by regional representation in the Senate, is no longer represented half-and-half by the Senate, because the French culture has mostly contracted back into Quebec. I think Benz is saying that this issue needs to be fixed to deal with the French population, and give them back the influence they had as a culture when Confederation began.

There is some beginnings of a precedent in Canada - when Native Canadians were declared a distinct society, and were granted nation status. This native status provides Native Canadians with their own national assembly. I think Benz's contention is that, not only should the French have a similar status, but our Westminster system should be adjusted somehow to include these major cultural divides (English, French, and Native Canadian) into it. Perhaps a new Legislative body with equal representation from English Canada, French Canada, and Native Canadians? Perhaps an adjustment to the makeup of the Senate to somehow represent these different cultural views? Perhaps there should be an English national assembly, and Native national assembly, and a French national assembly, with elected representatives, which has some role in our Government structure, including a say in constitutional matters?

It is clear that Benz is correct that the French had more influence at the onset of Confederation than they do now, and his contention that the diminishment of that influence is at least in part the fault of deliberate attempts to fight French culture by English areas of Canada is not without merit. He further contends that this issue, an erosion of French Canada since Confederation, is what drives separatist eruptions in Quebec, and is an issue on the minds of most Quebecers (even if they are not yet separatist sympathizers.)

Benz, have I got this correct? I am starting to get dizzy reading your and ToadBurner, and g_bambino's posts which are missing each other's points.

Edited April 26, 2011 by icman

g_bambino · April 26, 2011

There is some beginnings of a precedent in Canada - when Native Canadians were declared a distinct society, and were granted nation status. This native status provides Native Canadians with their own national assembly. I think Benz's contention is that, not only should the French have a similar status, but our Westminster system should be adjusted somehow to include these major cultural divides (English, French, and Native Canadian) into it. Perhaps a new Legislative body with equal representation from English Canada, French Canada, and Native Canadians? Perhaps an adjustment to the makeup of the Senate to somehow represent these different cultural views? Perhaps there should be an English national assembly, and Native national assembly, and a French national assembly, with elected representatives, which has some role in our Government structure, including a say in constitutional matters?

I don't believe something like the Assembly of First Nations is what Benz has in mind; it has no legal power, whereas Benz wants the Québécois (whom he mistakes for the province of Quebec) to have ultimate power over the entire Canadian constitution. (Well, he has graciously conceded to allowing provinces other than Quebec to change their names without the approval of the Québécois...) If we were to combine the two proposals - actual, sovereign legislative assemblies for linguistic groups and ethnic groups, in addition to the provincial and federal legislatures - then Canada would likely look worse than the mess that Belgium is, with it's federal parliament, regional parliaments, and community parliaments, all with overlapping jurisdictions and an unhealthy dose of squabbling. For a polity the size of Canada, with as many cultures and languages as it has, and one government with a veto over all the rest, it would be a disaster; it would go quite the opposite way from uniting the country.

[+]

Edited April 26, 2011 by g_bambino

icman · April 26, 2011

I don't believe something like the Assembly of First Nations is what Benz has in mind; it has no legal power, whereas Benz wants the Québécois (whom he mistakes for the province of Quebec) to have ultimate power over the entire Canadian constitution. (Well, he has graciously conceded to allowing provinces other than Quebec to change their names without the approval of the Québécois...) If we were to combine the two proposals - actual, sovereign legislative assemblies for linguistic groups and ethnic groups, in addition to the provincial and federal legislatures - then Canada would likely look worse than the mess that Belgium is, with it's federal parliament, regional parliaments, and community parliaments, all with overlapping jurisdictions and an unhealthy dose of squabbling. For a polity the size of Canada, with as many cultures and languages as it has, and one government with a veto over all the rest, it would be a disaster; it would go quite the opposite way from uniting the country.

[+]

I am not suggesting any particular solution at the moment. Just asking if there is any recognition that the cultural differences between French, English, and Native are similar in their scope, form, or flavour to, say, regiional differences. If so, regional differences were recognized as requiring protection in our government by representing them roughly equally in the Senate. Should we not therefore provide some form of representation in our government for each major culture?

Its a tall order, and different enough that people will resist the notion reflexively. But conceptually, at a high level, (and to dismiss what I said in the last paragraph about not proposing any particular solution at the moment) adding a new Legislative body or some other type of organ to our goverment is an elegant solution, and normalizes how culture is recognized in Canadian politics. It creates one place where cultures are given political power, and so how cultures have power in Canadian politics is controlled by the new body's roles and responsibilities, and relative power is controlled by its composition. It recognizes that cultures are not necessarily geographically discrete, and that therefore the Senate cannot so easily represent them using its orientation toward regional representation. It also has the added benefit of simplifying the argument around Senate reforms - no more need to provide Quebec with 1/4 of the Senate simply to protect their culture, as that is dealt with in this new House of government. The Senate could then be changed to X seats per Province. Quebec would get their say in the Senate as a province, and French Canadians would get their say in this new body as a cultural nation. It would recognize English Canadians as a cultural nation within a broader definition of a multi-cultural Canada and on an equal footing with French and Native cultural nations, rather than assume that the French and Native populations are exceptions in an English Canada. English Canadians wouldn't be able to complain that it is unfair, and neither would French Canadians or Native Canadians. It brings us closer to our roots at Confederation with regard to the French, and includes Native populations equally for a change.

I won't accept the counter that such a move would necessitate recognizing every 3-person culture to find its way to Canada - we have large regions represented in the Senate that were never divided into individual households as neighbours disagreed with one another. We can take what we have now (3 major cultures) and either hold it there, or create criteria for adding new ones as they grow to the point of being similar to those already existing.

Of course, I also recognize that the devil is in the details.

The people involved in the proposed Constitutional changes over the last 30 years are pretty smart folk, though. I can't imagine I am the first person to propose such a structure.

ToadBrother · April 26, 2011

The people involved in the proposed Constitutional changes over the last 30 years are pretty smart folk, though. I can't imagine I am the first person to propose such a structure.

What you stated was basically the idea behind the Charlottetown Accord, though I think the idea of First Nations have Senate seats wouldn't happen right away.

The real problem with Senate reform isn't Quebec per se, it's the disproportionate number of seats available to the Eastern Provinces. The big guys, Ontario and Quebec, may not want to give up that imbalance. It's not an ethnic or cultural issue, no matter how much some will dress it up as one, fundamentally it's an issue of power.

Benz · April 26, 2011

Any discussion of Quebec seperation is speculative and hypothetical. It is rather silly to dismiss those speculations which make you feel unconfortable.

I am not unconfortable. I'm way more confortable than you are. You just fail to discuss the facts. We are not going anywhere with this.

----

Which is one of the numerous reasons I will not vote Conservative again.

And no one can blame you.

---

Just as with every other province, Quebec already has a veto over these matters (assuming that by "functionality of the federal system" you mean "the way in which the federation functions"). Again: What threat is it you think Quebec presently faces and requires a veto power as protection from it?

If you are right. Then why Québec unanimously does not agree to the current constitution and yet, it is still active. This is not having a veto. Your failures are not funny anymore.