What happened to that so desired reform?

[Benz]

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.

Except for some details, you have an astonishing accurate understanding of what I said. Whether you agree or not with me, at least you get the point. Unlike most of the others who just see in me the axil of evil.

However, what surprises me is you are offering more than we even ask.

House of Common: I wouldn't change much of it. If Québec wants bigger representation, it has to get more people within its border. However, I want to reduce its power and its field. Several powers HC have should be exclusive to the provinces. If the other provinces do not agree, ok, at least, a province should have an opt out with full compensation on ALL federal programs.

Senate: Equally divided in 4 regions as it is actually but, senators chosen by their regions, not the prime minister of the HC.

Constitution: Québec nation recognized, Québec veto on constitutional changes and few other details. Because only Québec is in a position to represent the french anymore. What's done is done. We cannot reverse all the damages caused to the french outside Québec.

Here we go, we don't ask more.

You do a parallel with the natives. There some indeed. From my perspective, they are a different nation than the french and the english. Those are 3 different cultures/nations. I think they even should have a veto on some points of the constitution. I won't slide onto that though because I'm not sure which ones and I am not native myself.

Natives are not in a situation as good as Québec is. Québec has its own government, its institutions, borders, etc... Québec has everything a sovereign nation needs to get independent. The natives are far from it and the are not all on the same level. The Cree in Québec are far more advanced in their political structures than the Mi'kmaqs. It is difficult at the moment to find a solution to everyone, the damages on some of them seem too deep.

Perhaps a native assembly should be created. When I say they are not on the same level, I'll show you an example. When Québec negociated the Paix des braves with the Cree, they did it nation-to-nation. The Cree were able to speak as one nation. When Québec tried to do the same with the Innus, it got more complicated. Because the innu reserves are all independent and divided. They interect more one on one with Ottawa than within each others. They are not used to join their forces together and speak in one voice. Ottawa liked it this way. Divide and conquer. It was easier for Ottawa to get what it wants. I beleive the Innus are more united now but, they still don't have strong structures comparable to the Cree or of course, comparable to Québec.

I think they wish they could all have their national assembly just like Québec does. A Cree assembly, a Innu assembly, an ojibway assembly and so on. If those assemblies are recognized by Canada, granted almost the same sovereignty the Cree got from Québec, they would probably very happy with that. Then and only then a participation to the House of Common will be taken more seriously by them.

However, as I said, they are not all as advanced as the Cree are. For some, it may looks much more difficult to get there.

[TimG]

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.

Well the facts are: the Cree represent a distinct nation in Northern Quebec who will look after their own interests in the event of a seperation. Their own interests will not necessarily include going with Quebec. Edited April 26, 2011 by TimG

[Benz]

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.

I am open to the idea that BC and the Prairies need two separate set of senators. However, you gonna have to do better than this kind of argumentation.

For one, Ontario, Québec and Maritimes cannot, under any circumstances be considered one group named the eastern provinces. I understand that from a western point of view, it is easy to considere them all eastern, just as well as Québec may considere all provinces as of one monolitic english block, or how the maritimes considere the egoist others they helped to found and barely get a return on the investments and so on...

The development of the Western block can indeed leads to the need of considering a 5th regions by dividing the west in two. I don't have a problem with the principle. But for your own good, the arguments have to be better than that.

What I considere to be a good start would be that BC has a different context than the prairies. Pacific ocean, industries, economic dynamics, etc... I am sure you can develop on those. Much better than saying Ontario-Québec-Maritimes are a single eastern block, which would never be taken seriously.

[Benz]

Well the facts are: the Cree represent a distinct nation in Northern Quebec who will look after their own interests in the event of a seperation. Their own interests will not necessarily include going with Quebec.

As of now, they are. Unless you manage to find a way to the other way around, it's not likely to happen. We are not fool. There are several reasons why the sovereignists signed the Paix des braves with the Cree. One of them was to ease the aftermath of a winning yes.

[ToadBrother]

As of now, they are. Unless you manage to find a way to the other way around, it's not likely to happen. We are not fool. There are several reasons why the sovereignists signed the Paix des braves with the Cree. One of them was to ease the aftermath of a winning yes.

Each and every "nation" within Quebec is under the express protection of the Crown. If Quebec secedes it will have to negotiate with each one and with the Crown. Apart from the possibility, indeed likelihood of this taking years, if these nations refuse to go with a sovereign Quebec, it's likely that borders would be drawn and these territories would remain within Canada. This idea that a sovereign Quebec would have the same borders the Province of Quebec has is the biggest lie the separatists have told, it was very clear during the run up to the 1995 referendum that the First Nations in Quebec held no such view that they would just suddenly switch from the Crown to whatever the sovereign Quebec chose, and the Canadian Crown's obligation to those First Nations is such that it could not lawfully abandon them to a sovereign Quebec.

Edited April 26, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Benz]

Each and every "nation" within Quebec is under the express protection of the Crown.

We protect them from the crown either. So far, the crown did not protect them. They rather oppressed them and reduced them to tiny reserves. Nice try.

If Quebec secedes it will have to negotiate with each one and with the Crown.

Your crown, you can stuck it up to...

Apart from the possibility, indeed likelihood of this taking years, if these nations refuse to go with a sovereign Quebec, it's likely that borders would be drawn and these territories would remain within Canada.

It goes on both sides. So the french outside Québec can choose the very same then. if you open the pandora box...

This idea that a sovereign Quebec would have the same borders the Province of Quebec has is the biggest lie the separatists have told, it was very clear during the run up to the 1995 referendum that the First Nations in Quebec held no such view that they would just suddenly switch from the Crown to whatever the sovereign Quebec chose, and the Canadian Crown's obligation to those First Nations is such that it could not lawfully abandon them to a sovereign Quebec.

Stay focus. You piss on their face, we threat them like nations. Shall I remind you that Canada is among the only 4 countries to reject the recognition of the natives' rights. The other 3 were USA, Australia and New Zealand. Oh my! 4 former british colonies.

You were funny so far but, as you can see, we are not concerned. Don't even think about it. We will do fine with the natives. I'm not sure you can say the same with those outside Québec.

[g_bambino]

We protect them from the crown either.

Cite, please.

[ToadBrother]

We protect them from the crown either. So far, the crown did not protect them. They rather oppressed them and reduced them to tiny reserves. Nice try.

A t-shirt slogan isn't a legal argument

It goes on both sides. So the french outside Québec can choose the very same then. if you open the pandora box...

That's not the way it works. At this point I can only conclude that you're just making crap up on the fly, thinking that any response somehow is a critique.

Stay focus. You piss on their face, we threat them like nations. Shall I remind you that Canada is among the only 4 countries to reject the recognition of the natives' rights. The other 3 were USA, Australia and New Zealand. Oh my! 4 former british colonies.

I'm not sure what you're even trying to say. In Canada, the native peoples have the protection of constitution and supreme court decisions. I'm not even sure what you're advocating. And neither, do I suspect do you.

You were funny so far but, as you can see, we are not concerned. Don't even think about it. We will do fine with the natives. I'm not sure you can say the same with those outside Québec.

Translation: I can't actually contest anything you say so I'll just be a mouthy jerk instead.

What are you, twelve years old? You're behaving like a spoiled little brat.

Edited April 27, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Benz]

That's not the way it works.

Yes it is. We won't let you take parts of Québec without a fight. There will be blood.

I'm not sure what you're even trying to say. In Canada, the native peoples have the protection of constitution and supreme court decisions. I'm not even sure what you're advocating. And neither, do I suspect do you.

Have you ever talk with a real native? Do you have at least a tiny idea of what they want? So far, you don't.

Unless you show me NOW what you could do better than Québec, your insults won't give you anything. You are pathetic. You don't care about the natives and after a winning yes, out of sudden, you beleive you can offer better than ever. They are not important to you until Québec votes yes. So basically, it is in their own advantage to vote yes either. Just in case you offer something better.

You run your loudmouth regarding crown's protection. We rather do something and solve issues. We will see which strategy is the best.

---

Cite, please.

I forgot the word "will". We will protect them from the crown.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Benz

[nittanylionstorm07]

Yes it is. We won't let you take parts of Québec without a fight. There will be blood.

Have you ever talk with a real native? Do you have at least a tiny idea of what they want? So far, you don't.

Unless you show me NOW what you could do better than Québec, your insults won't give you anything. You are pathetic. You don't care about the natives and after a winning yes, out of sudden, you beleive you can offer better than ever. They are not important to you until Québec votes yes. So basically, it is in their own advantage to vote yes either. Just in case you offer something better.

You run your loudmouth regarding crown's protection. We rather do something and solve issues. We will see which strategy is the best.

---

I forgot the word "will". We will protect them from the crown.

I'm glad separatists like you are in a continually slimming minority. Your views are not good for either Canada or Quebec. The entire thing you keep forgetting with respect to the natives is that they overwhelmingly reject independence from Canada for Quebec.

You would have an argument if that wasn't true.

[ToadBrother]

Yes it is. We won't let you take parts of Québec without a fight. There will be blood.

There'll be nothing. Quebec won't secede and all your ranting will be for nought. It's so sad being a separatist these days.

Edited April 27, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Tilter]

Except for some details, you have an astonishing accurate understanding of what I said. Whether you agree or not with me, at least you get the point. Unlike most of the others who just see in me the axil of evil.

However, what surprises me is you are offering more than we even ask.

House of Common: I wouldn't change much of it. If Québec wants bigger representation, it has to get more people within its border. However, I want to reduce its power and its field. Several powers HC have should be exclusive to the provinces. If the other provinces do not agree, ok, at least, a province should have an opt out with full compensation on ALL federal programs.

Senate: Equally divided in 4 regions as it is actually but, senators chosen by their regions, not the prime minister of the HC.

Constitution: Québec nation recognized, Québec veto on constitutional changes and few other details. Because only Québec is in a position to represent the french anymore. What's done is done. We cannot reverse all the damages caused to the french outside Québec.

Here we go, we don't ask more.

You do a parallel with the natives. There some indeed. From my perspective, they are a different nation than the french and the english. Those are 3 different cultures/nations. I think they even should have a veto on some points of the constitution. I won't slide onto that though because I'm not sure which ones and I am not native myself.

Natives are not in a situation as good as Québec is. Québec has its own government, its institutions, borders, etc... Québec has everything a sovereign nation needs to get independent. The natives are far from it and the are not all on the same level. The Cree in Québec are far more advanced in their political structures than the Mi'kmaqs. It is difficult at the moment to find a solution to everyone, the damages on some of them seem too deep.

Perhaps a native assembly should be created. When I say they are not on the same level, I'll show you an example. When Québec negociated the Paix des braves with the Cree, they did it nation-to-nation. The Cree were able to speak as one nation. When Québec tried to do the same with the Innus, it got more complicated. Because the innu reserves are all independent and divided. They interect more one on one with Ottawa than within each others. They are not used to join their forces together and speak in one voice. Ottawa liked it this way. Divide and conquer. It was easier for Ottawa to get what it wants. I beleive the Innus are more united now but, they still don't have strong structures comparable to the Cree or of course, comparable to Québec.

I think they wish they could all have their national assembly just like Québec does. A Cree assembly, a Innu assembly, an ojibway assembly and so on. If those assemblies are recognized by Canada, granted almost the same sovereignty the Cree got from Québec, they would probably very happy with that. Then and only then a participation to the House of Common will be taken more seriously by them.

However, as I said, they are not all as advanced as the Cree are. For some, it may looks much more difficult to get there.

Sounds very workable--- 3 or 4 or 5 nations in Canada All with Veto power, :blink:

[nittanylionstorm07]

There'll be nothing. Quebec won't secede and all your ranting will be for nought. It's so sad being a separatist these days.

Especially when the Francophone youth have absolutely no interest in carrying their parents' and grandparents' fights.

[g_bambino]

I forgot the word "will". We will protect them from the crown.

I see. Did it ever dawn on you that they don't want to be protected from the Crown? It sounds rather like you feel the government of the Republic of Quebec should tell First Nations within the borders defined by Quebec for itself what they want and don't want. Self-determination only for some, eh?

[ToadBrother]

I see. Did it ever dawn on you that they don't want to be protected from the Crown? It sounds rather like you feel the government of the Republic of Quebec should tell First Nations within the borders defined by Quebec for itself what they want and don't want. Self-determination only for some, eh?

More like "We want a sovereign Quebec, and will trample over the top of First Nations to get it."

The Quebec First Nations were the ones who reminded the Separatists in 1995 that they had a substantial voice in the borders of a sovereign Quebec. The moderate separatists ignored it, the nutbars were the ones who talked about blood being shed. It's pretty clear where Benz falls.

It's long been settled. If Canada is divisible, so is Quebec. Last time I checked, Quebec has no army, and all the soldiers there, shockingly enough, have taken an oath to the Queen of Canada.

Edited April 27, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Benz]

Sounds very workable--- 3 or 4 or 5 nations in Canada All with Veto power, :blink:

Who are the others?

I see 2, 3 if we count the all the natives as one group.

Europe with 20+ ==> win

Canada with 2 ==> Fail

Is that what you are saying? Europeans are better than canadians to make things workable?

[TimG]

Is that what you are saying? Europeans are better than canadians to make things workable?

I am not sure many Eurpoeans consider their union 'workable'. It was imposed on them by elites that were afraid to put the treaties to a vote because they would get shot down.

[g_bambino]

I am not sure many Eurpoeans consider their union 'workable'.

The European Union is also made up of nation states; it has no bodies representing purely ethnic nations. In that way, it is quite like Canada, though it is not (yet) a full federation.

[Benz]

According to the reasonning of several conservative fans, Harper can do his senate modifications now and go with an elected senate.

Can't wait to see that happening.

[ToadBrother]

According to the reasonning of several conservative fans, Harper can do his senate modifications now and go with an elected senate.

Can't wait to see that happening.

He still can't do them without getting 2/3s of the provinces representing at least 50% of the population to come on board.

[Benz]

But he can try. No one holds him back. He has no excuses to not try.

[Wild Bill]

But he can try. No one holds him back. He has no excuses to not try.

He needs no excuses! Anyone who tries to do the impossible is an idiot!

I can try to outfight some Andre the Giant type. The odds are overwhelming that I will lose but I suppose I could gain some points for trying.

I could also try to pick up a bus with my baby finger! That's so impossible that anyone who saw me try would assume that I am mentally challenged, for good reason.

The very structure of our amending formula for the Constitution makes it all but impossible to happen. Certainly a majority government in itself would not be enough.

No, first someone will have to encourage the idea among the population at large. If the idea becomes popular then provincial governments will have no choice but to support the idea. Certainly, if Quebec just absolutely refuses or makes some demands so excessive as to upset the rest of Canada then the idea will simply die. The Quebec people would have to want it first. Then, if their provincial government didn't respond to their wishes they would give them a "Duceppe" style kick in the ass!

[ToadBrother]

But he can try. No one holds him back. He has no excuses to not try.

He can negotiate with the provinces, try to enough of them on board, although if he can't get Quebec on board, one would hope that, even if he had the votes elsewhere, he would drop it. Maybe the provinces won't be all that offended by the idea of shorter Senate term limits and it will pass easily. But he can't just pass legislation in Ottawa to alter the nature of the Senate. It won't do.

[Benz]

He needs no excuses! Anyone who tries to do the impossible is an idiot!

If trying to improve the constitution is idiot, then the canadian union must die.

Certainly, if Quebec just absolutely refuses or makes some demands so excessive as to upset the rest of Canada then the idea will simply die.

Then Canada must die. Our demands never were excessive. Your system sucks. That is the message Québec is still saying from 1993 and still saying it thru NDP.

The system fails. It suits only english Canada. The french were very patient so far. It won't last forever.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Benz

[Wild Bill]

If trying to improve the constitution is idiot, then the canadian union must die.

Then Canada must die. Our demands never were excessive. Your system sucks. That is the message Québec is still saying from 1993 and still saying it thru NDP.

The system fails. It suits only english Canada. The french were very patient so far. It won't last forever.

Be careful what you wish for, mon ami! You might get it!

You see, what you are really saying is that if the system sucks that badly then Quebec could just do what it wants. It could decide to separate however it wants, ignoring any laws to the contrary that are inconvenient.

That could happen, I agree. However, the sword has two edges. If Quebec were to ignore the legalities then TROC would certainly do the same.

Things could get rather ugly!