g_bambino Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) Just see the way Quebecers are spoken of on these very pages. Are they alone? There's been some nasty stuff said around here about Maritimers, Ontarians, and Albertans, as well. [punct] Edited May 16, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
Evening Star Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) The province currently isn't being victimized by Canada. I know Benz speaks of political victimization - but I don't see much of that. OK, we're on the same page there. The Social victimization of Quebecers for being French-speaking Quebecers is overt and continuous. Just see the way Quebecers are spoken of on these very pages. Do you mean in this thread? I don't see much victimization of Quebecers. Sure, there are bigots in the country but virtually every group experiences some level of bigotry from someone. I don't see a systematic problem, really, and definitely don't think it would get better if Quebec separated. -- xpost Thanks g_bambino. Edited May 16, 2011 by Evening Star Quote
Evening Star Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 If anyone gets picked on the worst, actually, it's probably Newfoundlanders ('Newfies') and Natives. Quote
ninjandrew Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 If anyone gets picked on the worst, actually, it's probably Newfoundlanders ('Newfies') and Natives. Where are you ES? Quote "Everything in moderation, including moderation." -- Socrates
Evening Star Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 Where are you ES? Windsor, right now. Grew up in Ottawa, lived in Montreal, Toronto, and Buffalo NY. Quote
Benz Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 What Bonam said + we're talking about it right now on this thread. The whole country spent Mulroney's second term talking about it. How much more discussion do you want...How about until the problem is solved. After the 1995's referendum, the sovereignists focused on the provincial management and the federalist are too afraid to offer something that will be refused. As Layton said, it won't last forever. It's a matter of time before the PQ will gain the power again...., especially given that, since 1995, there hasn't even been that much initiative from anyone (except perhaps from Layton now?) to reopen the Constitution, whether from Quebec or otherwise. Layton says he would and bang! he beats the 3 other parties in Québec. The NPD never had success in Québec before because it was against Meech and alike. They do a 180 degrees turn around and they manage to elect 58 unknown MPs, Mulcair is the 59th. It's a sign... Quote
Jack Weber Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 I don't understand why people in the ROC are so adamant about keeping Quebec in the confederation. If they want sovereignty, an amicable solution ought to be sought. When the ROC stomps its feet and sticks its fingers in its ears, this does nothing more than alienate Quebec even further. The problem is that comparatively few Quebecers really want secession... And what exactly are we stomping our feet and plugging our ears over? And personally...The secesssionists can leave...The land is ours! Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Evening Star Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 Layton says he would and bang! he beats the 3 other parties in Québec. The NPD never had success in Québec before because it was against Meech and alike. They do a 180 degrees turn around and they manage to elect 58 unknown MPs, Mulcair is the 59th. It's a sign... Actually, the NDP supported both Meech Lake and Charlottetown and has advocated 'asymmetrical federalism' since 2005. Quote
Jack Weber Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 Actually, the NDP supported both Meech Lake and Charlottetown and has advocated 'asymmetrical federalism' since 2005. And those were both horrendous mistakes... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Benz Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) I know Benz speaks of political victimization - but I don't see much of that.I rely on the facts. I don't base my argumentation of what Canada should be on victimization. I present the solutions that are concensus in Québec. Do you think it is also based on victimization? Perhaps you refer to how I describ the past when I reply to those who don't have the facts straight. The betrayal of 1982, the fail of Meech in 1990, and so on. Neverthenless, if I was playing the vicimization card, it would be to promote independence. Not sovereignty along a real confederation solution. However, perhaps I don't get what you meant?You say your children are Québécois but, the way you phrased that, I guess you are not. How do you define yourself in term of culture, origine, mother language, etc...? Do you considere that you have a good knowledge of what Québec wants? If so, do you beleive it is possible to join the two solitudes and most important, how it can be achived? In my lifetime, I haven't see many anglos or non-french coming up with workable solutions that met Québec's conditions. I have met few guys that agreed with the solutions we offered tho, but, not many. I can count them on my fingers. Neverthenless, I have the feeling that the silent majority would be more open the politicians or the forums show. I can be wrong, but most of the time, forums are not the exact reflection of the reality. Undecided people barely surf on political forums for instence. Edited May 16, 2011 by Benz Quote
Evening Star Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) And those were both horrendous mistakes... I agree. Benz is basically asking for Meech Lake again though. Maybe even more than that, since I believe Benz wants Quebec to have veto powers that go beyond the other provinces', where Meech just extended the constitutional veto to every province. Edited May 16, 2011 by Evening Star Quote
g_bambino Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 Neverthenless, if I was playing the vicimization card, it would be to promote independence. Not sovereignty along a real confederation solution. You've never been entirely clear about what you want. One can only glean from a survey of your posts a desire for Quebec to have some nebulous degree of independence; you want the federal government comlpetely out of Quebec, yet desire Quebec to be in a relationship with the Canadian government akin to that which exists between a European country and the EU government. Instead of nationalist chest thumping, why don't you be a little more clear and consistent with your proposed legal changes? Quote
Jack Weber Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 I agree. Benz is basically asking for Meech Lake again though. Maybe even more than that, since I believe Benz wants Quebec to have veto powers that go beyond the other provinces', where Meech just extended the constitutional veto to every province. Benz wants "Distinct Society" back on the table.He wants that as the basis for constitutional veto power.He also knows that if Quebec ever got that ,it would open the door to what he really wants... Namely secession... Sorry,but cultural difference is not even remotely a good enough reason for one province to have special constitutional veto power over others... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Evening Star Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 Benz wants "Distinct Society" back on the table.He wants that as the basis for constitutional veto power. Yup, plus opting out with full compensation, which was also part of Meech iirc. Quote
Benz Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 I agree. Benz is basically asking for Meech Lake again though. Maybe even more than that, since I believe Benz wants Quebec to have veto powers that go beyond the other provinces', where Meech just extended the constitutional veto to every province. Just Benz? It's the official position of everyone in the National Assembly. Veto powers? Just one. Just for modifications the on constitution. I am not against a veto for all provinces. I am ok with the way Meech was set. I know I questionned it earlier but, as long as Québec has a veto, it's the most important. I'm fine with how Meech stated it. Quote
Benz Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 it would open the door to what he really wants... Namely secession... And the very seperatists here are saying the exact opposite. The actual system is not good for Québec and we are having difficulties to convince the majority to go independent. If the system becomes a good deal, how can we possibly convince the same people to secede? If the system is good. The extremists lose their main reason to seperate. I'm not an extremist. I want what is best for Québec. Whether it is in the union or outside. And a system can be good if and only if all parties are satisfied. Not only a Meech-like won't lead to secession, it will do the other way around. It will kill the seperatist movement. I am a sovereignist, not a separatist. Québec doesn't need to be fully independent to have the control of its destiny. If you think it will lead to secession, then explain me how. Quote
RNG Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) I don't think there is much different here then when I talked with Quebecers at university in the '60's. They want total independence in matters of law and government, but still want those equalization payments and other federal bailouts/subsidies/bribes. Let them go, but they will be really gone. Edited May 16, 2011 by RNG Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Evening Star Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 Just Benz? It's the official position of everyone in the National Assembly. Veto powers? Just one. Just for modifications the on constitution. I am not against a veto for all provinces. I am ok with the way Meech was set. I know I questionned it earlier but, as long as Québec has a veto, it's the most important. I'm fine with how Meech stated it. OK, well, at least Meech was fair in extending the veto power and ability to opt out with full compensation to every province. That's still too decentralized for my personal liking but I think it's much less objectionable than extending those powers to only Quebec. Quote
g_bambino Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 OK, well, at least Meech was fair in extending the veto power and ability to opt out with full compensation to every province. What more veto does there need to be than what each province already has? Quote
Evening Star Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) What more veto does there need to be than what each province already has? Currently, most amendments only require the assent of seven provinces that account for at least 50% of the population of the country. Edited May 16, 2011 by Evening Star Quote
g_bambino Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) Currently, most amendments only require the assent of seven provinces with 50% of the population of the country. But an amendment made under that clause that affects any particular province's powers or government can't be enforced on that province without the consent of a majority in its legislature. 38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and ( resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces. Majority of members (2) An amendment made under subsection (1) that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1). Expression of dissent (3) An amendment referred to in subsection (2) shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution supported by a majority of its members prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless that legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution supported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment. Constitution Act 1982 [tidy] Edited May 16, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
Evening Star Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 Good point! So, effectively, the provinces already have a veto power insofar as any Constitutional amendment affects them. That seems like plenty of power for the provinces to me, yeah. Quote
Jack Weber Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) Good point! So, effectively, the provinces already have a veto power insofar as any Constitutional amendment affects them. That seems like plenty of power for the provinces to me, yeah. Which makes constitutional veto power over cultural issues like "Distinct Society" all the more ridiculous! Edited May 16, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
g_bambino Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 So, effectively, the provinces already have a veto power insofar as any Constitutional amendment affects them. Which makes constitutional veto power over cultural isues like "Distinct Society" all the more ridiculous! Exactly. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.