"SOVEREIGNTY WILL BE DONE IN QUEBEC!"

[cybercoma]

Wonderful!

Now that the ROC has agreed that Quebec is a province no different than any other, you can get on with continuing to ignore the fact that Quebec is not a province just like every other in the opinion of not only most Quebeckers but many people in the ROC as well.

[Smallc]

How is Quebec a province not like any other? They have a distinct language for the most part, and they have a different culture, but they aren't the only ones. Other than that, how?

[cybercoma]

Either you're completely oblivious to their distinct difference or you simply refuse to acknowledge it. In either case, this is precisely the problem with Quebec relations. The ROC simply refuses to acknowledge the reality of their situation.

[Jack Weber]

Wonderful!

Now that the ROC has agreed that Quebec is a province no different than any other, you can get on with continuing to ignore the fact that Quebec is not a province just like every other in the opinion of not only most Quebeckers but many people in the ROC as well.

Who is saying that,culturally speaking,Quebec is the same as any other province??

Virtually no province is culturally identical to any other...What's being said is that cultural difference is no reason whatsoever for giving any province special constitutional powers over every other province...

[Smallc]

Either you're completely oblivious to their distinct difference or you simply refuse to acknowledge it.

What differences are such that they shouldn't be treated just like any other province. Keep in mind, I've been to Quebec, and I very much like it there. So what are these important differences? You haven't really demonstrated any.

[Smallc]

.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Smallc

[cybercoma]

Given what's been said here, the cultural differences between Canada and the US aren't sufficient either. We both have a common history of French and English settlement and more, in a word: Loyalists. What's the point of Canada's sovereignty at all. Perhaps we should just amalgamate with the US.

Edited May 17, 2011 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

Given what's been said here, the cultural differences between Canada and the US aren't sufficient either.

But that's the point - it isn't just about culture. It's about systems that we set up to govern countries and provinces. Canada's federal state allows or cultural variations by province and region, and there are many variations. To try to make Quebec into something that the other parts of Canada aren't is to cheapen those places. PEI is just as culturally rich and unique as Quebec.

[cybercoma]

They don't even have the same legal system.

[Smallc]

They don't even have the same legal system.

Well, that depends which part of the system we're talking about, but you're right, they use civil law, and we use common law. Still though, that's allowed for under our federal system, so I still don't see how that makes them special outside of what it is to be a province.

[cybercoma]

Well, that depends which part of the system we're talking about, but you're right, they use civil law, and we use common law. Still though, that's allowed for under our federal system, so I still don't see how that makes them special outside of what it is to be a province.

I'm saying, by that reasoning, why have separate countries at all? We could have a World Federation of States under one Universal Federal Government.

[Smallc]

I'm saying, by that reasoning, why have separate countries at all? We could have a World Federation of States under one Universal Federal Government.

Some day, perhaps, but right now, we're doing pretty good on our own. That's kind of my point.

[cybercoma]

Less hypothetically what makes us sufficiently different from the UK that we ought to be our own country with our own government? Why repatriate the Constitution at all?

[cybercoma]

Some day, perhaps, but right now, we're doing pretty good on our own. That's kind of my point.

Perhaps many Quebeckers feel they would do better on their own.

[RNG]

Perhaps many Quebeckers feel they would do better on their own.

More power to them.

[Smallc]

Less hypothetically what makes us sufficiently different from the UK that we ought to be our own country with our own government? Why repatriate the Constitution at all?

Because we decided to do those things, and the political will existed. Quebec hasn't yet decided any of that, and neither has Canada. As far as both are concerned, by in large, Canada works. There are also things that can be changed within the current framework, without asymmetrical federalism.

[Smallc]

Perhaps many Quebeckers feel they would do better on their own.

Most of them don't. That's also my point. Sovereignty has the true support of something like 25% of Quebecers.

[Benz]

Wonderful!

Now that the ROC has agreed that Quebec is a province no different than any other, you can get on with continuing to ignore the fact that Quebec is not a province just like every other in the opinion of not only most Quebeckers but many people in the ROC as well.

Thanks! I am sure many (maybe the majority) think like you. Ünfortinatly, in Québec, we hear more often from those in denial. It's people like you that the Québec federalists need to hear because they don't have many allies in the ROC so far.

---

How is Quebec a province not like any other? They have a distinct language for the most part, and they have a different culture, but they aren't the only ones. Other than that, how?

We are different to a point that it is shorter to list what we have in common than what differenciates us. There are more differences between Québec vs the ROC than the ROC vs USA.

If you can't see the obvious, I hope you don't

Our differences are fundamental. It's more than just culture like English canada watching Canadian Idol while Québec rather watch Star Académie.

Civil laws. Right there, you have an important one.

The place of religion in our society. (religious knife in schools, we have talked about it so much)

Education, Millenium sponsorship...

All the double programs federal/provincial, you don't mind about it, we are upset by the intrusions...

You reject the difference between Québec and ROC by trying to marginalize them among all the little differences within the english Canada. It's a fail. Québec doesn't buy that. No one but few anglos would. If we are so much the same that it allows you to speak in my name, then explain me this in french.

---

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.

Decentralisation, centralisation... I exposed you the problems with the centralisation. Now what and how things could go wront with decentralisation?

The difficulty for you lies in considering to change something that you are already fine with. In english you say, if it is not broken, don't fix it. For you, the system is not broken. You have to open your mind and realise that it is broken for us and big time. Gambino is among those who denies the reality of Québec. For him, the people in Québec are from the same nation of the english canadians and it is ok for the english canadians to dominate the constitution because they outnumber the french. Therefore, he beleives a province shouldn't have a say other that what regards only that province within its fields. It cannot be applied to Québec because Québec is not only a province, it is also the only place in Canada where the french are in majority. It is unacceptable for the french to not be able to set the rules as well. Both french and english most agree. So no, gambino is totally wrong. The provinces must have a say on other stuff also. It's the only way for the french to have a say on the whole constitution. The other english provinces do not really need it but, to give you the feeling it is fair for all provinces, let's give them all the same veto. We would be both satisfied. Québec has a veto, the english canada doesn't set the rules alone and all the provinces are equal in the constitution. Everybody are happy and we can move to something else and make this federation work fine.

[TimG]

I'm saying, by that reasoning, why have separate countries at all? We could have a World Federation of States under one Universal Federal Government.

What you are missing is the status quo is extremely valuable in many cases because it is the status quo. Change is expensive and disruptive and not always for the better. IOW. if the US had annexed Canada in the 1800s no one would care today but that is not an argument for uniting them today.

The same argument applies to Quebec where issues surrounding borders, citizenship and debt could turn extremely nasty. It really makes no sense to open that Pandora's box when you consider than Quebec already has all of the powers it needs to run its society in the way that it likes.

Edited May 17, 2011 by TimG

[Benz]

It really makes no sense to open that Pandora's box when you consider than Quebec already has all of the powers it needs to run its society in the way that it likes.

It makes no sense for you, where you stand. It does make sense for us. Although I would rather choose a Meech-like agreement with Canada over independence, for the reasons you are mentionning, I also would rather choose independence over status quo. It is really a pain in the ass for us. For all the reasons I mentionned so far.

For the moment, you beleive the sovereignty will never exceed the 49.4% of 1995. The least we can say is, you like to gamble with the future of your country. It's your call but, you won't be able to say we did not warn you.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Benz

[Peter F]

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...?

No I am no Quebecer. Raised as a WASP in Saskatoon. Was astounded at the age of 15 or so to actually hear real peaple actually talking to each other in French! Never heard it again either. Met my future Quebecois wife in Victoria BC (she came out there to learn English). Eventually moved to Quebec City and had children. We were together for 25 years, about half of that time split between Victoria, Saskatoon, Southern rural Ontario and Thunder Bay. The rest in Quebec city where the kids were raised. I am an Anglo through and through but my years with my wife showed me the widespread bigotry of my Anglo ilk towards Quebecers. Whereas in Quebec I experienced very little of that. It opened my eyes thats for sure.

... 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 think coming up with a workable solution is very very unlikely. There is nothing Canada will offer that will satisfy seperatist desires. Treating Canada as a partnership between two parties - Quebec and the ROC - will never wash in the rest of the country for nationalistic/patriotic reasons that the politicians have to take into account. Too many in English Canada will not allow it.

Mulroney figured he could roll the dice on the matter and with Meech lake and Charlottetown. The politicians made the minimum offer to meet the minimum demand (from a federalist premiere no less) and English Canada punished that good deed by destroying the Conservative party.

The best Quebec can hope for is to be one province amongst 10 (plus territories). There will be no better offer.

and that really doesn't cut it for seperatists. Thier minimum demand is not compatable with what Canada can give; Nationhood. No veto in the world is equivalent to that. Parizeau and Levesque were right; There is no other future for Quebec if you wish to remain Quebecois.

[g_bambino]

[L]et's give them all the same veto. We would be both satisfied. Québec has a veto, the english canada doesn't set the rules alone and all the provinces are equal in the constitution.

That's the way it is now.

[Sandy MacNab]

Why and how? What is it that the Europeans can do that the Canadians cannot.

What you are saying is, Québec is a trouble maker and a veto to Quebec will give us more opportunity to create trouble. If we are that much trouble, then we will leave. That's it.

Go for it!

[Sandy MacNab]

Less hypothetically what makes us sufficiently different from the UK that we ought to be our own country with our own government? Why repatriate the Constitution at all?

That's for sure. The country was working very well until Trudeau and Muldoon started to tinker with it.

[Sandy MacNab]

It makes no sense for you, where you stand. It does make sense for us. Although I would rather choose a Meech-like agreement with Canada over independence, for the reasons you are mentionning, I also would rather choose independence over status quo. It is really a pain in the ass for us. For all the reasons I mentionned so far.

For the moment, you beleive the sovereignty will never exceed the 49.4% of 1995. The least we can say is, you like to gamble with the future of your country. It's your call but, you won't be able to say we did not warn you.

Frankly, if you vote to leave, you're the ones who would be gambling on the future. The remaining provinces and territories would do quite well without you. If you think that Quebec is the glue that holds the country together, you are under a severe self-imposed delusion. But you won't leave. Quebec can't survive without the transfer payments funded by Ontario and the Western haves.