"SOVEREIGNTY WILL BE DONE IN QUEBEC!"

[Benz]

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.

I guess it is not a plaisant feeling to see your fellows reacting like that. In 1990, at the OKA crisis, I saw/heard few Québécois that I was very ashame of. Am I too naive to think the silent majority is not like that and the loudmouth anti-Québec-nation are taking too much space? Because sometimes it looks so unreal to see that much préjugés.

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.

I didn't expect you to think it's that much hopeless. I beleive that, once Québec will be sovereign, it can become a very different situation. Most likely they won't change their mind but, they won't be in a position where a no has no direct consequences and perhaps it will change the understanding. Neverthenless, no matter what Québec expects or hopes, it must become sovereign in first place. The too few number of people here in favor of a Meech-like, shows that the door is still close for good.

[TimG]

It makes no sense for you, where you stand. It does make sense for us.

It makes sense for the 25-30% of Quebequers that are committed separatists. That is why seperatists try to deceive Quebequers with tricky questions.

Although I would rather choose a Meech-like agreement with Canada over independence, for the reasons you are mentionning

I doubt it. You have yet to present one rational argument for what you demand (your argument is basically you want money and power the sake of money and power) and show zero interest in accommodating the needs of the rest of the country. I am sure you would find excuses to reject any compromise that politicians came up with just like seperatists rejected Meech at the time.

For the moment, you believe the sovereignty will never exceed the 49.4% of 1995.

It is a risk I have to live with because I do not believe that it is possible to satisfy people like you. The best way forward is to elect politicians like the CPC who believe the federal government should reduce taxes and stick to its juristictions. Edited May 17, 2011 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Quebec already has all of the powers it needs to run its society in the way that it likes.

If it did, we wouldn't have a debate.

[TimG]

If it did, we wouldn't have a debate.

Your are being disingenuous or naive. We are having this debate because separatists need to manufacture excuses to justify their position. Why don't give me one example of a power that Quebec needs that it does not already have. Note I said - need - not want. There is huge difference so you will have to justify why it is needed.

[g_bambino]

Why don't give me one example of a power that Quebec needs that it does not already have.

I put that question to Benz about four times. I'm sure you can guess what response he gave it.

[Shwa]

Ahhh! Jacques Cartier. That was 66 years before the french came back to colonize the land. Few deecades past between Cartier and Champlain. For some reasons that are still unknown today, the Iroquois were not in Stadaconé anymore.

Of course it never occurred to the benevolent and wise Frenchmen of the 16th century that The Iroquoian people moved their villages every 20 years or so to avoid over-using the land. To them, it was all "unoccupied territories" ripe for imperial exploitation.

I grant you that Jacques Cartier was an imperialist explorer. Its journay was a fail and that is probably why the french took so long to get interested to go back in New France again. Happy?

Of course further advances in North America had nothing to do with what was going on in France at the time, all the wars and religious persecution.

The french traded with the aboriginals. They were not killing them and taking their land.

Except the Iroquois. Keep forgetting them eh? Who else are you forgetting in this grand French benevolence?

Really? Then prove it.

I'll let you explain it:

Champlain did not want to interfere. However, the Hurons and the Algonquiens posed conditions to trade with them. "If you want to trade with us, you must take our side against our enemies, the Iroquois." Champlain finally help them against the Iroquois and now they could trade.

The Iroquois were in a very bad situation when the french got on their back. If crush is a too strong word for you, ok, but the point is, the british didn't care and the Iroquois had no choice to sign a peace treaty with the french.

I thought the French didn't kill the Aboriginals or take their land. Then why the need for a peace treaty?

Regardless?... I doubt very much it is the word the aboriginal would use. Indeed, the aboriginals are trying to remind our government what they signed long time ago and did not respect.

Like any other treaty. NAFTA goes to the courts to settle disputes with the US. Nothing to see here...

I see you have Québec very high in your opinion. France was a kingdom led by a monarch. He did not care more about its subjects in France than those in Québec. It is why the french threw their monarchy away and became a republic.

Thrown under the bus by the Mother Land, given up to the British and incorporated into Canada as a province.

More than 200 years later, Canada still subsides the UK's Royal family so, if I were you, I would think twice before making any judgement on the french.

We also subsidize Quebec and Quebecoise culture too. What's your point?

[cybercoma]

Your are being disingenuous or naive. We are having this debate because separatists need to manufacture excuses to justify their position. Why don't give me one example of a power that Quebec needs that it does not already have. Note I said - need - not want. There is huge difference so you will have to justify why it is needed.

So you can make a value judgment about the differences between needs and wants in order to justify your position? No thanks.

[Benz]

I put that question to Benz about four times. I'm sure you can guess what response he gave it.

I answered several times. just remove the mud on your eyes and you shall find it.

[g_bambino]

So you can make a value judgment about the differences between needs and wants in order to justify your position? No thanks.

Can't you answer the question?

[Benz]

It makes sense for the 25-30% of Quebequers that are committed separatists. That is why seperatists try to deceive Quebequers with tricky questions.

Wrong and you know it. Meech concept came from the federalist Bourassa. Lying to yourself won't help you.

I doubt it.

You call me a liar, yet you can't prove it.

You have yet to present one rational argument for what you demand

You are in a very bad position to judge the rationality of my arguments.

(your argument is basically you want money and power the sake of money and power)

Find one post, among those I did in this forum that could support what you are saying. We don't want your money.

and show zero interest in accommodating the needs of the rest of the country.

Then tell me how our proposal is wrong for the rest of the country so we can have a clue on what is so bad about it.

I am sure you would find excuses to reject any compromise that politicians came up with just like seperatists rejected Meech at the time.

The majority of sovereignists were ok with Meech. I was. Few weren't but who cares.

It is a risk I have to live with because I do not believe that it is possible to satisfy people like you. The best way forward is to elect politicians like the CPC who believe the federal government should reduce taxes and stick to its juristictions.

Even if CPC was perfect, CPC cannot last forever. The rules must be adapted.

[cybercoma]

Can't you answer the question?

Look. The question has been answered. I don't feel the need to rehash it, so you can, yet again, just brush it aside as meaningless. This is the problem with Quebec relations. People brush aside their wishes as meaningless and unworkable. Until we start trying to find a workable solution, we will continue to be at a stalemate. I'm just thankful sovereigntists have sought legal and ethical means for secession and not a violent revolution.

[fellowtraveller]

If we are that much trouble, then we will leave. That's it.

OK, au revoir et bonne chance. Hope you can find a new market for all that dairy......

Oh, one thing, you'll have to negotiate the division of Quebec with those other owners, the people who got there long before you and have a distinct nation of their own: First Nations.

I know you'll try to bully them out of their birthright and right to choose their own destiny, but that won't happen.

[g_bambino]

Look. The question has been answered.

The question (more a request, I suppose) most certainly has not been answered. Please give one example of a power that Quebec needs that it does not already have.

[Shwa]

Look. The question has been answered. I don't feel the need to rehash it, so you can, yet again, just brush it aside as meaningless. This is the problem with Quebec relations. People brush aside their wishes as meaningless and unworkable. Until we start trying to find a workable solution, we will continue to be at a stalemate. I'm just thankful sovereigntists have sought legal and ethical means for secession and not a violent revolution.

Exactly what "people" have brushed aside the "wishes" of Quebec as "meaningless and unworkable?"

Are you new to this country or something?

[Evening Star]

Look. The question has been answered. I don't feel the need to rehash it, so you can, yet again, just brush it aside as meaningless. This is the problem with Quebec relations. People brush aside their wishes as meaningless and unworkable. Until we start trying to find a workable solution, we will continue to be at a stalemate. I'm just thankful sovereigntists have sought legal and ethical means for secession and not a violent revolution.

Cybercoma, we can find a large number of people who believe in any number of things. On this continent, for example, there are millions of people who believe that abortion is murder, that Biblical creationism should be taught in public schools, or that socialized health coverage is dangerous and oppressive. How far would you be willing to go to accommodate and compromise with them? The questions that have been posed to you seem pretty salient to me and your responses mostly seem to amount to "They feel they are right, therefore they are right."

In order to justify Quebec having a greater level of sovereignty within the confederation (as opposed to outright separatism, which no one can stop if they choose it), it seems necessary to establish both that:

i) Quebec is in fact so distinct from the other provinces that they need a greater level of autonomy in certain key areas (none of which have actually been specified on this thread afaict).

ii) The current constitutional arrangement does not afford enough power to the provinces in order for Quebec to be able to realize its goals in these areas, within the bounds of fairness.

Keep in mind that Canada is a relatively decentralized federation where provinces have jurisdiction over education, health, natural resources, civil/common law, and municipalities, as well as plenty of scope in the cultural sectors, with significant powers to levee taxes. As g_bambino has shown, provinces also have an effective veto over Constitutional amendments that affect them. Quebec also already has jurisdiction over immigration.

I've lived in Quebec in the past and I work in the cultural sector myself. Ime, Quebec is tremendously rich culturally and already exercises plenty of independence in this area. So it is hard for me to see the need for greater decentralization.

I guess I'm not completely clear on what people want when they ask for 'opting out with full compensation'. Do you literally mean that you want to be able to completely opt out of a federal programme, devise your own programme (or none at all) with no federal input or oversight, and still get full federal compensation?

Edited May 17, 2011 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

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

The FLQ and 1980 referendum predate the 1982 Constitution Act...

[Benz]

Cybercoma, we can find a large number of people who believe in any number of things. On this continent, for example, there are millions of people who believe that abortion is murder, that Biblical creationism should be taught in public schools, or that socialized health coverage is dangerous and oppressive. How far would you be willing to go to accommodate and compromise with them? The questions that have been posed to you seem pretty salient to me and your responses mostly seem to amount to "They feel they are right, therefore they are right."

none of the subjects you are talking about are unanimous. They are all minorities. In Québec, we are unanimous to declare we are a nation. You really need to stop comparing oranges with apples.

In order to justify Quebec having a greater level of sovereignty within the confederation (as opposed to outright separatism, which no one can stop if they choose it), it seems necessary to establish both that:

i) Quebec is in fact so distinct from the other provinces that they need a greater level of autonomy in certain key areas (none of which have actually been specified on this thread afaict).

Really, which ones then? I have mentionned several areas where Québec must have at least a say on it. Yet no one explained me why it shouldn't be that way.

ii) The current constitutional arrangement does not afford enough power to the provinces in order for Quebec to be able to realize its goals in these areas, within the bounds of fairness.

At last...

Keep in mind that Canada is a relatively decentralized federation where provinces have jurisdiction over education, health, natural resources, civil/common law, and municipalities, as well as plenty of scope in the cultural sectors, with significant powers to levee taxes. As g_bambino has shown, provinces also have an effective veto over Constitutional amendments that affect them. Quebec also already has jurisdiction over immigration.

Unfortunatly, the federal can put its nose in some provincial matters and it shouldn't be. Plus Québec desires to have a say on many other things. Like the place of religion that I mentionned it several times.

I've lived in Quebec in the past and I work in the cultural sector myself. Ime, Quebec is tremendously rich culturally and already exercises plenty of independence in this area. So it is hard for me to see the need for greater decentralization.

It's because you are not looking with opened eyes. I told you, Ottawa wanted to create a program called Millenium sponsorship. It touches education and it is not how we do things. If the federal was what it is suppose to be, there would be less troubles.

I guess I'm not completely clear on what people want when they ask for 'opting out with full compensation'. Do you literally mean that you want to be able to completely opt out of a federal programme, devise your own programme (or none at all) with no federal input or oversight, and still get full federal compensation?

Yes. Because it is our money. I do not grant Ottawa the right to manage our stuff. If you don't want to decentralise properly, it's the only other option.

[Evening Star]

OK, you did mention the place of religion and the Milennium Scholarship. I remember that now. I actually wasn't clear on what you meant about the place of religion. Could you explain it? I don't know that much about that Scholarship programme. I'll look it up. I'll go back and look at your posts to see if you mentioned other specific areas of contention.

[g_bambino]

At last...

But ES said that was one of two things that are "necessary to establish". Can you do so?

[g_bambino]

I answered several times.

But you did not. You say Quebec needs a veto power. Quebec has a veto power. The request was to point out a power Quebec needs that it already does not have.

[-]

Edited May 17, 2011 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

You have yet to present one rational argument for what you demand (your argument is basically you want money and power the sake of money and power) and show zero interest in accommodating the needs of the rest of the country.

Interstingly, this appeared in the Globe today:

[M]any francophone Quebeckers have internalized the Bloc’s mentality. After having lived for 20 years inside a Bloc bubble, they’ve lost any understanding of what a federation is and how federal parties work.

This misunderstanding of federal politics is the legacy of the Bloc Québécois. Its goal was not to achieve sovereignty, something that can only be done at the provincial level. It was to pave the way for sovereignty by loosening Quebec's ties with the rest of Canada, by convincing Quebeckers that Canada is a foreign if not hostile entity and by provoking resentment toward Quebec in the rest of Canada.

By focusing exclusively on Quebec's "interests" and acting as if the province was constantly under threat, the Bloc killed all the reflexes that help sustain a federation: the will to exchange, negotiate and compromise, the capacity to understand other people’s viewpoints, the capacity to give and take.

In this sense, the Bloc can proudly say: Mission accomplished!

Quebeckers have a mental Bloc

I believe Benz is a living illustration.

[Peter F]

Interstingly, this appeared in the Globe today:

I believe Benz is a living illustration.

Before the bloc appeared, it seems, all was hunky dory and everybody was reasonable and there was good-faith and things clunked along rather nicely

What bunk!

[g_bambino]

Before the bloc appeared, it seems, all was hunky dory and everybody was reasonable and there was good-faith and things clunked along rather nicely

What bunk!

Nobody said that but you.

[Jack Weber]

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

Are you suggesting Pierre Trudeau is personally responsible for the FLQ Crisis???

[Benz]

Interstingly, this appeared in the Globe today:

I believe Benz is a living illustration.

The Bloc is born AFTER Meech, AFTER the betrayal of 1982. The Bloc has been the choice of the Québécois since 1993. The Bloc is the response to a disfunctional federalism, not the other way around.

Stop lying to yourself, don't you have some self estime?