"SOVEREIGNTY WILL BE DONE IN QUEBEC!"

[g_bambino]

The anglos see it as one monolitic block where the majority rules.

You have a too high opinion of your opinion on "Anglos".

And gambino digging in the dirt to see how deep he can dive his head

You don't really like being proven wrong, do you?

[+]

Edited May 13, 2011 by g_bambino

[August1991]

I would say the fact that the French freely intermarried with natives and created Metis populations, tells us that the French did not see themselves as much as culturally superior as the English felt superior to natives...

It is true that Metis more often than not are Catholic and have a French family name. But like Africans in the 16th century, natives were surprised by the white men and wondered if they had come seeking women. Where were the white women?

The British arrived later and usually men and women came together. British fur traders were under tight discipline from their employers.

That's pretty much the definition of ethnic nationalism and I do think it is incredibly dangerous and fundamentally wrongheaded.

WTF? ES, I think you misunderstand Canadian history.

It's when the kingdom of France succession passed into the hands of Louis XV that the fate of New France became a borrowed time. Unlike Louis XIV, that new king hold little interest in New France.

There is some truth to this.

Wolfe defeated Montcalm in September 1759 but then in April 1760, Levis (returning from Montreal) defeated Murray at the Battle of Ste-Foy (now marked as the Parc des Braves.) While the French then held Quebec City, the British regained it when a British ship was the first to arrive in the summer of 1760. But even this wasn't the ultimate decision. In 1763, in the Treaty of Paris ending the Seven Years War, France ceded Canada to Britain.

Newfoundland also changed hands several times in a similar manner. This is how Europeans treated North America several hundred years ago.

Edited May 13, 2011 by August1991

[August1991]

Incidents like Parizeau's 'money and ethnic vote' suggest otherwise.

I was abroad at the time and I remember watching that moment live by satellite TV. Alone, I recall thinking that Parizeau was simply tired, emotional and frustrated.

But how is your suggestion/expectation that people should abandon their own cultural heritage to adopt yours any less odious than the cultural genocide of which you accuse 'the english'? Why would anyone want to adopt the cultural heritage of the 'french nation', when they have a perfectly lovely cultural heritage of their own?

Underneath this debate, you miss a basic point: some 7 million French-speaking people live in a continental sea of 350 million English-speaking people. Edited May 13, 2011 by August1991

[Benz]

You have a too high opinion of your opinion on "Anglos".

I am accurate. Somehow, you beleive the Québécois exist as a nation but the Québec nation doesn't exist. It's because in your mind, the Trudeau format, an individual can have distinct cultural attributes but the culture where that individual belongs cannot exist as an entitiy. Only the canadian identity ruled by the english majority can exist. That is pretty much monolitic to me. You are totally brainwashed by that Trudeau's non sense. Edited May 13, 2011 by Benz

[August1991]

As offensive as Parizeau's statements seem, he was merely stating a statistical fact. English and immigrant Quebeckers did predominantly vote against secession. He wasn't being xenophobic or racist as people claim.

This may be true but Parizeau's genuine frustration was with French Quebecers who voted 40/60 for a federal Canada.

Who could he be referring to by "us" if 60% of "us" voted "Oui" and were beaten by "money and the ethnic vote"?

Exactly. Edited May 13, 2011 by August1991

[August1991]

Look, when I say you have to see it from another angle, bear with me. In our mindset, Québec is our home and Canada is only a union. In the english canadian's point of view, the home is the federal and the provinces are just smaller administration of your main home. Right there, there is a huge difference of the understanding of what the union must be.

Benz, this may come as a surprise to you but in fact, you are ascribing the "english canadian's point of view" to all of English Canada when in fact your description only belongs to Ontario. English Canadians in Alberta and Newfoundland, to name two places, would disagree (for differing reasons) with your description of "english canadian's point of view".

There is a reason Canada is a federal state, and language and religion are only two obvious reasons. There are other reasons too.

Edited May 13, 2011 by August1991

[Evening Star]

WTF? ES, I think you misunderstand Canadian history.

I was responding to a specific comment of cybercoma's. I explained this in post 135.

[g_bambino]

I am accurate.

No, you're not. I'm an "Anglo", for example, and I don't see Canada only as a single, monolithic block. I recognise that the country is an ensemble of eleven jurisdictions, and I understand that the federal government is not higher in status or even more powerful than the provinces; all partners in Confederation are equal under the Crown. This is spelled out in the constitution (the provincial constitutions, the division of powers, the required consent from a province before a constitutional amendment affecting that province can be passed or applied to it, etc.) and the courts regularly uphold the principle. Most provicial governments not only also comprehend that fact, they cherish it, as it allows each to tell Ottawa to stuff it whenever the federal government tries to overstep its bounds. So, it takes an awful lot of willed ignorance to maintain the conclusion that all "Anglos" conceive of Canada in the same way and that way is that Canada is "one monolitic block where the majority rules." I understand how the concept fits into the picture you try to paint - the fragile Québécois minority is on the verge of anihilation by a mass of people who are, because they speak the same language, all of the same mind and culture - but, it's bollocks, pure and simple.

[c/e]

Edited May 13, 2011 by g_bambino

[Benz]

Benz, this may come as a surprise to you but in fact, you are ascribing the "english canadian's point of view" to all of English Canada when in fact your description only belongs to Ontario. English Canadians in Alberta and Newfoundland, to name two places, would disagree (for differing reasons) with your description of "english canadian's point of view".

I wish it was true. So Lévesque thought in 1981 either until they all changed their mind and then support Trudeau. Ever since, the non-ontarians had several chances to prove they don't agree with the system but they did otherwise. They screwed up in our hands every single time. 1982, 1990, 1992, 1999, 2000 (excepted Ontario, how ironic), several times within the Charest's Federation council. If they think so differently than Ontario, it's about time it shows for real and stand for their position. Edited May 13, 2011 by Benz

[Jack Weber]

As offensive as Parizeau's statements seem, he was merely stating a statistical fact. English and immigrant Quebeckers did predominantly vote against secession. He wasn't being xenophobic or racist as people claim.

Couple the pompous twit Parizeau saying what he did and Lucy Goosey Bouchard saying something to the effect of "Needing a white Quebec",if I remember correctly,and the xenophibic and racist stuff becomes a little clearer...

[g_bambino]

So Lévesque thought in 1981 either until they all changed their mind and then support Trudeau.

You seem to forget that Lévesque abandoned his counterparts when he agreed to Trudeau's proposed referendum.

[Jack Weber]

From the english canadian point of view, the system is perfect. It is a normal feeling since it was set by the english canadians. If you really care about your french neighbor, you have to see it from another angle.

Indeed, I have said it several times and ok, I'll say it again.

1) Senetate: The regions must be able to choose their own senetors. Not the prime minister of the country.

2) Décentralisation: If you do not want to décentralize more, then at least, allow a province to opt out from a federal program and get full compensation. Ottawa still put its nose where it does not belong.

3) Religion: Not above the laws and rules. Religious weapons in school is considered outrageous in Québec. If it is not for you, then Québec must be the exception. We unanimous here to think it doesn't make sense.

4) Québec nation in the constitution. To make sure that even if the number of french diminish, the nation status will give us

5) Constitutional veto for Québec. To make sure any further modifications are set in agreement from both cultures. English and French.

There are other points but those are the most important. Regarding point 4 and 5, if you have a better idea, we are open to hear suggestions. As I said, another way to approach it is by the sum of individuals by status. A referendum among the canadians where the results are summed up by nationality english and french. The yes must get a majority on both sides to be adopted. The problem with that idea is, how do we apply it. What do we do with one citizen having parents on both side. If my dad is french and my mom is english. What am I? If I am from Russia and I immigrate in Montreal. Will I be considered an english or a french canadian? I think the management can be a mess. The easiest way is to give Québec the veto. The anglos in Québec will be like the francos outside Québec. Outnumbered. No system can be perfect but at last, the majority of french will have a say. Also keep in mind that the veto is only to future constitutional changes. No veto on the House of Common or the Senate. The HofC is fine as is and the except for who chooses the senators, it is also fine as is. It is important that all individuals are equal under the constitution. No matter if they are french or english. However, the rules cannot be set only by the english. Both must agree to make them fair.

Unfortunatly, most of english canadians do not want to see it from another angle. In their mindset, Quebec is only a province like the others even if it is the only one with a french majority. They want to keep the total control of the constitution with the tyranny of the majority.

The solution is simple. There is a lack of will though.

Hmmm??

1.I think we should be electing senators.This one thing I agree with the Conservatives on and wish Harper would try to work something out...

I don't see it happening though...

2.Nope...This is just a ploy by secessionists to break away from the country...No dice!

3.Not sure I understand...Please clarify....

4.Nope...Quebec is a province and a province only...

5.Absolutely not...Quebec is a province and a province only...You have absolutely no right to special treatment because you speak French,are predominantly Roman Catholic,use the French Civil Code AND have funny looking barns and roll your hay in a wierd fashion...

Edited May 13, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Jack Weber]

You seem to forget that Lévesque abandoned his counterparts when he agreed to Trudeau's proposed referendum.

He also seems to forget why Trudeau did what he did in '81...

He realized Levesque wanted the very same special constitutional status people like Benz wants now and was trying to do an end run on the Constitution to secceed through the back door...

So 'Ol PET pulled a constitutional "Just Watch Me!" on The Chain Smoker...

Classic!!!

[g_bambino]

He realized Levesque wanted the very same special constitutional status people like Benz wants now and was trying to do an end run on the Constitution to secceed through the back door...

True. And Lévesque thought Quebec had then the special veto over constitutional amendments that Benz now thinks it should have. Both the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court made it quite clear where Lévesque could stick his veto, though.

That said, however, I do think the approval of all the provinces should've been garnered before such amendments had force. It just wasn't the law at that time, though. But, it is now, ironically because of the very amendments Lévesque didn't agree to.

[+]

Edited May 13, 2011 by g_bambino

[Jack Weber]

True. And Lévesque thought Quebec had then the special veto over constitutional amendments that Benz now thinks it should have. Both the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court made it quite clear where Lévesque could stick his veto, though.

I don't know if you're old enough,but I remember watching those proceedings on TV.I rememeber the chain smoking rat coming out of the hall theywere doing the meetings and getting a microphone stuck in his mug and Levesque being so spitting mad,he was almost at a loss for words...

"I...I...I just can't believe they did that!!!I jst can't believe they did that!!!!",referring to Trudeau and the other premiers basically telling Levesque and the Parti Quebecois to shove it!

And then watching Trudeau come out smiling like the Cheshire cat....Classic Trudeau...Just sticking it to the cry baby seperatists every chance he got...

[g_bambino]

"I...I...I just can't believe they did that!!!I jst can't believe they did that!!!!",referring to Trudeau and the other premiers basically telling Levesque and the Parti Quebecois to shove it!

Right. But therein lies the reason why Benz thinks the "Anglo" provinces can impose their will on Quebec. Putting aside the fact that the nine provinces besides Quebec weren't then, and aren't now, monolithically Anglo - either linguistically or culturally - they did, in essence, with the federal government gang up against Quebec in 1981 and '82, whether one thinks that was the right thing to do or not.

Still, though, Benz should get caught up with the times and realise that, since the amending forumla was put into the constitution in '82, no amendment of that nature will ever again either pass or apply to Quebec without Quebec's approval.

[Jack Weber]

Right. But therein lies the reason why Benz thinks the "Anglo" provinces can impose their will on Quebec. Putting aside the fact that the nine provinces besides Quebec weren't then, and aren't now, monolithically Anglo - either linguistically or culturally - they did, in essence, with the federal government gang up against Quebec in 1981 and '82, whether one thinks that was the right thing to do or not.

Still, though, Benz should get caught up with the times and realise that, since the amending forumla was put into the constitution in '82, no amendment of that nature will ever again either pass or apply to Quebec without Quebec's approval.

Well he can think that al he wants.The fact remains that Levesque wanted a constitutional veto based on cuture ie.A "Distinct Society" clause...

And we all know "Distinct Society" for Quebec is the secessionists holy grail because then they can work on extricating themselves from the rst of this country...

Which brings up the question...If we are going to have provincial constitutional veto power over culture,what would stop Newfoundland from invoking this clause,or Manitoba,or New Brunswick based on "cultural difference"?

And furthermore,is that a valid reason for constitutional veto power???

[Benz]

Well he can think that al he wants.The fact remains that Levesque wanted a constitutional veto based on cuture ie.A "Distinct Society" clause...

And we all know "Distinct Society" for Quebec is the secessionists holy grail because then they can work on extricating themselves from the rst of this country...

Poor you. It's the other way around. The status quo is the holy grail for secessionists. If Québec gets a Meech-like agreement, what motiviation would the secessionists use then? You pose a diagnostic without a minimum of analisis and of course, it doesn't make sense.

Which brings up the question...If we are going to have provincial constitutional veto power over culture,what would stop Newfoundland from invoking this clause,or Manitoba,or New Brunswick based on "cultural difference"?

And furthermore,is that a valid reason for constitutional veto power???

For Québec yes, for the others, it is ironic. They fail to understand the difference between Québec and TROC but they would figure easily a difference between all english provinces? So hypocrit!

[Benz]

You seem to forget that Lévesque abandoned his counterparts when he agreed to Trudeau's proposed referendum.

No he did not. On the contrary, he help his partners to win the OPT OUT WILL FULL COMPENSATION. Trudeau and him exchanged the referendum with the Opt out. Something very important for the provinces. So Lévesque signed an agreement on principle because he wanted to be sure Trudeau wouldn't change his mind. It was late and Lévesque was suppose to meet the others the next day. However, Trudeau betrayed Lévesque, met the others during the night and they all agreed to crap the OPT OUT even if it was suppose to be important for the provinces. So they all betrayed Québec.

On the morning of november 5th, when Lévesque thought he would meet the others and explain them what he gained for them and if they agree or if they should reject it, he realised that not only they do not agree, but they signed the constitution exactly as Trudeau wanted it to be. It was not just a agreement on principle, it was the real thing, the final constitution. All that because of what... to reject a referendum on the constitution? LAME!

English Canada betrayed Québec that day. This is the true story you do not want to know.

Right. But therein lies the reason why Benz thinks the "Anglo" provinces can impose their will on Quebec. Putting aside the fact that the nine provinces besides Quebec weren't then, and aren't now, monolithically Anglo - either linguistically or culturally - they did, in essence, with the federal government gang up against Quebec in 1981 and '82, whether one thinks that was the right thing to do or not.

Still, though, Benz should get caught up with the times and realise that, since the amending forumla was put into the constitution in '82, no amendment of that nature will ever again either pass or apply to Quebec without Quebec's approval.

So what, we do not agree on the current version. So we are screwed.

You will never be able to erase the fact that it is unacceptable that the english canada can modifiy the constitution without the approval of the french canada.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Benz

[TimG]

On the contrary, he help his partners to win the OPT OUT WILL FULL COMPENSATION.

I would be interested to hear any justification for the compensation that does not basically come down to 'I want may cake and eat it too'. i.e. I can understand the desire to opt out but the demand for compensation is rediculous. It is also very bad for accountability since the politicians running the program are not resposible for raising the taxes to pay for it.

[Benz]

I would be interested to hear any justification for the compensation that does not basically come down to 'I want may cake and eat it too'. i.e. I can understand the desire to opt out but the demand for compensation is rediculous. It is also very bad for accountability since the politicians running the program are not resposible for raising the taxes to pay for it.

When a province opt out, it doesn't get the cake, only the money from it and then the province makes its own cake the taste it wants. What's wrong with that? It's a good compromise to a moreless decentralisation.

I'll give you an example. When the federal created the millenium sponsorship, Québec did not agree on how it is to be managed. Ottawa wanted to give more money to the best students and less for the others. Québec rather wants to give even amount to each students. Once again, the english provinces agree with Ottawa and Québec has a different opinion. This concerns education and education is suppose to be a provincial thing. Because the nine english provinces agreed to allow the federal to touch provincial matters, Ottawa can create programs like this one. The very least is to allow a province to opt out and get its share of the money.

[TimG]

What's wrong with that? It's a good compromise to a moreless decentralisation.

Whats wrong with it is there is no accountability since the government responsible for running the program is not responsible for collecting the taxes to pay for it. It is a recipe for bad government and waste of tax payer money.

If you want decentralisation then the government that wants to run the program should raise the taxes to pay for it. If they miss out on some federal money then that is their choice. Federal taxes will be lower than they otherwise would be if the money is not spent in a particular province.

[g_bambino]

No he did not.

Yes, he did. The Gang of Eight did not want the constitutional amendments to go to a referendum. Lévesque alone went against that common agreement, shocking the other premiers with his about face and Lévesque himself eventually questioned his own decision. The opt-out clause was never dispensed with until Chrétien and Trudeau eventually offered up the notwithstanding clause as a compromise.

So what, we do not agree on the current version.

Translation: You and your fellow tribesmen do not agree with the current version. The government of Quebec has used on a regular basis the clauses added in 1982; the Parti Québécois certainly used the notwithstanding clause to full effect. That would indicate that the only thing about the current constitution that some Quebecers don't agree with is the absence of extra special treatment for the province of Quebec, which they incorrectly consider to be the Québécois nation.

You will never be able to erase the fact that it is unacceptable that the english canada can modifiy the constitution without the approval of the french canada.

And you seem to be incapable of accepting that nine provinces in and the federal government of this country will never agree to being held hostage by one self-centred, arrogant ethno-lingo-nationalist group. I will repeat to you, for about the ninth time: Quebec already has a veto over constitutional amendments that concern it; no amendment to the constitution that affects a province's status in Confederation, its government, legislature, or boundaries can be passed and/or made to apply to that province without the province's approval. I quoted the amending formula of the constitution for you and I know you read it because your reaction was to bluntly tell me you were already aware of the clauses. So, any additional veto that's special to Quebec is pointless except to give Quebec more than its due share of influence in the Canadian federation. It's obvious why the pure laine Québécois chauvinists want it, but the other 90% of the country doesn't and it seems more than safe to say it never will; not because of any disdain for the Québécois, but because the arrangement is needlessly unfair and, practically, would be unworkable. That's hardly imperialist Anglo oppression, especially since there's a very clear method by which the Québécois may depart Canada if they find the arrangements so unpalatable, albeit probably not with as much land, money, and protection as they think they're entitled to.

[WIP]

It is true that Metis more often than not are Catholic and have a French family name. But like Africans in the 16th century, natives were surprised by the white men and wondered if they had come seeking women. Where were the white women?

The British arrived later and usually men and women came together. British fur traders were under tight discipline from their employers.

Judging by a comment of yours on the previous page referring to natives as savages, and 17th century Europeans as almost-savages, I am led to believe that you are a racist, who considers such race-mixing to be either a sin, or a crime of some sort. For my part, I don`t see the French who intermarried with the Aboriginals as being immoral compared to those British fur trades you claim were under `tight discipline. The true story is likely something more akin to what went on for decades in the American South, and in Africa...especially South Africa, where whites often raped black women and left a coloured child behind as a legacy, but were never made to account for their actions, or support the child they fathered in any way, shape or form. The French who did form legal marriages with natives, and learned the local culture, were morally superior to British fur traders under tight discipline!

[Benz]

Whats wrong with it is there is no accountability since the government responsible for running the program is not responsible for collecting the taxes to pay for it. It is a recipe for bad government and waste of tax payer money.

If you want decentralisation then the government that wants to run the program should raise the taxes to pay for it.

Are you nuts? It's our money. We send money to Ottawa just as everyone else. We are asking for decades that the federal collects less money, so the provinces can collect more. The federal still puts its nose where its does not belong with our money.

If they miss out on some federal money then that is their choice. Federal taxes will be lower than they otherwise would be if the money is not spent in a particular province.

If you mean the federal collects less in the province that refuses the program, it's ok then. It's the same thing at the end but if you prefer it like that, I have no problem with that.

In Québec, we beleive the federal should have less fields to play in. If you think otherwise, good for you but, we need the option to opt out. Whether we get the money back or the federal collect less, as long as the federal does not spend our money in programs we do not want or want to manage our way.