"SOVEREIGNTY WILL BE DONE IN QUEBEC!"

[TimG]

Are you nuts? It's our money. We send money to Ottawa just as everyone else.

So what? It goes to Ottawa to run programs that Ottawa manages. If provinces want to run a program they should fund it. If a province opts out then federal taxes will be less than want they would have been otherwise.

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.

I am saying the amount of what the program might have cost if the province did not opt out is irrelevant. Federal taxes will only be lower because the money is not required.

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.

The feds should only fund those programs which it runs. This means reducing federal taxes so the provinces case raise more funds.

That said, the consititution is very clear on what powers belong to the feds. Quebec has no business demanding to interfer in federal powers as well.

[Benz]

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.

Unlike the 9 others, Lévesque DID NOT betrayed them. He would have done so IF AND ONLY IF he would have signed the constitution. This is not what he did. It was only an agreement on principle that Lévesque was supposed to discuss with the others. Lévesque expected to discuss about it with the Gang of 8 like the always did until then. If they don't agree, then Lévesque return to Trudeau and say "sorry, it's no good, we reject it". It's part of a negociation process. The Gang of 8 rather betrayed Lévesque by signing the final thing, not just an agreement on principle. All that because of what, they wanted no referendum? f--- off! It's a lame excuse. That day, the ROC proved that the veto for Québec is necessary.

Translation: ...

No, that is reinterpretation. We will never allow rules settled by the anglos only. Over my dead body.

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...

Hostage? You totally fail to explain what can go wrong with our solution. It's a good solution and you are only driven by non-sense fear from your imagination. I dare you to show me how Québec can hold english Canada in 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

According to your anglo understanding of what a province should be. A system we do not agree in first place. How many times do I have to tell you. Stop ignoring it if you want to make a point.

English canadians like you are scared as hell by the Québécois. Imagine if you would be in European. You would have been petrified. They manage to get along even if they are above 20 different nations and you are doing in your pants just because you imagine having to deal with the Québec nation. pfff!

[Benz]

The feds should only fund those programs which it runs. This means reducing federal taxes so the provinces case raise more funds.

Indeed... we agree on that part. Unfortunatly, it doesn't work that way.

That said, the consititution is very clear on what powers belong to the feds. Quebec has no business demanding to interfer in federal powers as well.

It is very clear that the english provinces allowed the federal government to spend money where it does not belong. It is a clear difference with the Québec's opinion. We wouldn't need an opt out if the federal wouldn't spend money in provincial matters. But you decided to give too much power to the federal. You shouldn't have done that. Because you did so, then we need an opt out.

Either we get an opt out, or the federal no longer puts its nose in the provincial fields.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Benz

[g_bambino]

Lévesque DID NOT betrayed them.

Others disagree with you: Brian Mulroney (a Quebecer), Where I Stand: "by accepting Prime Minister Trudeau's referendum idea, Mr. Levesque himself abandoned, without advance notice, his colleagues of the common front, who were all deeply opposed to such an idea." Guy Laforest, Trudeau and the End of a Canadian Dream: "Lévesque's allies, who did not want a referendum, felt they had been betrayed." Sheilagh Dunn, The Year in Review 1981: "The other dissenting Premiers, for their part, felt that Levesque had betrayed them by embracing the referendum idea."

According to your anglo understanding of what a province should be.

No, according to the words of the constitution as written, actually. Do you think you can simply will them away if you dream hard enough?

Imagine if you would be in European

I've been in Europe; I lived there for some months. Europe isn't a country. Though, it is swiftly enough moving more towards becoming a federation, like Canada, only more centralised. Perhaps you should go to Europe instead of imagining it; listen to people there complain about how much Brussels is interfering in the way their country is run, from overriding their laws to eliminating traditions that don't conform to the standards. I don't think the reality is quite what you want.

[+]

Edited May 14, 2011 by g_bambino

[Benz]

Others disagree with you: Brian Mulroney (a Quebecer)

Yeah, the guy who came up with the Charlottetown agreement. A big stain on his sheet. Ask Bouchard what he thinks of his former best friend.

Where I Stand: "by accepting Prime Minister Trudeau's referendum idea, Mr. Levesque himself abandoned, without advance notice, his colleagues of the common front, who were all deeply opposed to such an idea." Guy Laforest, Trudeau and the End of a Canadian Dream: "Lévesque's allies, who did not want a referendum, felt they had been betrayed." Sheilagh Dunn, The Year in Review 1981: "The other dissenting Premiers, for their part, felt that Levesque had betrayed them by embracing the referendum idea."

I don't care about how they felt. I care about what they did, the end result. It is a very lame excuse. They did not betrayed just Lévesque, they betrayed the whole Québec nation. There was no consequence to what Lévesque signed. It was just part of the negociations. If the other provinces didn't want that deal, Lévesque would have just let it go and continu to work on other possibilities. That's the reality you do not want to face.

No, according to the words of the constitution as written, actually. Do you think you can simply will them away if you dream hard enough?

That constitution is your's, it is written by Trudeau and approved only by english canada. That's what it is.

I've been in Europe; I lived there for some months. Europe isn't a country. Though, it is swiftly enough moving more towards becoming a federation, like Canada, only more centralised. Perhaps you should go to Europe instead of imagining it; listen to people there complain about how much Brussels is interfering in the way their country is run, from overriding their laws to eliminating traditions that don't conform to the standards. I don't think the reality is quite what you want.

[+]

I've been in Europe, don't worry. Yes several Europeans are concerned about the way some leaders are trying to make it more centralised. They are afraid to create a monster... like Canada. Their system is not perfect, far from it. However, to this day, it is still a confederation, not a federation. Even a small country like Ireland can stop the constitution to be modified against their interests.

It is very difficult for them but at least, they move foward with mutual respect of all members. Unlike in Canada.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Benz

[cybercoma]

To be fair, Quebec was offered the a veto by Mulroney. They didn't accept it because it was also offered to all the other province as well.

[g_bambino]

To be fair, Quebec was offered the a veto by Mulroney. They didn't accept it because it was also offered to all the other province as well.

And doesn't that say something about what Québécois nationalists think of themselves.

[g_bambino]

I don't care about how they felt.

I know.

That constitution is your's, it is written by Trudeau and approved only by english canada. That's what it is.

No, actually the constitution is ours. Some of it was written by Brits, some of it by Canadians, Anglophone and Francophone, from all parts of the country, at different times in history. Amendments were made by Trudeau, sure. They, including the amending formula, still apply to Quebec, though. I'm sure you're aware of that; another 1982 addition - the notwithstanding clause - was used, for three years after, for every law passed by the Legislative Assembly of Quebec.

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.

However, to this day, it is still a confederation, not a federation.

The EU doesn't fit either definition.

[Benz]

To be fair, Quebec was offered the a veto by Mulroney. They didn't accept it because it was also offered to all the other province as well.

When and how? I know the federalist Bourassa wasn't our best leader but I doubt he officially refused a Québec veto for that single reason.

The purpose of a veto is to make sure both nations have a say. Although there is absolutly no reason for PEI to have a veto, I'd rather all have a veto than none for Québec.

---

They, including the amending formula, still apply to Quebec, though. I'm sure you're aware of that;

Yes, the english canada decided what applies to Québec, I am aware of that.

another 1982 addition - the notwithstanding clause - was used, for three years after, for every law passed by the Legislative Assembly of Quebec.

Do you want Québec to use it allways? Edited May 14, 2011 by Benz

[g_bambino]

Yes, the english canada decided what applies to Québec, I am aware of that.

The amendment was made according to the law at the time. It's not the law anymore, though.

Do you want Québec to use it allways?

I couldn't care less. It would mean every Quebec law passed using the clause would have to be passed again within a year. If the Legislative Assembly of Quebec wants to bog itself down with an exponentially growing amount of work just to make a silly point, then sure, I say it should go for it. But, it's what the voters of Quebec would think that really matters.

[g_bambino]

The purpose of a veto is to make sure both nations have a say.

The main issue with this is that you expect everyone to adhere to your personal definition of "nation". It's been pointed out to you, again and again, that there's a good argument to be made about there being many nations in Canada, many nations within linguistic groups, and nations that aren't confined within neatly drawn borders. By dividing everyone up according to your criteria, you're asking for more conflict, rather than any resolution.

[Benz]

By dividing everyone up according to your criteria, you're asking for more conflict, rather than any resolution.

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.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Benz

[g_bambino]

What is it that the Europeans can do that the Canadians cannot.

You didn't divide Europe.

[TimG]

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.

Your posts are getting repetitive.

The fact is you want Quebec to separate. You are not interested in renewing the federation. However, you don't want to say that because you want to seem "reasonable" to people who are not as committed to your cause. Instead you try to pretend to that you want to make things work by laying out conditions that are obviously ridiculous - even to a neutral third party observer. You aim is to try and make others seem unreasonable when it is you who is being unreasonable.

So why don't we dispense with the faux outrage and get back to the core issue: you do not speak for a majority of Quebequers. If you did the Quebec would have separated. The majority of Quebequers may not be perfectly happy with the way things are but they can live with it because the things that you demand are not a big deal when one looks at the big picture.

Edited May 14, 2011 by TimG

[WIP]

I was going to jump in to the debate over Quebec's place in Canada, but after finishing scanning through the arguments, I'm feeling a little dizzy! Separation, Sovereignty, and what sort of federalism Canada should have have been knocked around since the mid 1960's, and it just looks like one of those issues similar to Aboriginal rights, that will more or less be solved by some sort of less-than-perfect compromise, since the roots of each issue are founded in earlier treaties and agreements that successive Canadian governments have tried to weaken or effectively abolish.

In the here and now, Quebec is too intertwined with Canada to become an independent nation...something that almost seems irrelevant in the age of global corporate ownership and globalization anyway...but, Quebec also has historical precedent that set it apart from other provinces, and if that ends up with Quebec having some rights that are not given to other provinces....well, shut the hell up and suck it up so that we can move on to more important issues!

[Shwa]

It's not. It's a territory.

That's what I said.

It's not a sovereign territory. It's a province like every other.

That's right.

[Shwa]

Not the same way and not for the same reasons.

For the same way and for the same reasons. Imperialism, plain and simple. Now, if you would like to provide a counterpoint, bring on the evidence. Otherwise, you lose the argument.

Here's my evidence: Jesuit Relations

The french did not try to destroy the natives and take their land. They settled on unoccupied territories and they were dealing very well with the natives. Except of course the Iroquois that were allied with the british and were fighting for them.

What alter-history book do are they using these days in al belle province? Have they erased Samuel de Champlain from the history books already, you know, for causing trouble with the les Autochtones?

On July 29, (1609)somewhere in the area near Ticonderoga and Crown Point, New York (historians are not sure which of these two places, but Fort Ticonderoga claims that it occurred near its site), Champlain and his party encountered a group of Iroquois. A battle began the next day. Two hundred Iroquois advanced on Champlain's position, and one of his guides pointed out the 3 Iroquois chiefs. Champlain fired his arquebus, killing two of them with a single shot, and one of his men killed the third. The Iroquois turned and fled. This action set the tone for French-Iroquois relations for rest of the century.

The English didn't show up in any significant form in New York until 50 years later. In 1609, it was the Dutch that were in New York. How do you explain that Benz?

The british knew that the only way to conquer the whole north america was to get rid of the biggest natives' ally. The french.

Nope, wrong again Benz. The British made treaties with the Indians that stuck. And they also beat the French in Europe where the France surrendered their North American territories in the Treaty of Paris in 1763. Thus, France threw Quebec under the bus (horse drawn as it may have been).

Will do. Because your message is very clear. Someday they will understand they were wrong about you

Your message is very clear too. You are bullshitting and really don't know what you are talking about. Typical separatiste BS.

[Benz]

Your posts are getting repetitive.

Yet you still don't get the point.

The fact is you want Quebec to separate. You are not interested in renewing the federation.

yeah, because I am the devil. Of course. In your mindset, the separatists can't have a point. They are the axis of evil. So you forbid yourself to even considere that maybe they have a point. This is how you think. But you are wrong. You totally fail to face the truth. 90% of the sovereignist are very open to a canadian union as long as Québec is a nation and both nations have a say on the supreme rules. Only 10% just want to separate because they think only full independence is the good choice. Both the sovereignist and the Québec federalist beleive Québec is a nation. The federalist just think they can convnce you on that. I once was among them. I changed my mind in 90-92.

I am providing solutions that already exist and are applied. Solutions that can help us find a way to solve our constiutitonal issue. But in your mind, I'm the devil. So you beleive I trick the debate and am not willing to accept a good deal.

If you are so sure about that, why don't you dare me. Just to see if I am as evil as you think I am. Go on and propose a solution that is very near or even exactly what I keep on saying. Just to see how I will react. Even if it is something you do not totally agree on. Just to see if I will try to find a way out and refuse it... I will tell you why you haven't even considere trying this. Because you are terrified to realise you were wrong the whole time. Admitting that the separatists have a good reason would be a devastation for you. I can see it. I can feel it. Just the way you ignore how easy it would be to respect Québec as a nation. You are trying to imagine the worst.

You look afraid that if Québec gets what it wants and that Québec will separate anyway, even if it doesn't make any sense. Even if it goes against the logic. Why? Because then you would realise that the Québec's demand are normal and legitimate while the anglos were just stubborn. That my friend, you want to avoid it at all cost.

Otherwise, you would have tested me.

However, you don't want to say that because you want to seem "reasonable" to people who are not as committed to your cause. Instead you try to pretend to that you want to make things work by laying out conditions that are obviously ridiculous

Those conditions are not mine. They were settle by both federalist and sovereignist. What I am saying is pretty much the Meech treaty without its ambiguity. If those conditions are so ridiculous for you, even if they are totally normal to all Europeans, it should be easy for you to demonstrate it. Yet you fail... or don't even try.

- even to a neutral third party observer.

sure.

So why don't we dispense with the faux outrage and get back to the core issue: you do not speak for a majority of Quebequers. If you did the Quebec would have separated.

Indeed, a tiny majority of Québécois beleive you will someday change your mind. Even I sometime fall into that trap. I come in an anglo forum and then I remember why I became sovereignist. It's frustrating because I truly beleive it is in our interests, both of us, to get an agreement. But we are at opposite ends of what Canada should be.

The majority of Quebequers may not be perfectly happy with the way things are but they can live with it because the things that you demand are not a big deal when one looks at the big picture.

If it's no big deal, then why being so much against?

[Benz]

...something that almost seems irrelevant in the age of global corporate ownership and globalization anyway...

That's your opinion. We beleive, on the contrary, that the sovereignty of the people is menaced by the globalization and multinationals. The debate on sovereignty (not just Québec, every nations) is still very important.

but, Quebec also has historical precedent that set it apart from other provinces, and if that ends up with Quebec having some rights that are not given to other provinces....well, shut the hell up and suck it up so that we can move on to more important issues!

It's not about giving more rights to Québec. The rules are the same for everyone and Québec does not want more than the others. Québec is just saying that the constitution needs the approval of both english and french to be modified. It's so simple. Again, why Québec? Because it is the only one having a french majority. It never was about giving more powers to Québec over the others. so indeed, accept it so we can move on and work out together.

[g_bambino]

Québec is just saying that the constitution needs the approval of both english and french to be modified.

Your naiveté is almost cute.

[Benz]

For the same way and for the same reasons. Imperialism, plain and simple. Now, if you would like to provide a counterpoint, bring on the evidence. Otherwise, you lose the argument.

Look, the Jésuites did indeed tried to convert the aboriginals and even assimilate some and that is imperialist. But... beside the Jesuits, the french were not in New France to destroy the aboriginals and take their land like the British did.

What alter-history book do are they using these days in al belle province? Have they erased Samuel de Champlain from the history books already, you know, for causing trouble with the les Autochtones?

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. But that was only in the beginning. Later on, the french told them that they will no longer interfere and that was a big mistake because the Dutch then the Brits were providing firearms to the Iroquois and it gave them a big advantage over the others. The Iroquois were beating their enemies badly and it is only when they attacked the french that the french finally intervene again to crush the Iroquois this time. We are now in late 1690, early 1700. The british outnumber everyone on the east coast, the french and all the natives have no choice to teamup against the british and so they did. 1701, le Traité de la Grande Paix. Go see by yourself.

Nope, wrong again Benz. The British made treaties with the Indians that stuck.

Oh really? On the contrary, the british never respected a single one treaty. if so, name me one. All the aboriginals have been concealed into reserves. All of them. I dare you to name me one nation that could preserve its sovereignty from the british imperialism (later american).

And they also beat the French in Europe where the France surrendered their North American territories in the Treaty of Paris in 1763. Thus, France threw Quebec under the bus (horse drawn as it may have been).

Yes, because, as I said, France did not care about New France. The leadership was not the same. Louis XIV did want a strong New France colony and was pushing for it Louis XV did not care at all. Under Louis XV, France was on a decline, as oppose as the rise of France under Louis XIV. It got worst with Louis XVI.

Your message is very clear too. You are bullshitting and really don't know what you are talking about. Typical separatiste BS.

You fail. Again and again.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Benz

[g_bambino]

Good grief. Benz sure has been through the souverainetiste brainwashing camp. Twice.

[TimG]

This is how you think. But you are wrong. You totally fail to face the truth. 90% of the sovereignty are very open to a canadian union as long as Québec is a nation and both nations have a say on the supreme rules.

Seperatists are a minority in Quebec. The majority of people do not care that much about separatist grievance mongering. They make pay some notional support in opinion polls but when given the choice between living with the status quo or separating they would take the status quo. But you don't like that so you try to fabricate outrage by making ridiculous demands that no third party observer would ever support.

Solutions that can help us find a way to solve our constitutional issue.

Solutions do not exist because you are not trying to negotiate in good faith. Negotiation implies that you would be willing to accept compromise. It is clear you are not. You are not the devil but you are a self-centered SOB who refuses to show any understanding for the position of the rest of the country. You have nothing to say but "me me me"... It gets tedious.

If it's no big deal, then why being so much against?

It costs nothing to stick with the status quo. Changing the status quo through separation would be an extremely painful process that will leave Quebequers much poorer than they are today. Most Quebequers seem to understand this and are willing to live with the status quo because your 'traditional demands' are largely meaningless when it comes to growing the economy and keeping people employed. Edited May 16, 2011 by TimG

[Peter F]

Personally, I'm with Benz. My kids are Quebecers and I'm sick to death of far too many Canadians treating them like they're dumbass trash. Quebec has far more going for it than the rest of this country. Separation may cause their pocketbooks to be a little thinner for a while, but they'd be far better off as an independant nation.

[TimG]

Personally, I'm with Benz. My kids are Quebecers and I'm sick to death of far too many Canadians treating them like they're dumbass trash.

Of course that perception has no basis in fact - it is a delusion created by seperatists who need an 'enemy' to justify their existance. Nothing Canadians could ever do would satisfy the demands of people like Benz because they have no interest in renewing the federation. They want to create the 'winning conditions'. The fact that some people buy into this 'victim' narrative does not make it true.

Quebec has far more going for it than the rest of this country.

What planet are you on? Quebec's structural problems are the worst in the country.

Don't take my word. Look at what Lucian Bouchard has to say:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20061019/quebec_bouchard_061019/

"I said that Quebecers work less than Ontarians, less than Americans, and that the best way to create more resources, to sustain and support these social programs we are so proud of, is to work more,'"

"A year ago, Bouchard was among a group of high-profile Quebecers to release a manifesto that warned of the dangers of the province's crippling debt and its stagnant birthrate."

Separation may cause their pocketbooks to be a little thinner for a while, but they'd be far better off as an independant nation.

A "little" thinner? A fight over borders or debt would create a crisis that would last a generation or more. Everyone would be alot worse off. And for what: an opportunity to find out the seperatists were lying and and problems Quebec has has nothing to do with the federation but are simply a reflection of problems within Quebec society. Edited May 16, 2011 by TimG