Here we go again - Quebec Independence

[takeanumber]

The deal with tax points is that you're demanding all of them.

Plus the Social Credit Transfer.

Plus the EI credit transfer.

Quebec is already a huge drag on the Canadian economy. Giving QC more tax points will only cause Quebec to become more so of a drag.

No, Quebec needs to get it's fiscal house in order if it's going to remain in Canada.

They've been spending too much time at the pork trough. I know Quebec is looking for new and clever ways to extort more money from the RoC.

Tax points and EI seem to be the new ways, now that Quebeckers are thoroughly embarassed getting caught with the federal sponsorship tit in their mouths.

[Hawk]

its not evil its just not suited to the reality like you say.

No its just not suited to the reality that it is part of a greater country, a country that is larger than French Canada.

Well thats true, many quebecers are not proud to be canadian.

Yeah we noticed, wouldn't even bloody help us Anglophones defend your own homeland in WW2 till we forced you to =p

Why do you get frustrated then, why being so much frustrated when you have the chance to stop financing us like you say. Why not transfer taxes point to quebec in exchange of money transfer. After this, if we can't survive like you say it will be our mistake and we will asume it 100%

Thank you for agreeing with us, as was said earlier if we 'could' vote you out I assure you that many people would =)

Problem is that once you are out dont expect us to take you back, I get fairly giddy just thinking of a Canada without the Francophone bastion lol... imagine the elections, no more Quebec/French-Canadians to suck up to anymore... could get some interesting results

[takeanumber]

Imagine, a better constitution where one vote equals one vote?

Yes. It would be wicked.

The RoC would finally become a sovereign people.

After they get over the inital fear, it'll be all good.

Canada won't be extorted during another referendum. Quebec can't weasel any more money.

The teat has run dry.

[Bakunin]

I read your website and I think its just a big misunderstanding. Where you see special right, i see decentralization. if we decide to get our pension plan and dont contribute to the canadian plan and dont receive money from the canadian plan, then what is the difference ? Ontario could too if it want. its not a specific right to quebecers.

The thing is that Roc and quebec are 2 different people. Tell me what is the point of a federal childcare if we already have one ? what is the point of trying to control a province when it think differently.

[maplesyrup]

Well, no one is suggesting Ottawa do anything detrimental to Quebec's child care program.

As a matter of fact, it was held up as a shinning example during the election campaign. Les Quebecois should be happy, and proud, that the rest of Canada wants to emmulate their achievements in this field.

How you can turn a positive into a negative is beyond me.

[Bakunin]

Well, no one is suggesting Ottawa do anything detrimental to Quebec's child care program.

As a matter of fact, it was held up as a shinning example during the election campaign. Les Quebecois should be happy, and proud, that the rest of Canada wants to emmulate their achievements in this field.

How you can turn a positive into a negative is beyond me.

We are used to the liberal way. The national childcare program in quebec is not a total success like they say. They lied and i think what they did is wrong. The problem is that there are not enough place for evryone so the people have to demmand to get in the childcare program, when their baby are born. I mean years before they can get into the program and if it doesnt work, they don't get full compensation. It cost 1,7 billions and its not enough and the liberal say they want a national childcare that will cost 6 billions... Its not a bad program but its not quite working. I think its not fair to lie to the Roc like they did, thats the reallity.

[maplesyrup]

Bloc diversifies sovereignty pool

What exactly is sovereignty-association?

What will the question be on the next refereendum ballot?

I don't understand what you mean by the fact that the feds lied about the successful child care program in Quebec - what do you think the federales should have said?

[maplesyrup]

Bloc diversifies sovereignty pool

What do you think the next referedum question will be?

What exactly does one mean by sovereignty-association?

[Guest eureka]

The Clarity Act ensures that there can be no unclear question in the next referendum should there be one. The question can only be a direct one that asks whether Quebec should become completely separate from Canada.

Sovereignty Association is no longer a prospect. It meant, in the original misleading of the Quebec public, that Quebec would become independent whole its citizens would have dual citizenship, retain the Canadian dollar and Canadian passport, and keep all the benefits of aCustoms Union - amongst other things.

Those benefits are not going to be on the table: and neither is the integrity of Quebec's current borders. That has been made clear and the Quebec public will have to know it in advance. No longer can they have a separate with Canada paying the bills.

On the piece about the African immigrant sitting as a Bloc member! Can you imagine anywhere else in the world where a n immigrant can be payed to work for the destruction of his host country? He should be deported.

[Bakunin]

What exactly is sovereignty-association?

The idea is to stay associate but be sovregn. Just like a decentralisation. We leave in good term we could say with stuff like free trade and many eventual stuff like having a common army and defense. a little bit like the european union.

What will the question be on the next refereendum ballot?

i don'T know but it will probably be similar to the 1995 one.

in 1980 the question was:

"The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will be effected with approval by the people through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?"

So 1 referendum to make a deal and 1 where the quebecers say if they accept the deal.

in 1995 the question was:

Do you agree that Quebec should beome sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada

for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Quebec and the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

1 referendum to become sovregn after offering a partnership to the rest of canada. If the canadian government refuse the partnership, we become sovregn.

I don't understand what you mean by the fact that the feds lied about the successful child care program in Quebec - what do you think the federales should have said?

What they said in other term is there will buy you a nice new bmw for 10 000$ but in reality what you will have is a cheap gm car for 20 000$ or an accidented car for 10 000$. You can't buy a new bmw for 10 000$ and its wrong to say that you can.

What i mean is that it will cost at least 2 time more than they said for a childcare program that wont be accessible for evryone (3-4 years waiting list). it would cost at least 3-4 time more then they said to have a decent childcare program.

---------------------

The Clarity Act ensures that there can be no unclear question in the next referendum should there be one. The question can only be a direct one that asks whether Quebec should become completely separate from Canada.

It also say that the winning result must have a clear majority but it doesnt say how much is a clear majority.

I don't know if it will have an impact on the question but what i know is that the clarity bill is not taken too seriously, just ask Jean Lapierre ;P.

Sovereignty Association is no longer a prospect. It meant, in the original misleading of the Quebec public, that Quebec would become independent whole its citizens would have dual citizenship, retain the Canadian dollar and Canadian passport, and keep all the benefits of aCustoms Union - amongst other things.

Those benefits are not going to be on the table: and neither is the integrity of Quebec's current borders. That has been made clear and the Quebec public will have to know it in advance. No longer can they have a separate with Canada paying the bills.

It mean we would like to stay associate but for an association we both need to agree, and has you can see, if eureka would be the prime minister, it wouldn't work. The question we should ask is will the government accept the willing of the quebecers.

As for the rest some people talk about partition, civil war or national war.... well its quite amusing but after a lost of 0,5% in 1995 there was no civil war, partition or anything.

On the piece about the African immigrant sitting as a Bloc member! Can you imagine anywhere else in the world where a n immigrant can be payed to work for the destruction of his host country? He should be deported.

Maka Kotto is a brilliant man, i really liked him as an artist and im happy he won. He runned in a liberal stronghold and won. Their have been reaserch that proved that the new generation of child issued from immigrant vote in the same proportion of the native french quebecers. It's quite encouraging when we know that they voted against at 70% in 1995 while the native french voted 60% for it. The difference was that before law 101, the immigrant where assimilate by the english community while thei are now assimilate by the french.

[Guest eureka]

Sovereignty Association includes all the things I wrote - and more. It was a bad joke and shows the naivete of Levesque who thought he could have his cake and eat it. 1995 sold the idea to Quebeckers on the same basis but had the Parizeau trademark of insanity and deception.

The Clarity Act may not be taken seriously by some Quebeckers. However, those that do not take it seriously are in for a rude awakening. It expresses the law in Canada and an opinion of the Supreme Court that tries to be kind to Quebec nationalists. It allows for the possibility of a negotiated separation where international law does not permit it - neither does any law. Sovereignty means indivisilibity and Canada is the sovereign entity. A sovereign nation is not divisible and separation as applicable to Quebec has no precedent in history or law.

It does not matter whether I or Paul Martin is PM. Facts are facts and Quebec has been told many times since Levesque's nonsensical ideals that there is no deal to be negotiated. What on earth makes you think that the nine provinces apart from Quebec are going to give away the house to one who wants to be only a roomer with family privileges?

As for Kotto, I do not care how brilliant he is. I suspect though that he is not so brilliant or he would not have been seduced by the "Sovereignists." His children are entitled to have any political views that they want - so is he. The difference is that he was an immigrant to Canada and is most certainly not entitled to be here, and payed by the Canadian government, with the intention of destroying Canada. In many societies that would be termed treason, or at the least a security risk. He should be treated accordingly. He is abusing Canadian tolerance.

[Bakunin]

Sovereignty Association includes all the things I wrote - and more. It was a bad joke and shows the naivete of Levesque who thought he could have his cake and eat it. 1995 sold the idea to Quebeckers on the same basis but had the Parizeau trademark of insanity and deception.

The Clarity Act may not be taken seriously by some Quebeckers. However, those that do not take it seriously are in for a rude awakening. It expresses the law in Canada and an opinion of the Supreme Court that tries to be kind to Quebec nationalists. It allows for the possibility of a negotiated separation where international law does not permit it - neither does any law. Sovereignty means indivisilibity and Canada is the sovereign entity. A sovereign nation is not divisible and separation as applicable to Quebec has no precedent in history or law.

It is pretty hard to refuse a winning referendum (50%+1). you will have to agree on me with that, when you face a majority in democracy, its pretty hard not to loose the population support. On the other hand, negociation is the only thing that is left.

Your also talking about the nation concept, i just want to remind you that just before june 28, Harper, Martin and Layton said that quebec was a nation. i know it was before june 28, but in my book, it mean something.

It does not matter whether I or Paul Martin is PM. Facts are facts and Quebec has been told many times since Levesque's nonsensical ideals that there is no deal to be negotiated. What on earth makes you think that the nine provinces apart from Quebec are going to give away the house to one who wants to be only a roomer with family privileges?

Quebec also been told before referendum that things would change, nothing changed. the reality is that 2 sovreign country living side by side, making business will have to negociate one day.

As for Kotto, I do not care how brilliant he is. I suspect though that he is not so brilliant or he would not have been seduced by the "Sovereignists." His children are entitled to have any political views that they want - so is he. The difference is that he was an immigrant to Canada and is most certainly not entitled to be here, and payed by the Canadian government, with the intention of destroying Canada. In many societies that would be termed treason, or at the least a security risk. He should be treated accordingly. He is abusing Canadian tolerance.

I think you just doesn't understand. The desire of a decentralized country or sovreignty, is way bigger than you think it is and it is way more serious than you seems to think it is. Its hard to find a journalist or a media that is against decentralisation, i don't even know if their is 1.

Almost the whole artist community is sovregnist. the liberal party in quebec splitted in 2 with the Adq who supported the pq in 1995.Immigrant can vote or work for one of those 2 party, we call this democracy.

[Guest eureka]

Actually, I do not agree. try telling 50% -1 that they ere to lose there Canadian citizenship because one person said so. Then, there could be no majority in a vote by Quebec. Quebec is an integral part of Canada and as such, 100% would still be a minority of Canadian cotozens.

I do not know whether the leaders of the three parties said that Quebec is a nation but it is not. Francophones are a part of the French Canadian portion of the Canadian nation: Ang;ophones are a part of the British and other Canadian part of the Canadian nation However you cut it, Quebec is not a nation. That question has been asked of international law and, apart from the five hand picked consultants to the PQ, the only conclusions have been that Quebec is not a nation. It does not meet the requirements of the Helsinki Accord for self-determinarion either.

To talk of a decentralized xountry as an alternative to separation is plain silly. What I have posted previously on the this should convince you that further decentralization of Canada is impossible if we are to maintain any central government.

I know well how deep the "Sovereignty" deam is and how the artistic community feels. That makes no difference. The ignorance of reality - historical and political as well as legal does not make the holders of the pitiful little dream will not make independence any more likely.

I repeat, there is no precedent in the history of the modern world for one part of a nation to break off from the parent. There may have been some breakups through military action but there has been no peaceful separation.

[Bakunin]

Actually, I do not agree. try telling 50% -1 that they ere to lose there Canadian citizenship because one person said so. Then, there could be no majority in a vote by Quebec. Quebec is an integral part of Canada and as such, 100% would still be a minority of Canadian cotozens.

quebec joined canada with 50% +1 just like the other provinces, i don't see why they couldn't leave with it but the reality is that if there is a winning referendum, quebec will probably leave. I think 50% +1 can'T force you to become something in your mind but not

I do not know whether the leaders of the three parties said that Quebec is a nation but it is not. Francophones are a part of the French Canadian portion of the Canadian nation: Ang;ophones are a part of the British and other Canadian part of the Canadian nation However you cut it, Quebec is not a nation. That question has been asked of international law and, apart from the five hand picked consultants to the PQ, the only conclusions have been that Quebec is not a nation. It does not meet the requirements of the Helsinki Accord for self-determinarion either.

this is your point of vue but i think it is to quebecers to decide to witch nation they are part of.

To talk of a decentralized xountry as an alternative to separation is plain silly. What I have posted previously on the this should convince you that further decentralization of Canada is impossible if we are to maintain any central government.

its not impossible at all. it already been less centralized even harper talk about decentralization and layton of asymetric federalism. And yes decentralization is the only alternative to separation. You can't keep the butter and the money of the butter. Canada can't keep quebec and a centralized government, thats what i think.

I know well how deep the "Sovereignty" deam is and how the artistic community feels. That makes no difference. The ignorance of reality - historical and political as well as legal does not make the holders of the pitiful little dream will not make independence any more likely.

I repeat, there is no precedent in the history of the modern world for one part of a nation to break off from the parent. There may have been some breakups through military action but there has been no peaceful separation.

[Guest eureka]

The really scary thing about the Quebec "problem" is that so many of the "Sovereignists have been brainwashed into believing the patent nonsense that you espouse. I have long felt that this can only end in violence because of that.

Quebec did not come into Confederation with a 50+1 vote. There was no real vote on the question and NO referendum.

Harper does not believe in a decentralized Canada. How can he when there is no way to "decentralize" it further? What Harper believes in is the end of Canada as a modern nation state and the formation of an economic union and defensive alliance.

Layton believes in asymetrical provinces as you say. But so what! That is in part a political ploy for Quebec votes. More, it recognises the reality that we already have asymetrical jurisdictions. This comes from, in part, the different degrees to which provinces the powers they have. It also reflects the constitutional fact that there is some difference between the provinces.

Actually, I do not agree with you that "decentralization" is the only alternative to separation. I believe that there is a more intelligent alternative. There is the possibility that Canadians may wake up to the power crazed provincialists and demand a real central government: a government that in reality does act as a federal government and in doing so, encompasses and encourages the diversity that is the strength of a federation. It does not now do that since diversity is stifled in certain provinces, most notably, of course, Quebec. Thse provinces are able to make a mockery of the very idea of federalism because of theirtoo strong powers and the exercise of those selfishly at the expense of the other provinces.

[Big Blue Machine]

Why can't we just ban seperatism and all separtist parties? It would be the smart thing.

[Guest eureka]

We should have done that 30 years ago. "Nationalists" now think that it is a normal condition and their right.

[caesar]

quote: "Why can't we just ban seperatism and all separtist parties? It would be the smart thing. "

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Smart, maybe but not very democratic.

Let's stop trying to buy their love; that's like the parent with only visiting rights; buying them anything they want. It doesn't really work; they just lose respect and consider them a sucker. Same goes for our relationship with Quebec.

[Big Blue Machine]

Could a Quebec seperatist sign the constuition agreement?

[Bakunin]

they could sign a constitution but if they take part in the process and they agree to it.

[Slavik44]

quote: "Why can't we just ban seperatism and all separtist parties? It would be the smart thing. "

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Smart, maybe but not very democratic.

Let's stop trying to buy their love; that's like the parent with only visiting rights; buying them anything they want. It doesn't really work; they just lose respect and consider them a sucker. Same goes for our relationship with Quebec.

actually the word sepratist is banend from use in the name of federal political parties, I wonder what genuis came up with that effective rule? (I saw it on elections Canada website a while ago)

[Bakunin]

We use the word sovregnist since the 70's. Actually its the liberal federal and english media who use the word separatist.

[Stoker]

We use the word sovregnist since the 70's. Actually its the liberal federal and english media who use the word separatist.

Whats the difference between the two terms?

[Bakunin]

their are many terms.

Independantist: wants a country with no relation with canada. Maybe 10% of quebecers.

Sovreigist-associationnist: i problably dont spell it right but it mean to offer an association with canada but control our own destiny and laws as a country or else. 35-40% of quebecers. Kind of leave but a nice way.

Separatist: sound to me has a flq members which doesnt exist anymore or people that are willing to take arms for Independance. Actually there is a psychopath we hear of at the news raymond villeneuve, who is like this. 0,000001% quebecers.

We use the word sovreignist in general to talk about people who would vote yes to a referendum on sovreignty wich is mostly sovreignist associationist.

[Guest eureka]

"Separatist" is a catch-all term that covers all the shades of those who want a "separate" state. It is eschewed as a descriptive by the Separatists because it does not have the sex appeal to win votes and is a reminder to those who would support a glossier term of the grim times they would face.

"Sovereignty-Association used to be well defined, in my opinion, as a separate state with Canada paying the bills: much the same as Bourassa's "Profitable Federalism." It really means the things I posted earlier: an "independent" Quebec within a customs union ( or a variant); a common currency - the Canadian dollar; Quebeckers having a dual citizenship so that so many thousands could continue to live in Hull and work in Ottawa; probably a common (Canadian) passport); Quebec representation on the Bank of Canada;

The list goes on ad absurdum.

A "Separatist" could sign a Constitutional agreement with no restriction while Quebec remains part of Canada. He would still be representing the Province of Quebec. In the same way, we have 50 odd "Separatists" in Parliament in Ottawa, paid by Canada to work for its break-up.