Andre Boisclair to lead the country of Quebec

[I miss Reagan]

Don't look now nationalists, but the next generation is leading Quebec out the back door.

A third candidate has joined the race to succeed leader Parti Quebecois Bernard Landry: former cabinet minister Andre Boisclair.

Boisclair, 39, is a moderate sovereigntist who wants to build bridges with minorities and the rest of Canada. He is also openly gay.

I heard an interview of this guy yesterday on CBC radio. If anyone has what it takes to lead an independent and successful Quebec it's this guy. He looks at sovereignty from a positive standpoint, not the bitter anti-Anglo attitude that we used to hear all the time from the previous generation. He is tuned into the reality the Quebec would be far more successful on it's own and have more say in the world arena. He's doer, not a whiner. It's what I've been saying all along. The balkinization of Canada need not be a bitter divorce. We need to face reality that we're too diverse to remain together in an unhappy marriage. Alberta should take a lesson from this new Quebec attitude. Boisclair

[The Terrible Sweal]

He is tuned into the reality the Quebec would be far more successful on it's own and have more say in the world arena. 

There is no 'reality' to that whatsoever.

Alberta should take a lesson from this new Quebec attitude. 

What good would that do? Alberta can't separate anyway.

[cybercoma]

Quebec doesn't need to seperate, the rest of Canada needs to become more french.

[Bakunin]

He is definatly the best candidate right now, he his young, confident and not afraid to say what he thinks. He his a good debater too.

Its also highly probable that the next election the pq will win and make another referendum, the only thing im worried about is if they make a referendum, i hope they know what they are doing and that they are sure to get a good margin, something like 60%+

He just have to convince 5-10% more of the population, i think he could get that from the young, and the baby boomers if he does a good PM job.

[Riverwind]

He looks at sovereignty from a positive standpoint, not the bitter anti-Anglo attitude that we used to hear all the time from the previous generation

The is no such thing as a positive standpoint for sovereignty. Sovereignty has and always will be about a self-centered ethocentric nationalism no matter how sovereigntists try to dress it up.

I say it is self centered because there are no cultural or poliltical problems that will be solved by sovereignty - most problems have been addressed within the current federal framework. Those that remain are not large enough to justify the social and economic upheaveal that would come with separation.

I say it is ethnocentric because preserving the French language in North America is a 'ethnocentric' idea. When seperatists talk about wanting a multi-cultural French speaking society they are really saying we want to create a state where someone's ethnic identity is based French and people who do not want to be part of their ethnically-linguistically pure state are not welcome (like the anglos).

[August1991]

The is no such thing as a positive standpoint for sovereignty. Sovereignty has and always will be about a self-centered ethocentric nationalism no matter how sovereigntists try to dress it up.

As you note, Canada has a federal system because local governments can often deal best with some issues. The question of sovereignty is really about devolution of certain powers to the Quebec government.

I say it is self centered because there are no cultural or poliltical problems that will be solved by sovereignty - most problems have been addressed within the current federal framework. Those that remain are not large enough to justify the social and economic upheaveal that would come with separation.

The recent federal Liberal funding of municipal governments shows how our federal system does not work well. I have the impression that many English Canadians would like to see a stronger federal government while many in Quebec would prefer to see a stronger provincial government. Such an arrangement is perfectly feasible.

The federal Liberals (for obvious self-interested reasons) typically present a sovereign Quebec as the end of Canada. That's wrong.

[Riverwind]

The recent federal Liberal funding of municipal governments shows how our federal system does not work well.

Why does federal funding of municipal infrastructure mean the system does not work well? Probably because there are too many politicians in provincial capitals hope to gain politically by complaining about 'federal' intrusions. Are you suggesting that cities should be given taxation powers to allow them to completely fund their own infrastructure? If not why would a provincial gov't be any more effective at funding municipal infrastructure?

I have the impression that many English Canadians would like to see a stronger federal government while many in Quebec would prefer to see a stronger provincial government.  Such an arrangement is perfectly feasible.

Asymetrical federalism is the status quo. What is missing are Quebequers who are willing to acknowledge that they already have most of the autonomy they need.

The federal Liberals (for obvious self-interested reasons) typically present a sovereign Quebec as the end of Canada.  That's wrong.

A vote for separation will open a pandora's box that could cause serious economic and social consequences for everyone. What is wrong are seperatists who run around telling Quebequers that seperation will be a painless exercise (for obvious self-interested reasons).

[Bakunin]

Quebec as a lot more reason to be sovreign torward canada than canada as reason to be sovreign torward the usa.

The question is more how we want this sovreignty, there is one party that want asymetrical federalism(PLQ) wich the federal governement only accepted once for healthcare. Another party, formed because the (PLQ) wasnt enough decisive and strong torward canada, propose an autonomous states within canada a bit like (china/hong kong) (ADQ). another party propose that we form a country (PQ) then deal nation to nation.

They pretty much all failed at least twice in 45 years.

[Riverwind]

Quebec as a lot more reason to be sovreign torward canada than canada as reason to be sovreign torward the usa.

Quebec has no reason to need more sovereignty that it already has. The one valid argument for soereignty is to protect the French language but Quebec already has the powers it needs to do that.

The question is more how we want this sovreignty, there is one party that want asymetrical federalism(PLQ) wich the federal governement only accepted once for healthcare.

Asymetrical federalism is a work is progress. It does happen all at once and changes as needs change over time. Currently asymetrical federalism is working well enough except in the eyes of seperatists.

Another party, formed because the (PLQ) wasnt enough decisive and strong torward canada, propose an autonomous states within canada a bit like (china/hong kong) (ADQ).

The province of Quebec already has almost as much sovereignty within Canada than HK has within China (with possible expection of border controls). So this solution is already working.

another party propose that we form a country (PQ) then deal nation to nation.).

This 'solution' will create must economic and social chaos and offers nothing more than satisfying the egos of the a few seperatist leaders because they want to go down in history as the 'founders' of the Quebec country.

They pretty much all failed at least twice in 45 years.

Only the PQ option has failed over the last 45 years.

[Bakunin]

If there are any quebecker interested in boisclair's candidacy, here is the conference presse he made friday:

http://www.andre-boisclair.org/salledepres...eo_AB050617.asx

[kimmy]

Asymetrical federalism is a work is progress. It does happen all at once and changes as needs change over time. Currently asymetrical federalism is working well enough except in the eyes of seperatists.

What actually *is* asymmetrical federalism? Are there any actual principles, or is it just a catchphrase? In practice, it seems to mean Paul Martin does whatever is politically expedient to avoid confrontations with provinces east of Manitoba and west of Ontario.

-k

[August1991]

What actually *is* asymmetrical federalism? Are there any actual principles, or is it just a catchphrase? In practice, it seems to mean Paul Martin does whatever is politically expedient to avoid confrontations with provinces east of Manitoba and west of Ontario.

Not a bad definition!

Quebec has its own income tax policies (and tax forms) and it also collects and administers its own State pension scheme. Quebec has its own method for selecting non-family immigrants. Quebec (like Ontario and Newfoundland) has its own provincial police. The basic principle is that some federal powers are devolved to the Quebec provincial government. (In theory, Quebec could collect all taxes and return a sum to Ottawa.)

One problem, for example, is that a federal minister for immigration could be from Quebec (eg. Lucienne Robillard) overseeing a department that affects English-Canada more than Quebec. Worse, government MPs from Quebec could be decisive in passing federal immigration legislation that has no effect in Quebec.

A critical test in all this is whether Quebec would continue to receive equalization payments. I think it is hard to make the case for Quebec sovereignty while also claiming that Quebec should also receive equalization payments. (True, Poland, Spain and Greece receive various EU subsidies yet are still sovereign countries.)

[Bakunin]

Asymetrical federalism is a work is progress. It does happen all at once and changes as needs change over time. Currently asymetrical federalism is working well enough except in the eyes of seperatists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What actually *is* asymmetrical federalism? Are there any actual principles, or is it just a catchphrase? In practice, it seems to mean Paul Martin does whatever is politically expedient to avoid confrontations with provinces east of Manitoba and west of Ontario.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well first when you want to make such a change in federalism, you write it in the constitution normally.

Asymetrical federalism is a flexible federalism. It mean that a province can opt out of any pan canadian program if they want.

This is what the quebec federalist are asking since over 25 years. First they asked with lévesque and ryan in the 1982 constitution but trudeau being an ass refused. then they tried with murloney in the 1990'swich agreed and it was written in the meech accord, but the accord failed then the liberal provincial made a report called the allaire report wich was giving an amount of time for the federal to act and put it in the constititution or else they would held on a referendum on sovreignty, in other word many peolple in the provincial liberal where tired after such time lost. At that time the yes option for sovreignty was receiving 66% in the pool. But the provincial liberal party chickened out and tryed to make another accord called the charlestown accord but it was a very bad accord and there where no asymetrical federalism in that accord only stupid stuff like saying quebec is distinct, only words...

then quebeckers voted agaisnt because the accord wasn't giving enough and the rest of canada voted against because for them it was giving too much..

and robert bourassa the (PM) left.

So in other word, what happend in quebec is 2 movement 1 sovreignist that tryed 2 referendum and lost em both. On the other hand there are the federalist that tryed 2 time to change canadian federalism to bring on assymetrical federalism and failled 2 time.

So thats why quebeckers never signed the constitution, because we want a reform and thats why quebec sovreignty movement will never die and continue to be strong, because no change as been done since 1982 and we are still waiting for a change.

[Guest eureka]

Mist of the powers you mention, August, are already provincial. It is just that most provinces had the good sense and a sense of fiscal responsibility to delegate the powers to the federal government.

Quebec has an agenda that overrides sense and responsibility. Therefore, it chooses the more expensive option of going it alone merely to thumb its nose at Canada. For that, the other Canadian provinces are subsidizing its truculence.

Bakunin! You obviously are never going to learn.

[I miss Reagan]

He just have to convince 5-10% more of the population, i think he could get that from the young, and the baby boomers if he does a good PM job.

I don't think he'll have any problem gaining support. He'll have the traditional base plus he'll appeal to the more passive crowd. He's the perfect guy for the next step. In fact he's the closest you'll get to being "all things, to all people".

The is no such thing as a positive standpoint for sovereignty. Sovereignty has and always will be about a self-centered ethocentric nationalism no matter how sovereigntists try to dress it up.

Think outside of the box. Canada doesn't work, except for Ontario. Either fix the system, which will never ever happen, or let them leave.

[Bakunin]

The is no such thing as a positive standpoint for sovereignty. Sovereignty has and always will be about a self-centered ethocentric nationalism no matter how sovereigntists try to dress it up.

Sovreignty is something evry country or nation has. Its not specific to quebeckers.

[Riverwind]

The is no such thing as a positive standpoint for sovereignty. Sovereignty has and always will be about a self-centered ethocentric nationalism no matter how sovereigntists try to dress it up.

Sovreignty is something evry country or nation has. Its not specific to quebeckers.

It is equally self-centered where ever linguistic/ethnic identity is used a justification to break up democratic countries where rights of minorities are respected. There is no rational reason for Quebec seperation - it is nothing but a useless emotional argument that some how having a Quebec seat at a UN will allow some Quebequers to feel better about themselves. Seperation is a movement that is willing to sacrifice the economic and personal well being of the majority of the population in order to satisfy the emotional needs of a few. If sovereigntists really cared about Quebequers they would spend their time convincing them that being a proud of their Quebequois identity is possible within the current political and economic arrangements. Instead, the feed on the fears of Quebequers and try to convince Quebequers that they can never be happy unless they have more 'sovereignty' (what ever that means).

[I miss Reagan]

There is no rational reason for Quebec seperation - it is nothing but a useless emotional argument

On the contrary. Finally there is a very intelligent and capable leader ready to take the reins and to outline very rational reasons for going. There are plenty of rational reasons for separation. In fact, I see no other reason other than emotion for Quebec to remain a part of Canada. No offence but you seem a lot more emotional about this than separtists like Bakunin.

[Riverwind]

There is no rational reason for Quebec seperation - it is nothing but a useless emotional argument

On the contrary. Finally there is a very intelligent and capable leader ready to take the reins and to outline very rational reasons for going. There are plenty of rational reasons for separation. In fact, I see no other reason other than emotion for Quebec to remain a part of Canada. No offence but you seem a lot more emotional about this than separtists like Bakunin.

Sorry, what rational reasons? Having a leader that is willing to lead Quebequers off the proverbial cliff is not a rational reason. Canada is a politicial an economic construct that exists today. It is not perfect but it more or less works - "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is a very rational/pragmatic reason for Quebequers to work with the existing political framework. (BTW - the fact that politicians in democratic country disagree on different policy issues does not mean the system is broken - it means the system is working as expected).

You seem to share the illusion that separatists have that breaking apart a modern integrated economy like Canada is a trivial thing to do. It is not: any attempt, no matter how good the intentions are, will create economic disruptions that far out weigh the 'emotional' benefits of being king of your own little island.

[Bakunin]

There is no rational reason for Quebec seperation - it is nothing but a useless emotional argument

On the contrary. Finally there is a very intelligent and capable leader ready to take the reins and to outline very rational reasons for going. There are plenty of rational reasons for separation. In fact, I see no other reason other than emotion for Quebec to remain a part of Canada. No offence but you seem a lot more emotional about this than separtists like Bakunin.

Sorry, what rational reasons? Having a leader that is willing to lead Quebequers off the proverbial cliff is not a rational reason. Canada is a politicial an economic construct that exists today. It is not perfect but it more or less works - "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is a very rational/pragmatic reason for Quebequers to work with the existing political framework. (BTW - the fact that politicians in democratic country disagree on different policy issues does not mean the system is broken - it means the system is working as expected).

You seem to share the illusion that separatists have that breaking apart a modern integrated economy like Canada is a trivial thing to do. It is not: any attempt, no matter how good the intentions are, will create economic disruptions that far out weigh the 'emotional' benefits of being king of your own little island.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually im not a separatist im a confederalist but since canadian federal politics is stuck and there are no hope specially with the liberal, we don't have the choice to make a move.

As for rational reason there are tons, we can't face up the problem we have right now in this rigid federalism.

First, healthcare is a mess, the cost are growing 2 times faster than the economy growth and soon the baby boomers are going to fill the hospital its clear we won't be able to do anything about it in a federation since the federal isnt paying its 50% share like it was suppose to be.

Second, immigration is not entering fast enough in quebec, if we want to face the demographic deficit we are going to have to increase immigration. The problem is that many immigrant don't even know that there are french people in canada, the federal government must either fully let quebeckers take care of quebec immigration or either target more immigrant from the french community.

Third, we want to be able to have our voice in the international community actually we had to pass trough france to make sure the onesco get to regularize cultural goods and not the omc. We also want to be able to talk about free trade agreement.

Four, there are tons of duplicate services right now between the federal and the quebec government, we are talking of about 1-2 billions of duplicated services. A sample is the duplicated taxes report wich cost on its own half a billion.

Five we are tired to have to fight up to the supreme court for basic stuff has getting our own parental insurance system.

We can also talk of the fiscal imbalance wich could be fix with an "opt out" option but the federal refuse that compromise. That "opt out" with compensation option is vital for quebeckers.

A veto right over constitutional change is also something quebeckers, ontario, the west and the atlantic should get.

A new constitution is also need, one that would be suitable enough for us to sign it.

the federal government has to stop provocking the province.

the deal with municipalities is a sample of federal lack of respect torward the province.

[Knightman]

What Quebec is doing is the right thing and all the provinces should follow the example but there is no need for any of the provinces to seperate we need to restructure the federal government to accomodate provincial independence.

What would Quebec, Alberta, the west or any province or area be seperating from? Not Canada, they are seperating from a federal government structure that has allowed our the governments seated in the House of Commons to ignore the provinces for close to the last forty years, at least thirty seven years since Trudeau's time.

Why do we have functiong representation by population or council style governments already operating in the provinces and yet again elect a partisan government at the federal level that can be nothing more than a weak compromise of the provincial agendas and usually conflicts with those agendas, desires and needs.

Rebuilding the Senate into somthing more useful than a rubber stamp house and a place for political parties of the day to position their " good ole' boys" would go a long way to giving us a more effective federal government structure.

Use the Senate as a regional representation house that reflects the agendas of the provinces and give that House some real power. There is a way do accomplish this.

[I miss Reagan]

Having a leader that is willing to lead Quebequers off the proverbial cliff is not a rational reason. Canada is a politicial an economic construct that exists today. It is not perfect but it more or less works - "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is a very rational/pragmatic reason for Quebequers to work with the existing political framework. (BTW - the fact that politicians in democratic country disagree on different policy issues does not mean the system is broken - it means the system is working as expected).

Says you. I may work well for Ontario and some of the beneficiaries in the Maritimes but it's not working for the rest of us. And ya we can all debate till the cows come home, but there hasn't been any meaningful change. In fact things seem to be getting worse. The system almost seems to encourage corruption with it's centralization and abuse of power, lack of transparency, and lack of accountability. Regionalization and alienation seems to be at an all time high and growing. We are increasing our spending on entitlements at an unsustainible rate. Our health care system is ready to fold because it is poorly designed and people are finding loopholes to pay for better care. Overtaxation is driving away our most talented people. Real income has not increased in 15 years while inflation has. Our GDP is comparible to that of the poorest state in the union; Mississippi. Canada may lead in being socially progressive but is stagnant in all other areas and seems to be regressive with respect to economic freedoms.

You seem to share the illusion that separatists have that breaking apart a modern integrated economy like Canada is a trivial thing to do. It is not: any attempt, no matter how good the intentions are, will create economic disruptions that far out weigh the 'emotional' benefits of being king of your own little island.

I don't think Quebecers are naive enough to believe that there won't be any consequences. But I think they see that in the long run things will be better. I think this is the big ideological difference between Quebec, Alberta and many other Canadians. Ontarians can't understand why Alberta and Quebec just don't let them run things as long as they recieve sufficient funds for their needs. After all the Maritime provinces are fine with this. It's kind of like the Loyalist vs. Patriot mentality. Some people value autonomy and individual freedom more than emotional loyalty to failing political structure.

Actually im not a separatist im a confederalist but since canadian federal politics is stuck and there are no hope specially with the liberal, we don't have the choice to make a move.

This is interesting to me, and I think we'll see more and more of this. We'll see Francophone federalists switching sides because they realize separation isn't so radical after all, it's just evolving.

What would Quebec, Alberta, the west or any province or area be seperating from? Not Canada, they are seperating from a federal government structure that has allowed our the governments seated in the House of Commons to ignore the provinces for close to the last forty years, at least thirty seven years since Trudeau's time.

No argument here. However, I think the belief that there will be any reform is a pipe dream. If Canadians won't reform after the current scandals plagueing our government right now, they never will. The last election sent that message pretty clear and the next election will send it even clearer. There's nothing I'd like to see more than a Liberal majority that'd send Quebec over the edge and solidify more support for Alberta separation.

[Guest eureka]

Give it up, Sparrhawk!

The last three posts are examples of the pig-headed ignorance that tries to "debate" these issues.

Ignorant; oblivious to reality; and careless of what damage they do to themselves and the country so long as they are not punished for their childish tantrums.

How many times have I buried all that piffle with the facts of Canadian life and yet they still dredge it out of the slime the Canada haters dwell in.

I have been doing it for thirty years now and you never get through to them. They understand nothing but force and, as far as Quebec goes, I can hardly wait for it to free that society and allow it to reenter the civilized world.

[I miss Reagan]

The last three posts are examples of the pig-headed ignorance that tries to "debate" these issues.

Ignorant; oblivious to reality; and careless of what damage they do to themselves and the country so long as they are not punished for their childish tantrums.

Eureka, your name calling responses to oposing views are as predictable as the salavation of a Pavlovian dog. Childish tantrums? I think we're all quite reasonble even though we may disagree. You seem to be the one with the anger issues.

How many times have I buried all that piffle with the facts of Canadian life and yet they still dredge it out of the slime the Canada haters dwell in.

I know you Ontario folk consider Canada to be the equivalent of Ontario, but in this politically correct day and age I prefer to be called an Ontario hater rather than a Canada hater.

[Guest eureka]

You are not reasonable, IMR. Not at all! You go back, for one example, to the same tired "we pay too much taxes" to Ottawa in spite of the many times it has been demonstrated that Canada is not a highly taxed country and is, in fact, one of the lowest taxed of the developed countries. Further, the share that goes to the provinces is as great as is Ottawa's ahre. In no other major nation is that the case.

You also repeat ad nauseam the same lie as Bakunin that Canada is too centralized although I have demonstrated to you how Canada is, without any possibility of dispute, that most decentralized nation in the world. I have shown that in terms of jurisdiction and of finance yet it makes no impact and though no one is able to argue against what I say, you still cry "centralization."

At least Bakunin makes no secret of the reasons for his attempted deceptions. He wants a confederation of independent nations for reasons of ethnicity.

That is sick but it is comprehensible.