M. Bosclair clarifies his position

[fellowtraveller]

Following a positive referendum result, all English Canada need do is respond with a form of Meech. What would the "form of Meech" be? How about: Quebec no longer receives any equalization payments, it must continue to contribute to common Canadian expenses but the Quebec government has the sole authority to collect all taxes on Quebec's territory?

If this proposal was offered to Quebec only, and not to all provinces, the Houses of parliament would be burned to the ground with the doors barred to be sure no MPs escaped. I'd be in the front row with my Bic lighter.

We are supposed to be a federation of equals, living in peace and helping each other. If we are not, then we are not a federation.

In any case, there won't be time to negotiate any Meech lite Accord. If the PQ wins the election, they'll win the referendum and in days will pass an independence document.

If the federalists in Quebec have the will and the courage, both questionable at this moment, the only vulnerable opportunity is at the polls in 2007.

[seabee]

I would suggest, therefore, that Quebec goes out of Confederation with what it brought in, territorialiy.

Québec, the province, did not exist before the BNA act. Nor did this act create a "Confederation", but rather a "federal Dominion". This is very clear in the preamble of the act:

WHEREAS the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom:

The present day Province of Québec was created by article 6 of said act.

Unless wants to refer to the 1763 Province of Quebec, which was, before that, the French colony of Canada, which included present day southern Ontario.

One way or another, an exchange could be offered; northern Québec for southern Ontario.

Toronto, start learning French now!

[Guest eureka]

Quebec was simply a name before Confederation. There was, however, Upper and Lower Canada. Lower Canada was renamed Quebec: the Quebec that came in at Confederation.

Reread the preamble" it says quite clearly that there will be a federal unity. It also, and importantly, says that there will be a Constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom.

That one sentence should invalidate all the powers that the provinces have taken possession of since 1867: powers that they were not intended to have.

The French colony of Canada never existed. North America was a disputed region between Britain and France and the dispute was settled in favour of Britain. The Quebec of 1867 was the small area actually settled by French speakers plus a sizeable area that, for Geographic and economic reasons was added.

[seabee]

Quebec was simply a name before Confederation.

The French colony of Canada never existed.

And let the book-burning begin...

[Guest eureka]

The book burning was the habit of the Church that taught Quebeckers their false view of history. It is time to expose yourself to the truth.

[seabee]

The book burning was the habit of the Church that taught Quebeckers their false view of history. It is time to expose yourself to the truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ave to thee, Ô great Holy Pontiff, sole custodian of "the truth" [from the Anglosupremacist perspective, that is|.

[Guest eureka]

August, you have suggested that there would be no further movement out of Quebec of English business. I don't think that is accurate. There would, as well, be a movement of federal institutions and Crown Corporations. One estimate is that in government offices alone there could be as many as 100,000 jobs that would leave Quebec.CIDA;HRDC; Environment Canada; The Canadian Space Agency; CNR;the NFB; Via Railthe Federal Business Development Bank; CMHC, these are just some.

The Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal would also leave as most likely would Power Corporatio. An Imasco has announced its intention to leave following independence. BCE, too.These financial institutions would be forced to leave to comply with federal licensing requirements. There are so many others, too that would find it difficult to continue in the shrunken marketplace.

A 1991 survey found that fully half of the remainiing Anglophones in Quebec would leave if Quebec were to separate. That would bring the number to 80% of the pre-language law population that have cut their ties with Quebec. Th Nationalists might not consider that a great loss, but the economic havoc that would be a consequence would devastate Quebec for years after.

[Bakunin]

August, you have suggested that there would be no further movement out of Quebec of English business. I don't think that is accurate. There would, as well, be a movement of federal institutions and Crown Corporations. One estimate is that in government offices alone there could be as many as 100,000 jobs that would leave Quebec.CIDA;HRDC; Environment Canada; The Canadian Space Agency; CNR;the NFB; Via Railthe Federal Business Development Bank; CMHC, these are just some.

The Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal would also leave as most likely would Power Corporatio. An Imasco has announced its intention to leave following independence. BCE, too.These financial institutions would be forced to leave to comply with federal licensing requirements. There are so many others, too that would find it difficult to continue in the shrunken marketplace.

A 1991 survey found that fully half of the remainiing Anglophones in Quebec would leave if Quebec were to separate. That would bring the number to 80% of the pre-language law population that have cut their ties with Quebec. Th Nationalists might not consider that a great loss, but the economic havoc that would be a consequence would devastate Quebec for years after.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is what ppl used to say in the 60's, sure, many ppl & business left quebec but the quebeckers took their place and remplaced those business. Quebeckers passed from cheap labor to owners. Some may say Montreal lost its place to Toronto but what place was that ? They lost the english business community to gain and build a french business community wich was a necessity to attain a better and more representative economic system.

[tml12]

August, you have suggested that there would be no further movement out of Quebec of English business. I don't think that is accurate. There would, as well, be a movement of federal institutions and Crown Corporations. One estimate is that in government offices alone there could be as many as 100,000 jobs that would leave Quebec.CIDA;HRDC; Environment Canada; The Canadian Space Agency; CNR;the NFB; Via Railthe Federal Business Development Bank; CMHC, these are just some.

The Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal would also leave as most likely would Power Corporatio. An Imasco has announced its intention to leave following independence. BCE, too.These financial institutions would be forced to leave to comply with federal licensing requirements. There are so many others, too that would find it difficult to continue in the shrunken marketplace.

A 1991 survey found that fully half of the remainiing Anglophones in Quebec would leave if Quebec were to separate. That would bring the number to 80% of the pre-language law population that have cut their ties with Quebec. Th Nationalists might not consider that a great loss, but the economic havoc that would be a consequence would devastate Quebec for years after.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is what ppl used to say in the 60's, sure, many ppl & business left quebec but the quebeckers took their place and remplaced those business. Quebeckers passed from cheap labor to owners. Some may say Montreal lost its place to Toronto but what place was that ? They lost the english business community to gain and build a french business community wich was a necessity to attain a better and more representative economic system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah Bakunin,

We lose a lot in the early 80s to Toronto. Remember the Sun Life move when Parizeau was Minister of Finance? Yeah, that was nasty.

Hell, even Bank of Montreal is based in TO.

It isn't right...we lost too much.

[Guest eureka]

The Bank of Montreal still has a Head Office in Montreal and still contributes jobs and the taxes hat Head Offices pay. Most of its functions have been moved to Toronto and Calgary, though. Sun Life was of the 1970's, too, not the 80's.

The movement was not of the 1980's but of the 1970's. Between 1973 and 1979, approximately 40% of Head Offices left Montreal. To 1973, Montreal had far more HO's than Toronto. By 1979, it had far less. They moved because of political instability and language legislation. Bill 22 was the catalyst and Bill 101 was the icing on the cake.

Quebeckers did not take the place of those and replace the businesses. Quebec lost them and the people permanently. Quebec was reduced as it will be reduced just as dramatically after a "winning" referendum. Talk of Pyrrhic victories!

And that was only Head Offices. The number of branches that closed or moved was staggering since their Head Offices would noy accept the "Francization" of their business.

[tml12]

The Bank of Montreal still has a Head Office in Montreal and still contributes jobs and the taxes hat Head Offices pay. Most of its functions have been moved to Toronto and Calgary, though. Sun Life was of the 1970's, too, not the 80's.

The movement was not of the 1980's but of the 1970's. Between 1973 and 1979, approximately 40% of Head Offices left Montreal. To 1973, Montreal had far more HO's than Toronto. By 1979, it had far less. They moved because of political instability and language legislation. Bill 22 was the catalyst and Bill 101 was the icing on the cake.

Quebeckers did not take the place of those and replace the businesses. Quebec lost them and the people permanently. Quebec was reduced as it will be reduced just as dramatically after a "winning" referendum. Talk of Pyrrhic victories!

And that was only Head Offices. The number of branches that closed or moved was staggering since their Head Offices would noy accept the "Francization" of their business.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sun Life was 1979 (I said early 80s, my mistake).

And you're right eureka, Quebecers did not take over those businesses. The "Masters In Our Own House" strategy was from Lesage's Liberal government, not any PQ government.

[Bakunin]

I think it was more than just the liberal government strategy. The funiest thing is that the ADQ and PQ at a time where Liberals... They all began there.

But ill ask only one question, could you imagine Quebec staying the way it was before the 80's ? no bill 101, no economical middle class, no educational system and etc...

Could we imagine our economy still in the hand of an elite english and american community ? No, it had to be done, a transition had to be done just like evry other country face. Quebec still haren't as rich as ontario or alberta but they are slowly closing the gap.

[Guest eureka]

It had to be done by French Quebeckers developing their own businesses not by the failed attempt to expropriate existing businesses. Those businesses were built by entrepreneurs who worked for them. Stealing their possesions is not a strategy that could be justified in any way.

It is entirely the fault of French Quebeckers that they stayed away from advancing the economy of Quebec and their own circumstances. The lack of education is entirely their own fault. English Quebeckers had to develop their own education system without government participation or help: they had to build their own hospitals the same way.

The government of Quebec has expropriated those properties.

And no, Bill 101 was, at its root, simply an attempt to displace English speaking workers and hand their jobs to a newly educated French speaking class. There is no justification - or legality to that either, And it backfired in terms of progress for Quebec. which will never recover what it lost. From Ontario's rival, as it should still be, it went to an ethnocentred backwater without any significance on the world stage and a declining significance in Canada.

[tml12]

It had to be done by French Quebeckers developing their own businesses not by the failed attempt to expropriate existing businesses. Those businesses were built by entrepreneurs who worked for them. Stealing their possesions is not a strategy that could be justified in any way.

It is entirely the fault of French Quebeckers that they stayed away from advancing the economy of Quebec and their own circumstances. The lack of education is entirely their own fault. English Quebeckers had to develop their own education system without government participation or help: they had to build their own hospitals the same way.

The government of Quebec has expropriated those properties.

And no, Bill 101 was, at its root, simply an attempt to displace English speaking workers and hand their jobs to a newly educated French speaking class. There is no justification - or legality to that either, And it backfired in terms of progress for Quebec. which will never recover what it lost. From Ontario's rival, as it should still be, it went to an ethnocentred backwater without any significance on the world stage and a declining significance in Canada.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes and no...what is true is that Toronto has benefitted from Montreal's loss...

[fellowtraveller]

Reread the preamble" it says quite clearly that there will be a federal unity. It also, and importantly, says that there will be a Constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom.

Is that deliberately vague, since the UK does not have a Constitution?

[Guest eureka]

Actually, the UK does have a Constitution: perhaps the best kind of Constitution in that it is not bound in one enabling document. The UK Constitution consists of the body of Common Law and all those Statutes that are relevant to government.

Possibly the best source of information about the British Constitution is Bagehot's work. It is more than a century old now but still the classic.

The great advantage of the British Constitution is its flexibility and the ability to adapt to the realities of changing times. We don't have that and neither does the USA which has always gone through agonies to bring itself into its time.

[fellowtraveller]

Please provide a link to the UK Constitution.

If you like, I'll do the same for the Canadian and US versions.

[Guest eureka]

I doubt that you can do that since any Constitution is not one document. I suggest, though, that you stir yourself for long enough to look up Bagehot. I mentioned before his classic work on the British Constitution.

[fellowtraveller]

You stated the UK had a Constitution. We both know it does not, but you lack the integrity to admit it. Too bad for you, a matter of indifference for me.

US constitution

Canadian Constitution

RESEARCH YOUR POST

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc).

[JerrySeinfeld]

You stated the UK had a Constitution.  We both know it does not, but you lack the integrity to admit it.  Too bad for you, a matter of indifference for me.

US constitution

Canadian Constitution

RESEARCH YOUR POST

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

say, isn't that bosclair dude a gay cokehead?

[August1991]

But ill ask only one question, could you imagine Quebec staying the way it was before the 80's ? no bill 101, no economical middle class, no educational system and etc...

Bakunin, modern Quebec did not magically appear in 1976.

say, isn't that bosclair dude a gay cokehead?

If you only read the Toronto Star, he might be.

The great advantage of the British Constitution is its flexibility and the ability to adapt to the realities of changing times. We don't have that and neither does the USA which has always gone through agonies to bring itself into its time.

To be didactic, there are two approaches to law or rules, typically referred to as the "common law" or the "civil code".

The common law is like English language grammar, punctuation or spelling. It depends primarily on usage, what works, but this can change over time. Different places do it differently.

The civil code is like French language grammar, punctuation or spelling. It depends on informed people (experts) examining the problem and deciding what is the best solution to a particular problem. These "experts" establish a right and wrong way, until a new discrepancy is referred to them.

Relativity is civil code but gravity is common law.

The US Bill of Rights, the Canadian Charter and the criminal code are examples of a "civil code" approach. Most of contract law and property law in the US and English Canada are examples of a "common law" approach.

The British "constitution" is very much a "common law" approach to rules. The US Constitution is in line with a "civil code" approach to rules.

It had to be done by French Quebeckers developing their own businesses not by the failed attempt to expropriate existing businesses. Those businesses were built by entrepreneurs who worked for them. Stealing their possesions is not a strategy that could be justified in any way.

Nobody "stole" anything from anybody. A legitimate government passed a law requiring that people speak the language of the majority.

Bill 101 was a very good law. More than anything Pierre Trudeau ever did, it has kept Canada together.

English Canada has numerous laws pertaining to cultural content and ownership of media enterprises. The CBC is a state organization.

The government of Quebec has expropriated those properties.

Uh, like Petro-Canada?

----

Quebec has 'come out' August. They enjoy more influence than any single other province.

That is the false perception in English-Canada. Thelonious, please understand that English-Canada has not appeased Quebec, it has appeased the Liberal Party.

In practical terms, ordinary people from Quebec have less influence in Ottawa than ordinary people from Alberta. Ottawa thinks and works in English - it may not understand Lethbridge well but it is clueless about Chicoutimi.

Following a positive referendum result, all English Canada need do is respond with a form of Meech. What would the "form of Meech" be? How about: Quebec no longer receives any equalization payments, it must continue to contribute to common Canadian expenses but the Quebec government has the sole authority to collect all taxes on Quebec's territory?

You are making the argument that a referendum is nothing but a negotiating tactic to extract concessions. The words 'knife at the throat' may have been used by only one person but it _is_ the philosophy that underscores how Quebec politicians deal with Canada. Given that context, can you really be surprised that Plan B sounds like a reasonable approach to a lot of Canadians.

Sparhawk, if Plan B were merely a negotiating tactic, then I'd say fine. I still think though that the best negotiating tactic of "English Canada", faced with a positive referendum - or its possibility, would be to offer decent "terms". The PQ would immediately dissolve as some members would accept and others insist on more.

Trudeau's argument was that if English-Canada ever gave an inch to the nationalists, they would never see the end of it - "the separatists will just ask for more," Trudeau said. No appeasement!

[i was always surprised how Trudeau would happily negotiate with Castro or Brezhnev but draw a hard-line when it came to people like Pierre Bourgault, refusing to shake their hands.]

[i'm also surprised to see people refuse appeasement with separatists but happily prefer to appease Saddam and Kim Il-Jung.]

Trudeau and Mulroney changed the country in ways that make it more accommodating for Quebequers.

Trudeau rightly changed the federal administration to admit French. Mulroney failed in his attempt to make English-Canada work with Quebec.

What the gay kid has done is build a bomb and keeps threatening to blow up the house unless the family concedes to every demand.

That's the perception in English Canada, it's not the perception in Quebec.

I am sorry to use the term "English Canada" and "Quebec" as if there were "Two" Canadas. I realize well that "English Canada" is an absurd description of nine provinces, and millions of people of various origins and languages.

In my mind, these nine provinces (and people) are North American but distinct from the US. I don't know what arrangement they want among themselves, and with Quebecers, but there is a need for a new arrangement. The federal Liberal Party constitutes a group of people dead set against any change to their privileges.

Pierre Trudeau always smothered such discussion despite the fact that the centuries of history of northern North America show that such discussions and changing arrangements were common.

We are people that inhabit the northern half of a continent. This will not change. But let us once again arrange our affairs differently.

[Bakunin]

QUOTE(Bakunin)

But ill ask only one question, could you imagine Quebec staying the way it was before the 80's ? no bill 101, no economical middle class, no educational system and etc...

Bakunin, modern Quebec did not magically appear in 1976.

Your right, it started in the 60's ;P but what i meant is i can't imagine quebec today without the quiet revolution. Its like to imagine the world without the babyboomers generation...

I read the texts and i see an interesting disscussion. How did quebec end up with two opposite movement, the federalist and the sovreignist and how they are perceived.

Why did the debate became such polarized ? Sparhawk say something interesting, he perceive sovreignist as ppl who threaten canada to get concession.

Maybe, because the way we perceive things, it ended up that a quebecker can't ask for a reorganisation of canada without being seen as a separatist trying to threaten canada to get concession.

Then, provincial federalist are seen as ppl that ask for canada for more flexibility, but how can they be taken seriously by quebeckers when they fail to get listened by canadian evry time they are in power.

And federal federalist (trudoiste) are ppl who doesn't want to make any compromise.

When we think about it, is it just about perception ? what is the difference between "threatening canada to get concession" and "asking canada for more flexibility". Does flexibility has to be a concession ? If it is, then why is it so hard ?

Who lose by giving more flexibility to the province ? Anyone will die because of it ? will it generate extrodinary loss of money ? Why is it so hard to conceide more flexibility to the provinces ?

I already imagine eureka's answer.... no eureka, don't talk to me about other country... tell me why it is to hard to conceide more flexibility to the provinces ? Why was Meech too much for the ROC ?

But the most important question, why does it have to be a concession ? we all know that federalism since the 60's generated 2 referendums, a shitload of fights and nothing good.

If its too hard then i think we can't blame ppl that want to end this ethernal fights in quebec between the federal government and the provincial government.

Maybe quebeckers and the ROC won't like the solutions proposed but canada has no chance to remain to the status quo for another 25 years... ppl are tired of fighting and want things to move on.

[Guest eureka]

Of couse, Britain has a constitution, Fellowtraveller: don't be absurd. I have told you how you can find out about it in a painless way. You don't even have to read the work. Just search the name and take in a summary. There is no such thing as a nation without a Constitution: even a primitive tribe would have one through the conventions of its society.

[Guest eureka]

August, I am often puzzled by you. You obviously have a first class mind yet you post absurdities. If it is to provoke discussion, I would prefer argument to support the statements.

Of course the government of Quebec stole the properties of the English Institutions. It has never compensated those who built them for the government takeover.

Bill 101 is not a good law. It is the vilest Act anywhere in any modern state. It has been condemned everywhere including at the United Nations.

A state can pass a law requiring the population to speak a certain Official Language? You have to be joking! That, anywhere but Canada, would be cause for civil war and rightly so. Not since the Hungary of the Austro-Hungarian Empire passed similar laws for its minorities has there been such a Law. Anywhere! And that lead to a century of war and onternal strife and the eventual dissolution of the Empire and of Hungary itself. As eventually Quebec may be dissolved.

If you want to get into Bill 101, I will accommodate you willingly. I have never really got int the details of that one because I don't think there is anyone on the forum who could debate it.

Bill 101 is as totalitarian in content and intent as any Fascist or Nazi Act. I will give you a critique by clause if you wish. Quebec is not the democracy it preens itself on being. It is a far cry from being a democracy and will not be again until that sordid racism is buried along with the imitiators of the ethnically based society they created.

[Guest eureka]

Bakunin, you pile absurdity in absurdity. You should first avail youself of a dictionary to properly understand the meaning of flexibility. Then, if it is still close to what you think mow, try to explaon how there is no flexibility in the arrangement of Canada.

What possible flexibility could be extended to the provinces when they have all the important jurisdictions now?