My nationalistic pride

[muppet]

"I'm sure helped the cause in favor of French schools. So if anything...

At least! It doesn't stop the provinces to keep up with these kind of arrasment and these French minorities have to fight at the supreme court again and again.

"I know nothing of the Montfort Hospital."

It is the biggest issue between French and English in Ontario. It is the only one French hospital for a french population of 800,000 peoples.

"the question is why does a french population...

Nope! You have not understand. Winnipeg (mostly English) has merge with St-Boniface (mostly French) long time ago and the provincial gov't made that decision. Together, the English is the majority. Recently, Winnipeg has decided to get off the road the Arrêt/Stop sign to replace them with Stop sign. The French population got upset for two reasons. First, it is an insult to them and second, it is a waste of money. Completly non usefull and insulting to the French. It is like this in North America since 1759.

These are all matters that 'we' have convinced the federal government of Canada to become 'provincial' matters. These matters are those that 'we' have 'demanded' to no longer be the authority or jurisdiction of the federal legislature. Which is my point regarding provinces asking for so much authority such that consistency and the application of individual and group rights become infringed by provincial legislation. These erroneous legislations, or administrative/executive decisions by the provinces then have to be corrected by either a federal court or the SCC in order to not infringe upon the Canadian Consitution or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

[muppet]

"Why should the 'Acadian national day' be recognized by the feds? The Chinese New Year is not."

Then... to you, the Acadians are nothing else than immigrants. It doesn't matter if they are living into this land way before the English arrived. Can you tell them that eye to eye?

"How come Quebec's police force didn't arrest them? "

Because they do not have power outside Québec. duh!? Maybe you don't know that the Acadians are mostly in New-Brunswick? Do you know that Fredericton is in NB close to the american borders?

"come Quebec's provincially appointed judges didn't pass a stiff sentence? "

Because it was refused at the provincial superior court. They can try now at the supreme court. In a intelligent, normal and respectful country, they should not have to do this.

I thought I had mentioned this before, but maybe I didn't. I am not born Canadian. I am an AMERICAN. So, no. I am not completely fluent in Canadian geography.

In any event. My points have nothing to do with immigrants vs. natives of Canada. They are more objective than that:

1. Provinces have the federally granted power to create provincial holidays. Provincial celebrations so created, are then the exclusive jurisidiction of said province. It is the Provincial courts and police that are therefore empowered and charged with the duties to uphold the peace and laws of both Canada and the provinces.

2. I do not agree that 'they' should not have to do this. This is a democracy. Be it an independent New Brunswick, Ontario, or Alberta, or provinces within a democratic Canada. It makes no difference. The fact is, in a democracy there will be protesters, and it will be up to the police and courts to make good on what they do wrong. I agree though, that protesters and rioters etc. generally should not have the right to do such anti-cultural things; however, in a democracy we can not 'personally' become the police, lawyers, and judges -- it is simply not the democratic way. Unfortunately this means some 'obvious' crimes against good judgement and humane behaviour also must go through the court process. But 'I' still prefer the democratic way more than the communist way of government.

 

[muppet]

Since you have not considered at all our propositions of a REAL confederation type where the sovereignty of both French and english part as two distinct nations, it tells me that we are doing the right thing. Each time the ball is in your hand, you do not capitalized with it. Is it because my English writing is not good enough to understand or something? (sarcams either!)

No. I 'personally' am neither against nor for separatism per se. I move back to Los Angeles in less than 6 months, so Canadian politics will be of consequence only to Washington, but not me personally.

What I feel is that 'we' are placing too much blame on Canadian unity or the Canadian federal government and its 'ways' when our 'gripes' (for a lack of a better word) is really with the provincial governments, who 'we' have told the federal government that 'we' want them to have said authority and jurisdiction. And the provincial governments to which we have 'demanded' to be empowered with said jurisidiction over said matters are the ones who are 'f*cking up'

And then 'we' begin fighting over separatism be it Quebec, British Columbia, or Alberta, when the feds have indeed listened to our demands and 'we' are the ones who created this problem.

In terms more familiar to me, and somewhat analogous, it is akin to blaming Washington, the FBI or CIA for increased murder rates, or racist-crimes in a particular state, when neither federal agency is charged with the prevention of this crime, but it is the individual state's authority and jurisdiction to oversee these matters. The 'we' in America prefer this local power, and 'we' do not blame Washington when our state government, courts, and police are the ones to blame.

Edit:
Canadian provinces have like powers to American states. However, my point is: having seen how pitiful the provinces are with both the creation of legislation and the administration thereof, and the keeping of such legislation and policies with the Canadian Constitution and Charter, how can 'we' reasonably suggest that it is 'better' to grant even more powers to the provincial governments?

 

[muppet]

Benz:

On a final note. It is not that I disagree with your feelings. If the population in Quebec truly feels that they are so distinctly different from the rest of Canada, then Yes. They should be an independent country.

What I disagree with is that the problems you have brought up are not the problems of a distinct society. They are the problems that every region in every country faces when dealing with the central government.

However, I don't think it is 'democratically' possible for even greater rights to be afforded Quebec. Not that I disagree that Quebec is different. But also, BC is different from AB, and also different from ON, and PEI, and NWT. So each province, like each state is different. So, to grant Quebec even greater rights, one would have to grant all provinces greater rights to be fair and democratic. And when you grant too much authority, then every province eventually become its own country. You have to stop comparing Quebec to 'the rest of canada'. There is no 'rest of canada'. One can not argue that the 'rest of canada' is not uniquely different from each of its other parts. Just as TX is not exactly the same as CA. And each of these state's governments want to have their say too.

So, in a sense, I do actually agree with you, just not necessarily with your reasons.

 

[Benz]

"The fact is, in a democracy there will be protesters, and it will be up to the police and courts to make good on what they do wrong. "

To make good? At this point, I do not care what it should be or not.

The Acadians went to the justice and they hoped they could at least get a tool or a law enforcement to prevent any futher racist acts like this in the future. The justice gave its support to the xenophobics and nothing will stop them to do it again next year.

If I understand right what you are saying is, the provinces should have never asked anything and no problems would occurs?

Even the communists were not that exagerating!

"What I disagree with is that the problems you have brought up are not the problems of a distinct society. They are the problems that every region in every country faces when dealing with the central government."

The reason why the central gov't do not matter about what it is happening is, they say that we are all the same and even if we desagree, it doesn't matter because the majority must win.

The problem with that is, we are not the same, we never were and we won't be it ever.

"So, to grant Quebec even greater rights, one would have to grant all provinces greater rights to be fair and democratic. "

Typical silly answers we hear from the west. First, we do not ask to have granted power over the other provinces, it only concerns us and our own politics. Second, I don't see anything democratic of being totally ruled by another nation than mine.

"There is no 'rest of canada'. One can not argue that the 'rest of canada' is not uniquely different from each of its other parts. "

I don't care if they do not have the same sox colors. What I see is, they all agree to put us isolated and dominated without a say on the rules of this country they can all agreed but us. That is the only one thing that concerns me. Whether they feel they are the same or not, I do not care. It is not of my business.

"So, in a sense, I do actually agree with you, just not necessarily with your reasons. "

It is because you do not understand the whole meaning of being from a different culture than the majority.

Let's take a hypothesis situation that may never happen. It is just to show how big it is for us. Imagine that something terrible happened in China. The whole country must evacuate. 30% of the population died and the rest are moving anywhere on the globe. 400,000,000 chineses move to the states. The English speakers now become a minority into their own land. The Chineses adapt a little bit themselve to the country and in a nearby future, they take the control of politics and the power. The white anglos are now in the opposition. Only 5 out of 50 states are still English majority. Now that the Chineses have the control of the majority of the country, they changed the rules (the constitution) like they wish to. The English do not agree but, they are not the majority anymore. So they can't say a damn thing. they must obey to the majority.

Does this sounds acceptable? Should the English speaking nation should at least have a say even if they do not have the majority anymore?

I know the example do not look realistic but, it is not the matter.

I only want to show you that no matter how big is the English majority into Canada, it doesn't give them the right to rule us like this. If they want to share this country with us, we should have a say either. If they don't, we leave. It is as simple as this.

We are NOT the same nation. If you want to prove me the opposite, say it in French. Then I may understand.

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by Benz
"So, in a sense, I do actually agree with you, just not necessarily with your reasons. "

It is because you do not understand the whole meaning of being from a different culture than the majority.

As far as I can see, from your arguments, this is a red herring designed merely to squelch debate.

The issues you have raised are merely jurisdictional in nature and have nothing to do with culture, different, the same, or otherwise. Please tell me how control over the prosecution of young offenders has anything to do with francophone culture?

Again, to go back to your EU model which seems to be the goal of separation. Do you think that the EU member states don't have jurisdictional beefs? Are the separatists going to threaten to separate from an EU type relationship the first time they don't get to do what you want?

As I see it, "culture" is a sham used by separatists to create issues which do not exist. Without it, there is no "us vs them", no "woe is me, everyone is against us". Instead of 10 different people, 9 of which merely disagree with the separatist model of the country, culture allows you to spin it as 9 anglos ganging up on the poor francophone minority.

It also hides the fact that this really boils down to a group of individuals who would rather be big fish in a small pond than small fish in a bigger pond.

/bruce

 

[Benz]

"The issues you have raised are merely jurisdictional in nature and have nothing to do with culture, different, the same, or otherwise. Please tell me how control over the prosecution of young offenders has anything to do with francophone culture? "

Because it is one among many other domains where we act differently and make different choices. Our society have different values and we should not being force to take yours without a say.

Where is the problem of having two distincts societies into this country? Give me one reason why the French minority should allow the English taking all the decisions alone even if we are totally against what concerns us. Why?

"Are the separatists going to threaten to separate from an EU type relationship the first time they don't get to do what you want? "

I don't see why we would do this and what we could win of doing this. Unless the ROC decides once again that he has the power to decide anything concerning us, without us having a say. I doubt they would do so once we will be sovereign. I doubt the Europeans would do such thing to each other either. You see, I am pretty confident it is possible to stay together as long as we do respect each other's sovereignty.

"As I see it, "culture" is a sham used by separatists to create issues which do not exist. Without it, there is no "us vs them", no "woe is me, everyone is against us". 9 of which merely disagree with the separatist model of the country"

Don't be a simplist man. Even Québec federalist want a better situation than the status quo. Robert Bourrassa, a federalist leading the province from 1986 to 1993, couldn't get any deal with Canada. He was a federalist and you refused his offer. Actually, even if his offer was giving less power to Québec than our does, it was kind of too much asked to the others. Because it would mean that Québec could still be a province, benefit from the federal and having a special status. At least, we (the bad evil separatist) are more honest than that we do not want an advantage over the others. We simply want to manage our stuff and do not bother you about your choices. Only sharing power over stuff we are sharing and that's it.

"culture allows you to spin it as 9 anglos ganging up on the poor francophone minority."

Hey! Don't be whiner like this. I have clearly exposed what are the political issues and what are our goals. Our claims are legetimates and if you do not agree, keep the debate in a more clever manner. We never asked pitty or something. We only ask the respect of each other's sovereignty.

I may judge severaly the past but, I am very opened mind about the future.

Again I ask you. What is the problem with having two distinct societies?

By the way, as I said to our friend muppet in a previous answer, if you want to argue about the "we are the same" thing, do it in French. If we are "the same", it should'nt be a problem. N'est-ce pas?

We are so different and they still do not understand why we want to do our stuff by our own. It still amaze me big time!

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by Benz
We are so different and they still do not understand why we want to do our stuff by our own. It still amaze me big time!

You are so arrogant, Benz. You have no idea what I do or don't understand.

If you must know, I have no problem with a re-negotiated relationship with Quebec. Especially if it puts an end to this nonsense, I would be willing to put just about anything on the table. I actually have no real problem with considering Quebec a "distinct society".

However, there are those that feel that what Quebec wants is extortion. Once paid, the extortionist always comes back for more, so perhaps the best answer is separation. I can live with that too, since, in the end, it will mean virtually nothing.

I would humbly suggest that, if you want a better reception to your point of view in the future:

1) Do not use "we" to refer to Quebec or Quebecers, since you do not speak for even a majority.

2) Do not use "you" to refer to the rest of Canada, since it has been made endlessly clear to you that they are not a homogenous mass and cannot be treated as such.

Adieu,
/bruce

 

[muppet]

Originally posted by Benz
"So, in a sense, I do actually agree with you, just not necessarily with your reasons. "

It is because you do not understand the whole meaning of being from a different culture than the majority.

In debate, one is theoretically to debate fact, opinion, and question. One is to accept and concede points. One is not to claim the the lack of knowledge of another. I try to limit myself to debateble issues.

I am a VISIBLE minority. Mostly an American in Canada. Rarely an American in America. Simply a banana in China. I understanding not whatsoever the 'whole meaning of being from a different culture than the majority'. I therefore concede this point as well.

banana = yellow on outside, white on inside.

Edited for spelling and comprehension.

 

[andycapp]

If Benz is an example of your typical Quebecer Canada would be well rid of the province. Why not offer Quebec to France as a colony? That would soon turn the Quebecois off their love of every thing French!

 

[Evie]

Québec *IS* definitely distinct in term of culture.

Canada (in general terms) :
Primary Language : English
Primary Religion : English Protestantism
Primary Culture of Origin : English
Main Cultural Influence at present : American

Québec (in general terms)
Primary Language : French
Primary Religion : Roman Catholic
Primary Culture of Origin : French.
Main Cultural Influence at present : American

One point in common - and if that's enough to warrant saying the two societies are the same, then most of the world is one society, one culture, etc. Three different. While you may try bringing up the latino-american culture of various major american areas as a counter (or the asian of the west coast), let me remind you of a thing...

They are immigrant who chose to become a part of a country with an english majority, for the most part. Whereas Québec was conquered by force of arm - and thus never really offered a serious choice as to being with Canada or not.

Just keep that in mind.

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
They are immigrant who chose to become a part of a country with an english majority, for the most part. Whereas Québec was conquered by force of arm - and thus never really offered a serious choice as to being with Canada or not.

It's about time to give that up, as well. It happened over 250 years ago. The people of Tibet have a beef. The people of Quebec do not. I guess they can hold a grudge for as long as they like, but the people they have the grudge against are long dead.

I am a third generation Canadian on my mothers side, 4th on my fathers. I've got Scottish, Irish, Lithuanian, and Swedish blood my past. While my forebears MAY have chosen Canada for it's British ties, for the most part I suspect they were simply looking for a place of opportunity or perhaps trying to escape trouble in their native land. I strongly suspect that is the motivation driving todays Chinese, Indian, and other immigrants, not whether the country is "English" or "French", whatever that means.

/bruce

 

[Benz]

dingbat,

"You are so arrogant, Benz."

I became like this a little bit more each time I had to face this reality. If it is the only way to shake your ideas, why not?

[Especially if it puts an end to this nonsense, I would be willing to put just about anything on the table. I actually have no real problem with considering Quebec a "distinct society". ]

So what's the problem then?

"However, there are those that feel that what Quebec wants is extortion. "

Yeah, I know, so funny. What do you think about that? Do our proposals sound like extortions?

"1) Do not use "we" to refer to Quebec or Quebecers, since you do not speak for even a majority."

I do speak for the French majority. 60% of the French voted yes in the last referendum. While 99% of the English voted no and 80% of the the others voted no.

"2) Do not use "you" to refer to the rest of Canada, since it has been made endlessly clear to you that they are not a homogenous mass and cannot be treated as such."

Well, this is your first message where you tell me that you are ready to put good offers on the table. Actually, I see no sign of that kind of opening from your politicians. Tell me what you are ready to sign up with us and I'll pass from arrogant to very welcoming.

Don't forget that we are living into this frustrating situation every year since the beginning.

"It's about time to give that up, as well. It happened over 250 years ago. "

Then stop this non-sens. All you have to do is recognize that we are a different society.

"I've got Scottish, Irish, Lithuanian, and Swedish blood my past. "

And I have got French, Irish, Norwegian and natives boold, so what?

"trying to escape trouble in their native land"

I don't think moving more than 6 millions people out of 7 is a thinkful solution.

[not whether the country is "English" or "French", whatever that means. ]

Then give it up. What is the problem? Share it! Do not keep it for yourself. We have two different societies with different languages. Why is the majority should win over all? Don't you get it? What are you afraid to lose if we share the constitution? That is what I do not understand. Each time we talk about that, like you said, some guys think we want extortions. However, the same guys cannot offer anything to put us at the same equal basis. Is there any solutions to come up with somthing serious?

Our prime minister said at the last conference on federalism, "Give me the recognition of Québec nation and a deal lamost like the Meech accord and I'll sign it tomorrow morning". Landry also said when he was in Europe, "if Canada offers us a european-like confederation type, I would be glad to sign it".

But all we ear from Canada is "shut-up you whiners". Very constructive! don't you think?

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

andycapp,

J'imagine que tu dois être assez expérimenté dans l'horreur de connaître la langue française. Tu ne te salirais pas à la parler n'est-ce pas? Au moins, là où tu te trouves sur le globe, tu as une bonne raison de parler à l'envers du bon sens.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by Benz

Why is the majority should win over all?

Our prime minister said at the last conference on federalism, "Give me the recognition of Québec nation and a deal lamost like the Meech accord and I'll sign it tomorrow morning". Landry also said when he was in Europe, "if Canada offers us a european-like confederation type, I would be glad to sign it".

Benz,

Why should the majority rule? Because that is what elections are all about eh?

I'll ask again, you must have missed my previous question in this thread. I am just a curious american: What is in it for the rest of Canada? In the EU, most countries in theory come to the table as equal partners, offering a divergent set of economic opportunities that together could form a powerful bloc.

In Quebec, it would seem that is not the case, and an independant, but EU style partnership in Quebec might well be a burden (as a ratio of services provided against contribution).

Why wouldn't Canada just want to say good bye to Quebec entirely rather than accept the EU scenario?

Again, I don't know the detailed economics of Quebec versus say Ontario or British Columbia, but I would like to understand it.

 

[DingBat]

This is a good exercise. I've stated that I don't really have any objections to re-negotiating the relationship with Quebec and I mean it. So let's try to hammer out an agreement.

What does an "EU style partnership" mean? From what I gather, the main demand is to be allowed to develop "made in Quebec" legislation without federal intereference. Fair enough.

Perhaps Benz could list a set of initial conditions that would make Quebec happy.

What are federal responsibilities and what are provincial under this new model?

/bruce

 

[Benz]

bill,

"Why should the majority rule? Because that is what elections are all about eh?"

As long as we talk about the same nation. Which is not the case. There is two distinct societies and that does not include the natives, a different issue.

You suggest that Québec has nothing to offer to the Canada? That we would be an expense for them and nothing else? You are wrong.

Québec is the second most powerful province in Canada. Well, Alberta is maybe in better economic position than both Ontario and Québec because of its ressources such the gaz and petrol but, their economy is not as diversified as us. I guess they will develop it pretty in a nearby future and get in first place.

"Again, I don't know the detailed economics of Quebec versus say Ontario or British Columbia, but I would like to understand it."

The economy of Québec alone is the 15th in the world. All Canada together is 7th or something. These are statistics I saw few years ago.

Here is some links I founded on google. If you can read French, I have some better but, I think these are pretty good too.

Take a look around on this one
http://www.quebecameriques.com/anglais/A-QueSum/A2-PointVu/a2som-point-vue-quebec.htm

http://www.conway.com/quebec/9808/pg04.htm
http://www.conway.com/quebec/9808/pg03.htm
http://www.mic.gouv.qc.ca/economie/Calepin-tab-01_en.html
http://www.premier.gouv.qc.ca/premier/english/quebec/main_horizon.htm

 

[Evie]

First Dingbat, in answer to your former post, considering that the original conquest was followed by years of the english trying to assimilate and/or lording over the french canadians, no, I doubt the pain will go away too soon. The problem itself has gone away a few years ago already...but the lingering memories still remain, especially among the older ones.

And I was not complaining about it, to any extent. Simply stating it was a major difference when it cames to determining why Québec could be said to form a wholy different "society" and culture. The immigrants have their own cultures, but it's a point one can't help but notice that they CHOSE to move to a country where nothing will be set to accomodate their culture. Whereas Québec was not given such a choice (much as the natives), hence explaining why Québec has the right to ask for certain special treatment (which it gets, for the most part, thanks mostly to the provincial authority in educational matters, for example).

As for the idea of tryign to "play at" negociating a settlement, it sounds very good.

May I offer my services as moderator for such a debate?

 

[Benz]

Now you are talking dingbat!

First, recognition of Québec nation.

Second, have a say to the confederation's constitution. An agreement MUST be reach before any futher changes are allowed at this level.

Third, instead of having ten provinces, it should one Québec state and...

you know, I don't mind how the ROC want themselve to be. If they want to be one global federal state with 9 provinces or separate in 3 regional states (Atlantic, Ontario and West), or simply divided up everything in 9 states, it really does not matter to me. However, I think it is clear that the Atlantic provinces are not ready to do such move. They are weak and dependent big time of the main federal system. I think (and I can be wrong) that Manitoba and Saskatchewan would rather want to be part of a Western state rather than be a single state on their own. BC and Alberta are (I think) quite strong enough to be individual states. That said, I am pretty open to whatever the ROC want itself to be, all that I am saying is, what I want Québec to be.

Since Québec is the only one to debate about such sovereignty for years and it is very too soon for the ROC, maybe it would be better to divide it like I first proposed. 2 states, Québec and the ROC, sharing some powers together. If other regions/provinces want to become a state either, we have no problems with that.

Fourth, we can share few stuff like army, money, wide open boundaries, interstates laws and agreements. I don't have an exautive list of all the details but, we can go a little bit futher than the EU union.

No more federal intrusions into our powers. The states collect the tax and give back its share to the central gov't.

If you have other suggestions of something to share, say it. Maybe I forget something.

Oh, by the way, the equalization. If the ROC want us to participate, I have no problem with that. We will pay our share of the pooling but... of course, this time the calculation must be revealed. In the past, Québec seemed to benefit from it but, we had no control about the Federal's R&D investment all the other federal's programs. I am pretty confident that we can contribute more than benefit once we will be sovereign but, many Canadians think that it is the opposite. So I won't insist. I'm only offering it.

It is only a start and since we never succeed to come at an agreement in the past, there is room for negociations my friend!

---------

Yes Oda, it is ok to me!

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by Benz
Now you are talking dingbat!

First, recognition of Québec nation.

Others may have trouble with this, but I don't see that it really matters. If you have jurisdictional controls you want, does it really matter if they call you a nation, a province, a realm, or an enclave?

Recognition is de facto given if this new model is adopted.

Second, have a say to the confederation's constitution. An agreement MUST be reach before any futher changes are allowed at this level.

I know we'll argue here, but Quebec has always had a say in the constitution. It just didn't like what the rest of the country had to say.

I suspect what you are proposing really does depend on there being two entities, Quebec and Canada, each with an equal say.

Otherwise, you are talking about giving Quebec a larger than proportional representation. I can't get behind that, democratically speaking.

So, this basically boils down to the condition below:

Third, instead of having ten provinces, it should one Québec state and...

This is the crux of the matter.

If we throw the door open, then some of the other provinces may want to go it alone. I would hope they would still want to be involved in this new Canadian union, but the risk is that they would not want this. Wholesale disintegration of the country serves no one well.

Let's suppose there are the 5 entities you suggest: Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies, BC. The next challenge is then to decide jurisdiction between the union government and the entity government. Once that is decided, we then could very well find ourselves in the same bind we have today: what if Quebec decides it doesn't like the allocation of jurisdiction?

Does Quebec get the same representation as the remaining four? If not, then you have to face the possibility that there would be a 4-1 vote against Quebec on some jurisdictional challenge. You reduced the odds, but not the problem.

Even an EU member has the right to leave the EU. Sure, it's less likely, but you have to admit that this doesn't guarantee our children won't have to deal with the same problem.

Fourth, we can share few stuff like army, money, wide open boundaries, interstates laws and agreements. I don't have an exautive list of all the details but, we can go a little bit futher than the EU union.

You have to be careful there. What if the other parties in the union decided to go to war? If Quebec were participating in the army, if would have no choice but to go along as well. You can't have an army whose loyalties are suspect. You may want to rethink that one since it has caused friction in the past.

Money isn't an issue since, in 10 years or so, we're all going to be using the yankee buck anyway.

Borders won't be an issue. It would be silly to have stricter borders than the ones we share with the U.S.

The only other issue I can see is the Maritimes. As you say, they may not want to be cast adrift. Guarantees of access to the Maritimes through Quebec would probably be necessary (that is, aircraft rights, free passage for transportation and goods to the Maritimes to the rest of Canada through Quebec).

/bruce

 

[Benz]

"I know we'll argue here, but Quebec has always had a say in the constitution. It just didn't like what the rest of the country had to say. "

dingbat... in 1982, the ROC changed the constitution without our approval. How do you call that? If they can change it even if we 100% desagree, it means we have no say. No matter what we think or choose, they can change it as they wish.

"what if Quebec decides it doesn't like the allocation of jurisdiction? "

If we really can't have any agreements on anything, then perhaps separation would be better. I doubt it. If 9 provinces wants to shre something and we don't, I have no problem if they do between themselves. As long as we do not have to pay for it or, if we do, that we can get our part and manage it as we wish.

That was the Lévesque's offer in 1981. He offered to the Canada that every provinces could opt out of a federal's program and get its full compensation. This option is now supported by many westeners.

Army... well, you are right. A plan must be made up in case such thing happens.

Money... very possible. However, we must careful and not fall like Argentina did.

About your last issue, yes, a good negociated plan should be in place to insure everyone not enter into tricky conflict. On that matter, the new confederal gov't may have a big power on that.

Whether the ROC wants to stay as one peace or not, it is up to you. We do not enter into that business and my gov't is more careful than me. I guess two states and yours divided into 9 provinces is a good starting point. But as you can see, my concerns is about Québec first. Any other proposals are welcomed.

If there is five entities, it can also means 5 vetos on constitutional changes. Too many vetos can also freeze any further changes. That is why I am also careful about this approach.