My nationalistic pride

[Benz]

vrylakas,

"That would be the equivalent to Washington slapping high tariffs on Quebec products, which again would make Quebec commerce much more expensive. I can assure you that this would have a very significantly negative impact on the economy in Quebec. "

First of all, you will have to face the opposition of Northem-East sates. Recently, Bernard Landry did a business travel with many Quebecers and he met the governers of our southern neighbors. They were all glad they could do business with us and one of them said clearly that if Québec gets its independence, it won't change a thing with his mind. Because business, is business. No one is interested to lose money. I don't beleive the americans will do something stupid like that. They are way wiser than that. Do I have to recall you that if USA raises its tariff, we will do the same? Globally, we would be more affected of course but, I don't think the american business people that are doing business with us will appreciate. Almost if there is no valid reason to do so. Isn't it?

"A unilateral Quebec secession however may invoke American anger enough for the U.S. to be happy to watch Quebec twist on the vine for a while."

It is true that the foreign relations of USA are one of the worse in this world but, I am quite confident that the americans are wiser than that. We won't do anything that you haven't done before.

"ou seem to have me pegged as an enemy, and I'm not sure exactly why."

Because of this: "my statement is that the PQ seem likely to me to jump at independence based on nationalist reasons and the result will be a tragedy for Quebec and its neighbors."

You seem to be so sure at this statement. As long as you will take it for cash, you may have an non-realistic judgment. Our "nationalist" reasons are no offense to anyone and it won't become so. We are one of the most opened society and the "nationalist" like me are proud of it.

"Slovaks"

The industry in Czech was pretty well developped and the one in Slovakia wasn't. The Slovaks were frustrated by the situation and this is why the country they separate. However, there was no referendum on the subject so, was it a people's choice? Not really! Maybe the Slovaks trusted too much the gov't in place and absolute power always end in corruption.

Perheps you could also talk about Slovenia? Does this new independent country did wrong?

"They also claim Quebec is inflexible and will not accomodate the rest of the country, despite what they see as many concessions to Quebec. This situation sounds a bit more complicated and less cut-and-dried (as Americans say) to me than you're portraying it. "

Judge it by yourself. Do not take on of our view point. Do your own! What I am saying is, we want a say into the constitution because we are too different. It is important for us that the country is not led by English only. They do not accept that because they do not considere us as a different nation. They are saying that the majority must rule even if they are all English and we are French. Who is right? If we take a look at the Europeans, no country is willing to let the biggest ruling them without a say. The sovereignty of each others is very important. It is the same for us but, they do not accept that.

Put yourself in each other place and make your mind about it.

"That Quebec is a distinct society within Canada is clear and I don't have any automatic answers about how best to preserve Quebec's unique culture "

Then you are on my side. The ROC does not accept that. We Québécois do not want to rule the country. We only want to have a say. The ROC does not want to be bothered by that. They want to availability to change the rules alone even if we do not agree. For exemple, they have the power to make French illegal again. I don't care if they will or not do it in a nearby future. It is not normal that they have the power to do so without our will.

"I don't think independence is necessarily the only answer"

I don't either. That is why we are proposing a European-like confederation type. We are sovereignist way more than separatist. But if they refuse our proposal, we will separate. We won't accept the status quo.

"rather I'm so far not convinced by your arguments or those I've seen elsewhere that it is the only way."

I never said it was the only way. We are actually proposing solutions and they (the ROC) will have to make a choice.

---------

dingbat,

"But you'll excuse me if I don't consider this enough of a reason to consider separation. "

It is not. read what I wrote to vry in my last three paragraph to him. We think there is a solution but, if you do not accept it, we will separate. There si no way we will accept the ROC's version alone of the constitution.

-----------

Hurricane,

"I think Benz is perhaps asking for too much. Do Quebec really need independence, which means own foreign politics, an own army, own monetary system and so on? With good experiences of how things were done in Finland, would not far-reaching self-government be better? I really think you should study the Aland Islands case a bit more. "

Two things!

Frist, Québec population is greater than Finland. I don't think it is fair to compare our society with this little Island. No offense to them!

Second, in our main project, separation is only the consequences of a refusal and not the main project. We are proposing to Canada a European-like confederation type where our both sovereign societies would live together. Sharing some stuff like army, money and so on. These are not even an issue. The issue is, having a say to the rules of this country. Would you be in favor of having a European gov't that can change up stuff into Finland as they wish even if Finland is totally against? This is what is happening in Québec actually.

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

allhailIndia,

Read carefull this response and you should be able to get the point. Otherwise, I can't protect you from yourself!

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

vrylakas again...

"attempting or asserting independence for the wrong reasons "

Do you think that having a say into a country where the majority is from another language of yours is a bad reason?

Our proposal should resolve the issue. But there is NO good reasons for us to swallow a refusal. We share or we separate. We won't let them rule us without a say.

"Benz seems to think I'm a Quebec-hater because I don't see the automatic need for Quebec independence, but I'm afraid that isn't true. "

No, I think that you do not understand the consequences of your position. I think you do not realise what it means for a society like us to be in that kind of situation. I am sure that you can change up your mind if you get the main point.

"even if only for concessions and not full independence?"

We are ready to make alot of concessions... but not giving away our soul.

"Most of the world reacts like I and AllHailIndia have; "

Not that much. Most of those that react like this is because they do not understand what is going on. I would be very suprise to see the world being welcoming to the arrival of Bosnia, Kosovo, Timor and so on but Québec. Most of the time, when people get to know us, they change up their mind.

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

Whiskey Priest

"Through five years of French in school I remember only one phrase. Je ne pas de travail"

Well, if you could learn better, maybe you would have a job, no? Just kidding!

About Chrétien, there is two books of all the stuff he said wrong. However, it is in French only. Here is some of his bests.

A reporter asked him when he was in Japan for a G7's meeting.
Rep: -How do the starving Africans could go on the internet? They don't have neither computers, nor food.
Chr: -They may use their portable (cellular phone)

A racist citizen of Fredericton said to Chrétien when he was taking a crowed bath.
Cit: -I'm glad you are kicking the a** of these frog (French)
Chr: -Thank you very much

When Chretien went to Palestine, then Israel, and finished in Jordania.
(Friday)
In Palestine: -Palestine is plently justified to get unilaterally its independence.
(Saturday)
In Israel: -Isreal is justified to keep the lake *I don't remember the name*.
In Jordania: I don't remember what he said but, the lake he talked about is a big issue between Jordania and Israel.
The whole Canada felt ashame of this moron. He got elected few years later. This country is quite strange.

When he was in China during a cocktail with the leaders of China.
Chr: -Chin!
(in chinese language, the sounds of this word is similar to the translation of the word penis)

We call that, "Les Chrétienneries". (In English it might sounds like The Chretienneries or Chretienneties?)

 

[Benz]

Oda,

In a perfect world, there wouldn't be any nation and every body would be equal. We are all humans and that's it!

However, it doesn't work that way. The human race has not learned to live in a so wide peaceful society yet. We are different and there is nothing we can do about it. Well, for the next generations until collective conscienness (conscience collective?) has learned to respect each others.

It happens often that some societies want to live in a way they think it is the best and it is an offense for many others.

How do we deal with that? The only way is to respect each other's sovereingty. I respect those that have a religion even if I do not believe in any god. I respect those that believe only in economy even if I think it leads them to undevelopped collective social standards. And so on! I respect all this as long as the others respect what I believe in.

Now, like you, I really don't matter about if Québec separate or not from the ROC. What I want to is, the resolve the main problem. I want the sovereignty of Québec. Whether it is an independent country or, in a confederation negociated type, I don't care either.

No society is perfect and no one should have the power to drive smaller societies with having their say. Sinon, c'est une nivellation vers le bas. Rien ne nous empêche d'être une société souveraine et libre dans une confédération Canadienne. Cependant, je ne leur laisserai jamais l'occasion d'imposer leur volonté sur notre société. Tu comprends?

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by Benz

I don't either. That is why we are proposing a European-like confederation type. We are sovereignist way more than separatist. But if they refuse our proposal, we will separate. We won't accept the status quo.

I am enjoying everyone's posts here. This is an issue that a western US guy like me has only heard snippets of in the past (and mainly related to the possibility of a Northwest economic sphere...an idea quickly dying as the pacific rim economies slow down.)

But to you Benz, I ask: If the idea of an EU like relationship between Quebec and the remainder of Canada could be accomplished, then what is in it for the rest of Canada?

Meaning, in the EU model, in theory, most of the major players come to the table as equals, and therefore the benefits are shared. Under your model, and admittedly being ignorant to the financial realities of the Canadian economy, what is the benefit to the other provinces to share expenses with Quebec? It would seem on the surface to be a proposition disproportionately beneficial to Quebec.

Thanks
Bill

 

[DingBat]

Good question, Bill.

I mean, really, Canada is already pretty decentralized as it is. I REALLY don't want to downplay Benz's concerns, since they are sincere, but most of them do look like basically an argument over who has jurisdiction over what.

And you know what? In the EU, they still have to decide who has jurisdiction over what.

Anyway, I would assume, in this "EU" model, that the transfer payments from the federal government to the provinces would cease. At the moment, I believe that all provinces except Ontario and Alberta receive something from the federal government so Quebec would seem to be out at least this much. Maybe I'm wrong. I dunno.

And in this "EU" model, is the national debt still centralized? If not, that's about a decade's worth of arguing right there about how much is Quebec's share.

Is there still a national armed forces? If so, how much does Quebec contribute? National police? Etc, etc, etc.

It's a very good point. What is Canada giving up? What is Quebec?

/bruce

 

[Vrylakas]

Benz wrote

vrylakas,

"That would be the equivalent to Washington slapping high tariffs on Quebec products, which again would make Quebec commerce much more expensive. I can assure you that this would have a very significantly negative impact on the economy in Quebec. "

First of all, you will have to face the opposition of Northem-East sates. Recently, Bernard Landry did a business travel with many Quebecers and he met the governers of our southern neighbors. They were all glad they could do business with us and one of them said clearly that if Québec gets its independence, it won't change a thing with his mind. Because business, is business. No one is interested to lose money. I don't beleive the americans will do something stupid like that. They are way wiser than that. Do I have to recall you that if USA raises its tariff, we will do the same? Globally, we would be more affected of course but, I don't think the american business people that are doing business with us will appreciate. Almost if there is no valid reason to do so. Isn't it?

Yes, I mentioned in my post how the Northeastern states would probably lobby hard. But again - business interests don't always win. Washington's concern vis-a-vis its northern neighbor(s) is stability, and if Quebec declares independence unilaterally, American anger at the destabilization of Canada will far outweigh business considerations. Again, it really depends how it would all happen.

"A unilateral Quebec secession however may invoke American anger enough for the U.S. to be happy to watch Quebec twist on the vine for a while."

It is true that the foreign relations of USA are one of the worse in this world but, I am quite confident that the americans are wiser than that. We won't do anything that you haven't done before.

Um, not approaching the issue of the quality of American relations, my answer above suffices. For instance, it would probably be in almost everyone's interest for the U.S. to open its trade with Cuba, but look at what's happening there... That's a bit of an extreme example - I'm not comparing Castro's dictatorship with the PQ - but Washington is very unforgiving about instability on its borders.

"ou seem to have me pegged as an enemy, and I'm not sure exactly why."

Because of this: "my statement is that the PQ seem likely to me to jump at independence based on nationalist reasons and the result will be a tragedy for Quebec and its neighbors."

You seem to be so sure at this statement. As long as you will take it for cash, you may have an non-realistic judgment. Our "nationalist" reasons are no offense to anyone and it won't become so. We are one of the most opened society and the "nationalist" like me are proud of it.

You're confusing two different things. The Quebecois may have very valid reasons to be angry with Canada. Actually I'd like to explore this in more detail. My question is whether they're pertinent enough to want to secede. There's nothing wrong with being proud of one's society (which is the point of this thread, as I recall), so long as it's tempered with a healthy respect for and understanding of other countries.

"Slovaks"

The industry in Czech was pretty well developped and the one in Slovakia wasn't. The Slovaks were frustrated by the situation and this is why the country they separate. However, there was no referendum on the subject so, was it a people's choice? Not really! Maybe the Slovaks trusted too much the gov't in place and absolute power always end in corruption.

Very insightful, Benz. The Slovaks were led into an unknown adventure by nationalist politicians who promised them the world would be golden when Slovakia became independent. Instead, they watched their living standards collapse and their meagre exports stunted by cross-border tariffs, and they channeled their anger into electing even more extreme nationalists (Meciar & crew) who tried to build a 1940s-style police state, a la Father Tiso.

Perheps you could also talk about Slovenia? Does this new independent country did wrong?

Certainly better-positioned than Slovakia - both economically and geographically - but it is not without its problems. Like all former communist regimes, they've had problems getting rid of some of their "apparatchiks". Still, it hasn't been nearly as violent as Slovakia, and they've had the benefit of having borders with two very friendly states (Italy and Austria) and one at least neutral state (Croatia).

"They also claim Quebec is inflexible and will not accomodate the rest of the country, despite what they see as many concessions to Quebec. This situation sounds a bit more complicated and less cut-and-dried (as Americans say) to me than you're portraying it. "

Judge it by yourself. Do not take on of our view point. Do your own! What I am saying is, we want a say into the constitution because we are too different. It is important for us that the country is not led by English only. They do not accept that because they do not considere us as a different nation. They are saying that the majority must rule even if they are all English and we are French. Who is right? If we take a look at the Europeans, no country is willing to let the biggest ruling them without a say. The sovereignty of each others is very important. It is the same for us but, they do not accept that.

Can you itemize for me here exactly what Quebec (in general) wants? Can you create a short bullet-pointed list of typical Quebecois demands? And just curious, are you able to make a similar list of Anglophone demands of Quebec?

Put yourself in each other place and make your mind about it.

That's essentially what I've been doing all along. Again - I'm not against Quebec independence per se; it's just that I wish that if it must happen, that there were cooler heads than the PQ to carry it out.

"That Quebec is a distinct society within Canada is clear and I don't have any automatic answers about how best to preserve Quebec's unique culture "

Then you are on my side. The ROC does not accept that. We Québécois do not want to rule the country. We only want to have a say. The ROC does not want to be bothered by that. They want to availability to change the rules alone even if we do not agree. For exemple, they have the power to make French illegal again. I don't care if they will or not do it in a nearby future. It is not normal that they have the power to do so without our will.

I'm not really on anyone's side. I'm not a Canadian, I'm neither French nor English, and the past struggles for North America between the French and British empires is just interesting history for me. My ancestors were busy trying to imagine different ways to put a pike through the Tsarina's head when Wolfe captured Quebec in 1759. My interest is solely in maintaining stability in North America. That, coupled with a decade-and-a-half of studying the birth and growth of new states, has brought me to the conclusions I've so far reached on the PQ and Quebec issues. I've developed an aversion to nationalists, having seen little good come from them throughout the 20th century but misery.

"I don't think independence is necessarily the only answer"

I don't either. That is why we are proposing a European-like confederation type. We are sovereignist way more than separatist. But if they refuse our proposal, we will separate. We won't accept the status quo.

This much I'm glad to hear. I don't know that a European-style confederation is the answer either - after all, it's barely working in Europe either - but any reasonable non-violent solution must be considered.

"rather I'm so far not convinced by your arguments or those I've seen elsewhere that it is the only way."

I never said it was the only way. We are actually proposing solutions and they (the ROC) will have to make a choice.

Everyone will have to make some choices in the end. The most likely outcomes will mean everyone will not get everything they wanted. That's politics.

---------

vrylakas again...

"attempting or asserting independence for the wrong reasons "

Do you think that having a say into a country where the majority is from another language of yours is a bad reason?

Depends what you mean by "having a say". Minorities are the rule, not the exception, around the world and many countries approach things in different ways. What language, cultural or political rights to the Lapps of Finland, the Greeks of southern Italy or Koreans of Japan have? In Federal systems, minorities tend to simply be integrated politically like anyone else, unless they are so numerous they can overwhelm the system like the so-called "Hispanics" of the U.S. It's much more difficult to form autonomous regions in Federal systems.

Our proposal should resolve the issue. But there is NO good reasons for us to swallow a refusal. We share or we separate. We won't let them rule us without a say.

What exactly are your proposals?

"Benz seems to think I'm a Quebec-hater because I don't see the automatic need for Quebec independence, but I'm afraid that isn't true. "

No, I think that you do not understand the consequences of your position. I think you do not realise what it means for a society like us to be in that kind of situation. I am sure that you can change up your mind if you get the main point.

Well, you've got to understand that your position may not be the ultimate answer. It's OK for poeple to disagree; that's why we have democracies. You clearly are very passionate about your beliefs and that's fine, but you should never assume that any particular political or social group's reasoning will be universally understood or accepted. I don't necessarily even disagree with your points; rather I'm not convinced by them yet.

"even if only for concessions and not full independence?"

We are ready to make alot of concessions... but not giving away our soul.

Reasonable enough. No one else would either.

"Most of the world reacts like I and AllHailIndia have; "

Not that much. Most of those that react like this is because they do not understand what is going on. I would be very suprise to see the world being welcoming to the arrival of Bosnia, Kosovo, Timor and so on but Québec. Most of the time, when people get to know us, they change up their mind.

I've been reading about the Quebec issue for years - decades actually - in various press reports in Poland, Hungary, Germany, and the U.S. And of course, in all these countries I've had access to news sources from nearly all over - Russia, Canada, etc. etc. etc. My point above was that most of the world really does react much as AllHailIndia does - with a blank stare and a question like, "Who would ever want to leave Canada?" Keep in mind that Canada has a very positive image abroad, with the single possible exception of Spain. (Especially Spanish fishermen...) Quebec may have legitimate issues with Canada, but it hasn't done a good job of letting the rest of the world know what they are. Perhaps in the French-speaking world their arguments are better known, but in countries like those in Central Europe, who are quite neutral on the issues, they know little of them and again simply ask, "Why would anyone want to leave Canada?" It's a PR (public relations) problem.

BTW, thanks for a very well-balanced reply. No need for rancor, though we all feel strongly about our views.

 

[muppet]

Benz:

Exactly what does Canada not permit Quebec? I mean, it has been more than a decade since the Constitution, Meech Lake and whatever else. I remember back then, the following concessions were either made, or already in existence:

1. Quebec is disproportionately represented in the Canadian Supreme Court. That is 1/2 of all CSC judges are from Quebec! This is the 'highest' court of the land, and Canada has essentially said that the french minority will represent 1/2 of all voting judges on this court! Further, the CSC is clearly directed to consider Quebec Civil Law to be the primary authority when adjudicating matters in Quebec, hence part of the rationale for so many judges to be selected from Quebec.

2. All government services are offered in French and English. In fact, certain positions in the federal government simply will not hire english speaking only -- even in British Columbia, where our greatest minority is actually Chinese, possible East Indian by now.

3. Quebec and its citizens enjoy exactly the same rights, privileges, and status as any other province and their citizens. There are no laws that say Quebec is granted lesser authority than any other province.

4. A disproportionate amount of cultural funding is granted to Quebec. A somewhat trivial example, but one I am told of by the Chess Federation of Canada. Quebec receives funding for 'chess', of all things, whereas British Columbia is not permitted even $1 in federal funding towards this so called 'cultural' endeavor. I don't even want to imagine what else is funded by federal tax dollars (contributed by everyone in Canada) towards Quebec culture. It's like 'chess' is as cultural significant anywhere else in Canada, but because the citizens of Quebec tell us it is definitely part of their heritage, they are given federal funding. Does this sound fair to you?

Westerners don't exactly whine and complain about the benefits that Quebec enjoys within Canada, but most general accept that the federal government granted certain 'bonuses' to Quebec to maintain a happy family. I guess in short, what exactly do you want to happen?

 

[muppet]

I don't know why Canadians would want to air their dirty laundry in an international forum. But let's at least set the record straight.

On Economic/Research funding:

Years ago BC was granted funding to develop the tri-university meson facility (TRIUMF). Then, a state of the art Nuclear partical accelerator. Today, Saskatchewan is the beneficiary of a current state of the art nuclear research facility. Everyone gets their turn. There isn't enough money for everyone to get it at once. But that is not to say that everyone is not treated well. Imagine Saskatchewan? I think maybe the entire provincial population is no greater then the City of Vancouver, yet Canada saw fit to boost their economy, brain power, and international recognition with federal funding.

With respect to Laws:

Canadian version or philosophy regarding a 'free and democratic society' necessitates the creating of a singular criminal code and set of punishments and/or rejudivication. Quebec is not the only province with its own reform programs. However, the Canadian philosophy is that a 'free and democratic society' means that all criminals will be equally punished and/or reformed regardless of geographic locations. Whereas the US philosophy of like society is that the the the local people should have a greater authority in order to reflect the democratice philosophy. It is really a matter of preference in criminal matters. Do we have 'one law' applied 'equally and fairly' to all, or do we have 'many laws' applied unequally throughout what is suppose to be 'one' country. It's really just a plus/minus thing. In the US you never really know travelling from one state to the next, what is not legal and what the punishment is. In Canada, you go anywhere and expect the same laws and punishments.

In regards to culture:

If you ever travel to BC, you'll find Chinese and East Indian culture everywhere despite no guarantee in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to promote foreign culture or language. In fact, a Canadian East Indian police officer is permitted to wear a turban despite it normally being a violation of the uniform code. A Sikh religious ceremony permits the donning of swords, weapons that are illegal to wear by the rest us. Why? Because Canada believes that cultures should be promoted, including immigrant cultures and that our laws should be bent to allow for cultural promotion. Quebec culture is not only permitted the same, but has been enshrined in the very consitution that Quebecers, for whatever reason, decided was not good enough.

Can we try to not paint Canada as a repressive, culture killing, freedom hating country? Some of us immigrants, kind of like the Canadian philosophy.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by muppet
I don't know why Canadians would want to air their dirty laundry in an international forum. But let's at least set the record straight.

Can we try to not paint Canada as a repressive, culture killing, freedom hating country? Some of us immigrants, kind of like the Canadian philosophy.

As far as airing your dirty laundry, I guess the US is rubbing off on you. You know what they say, "Association breeds assimilation"

As for that second part, I always thought that was the US's justification for bombing you guys.

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by muppet
Can we try to not paint Canada as a repressive, culture killing, freedom hating country? Some of us immigrants, kind of like the Canadian philosophy.

I'm sure this reply will cause fur to ruffle. Heck, I may even get labelled a racist bigot again. My parents said I was never too bright.

Now, I'm gonna generalize here, which should make anyone uncomfortable, but I'm gonna do it anyway. I am speaking of no one in particular.

<generalize>
I've spent considerable time in Quebec. My wife grew up there. My experience with Quebecers in general, and separatists in particular, is that they know very little about the "ROC", as Benz refers to it. The culture tends to be inward looking. When Quebecers travel, they don't tend to travel east-west, but north-south: to the northern states, to Florida, and the Carribean.

I feel this tendency leads to a "us against everyone else" mindset. Canada is perceived as a monolithic bloc rather than a bunch of disparate groups, which is how everyone else tends to see themselves.

I grew up in Calgary, yet I probably understand west coast culture less than Quebec culture. And I would never mistake the issues of Ontario for those faced by the maritimes. They're not the same, they don't want the same things, and they don't vote the same way. Yet some see all of these regions simply as a bloc of "Anglo's" (which may too change, someday).

I should point out that this is not just a Quebec thing, either. After I moved to Toronto I would often speak with my friends back west. I had to tell them that the "eastern bums and scums" really weren't trying to put the screws to the west, they simply just didn't think about the west at all. It wasn't malice, just that the west doesn't show up on radar out here. Of course, that just infuriates them all the more, but there it is...
</generalize>

/bruce

 

[Ozz]

Quebec is not, nor never has been a nation. it is a have not
province of Canada (produces a lot of wining and not much lest). Canada got Quebec because France preferred to keep it's sugar producing islands rather it's own people occupying Quebec.

 

[Evie]

Originally posted by Ozz
Quebec is not, nor never has been a nation. it is a have not
province of Canada (produces a lot of wining and not much lest). Canada got Quebec because France preferred to keep it's sugar producing islands rather it's own people occupying Quebec.

And that kind of reaction is one of the main one why people from Québec fail to feel at home in Canada. Being told that you are "whiners" and nothing else get on your nerves - EVEN and perhaps ESPECIALLY when you aren't pro-separatism.

Ozz, I encourage you to do your research instead of pointlessly insulting québec as a whole and everyone that lives there.

Just because I'm not separatist doesn't mean I'll take random insults to my province.

 

[allhailIndia]

Now that we have over 200 countries in the world, (applications for new countries run into a few million) I would like to have my own country. Here are a few basic facts about the land of Egomaniax.

1.It has a popluation of roughly 2-2.5 million, no specific race predominating(Indian politicians are an exception )

2.It's boundaries are ever fluctuating depending on the no. of people gullible enough to think this is a real country.

3.It's ruler is quite undoubtedly ME , though elections held every year result in one vote for every citizen, so I am the DeFacto ruler.

4.It's currency is the <citizen>dollar, where each citizen of this fine country can call the money by its own name.


Well these are facts under construction in the Buraeu of Statistics of Egomaniax, as they are developed they shall be released

 

[Benz]

Bill_in_PDX,

"But to you Benz, I ask: If the idea of an EU like relationship between Quebec and the remainder of Canada could be accomplished, then what is in it for the rest of Canada? "

The same thing as any Europeans have into the EU. Québec has a good potential to help and contribute to this country at several levels. Contribution to the army, economy, canadian dollars and so... if they don't see the advantage, then why do they want us to stay in the actual version of Canada? :crazyeyes

"what is the benefit to the other provinces to share expenses with Quebec? It would seem on the surface to be a proposition disproportionately beneficial to Quebec. "

No!!! Québec is not a poor province depending on the others to survive. This reflection is kind of silly! On one hand, they do not want us to separate but, on the other hand, they do not see any benefits to ally with us? It doesn't make sens at all.

I am sure that our sovereignty will create a huge brainstorming about the future of Canada. The East, Ontario and the West are very different despite they all speak English and there is a lot of chances that our idea of confederation will end up with several states more representative of the regions.

Unfortunatly, Québec is the only serious about that.

-----------

DingBat,

"I mean, really, Canada is already pretty decentralized as it is. "

Oh boy! We are not living in the same reality my friend. I suggest you to take a closer look at the Trudeau's constitution (1982) and the Social Union of 1999. The Canada is way too centralised and both the East and the West are upset about it. Even Ontario agreed with Québec in 2000 when both Mike Harris and Lucien Bouchard have forced Chrétien to resign his proposition about the intrusion into the health care system.

The centralization of politique in Ottawa IS the issue for the last 40 years.

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

Vrylakas,

"Again, it really depends how it would all happen. "

Since we are not your ennemy at all, I am pretty confident with our choices. I don't think the US need to create ennemies. No one would benefit from it.

"but Washington is very unforgiving about instability on its borders. "

We do not want to create instability. There is no doubt about our willingness to keep up good relations and economical stability. So there won't be a problem.... unless there is a stupid subborn man that wants to stop our sovereignty process even if the YES side wins the referendum. So if there is a problem, it will come from outside Québec. We will NEVER sale our soul for any reason. Neither you will.

"Quebecois may have very valid reasons to be angry with Canada. "

I wouldn't say angry against Canada. Otherwise, we wouldn't offer a partnership. We are angry at the actual situation but, our forgiveness of history is very big. Maybe too big. We are doing this for one reason, we do not want a eternal repetition of the history.

"The Slovaks were led into an unknown adventure by nationalist politicians who promised them the world would be golden when Slovakia became independent. "

I am sorry for them and you should be happy that we are not following the same path.

[Like all former communist regimes, they've had problems getting rid of some of their "apparatchiks". ]

That was my point. Our society is already progressive and well potisionned into the international economy.

"Can you itemize for me here exactly what Quebec (in general) wants?"

Again? Ok, I'll repeat!

- recognition of the Québec nation
- have a say into the constitution
- decentralized federal gov't or at least, have the option to do ourself a federal program we do not agree on

These are the 3 most important points. The two first are rejected by the ROC. And the third one is shared by many westners.

"there were cooler heads than the PQ to carry it out"

I am a PQer and I think you have not the proper information about us. You are trying to portray a alarmist view of what could happen if we separate. But if you want a serious analyse, you should start to talk about the real issues that motivates us to seek for sovereignty. And of course, you have not realised yet that if we separate, it is because the English part of Canada would refuse our partnership. Our goal is sovereignty, not separation. We would be pretty please if we have an alliance where our both soveriegn nations, French and English are respected.

I don't see anything scary in that kind of message.

"I'm not really on anyone's side. "

I should have had this face to show that I am teasing you. unfortunatly, you stuck your answer into that single sentense and you haven't respond to the following.

"ut it hasn't done a good job of letting the rest of the world know what they are. "

When you are not sovereign and your federal gov't is trying to do anything possible to give a bad portray of Québec, it is kind of hard to reverse it.

The last summit of the americas was in Quebec City. Guess what! Our federal gov't refused to let us welcome the leaders of the americas. Because Ottawa thinks that it is the only one that should do this. It sux! We are not welcomed in our own capital. But we were invited and appreciated in the last globalization summit in Swisszerland and Brazil (Porto Alegre). Go figure! I am not about to fogive our federal for that.

"What language, cultural or political rights to the Lapps of Finland, the Greeks of southern Italy or Koreans of Japan have?"

Again, I have a lot of respect for minorities but, you are still insulting me. We are NOT a minority. We are 7 millions and a clear majority into our land. If you want a good example to compare us with it, I'll give you one.

Imagine that the Russians grab Finland and make it a province of its Russian federation. That will look like our situation. The difference is Finland got its independence and we don't. Because in the original constitution of Canada in 1867, it was supposed to be a real confederation, we have not see the need to get independence until the country became a very centralised federation.

The biggest problems started in the WWII. The federal took alot more powers and never give it back to the provinces after. Few years later, a new nationalist feeling was born. The federal abused of its new non-constitutional powers and it results of the raising of nationalism in Québec. In 1982, the Canada patriated the constitution and they changed it to make legal the abuses of powers from the federal. That was the first time of the Canada's history that the French population had no say about the rules. In 1999, the Social Union signed by 9 of 10 provinces did again give more power to the federal.

The consequences are unacceptable for us. Today, the English part of Canada can change the rules as they wish even if we 100% desagree. They have the power to make French language illegal. As I said, I don't mind if they will or not do it again, it is not normal that they have such power on our future.

Do you understand that?

"It's much more difficult to form autonomous regions in Federal systems."

We know, we tried it for the last 40 years without a dust of success. That is why the only way to resuolve the problem is to change it into a confederation type of gov't. Whether the ROC prefer two states or regional states, it is their choice. I would enjoy to debate it.

----------

muppet,

"and Canada has essentially said that the french minority will represent 1/2 of all voting judges on this court! "

Of course, otherwise the English part will always win. You have assimilated so much French with xenophobic bills in the past, this is our lastest protections. Imagine! we are in 2002 and the first Frnech school will be build in PEI, after 12 years of fights at the Surpeme Court. Do you think it is normal?

"the CSC is clearly directed to consider Quebec Civil Law to be the primary authority when adjudicating matters in Quebec, hence part of the rationale for so many judges to be selected from Quebec. "

Of course! Name me one society that will allow another one to rule them. :crazyeyes

"All government services are offered in French and English. "

No... they SHOULD offer. The Offcial Language Commission revealed severals lack of application of this rule. I did myself sent two "plaintes officielles" at them because I was not able to obtain services in French from the federal gov't. It was about the computer help desk for the tax collected sent by magnetic tapes. It happened on January 4 and 11.

"In fact, certain positions in the federal government simply will not hire english speaking only "

They do it anyway. If the federal gov't was less centralized, you wouldn't have that "problem". You would then need less competences to have the job.

"There are no laws that say Quebec is granted lesser authority than any other province. "

Québec is not like any other provinces. Québec is French with different civil laws. Québec has different values and political choices. It is not acceptable for us to be forced to follow the other's choice. We share or we separate. We won't swallow your stuff.

"A disproportionate amount of cultural funding is granted to Quebec. "

THAT IS TRUE! You are right on this one. This amount is allowed to promote Canada and all the propaganda around it. We would like to use that money for wiser uses but, we can't. We are bombered of this propaganda 10 times more than the whole rest of Canada.

"Does this sound fair to you? "

No it doesn't and I totally agree! I'm telling you! It is crap and the federal use it for only one purpose. To sell its image to us.

"Westerners don't exactly whine and complain about the benefits that Quebec enjoys within Canada, but most general accept that the federal government granted certain 'bonuses' to Quebec to maintain a happy family. I guess in short, what exactly do you want to happen?"

Yes, some bonuses are granted to buy us. It is then easier for the central gov't to benefit from us after. No one really benefits from it. It is a huge waist of money. I would like the Westeners be more acknoledged about all the disfunctional stuff into that central gov't. With a more decentralized one, we(West and us) would have a better opportunity to manage our stuff as we wish to. There is a reason why westerners elected a regional party. Ottawa has too much power.

"means that all criminals will be equally punished "

Then, a bad rule must be applied everywhere equally. I don't see anything progressive and interesting in such way to think.

"In the US you never really know travelling from one state to the next, what is not legal and what the punishment is. In Canada, you go anywhere and expect the same laws and punishments. "

ok but, why do we have to choose the worse? The answer is, because we do not have all the same opinion of what is worse. Then, it is better to have different laws.

"for whatever reason, decided was not good enough."

The culture is not only the hat you were. It is also the social choices you make. I want to have that possibility to make a choice. Is it too much to ask?

"Can we try to not paint Canada as a repressive, culture killing, freedom hating country? Some of us immigrants, kind of like the Canadian philosophy."

Do I go that far? We have issues and we expect to resolve them with solutions we offer. We have no positive response and the consequences are very bad for our society.

"that our laws should be bent to allow for cultural promotion"

Then explain me why the French of PEI and Nova Scotia had to fight up to the supreme court for years only to have access to education? Tell me why the federal has not came to protect the Montfort hospital? Why the Winnipeg city is changing the arret/stop signs to stop only even this city contain one of the biggest concentration of French speakers outside Québec? Why the Acadians national day isn't recognised by the Federal? Why a racist english group could disturb their national day last year without be arrested and punished? Why I can recieve more French services in Los Angeles Airport than in Toronto Airport? (yes, it happened to me in december 2000)

----------

dingBat again...

[I feel this tendency leads to a "us against everyone else" mindset.]

If you considere the "everyone else" as the ROC only, well, it is partly true. But it has nothing to do with the outter world or the places we visit. I have been often in the East and Ontario. It has a better influence on my judgment about this issue than my travels in France, California, Texas, Mexico and Nothestern US.

"It wasn't malice, just that the west doesn't show up on radar out here. Of course, that just infuriates them all the more, but there it is... "

Don't you think that it is time for the west to take their will into hands? Our solution of a real confederation would balance more the power to a regional display. A too centralised gov't tend to unbalance the politic picture and make the bigger become the stronger. Way to strong if you see what I mean.

---------

allhailIndia,

Then Civ III may perfectly answer to your desire I guess.

 

[Evie]

Ok, time to post an historical and rather neutral look at Canada-Québec relationship, and the whole problem.

I'm from Québec, and as I said before, I am decidedly neutral (one might say I've had enough of both sides pointlessly *****ing).

The first true manifestation of the current problem (which has its roots in the fall of New France) is in 1837/38. At that time, the people of Canada attempted to rebel against the British governor who as basically constantly screwing up the democratic process in Canada. It would be false to claim that the rebellion was slowly a thing of the French people ; there was a similar movement in Ontario at the time, though weaker (due mostly to the lack of popular support, since the english-speaking common people had far less to complain about.

The rebellion was a failure, and, rather than keep the old territorial division of upper canada and lower canada, the whole territory was united in one territory, with the clear goal of assimilating the french. While in Québec the concentration of French people and the influence of the Catholic church countered that to an extent, over the next few decades, most of the french-canadian outside Québec, outside scattered communities and the Acadian land ( and even there...) was assimilated.

In 1867 Canada was granted a form of semi-independance by the British (it was not effective independance in international domains until the treaty of Westminster, and Canada only became consitutionally independant (ie, we have direct control over our own constitution, as opposed to our constitution as a document being held in London, with the british technically having to approve changes to it, etc) from the british crown in 1982). AFAIK, however, we still have Queen Elizabeth II as official Canadian chief of state (ie, she's the one on the money, on the stamps, Canadian warships still bear the "HMCS - Her majesty's canadian ship" abreviation before their name, etc).

This semi-independance was reached through the work of mostly represenative of Québec and Ontario, with little influence from the other provinces. The goal at the time was to found a confederation-style government, in theory.

However, what actually came out was a mixture of federation and confederation. And, through the world wars (which brewed their own problem), Canada's federal government seized more power, especially at the economic level, for their own, away from the provinces.

Also, the world war twice resulted in the people of Québec being forced for a country that they certainly felt no ties too, especially the first one (conscription to go die for the government of London in a war really never struck too much interesting in Québec - for some reason). However, the leaders of the army and the political elites at the time (and for a while yet) were mostly of the English-Canadian side, therefore meaning that Québec could do little about being forced to go fight to save a country that wasn't theirs, when Canada itself was not attacked, and when French-Canadian troops were mostly used as cannon-fodder.

Yes, I am aware that most countries imposed conscription at the time. However, what I am saying is that it was seen as unnecessary by french canadians at the time, and not only that, but they had been promised by Mackenzie-King that there would be no conscription in World War II. In 1942, he made a nation-wide referendum asking all canadians (With the english being in majority) to free him of the promise he had made. His victory was no surprise, but most in Québec felt it as a betrayal - as if he had asked the english canadians to free him of the promise he had made to the people of Québec (which, to an extent, he did).

All the while, of course, french-canadians throughout Canada were still being assimilated, and Québec itself was mostly in a "French lowlife, English elite" situation. Oh, there was a french elite, but still, english was the language you were forced to use to get a job in many of the important companies, many corporation offered no service in french, etc. Montréal was an especially bad case of this.

This is in a large part what, of old, resulted in the birth of the indepandantist movement in Québec. Some of these cause - federal encroachment in provincial territories - remain still, and Québec is far from the only province who dislikes that situation - the Western provinces don't take it much better. Others were, though the Parti Québécois and especially its montreal groups (the more rabid ones) refuse to admit it, pretty much taken care of as much as can be done (ie, linguistic problem).

The major problem Québec has now is in fact the Parti Québécois and it's nemesis, the Parti Libéral du Canada. Both of these are caught in the grip of old retards (Landry and co on one side, Chrétien and his cronies on the other) who don't seem to realize that most of Québec is simply SICK of hearing of referendums and independance. (Why do we elect the Parti Québécois still? Because they used to have a decent leader who understood that until the rabid idiots like Yves Michaud ousted him. Decent, in the sense that he was better than the leader of the opposite Parti Libéral du Québec.). And yes, one of those old ****** is Bernard Landry and his imbecilistic "red rag" comment (talking about the Canadian flag...though he claim he wasn't, of course).

The other major problem fueling the indepandatist movement is how twice in the last 20 years québec and the other provinces were all ganging up on the federal government to obtain a thing or another (Constitution, Social Union), and on both occasion, the other provinces suddenly changed side, accepting Canadian offers they had said they would refuse and leaving Québec alone.

There are three other problems that I can really notice : rabid elements, RoC (generally speaking, though it's mostly the Ontario/Western Provinces block) newspaper having a liking to ridiculing Québec or trying to pass the province off as bad as possible, and the overall canadian political situation.

The rabid elements are best represented by the like of the now-deceased Mordecai Richer, and by Yves Michaud. Other factions representing this force include for example Alliance Québec ("english-Québec" side). On one side the militants are constantly asking for strenghtening the pro-french laws, on the other, they are constantly challenging them in court and likening them to anti-freedom-of-speech law (which they aren't) worthy of USSR or Nazi germany.

Needless to say, having these groups bickering is quite annoying to the population as a whole. The linguistic situation is relatively good as it is.

The newspapers problem is another one. Let me quote some actual examples.

Somewhat over a decade ago, there was a crisis of some importance involving the native americans. There were baricades built across a major road by said natives, and the police was sent, the two groups staring back and forth over the barricades for a while (eventually, after a policeman was shot by one of the natives, the army was called in). There was no mass slaughter, no gang mob going up against the natives or any such. Heck, there was little actual fighting - if any, except for some from the extremist native group known as the "Warriors" (who incidentaly would probably fit the "terrorist" definition quite well).

What did the Canadian newspaper did with it? They likened the provincial police to the state police of Nazi/Communist states. They had articles titled "Québec is burning" - in direct reference to the movie "The Missisipi is burning". They compared Québec to KKK-years Alabama.

Later, in 1998, there was the great ice storm. The entirety of the Montréal region was plunged, in the depths of winter, in a days (and for most of the region weeks) long black out due to almost all the power lines crashing due to the weight of the heavy amount of ice received.

The Québec newspaper at the time had titles like "It's like hell!" (given the cold of Québec winter, quite understandable. Certain (Ontario mostly) RoC newspapers immediately reacted by mocking said newspapers...while at the same time themselves having a "It's almost like the titanic!" Title in reference to an overall minor train crash.

The final problem is the overall political situation of Canada. It's actuall a coumpound of many smaller problems.

1-The fact that Québec tend to be somewhat more socialist (ie, think Ralph Klein's Alberta vs current Québec) and somewhat less conservative (the recent juvenile crime law is for Ontario and the western provinces mostly) than the western provinces. However, those provinces have quite some weight in Canada, and thus certain laws have been forced on Québec especially regarding the criminal system that simply does not fit the current situation of the province. Overall, there are many in Québec who intesely dislike the idea of a very likely overall increase in crime rate so that the conservatives in the western provinces can watch happily as kids are sent to prison.

2-The hegemony of the Liberal Party. The current situation in Canada is basically that of four specific region for voting : Ontario (were there's bacially only one party - the Liberals), Québec (Québec Block, Liberal), the West (Canadian Alliance, Liberal), and the Coastal provinces (ie, the east and west coast). (were the vote is divided between the various party, swinging wildly - but the liberals are there, too).

So basically you got one party getting nearly all the parliament sieges in one province, and picking up quite a few in all other provinces, a duo of regional parties taking the voting hostage, and a handful of minor national party picking some sieges in the coastal regions and sometime if they luck out a few inland one - but in minor amounts.

There's no way the liberals will be ousted of their place anytime soon. Meaning that they can pretty much do any horror they want with abusing hteir powers, etc, they will not lose their place. They can also draw the anger of whichever province they want other than Ontario - they are *NOT* going to lose the power anytime soon.

 

[DingBat]

Nice summation, Oda.

A couple of comments (you knew there would be).


1) I hear a lot about the conscription crisis. First, it WAS almost 60 years ago. I think it might be time to let that one go.

I understand that Quebec did not feel it was their war. And that's cool, but a little view of the other side is in order.

At the time the crisis came to a head, Canada's army in Europe was in bad shape. Casualties were far exceeding expectations and units were being broken up to provide replacements for others. In many instances poorly or totally untrained rear echelon soldiers were dropped into front line units without any preparation.

I've read accounts regarding the Scheldt campaign where these untrained replacements would show up for breakfast and be dead by lunch. It was a great cause of anger in the veteran troops who had to watch these poor guys get thrown in the meat grinder.

At the time there were an estimated 70,000 reservists, trained reservists, in Canada. None of them could be touched because of the conscription promise. Hence the change in direction.

As far as I recall, it took so much time to actually implement the legislation, round up the reservists, process them, transport them, etc, that not one of them saw action anyway, so it all turned out for nought.

I'm not arguing that it wasn't a betrayal. I'm not saying Quebecers (of the time) shouldn't have been upset about it. But there were good reasons for the broken promise.

2) You've correctly identified the Liberal party as the single biggest problem in Canada at the moment. I wonder how many people in the world realize that Canada has essentially become a one party state?

There are two big reasons why this situation came about, however: The Bloc Quebecois, and the Conservative meltdown. The current Alliance/Conservative impasse drives me crazy but we can hope they will eventually merge (no comment on whether this is bad or good). That's a start, but if Quebecers really want to oust the Liberals from Ottawa they're going to have to give up the BQ.

I frankly don't blame Quebecers at all for voting BQ. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. If I had the option, I'd probably vote that way too. But doing so makes it virtually impossible to dislodge the Liberals.

Think we could both vote Conservative?

/bruce

 

[Evie]

Afraid not DingBat.

Québec's probably the LEAST right-winged province in Canada, along with Ontario. As I said, if the Bloc goes down, sad as it is, the Liberal party will probably be the only one gaining from it - because, as center-aligned as they are, it's still better than the right-wing party.

 

[muppet]

Originally posted by allhailIndia
Now that we have over 200 countries in the world, (applications for new countries run into a few million) I would like to have my own country. Here are a few basic facts about the land of Egomaniax.

Well these are facts under construction in the Buraeu of Statistics of Egomaniax, as they are developed they shall be released

Nice to see some humor in an otherwise too serious a discussion.

 

[muppet]

"and Canada has essentially said that the french minority will represent 1/2 of all voting judges on this court! "

Of course, otherwise the English part will always win. You have assimilated so much French with xenophobic bills in the past, this is our lastest protections. Imagine! we are in 2002 and the first Frnech school will be build in PEI, after 12 years of fights at the Surpeme Court. Do you think it is normal?

"the CSC is clearly directed to consider Quebec Civil Law to be the primary authority when adjudicating matters in Quebec, hence part of the rationale for so many judges to be selected from Quebec. "

Of course! Name me one society that will allow another one to rule them.

Québec is not like any other provinces. Québec is French with different civil laws. Québec has different values and political choices. It is not acceptable for us to be forced to follow the other's choice. We share or we separate. We won't swallow your stuff.

This is the point. That despite being a 'minority' culture in a larger country, Quebec has been enshrined with rights and privileges not bestowed upon other provinces to ensure that Quebec's unique concerns are protected.

ok but, why do we have to choose the worse? The answer is, because we do not have all the same opinion of what is worse. Then, it is better to have different laws.

It may just happen to be the worse this time. However, central authority also makes decisions for the better. The question and preference is purely philosophical. When regarding criminal matters, what is a crime and how it should be resolved. Is it more 'free and democratic' when the rules apply country wide, or when the rules apply by provincial jurisidiction. Being American born, I kind of like our system; however, Canada has a tradition of criminal matters being dictated centrally which is not philosophically incorrect either.

Edit:
Despite central administrative authority, much power still rests at provincial levels regarding federal crime legislation. Provinces, including Quebec, still determine micro-police budgets; thereby, determining what federally classified 'crimes' are actually hunted down and prosecuted and what is let go.

I can't even begin to count the number of times a police officer has told me, "If you slow down, and don't kill yourself I'll just give you a warning this time." Or how Cocaine dealers are more hunted than marijuana dealers. Or how an illegal gaming establishment is only targeted by provincial police if there is a drug or prostitution element also involved. So, despite Ottawa's 'administrative' authority, provincial police powers is still the determinant 'enforcement' factor.

 

[muppet]

Originally posted by Benz
Then explain me why the French of PEI and Nova Scotia had to fight up to the supreme court for years only to have access to education? Tell me why the federal has not came to protect the Montfort hospital? Why the Winnipeg city is changing the arret/stop signs to stop only even this city contain one of the biggest concentration of French speakers outside Québec? Why the Acadians national day isn't recognised by the Federal? Why a racist english group could disturb their national day last year without be arrested and punished? Why I can recieve more French services in Los Angeles Airport than in Toronto Airport? (yes, it happened to me in december 2000)

Maybe because education is a provincial matter, not a federal matter. BC, for example, despite being the west coast has 'french immersion schools' where the only language spoken is French. Remember, 'we' asked for the 'decentralization' of educational authority?! The very decentralization that 'we' are asking for more of?! So being a 'decentralized service', one can not really blame the feds for not having the power to do anything about it, eh? However, despite this, the appointment of 1/2 of the CSC from Quebec, per central authority, I'm sure helped the cause in favor of French schools. So if anything, we should be thanking the feds for provinding the country a 'back up' so to speak when provincial powers make an error contrary to the constitution.

I know nothing of the Montfort Hospital.

Winnipeg is a municipality. And traffic, like education is a provincial matter where provinces have often delegated municipal posting authority to the cities. Therefore the question is why does a french population in Winnipeg (as you claim they are significant) wish to not print arret on stop signs?? Again, a result of 'decentralization' which we are apparently asking for more of. If it were a 'centralized' federal matter, we wouldn't have this problem right now.

Why should the 'Acadian national day' be recognized by the feds? The Chinese New Year is not. The Sikh religious holidays are not. The British Columbia day is not. It is a provincial holiday, not a matter of federal jurisdiction. Remember, we want provinces to have more say.

Why weren't they punished? I don't know. How come Quebec's police force didn't arrest them? They are fully empowered to enforce laws. How come Quebec's provincially appointed judges didn't pass a stiff sentence? They are also fully empowered to rule on criminal matters. Remember again, we would like the provinces to take care of us.

It seems to me like the provinces can't even handle what authorities they have already been granted by the feds. How come these matters are within Quebec's jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction, yet the feds get blamed for them?

Anyways. I hope you appreciate my sarcasm. I honestly am neither against nor for Quebec separatism based on any of the arguments posted so far. I really am just concerned that some people in Quebec want to separate from Canada for all the wrong reasons and maybe blame the feds and centralized governing too much.

 

[Benz]

Oda,

It is a pretty good resumé and I agree for most of it except (of course) your comment about the PQ. I honestly not agree with some of PQ's point of view and sometime they take some decisions that make us upset. However, I would probably act the same way as Landry about the "Red Rag". You forget to say that it is not litterally what he said in French. The translation do not give the whole sens the the real expression "chiffon rouge". If you remember what happened, the federal was offering to us our own money to fund a aquarius and they put their conditions that was not acceptable for us. We are not prostitutes Oda. Our National Assemly supposed to have the full legetimity to apply its own rules regarding provincial matters.

The federal knows how far this is provocation. We are contesting its power not legetimated by us and many others either. Insulting back is maybe not a good option but Landry cannot be blamed for this.

You seems to like alot to call the PQ, the imbéciles but, you have not answered me. We are offering to the Canada a real confederation type where our both sovereignties would be respected. We could then both benefit of such partnership without bothering each other political choices. Of course, if Canada is not interested in our partnership, it is clear that we do not have any future with them and time to separate has come. Either way, we have to get our sovereignty, otherwise we will always fall into the Liberal's trap and finish into the dead-end.

I myself am very sick of the referendums. I would like this to end for good and move on something else. However, the results are there. The population choosed (at 50.6%) to stay in the problems and we are pretty well served. Problems ahead still coming and it is always getting worse. Next time, let's vote yes and it will stop this dead-end.

--------

DingBat,

We are neither conservative, nor right winger. The Conservative Party is not an option.

"This is the point. That despite being a 'minority' culture in a larger country, Quebec has been enshrined with rights and privileges not bestowed upon other provinces to ensure that Quebec's unique concerns are protected."

Poor little one! Explain us how much you suffer of this!

"It may just happen to be the worse this time. "

One is too many. It is simple, it happens each time the federal take a decision that concern the provinces. Such as "Bourses du millénaire", C-20, C-7, and so on.

The difficulty you have to understand is, it allows the English part of Canada to set the rules alone, without our say. That is why it becomes unacceptable. Because we do not share the same values. Why is that difficult to understand? We are too different to let you set the rules alone. We are mostly left winger while the English part is mostly conservative and right winger. Deal with that!

"I'm sure helped the cause in favor of French schools. So if anything, we should be thanking the feds for provinding the country a 'back up' so to speak when provincial powers make an error contrary to the constitution. "

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. They wanted to close it. In Québec, there is 14 English hospitals for a english population of 500,000. So what is the point? The federal gov't did nothing to help the French in that case. They had to fight alone.

"the question is why does a french population in Winnipeg (as you claim they are significant) wish to not print arret on stop signs?"

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.


"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 really am just concerned that some people in Quebec want to separate from Canada for all the wrong reasons and maybe blame the feds and centralized governing too much."

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!)