[michou]

self censored

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= michou] [QUOTE BY= lesouris] <br />I personally think that this website, as one for Canadian sovereingty, has way too much content concerning Quebec separatism. [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Reminder : <br /><i>The mission of Vive le Canada is to involve Canadians in grassroots efforts to protect and improve Canadian sovereignties and democracy in the era of corporate globalization and U.S.</i> <br /> <br />Canadians want to preserve their sovereignty and Québec sovereignists want theirs back. <br /> <br />Canadian Sovereignties ? <br />Let's do a little future projection game. The US does take over Canada's 'interests' after Québec gains its independance. (doom.doom.) Do you think Canadians would try to gain their sovereignty back ? Why ? <br /> <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />This difference michoud is Quebec was never a country, and the French-Canadian people are not the only people in Quebec. <br /> <br />You know this.

[gaulois]

[QUOTE BY= michou] [QUOTE BY= lesouris] <br />I personally think that this website, as one for Canadian sovereingty, has way too much content concerning Quebec separatism. [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Reminder : <br /><i>The mission of Vive le Canada is to involve Canadians in grassroots efforts to protect and improve Canadian sovereignties and democracy in the era of corporate globalization and U.S.</i> <br /> <br />Canadians want to preserve their sovereignty and Québec sovereignists want theirs back. <br /> <br />Canadian Sovereignties ? <br />Let's do a little future projection game. The US does take over Canada's 'interests' after Québec gains its independance. (doom.doom.) Do you think Canadians would try to gain their sovereignty back ? Why ? <br /> <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Interesting question. You are however making the assumption that Canada has "sovereignty". I will argue that it does not have a whole lot. It is not because one has a seat at the UN, runs embassies, operates own bureaucracies and issues own passport that makes you sovereign if everyone is enslaved to the $ allmighty. Sovereingty has to happen in people's head first. And I think this is what this site should be mostly about: regaining our sovereignty (as defined in our own personal terms)!!! <br /> <br />In regards to having too much Quebec sovereignty discussions, I will argue that Canada sovereignists could learn a few things from Quebec sovereignists and vice-versa. Common ground? <br /> <br />There is unfortunately too much regurgitated rethorics, rants, bickering, etc... preventing this from happening. Some Vive participants are obviously clearly enjoying these. But I think many have simply disconnected from these discussions for that reason. I am not sure how it can be improved, given our past records at trying to improve this. <br /> <br />On this topic, I went to see Hans Bliz last week speaking at UBC. He reminded us of the importance of "showing restraints" and of the dangers of "preemptive war" intelligence gathering in support of political agendas. Would this only apply to "them"?

[Dino]

If all the english provinces had come together and formed a country called CANADA then they went over to Quebec and made it part of Canada then michou you would have a point for Quebec seperation. But that is not what happened at all. Quebec has never been a country. It was the french who approached the British to form Canada.

[michou]

self censored

[Guest]

[QUOTE BY= michou] [QUOTE BY= lesouris] <br />I personally think that this website, as one for Canadian sovereingty, has way too much content concerning Quebec separatism. [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Reminder : <br /><i>The mission of Vive le Canada is to involve Canadians in grassroots efforts to protect and improve Canadian sovereignties and democracy in the era of corporate globalization and U.S.</i> <br /> <br />Canadians want to preserve their sovereignty and Québec sovereignists want theirs back. <br /> <br />Canadian Sovereignties ? <br />Let's do a little future projection game. The US does take over Canada's 'interests' after Québec gains its independance. (doom.doom.) Do you think Canadians would try to gain their sovereignty back ? Why ? <br /> <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'>

[Guest]

[QUOTE BY= dino] If all the english provinces had come together and formed a country called CANADA then they went over to Quebec and made it part of Canada then michou you would have a point for Quebec seperation. But that is not what happened at all. Quebec has never been a country. It was the french who approached the British to form Canada. [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />And Canada, has it ever been a country?

[Guest]

[QUOTE]This difference michoud is Quebec was never a country, and the French-Canadian people are not the only people in Quebec. <br /> <br />You know this.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />We'll never agree on wether Quebec was a country, or on whether Canada was ever a country. Even if Quebec was never a country, who says it cannot become one? French Quebeckers may not be the only one, but 85% of the population is a pretty good average! We are treating and will treat our minorities just as good, may be better, as Canada ever will. <br /> <br />

[Marcarc]

Ancient history has nothing to do with creating a new country. Serbia was never a 'recognized country' and neither was East Timor, but that doesn't stop them from becoming a country. Unfortunately, that usually comes about after considerable violence. This is why I support Quebec independance, if voted on by a majority of people (and it keeps increasing each time). <br /> What an incredible statement to the rest of the world. Then I would have far more respect for the nation of canada. We would be the first nation to allow a part of it to separate by peaceful democratic processes-what a chance to show that we don't just spout peace as BS (personally I think we do) <br /> I honestly don't know why english canadians get so uptight. In every poll the vast majority of separatists support economic partnerships with Canada-which would actually flourish because there are more inter provincial trade barriers than there are between nations under Nafta. In fact, in most polls the majority even support some type of 'political' partnership in Canada. For somebody like me who is just waiting for the structure of canadian government to change this would be a dream come true. <br /> It's always odd to hear people talk about the wonders of democracy-until somebody tries to use it. <br /> Just to correct a couple of earlier remarks. East Timor shouldn't have even had to vote for independance since they were annexed by Indonesia in the seventies-with support from canada I might add. This explains why 90% of the population voted for it. <br /> The other remark is that Canada is a British nation-english to the core. You may be from China or India or someplace but the governing institutions all follow that of the home country-Britain. Remember the late eighties, when Mulroney went to England to ask the queen to be able to appoint more senators? Does that sound like a sovereign nation to you? If you think the govenor general is only a figurehead then you don't know you're constitutional law. <br />

[lesouris]

Okay...I'm going to make a suggestion for a situation when I would accept Quebec separatism (I know, I've broken my pact, but this is not meant to be an arguement or anything, just a suggestion because I don't think you all understand my position on this issue), so here goes: <br /> <br />If a majority of Quebec voters voted in a fair election with a clear question that they wanted to separate from Canada, the following things would have to occur: <br /> <br />1. Canada would recieve the areas of the former NWT that it gave to Quebec for its staying in Canada, this includes Nunavik, which would become part of Nunavut (1898-1912 boudary) <br />2. Canada and Quebec would enter into a trasnportation union with one central, international body in charge of the Trans-Candada Highway and Via Rail. <br />3. Canada and Quebec would enter into a free trade agreement separate from NAFTA <br />4. Quebec would compensate the Canadian Government for federal property lost, including the CBC/SRC. <br />5. A guarantee that if a reliable poll shows majority support, a referendum would be held to re-join Canada. <br />6. If there was a significant influx of Francophones into Canada, a new province would be set up for them. <br />7. Fish rights on the East Coast would be monitored by Canada (we already monitor Saint-Pierre et Miquelon anyway). <br />8. Quebecers are given a "right of return" to Canada, meaning citizenship without question. <br />9. Quebec must honour all treaties with the First Nations (unlike when the US became independant and disregarded all the treaties made in the name of the King). <br />10. A constitutional amendment allowing Quebec to rejoin Canada if its national experiment fails (not forcing Quebec though). <br />11. Quebec would pay for all expenses (the referendum, setting up its own government, et cetera) <br /> <br />So those are my eleven concerns, if any on either side have other concerns, please post away (like I could keep you from it). This time I will keep my promise...and I won't post on this thread again unless to defend myself.

[Marcarc]

That last post was very interesting, and more constructive than most of the vitriol I see on the Canada-Quebec debates. So I thought I'd add my two cents (or dime, whatevers in my pocket). <br /> 1. There's no doubt that the actual border would have to be discussed. It may be simpler in the end to simply leave the borders as they are, since it was the federal government which set it up. However, it's a given that natives will make noise-as they should-and in fact it would benefit them immensely as Quebec and Canada would basically want to offer them the best deal for their support. <br />2. I'm not sure what this would mean. An international body to...what? Plow the highway? I have a feeling that no Quebecer wants to see serious passport or custom waits at borders, but I don't see the value in having a 'super-organization' which operates over and above the powers of the respective countries. <br />3. Trade is a huge issue, although as most on this site are aware, the 'free trade' we have with the states is more of a document to enshrine investor rights than free up trade. That there would be a trade agreement is a given, what form it takes is complicated. <br />4. Compensation is another tricky one. This would be something that the United Nations would be involved in or some other international accounting body. <br />5. This is another tricky one. Since the purpose of separation is sovereignty that's like GB telling Ireland that it has to have a built in clause for rejoining Great Britain. If, for example, an english 'rejoin canada' party ran for election and won, it could then hold a referendum much as the ones now. If that referendum passed, then there would be discussions. Canada, of course, would be under no obligation to accept them. <br />6, 8, and ten have to do with Canada, not Quebec. If a separate province were to be set up in Ontario, dividing it in two, that's up to Canada's federal government and has nothing to do with Quebec. <br />7. Fishing rights would have to be debated as well. I would imagine that the simplest route would be to maintain the fishing boundaries set up by the feds now. <br />9. This question I find completely hypocritical. Canada has honoured virtually NONE of it's treaties with natives and so to insist Quebec do something that we have never done is pretty outlandish. I understand that in english canada the fear is that Quebec could turn into some fascist gulag where natives are oppressed. This, of course, defines canada from a natives point of view and it could hardly be worse, and would probably be better as Quebec would know all eyes are on it. <br />11. I think this is a given, and I doubt there are many in Quebec that would argue against it. Certainly all the last referendums were provincially funded, however, the federal government may want to spend some money making their case. <br />

[michou]

self censored

[Marcarc]

It's not quite that simple. There is a very justifiable concern that if trade relations sour then Quebec could use it's independance to 'make life difficult' for canadians trying to access the maritimes or vice versa. One of the fundamental aspects of sovereignty is determining who gets inside your borders. We can't just assume that the future Quebec federal government will always act in a specific manner, any more than we expect that of our canadian ones. Maintenance of the status quo is a strong pressure in english canada-a fear of change leads to many bad conclusions. But a sovereign Quebec can have very real complications for Canada, and it isn't just a 'quebecers hate us' kind of attitude. There are very real economic and political questions that have to be answered and if possible, allayed, and I think the spirit of that message was right on target in identifying Canadian concerns. <br /> Personally, I think some form of separation would be a good thing because if done correctly, I think this would really make canadians and quebecers fiercely competetive in building a better society than the other. One of the biggest fears of the feds is that, like native self government, if the people of Quebec develop a fundamentally different priority (looking after human interests BEFORE industrial interests-it's currently like that to some extent) then others will see this and expect to copy it. If you read canadian labour history you will see that this is precisely what the government wants to avoid.

[michou]

self censored

[Marcarc]

I completely agree. However, we must realize that we as canadians, and even quebecers would NOT be calling the shots-their governing 'representatives' would. As we know with the americans, when there is a power imbalance there is also a trade imbalance, a good example is the softwood trade war. It's ironic that far more trade wars are occurring under NAFTA than prior to it. <br /> Anyway, back on target. In an ideal scenario common sense would prevail, but that is 'pie in the sky'. The problem is that there is no doubt that it would get ugly, just noting that quebec sovereignty seems to be the most active conversation on this website should attest to that. Canadians have been as deluded into the 'canada number 1' as the americans have. To accede to the fact of 'breaking up the country' is a severe blow to one's morale, and if you look at how canada's government operates, that morale is the primary linchpin that keeps canadians from demanding real substancial change from its institutions. All the propaganda you hear about Canada's international respect, etc., attests to that. <br /> You are quite right about the feelings of Quebecers, depending on the percentage of votes, the majority of quebecers will be partying in the streets and actively engaging in creating their new form of government. Meanwhile, the ROC is the jilted boyfriend left to deal with the fact that not only are we not wanted, but few tears will be shed 'for the good times'. I just hope we don't become the abusive spouse who refuses to let the partner leave! One shouldn't discount the psychological impact of such an act. Canada was in shock after what it saw as the close call last time, which it recovered from only thanks to the big mouth of Parizeau who acted as a lightning rod. <br /> Personally, I feel the power of all governments should be substancially diminished. Even inside quebec you will note that Montreal will have different needs than Quebec city, or the gaspe peninsula. If the quebec government starts acting imperially and causing more harm than good then I have no doubt that the people of Gaspe will start their own separatist organization to join New Brunswick or what have you. Anybody who thinks the french are willing servants of imperial power of any sort doesn't know their french history. <br /> <br />To me, the idea of giving Ottawa all our money and letting them distribute it as they see fit is simply an empire by another name. Even the provinces who joined canada by clear referendums without financial duress (were there any?) didn't join under the conditions faced today. In 1867 there was no federal income tax.