Why Anglo media has it wrong on Quebec

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
And the Supreme Court said a simple majority is insufficient. End of story.

Should my wife be allowed to leave me without my approval?

She's not even a majority!

You are married to a minor? Sounds kind of predatory to me. Wink

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

swallow wrote:

I agree, this is precisely the attitude that explains why the Liberals have little support in Quebec outside Montreal. But of course, it helps them to mobilize anti-Quebec sentiment outside Quebec. 

Yes. And please don't forget to add: It provides right-wing Québec nationalists with nonstop talking points about why "we" need to get our asses out of Canada.

It doesn't seem to be doing them any good. Quebecers already have sovereignty and most of us know it.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

you've proven over and over again you don't have a clue about other people's thinking and beliefs pondering. you're a micro  of the Liberals macro inability to understand.

And yet the Liberals have done well in Quebec under Trudeau even though they are not in the moment.

I identify first as a Montrealer, second as a Quebecer, third as a maritimer and last as a Canadian. That doesn't mean I don't value the Canadian part.

Come election time we will see who does or doesn't have a clue about other people's thinking and beliefs. I am no psychic but I think my bets are as good as anyone elses.

DaveW

just back from the Townships and a beautiful sunny week (don't miss the Ayer's Cliff Fair!)

anyway, Mulcair's political pathway reminds me a bit of my own, although unlike many of us 1970s progressives, he never did "flirt" with sovereignty -- critics, please note!

I know, because I did, even joining  at one point CASA, the Committee of Anglophones for Sovereignty Association, back in the early 1980s, and then joining the broad entourage of Gerald Godin when he was minister for cultural communities

I voted Yes in 1980, not with any great elan about declaring independence (that was not going to happen), but because I thought the history of Quebec needed a turning point, where people FREELY decided; the federalists say, oh but they DID decide, back in 1867!

Georges-Etienne Cartier made a good case in the 1860s for Confederation, but as a British subject; as someone noted, his options ranged from A to B, that is, either remain some kind of British dependency or create a new federation together with similar colonies; good choice, the latter

Q.: what about options C and D? Those would be: become some sort of French dependency, or become an indepenedent French-speaking republic.

Oh yeah, those options disappeared with the military defeat by Britain 90 years earlier. So there was never a FREE decision as to Quebec's political fate. That reappeared in the 1960s with Rene Levesque's Option Quebec.

History is full of ambiguities, and Canada may be the best deal for Quebec in North America. I think that now, but Mulcair would not have been wrong to have left the doors open on  that debate.

 

wage zombie

Pondering wrote:

How the 51% of votes were distributed throughout the province would also matter. What if a large majority of Montrealers didn't want to separate from Canada? What about the Eastern Townships? Much of northern Quebec was not part of Quebec in 1866. It's aboriginal lands and their deal is with Ottawa not Quebec.

Does that work both ways?  Weren't there a bunch of regions in 1995 that voted Yes?  Shouldn't they at least have been able to separate?

Or was the Quebec-wide vote result the one that mattered?

Pondering

wage zombie wrote:

Pondering wrote:

How the 51% of votes were distributed throughout the province would also matter. What if a large majority of Montrealers didn't want to separate from Canada? What about the Eastern Townships? Much of northern Quebec was not part of Quebec in 1866. It's aboriginal lands and their deal is with Ottawa not Quebec.

Does that work both ways?  Weren't there a bunch of regions in 1995 that voted Yes?  Shouldn't they at least have been able to separate?

Or was the Quebec-wide vote result the one that mattered?

Sure, if they wanted to separate they should certainly have the right to and they did then and they do now. If the regions want to separate they could get together now and create a movement for it. The problem is the regions would not go for it.

The PQ went out of their way to insist Quebec's borders would not be affected. To them, Canada is devisable but Quebec is not. They know that they could never get a yes vote out of Quebecers if there were any hint that the borders of Quebec would shrink. They made the question convoluted on purpose because they knew then and they know now that the grand majority of Quebecers want to keep their Canadian passports for themselves and their children. That's why the PQ made up "sovereignty association" to describe separation.

QS people are quite different which is why Lagatta is often annoyed at my sweeping statements. QS is also separatist, or sovereignist, but they are more nuanced and they put social justice above separation. They see separation as a path to greater atonomy which would enable Quebec to become more progressive, otherwise they would vote PQ. QS is the child of the Quiet Revolution.

I suppose to me "separatist" is also shorthand for PQ.

 

jjuares

Pondering, you should probably just leave this one alone. Even the non-partisan so called leftists who usually sympathasize with you can't endorse your colonialist attitude on this one.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
Pondering, you should probably just leave this one alone. Even the non-partisan so called leftists who usually sympathasize with you can't endorse your colonialist attitude on this one.

There is nothing colonialist about it. A vote for independence should be based on facts not fantasies. Quebec on its own (at this time) would be weaker and more corrupt than Quebec within Canada.

I don't know why anyone would want to take a chance on giving Couillard or PKP even more power while losing medicare and UIC and all the other benefits of being Canadian.

Given the calibre of politician we elect to office is so dreadful even if separation might be a good idea in the distant future it isn't now. I can't imagine what hell we would be living through right now if the yes vote had prevailed in 95.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Québec independance could only work with a QS government. Anything else would simply be Canada with a blue flag.

jjuares

Pondering, I am not arguing for separations/ sovereignty. I am saying your arguments are tone deaf as to how progressive see this issue. You are just repeating right wing colonialist talking and you don't see that its okay but nonetheless your comments stand for themselves.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
Pondering, I am not arguing for separations/ sovereignty. I am saying your arguments are tone deaf as to how progressive see this issue. You are just repeating right wing colonialist talking and you don't see that its okay but nonetheless your comments stand for themselves.

I don't agree that my arguments are right-wing colonialist. I think that is an easy meaningless slur to throw around.

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Pondering, I am not arguing for separations/ sovereignty. I am saying your arguments are tone deaf as to how progressive see this issue. You are just repeating right wing colonialist talking and you don't see that its okay but nonetheless your comments stand for themselves.

I don't agree that my arguments are right-wing colonialist. I think that is an easy meaningless slur to throw around.


Like I say you don't get it. It is much like the labour forum when you started to give your opinions on unions and you just couldn't see why your comments were so objectionable to people in the labour movement. The moderators helped you out and told you that you might want to refrain from commenting. It was good advice and you followed it to your credit. It's much the same situation here.

swallow swallow's picture

DaveW wrote:

just back from the Townships and a beautiful sunny week (don't miss the Ayer's Cliff Fair!)

Hey, were you there Friday? My kid won second-place in one of the races. And got to go on bumper cars for the first time. He was very excited. 

But maybe we should all stay away, I hear there were some separatists about! 

Pondering

swallow wrote:

DaveW wrote:

just back from the Townships and a beautiful sunny week (don't miss the Ayer's Cliff Fair!)

Hey, were you there Friday? My kid won second-place in one of the races. And got to go on bumper cars for the first time. He was very excited. 

But maybe we should all stay away, I hear there were some separatists about! 

Why would you want to avoid separatists?

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

swallow wrote:

DaveW wrote:

just back from the Townships and a beautiful sunny week (don't miss the Ayer's Cliff Fair!)

Hey, were you there Friday? My kid won second-place in one of the races. And got to go on bumper cars for the first time. He was very excited. 

But maybe we should all stay away, I hear there were some separatists about! 

Why would you want to avoid separatists?


Um, they are mocking you, Pondering.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Québec independance could only work with a QS government. Anything else would simply be Canada with a blue flag.

What if 50% + 1  of Quebec wanted to go, but a lot of those 50% + 1 were conservative?

Are you saying that would be illegitimate, or that they'd be doomed to failure?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Québec independance could only work with a QS government. Anything else would simply be Canada with a blue flag.

What if 50% + 1  of Quebec wanted to go, but a lot of those 50% + 1 were conservative?

Are you saying that would be illegitimate, or that they'd be doomed to failure?

No, It would still be legitimate. Yes,it would be failure.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

swallow wrote:

DaveW wrote:

just back from the Townships and a beautiful sunny week (don't miss the Ayer's Cliff Fair!)

Hey, were you there Friday? My kid won second-place in one of the races. And got to go on bumper cars for the first time. He was very excited. 

But maybe we should all stay away, I hear there were some separatists about! 

Why would you want to avoid separatists?

Um, they are mocking you, Pondering.

That can occur in multiple directions.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I'd say, Magoo, that anyone who debates this provocative issue with you or Pondering has unlimited time to waste on their hands. If you don't respect Québec's right to self-determination, find another vocation in life.

I'mma take a page from, well, YOUR book and ask where I denied or tried to deny Quebec the right to self-determination.

Feel free to quote from this thread, or ANY OTHER.

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

swallow wrote:

DaveW wrote:

just back from the Townships and a beautiful sunny week (don't miss the Ayer's Cliff Fair!)

Hey, were you there Friday? My kid won second-place in one of the races. And got to go on bumper cars for the first time. He was very excited. 

But maybe we should all stay away, I hear there were some separatists about! 

Why would you want to avoid separatists?

Um, they are mocking you, Pondering.

That can occur in multiple directions.


So maybe you get it now?

Unionist

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I'd say, Magoo, that anyone who debates this provocative issue with you or Pondering has unlimited time to waste on their hands. If you don't respect Québec's right to self-determination, find another vocation in life.

I'mma take a page from, well, YOUR book and ask where I denied or tried to deny Quebec the right to self-determination.

Feel free to quote from this thread, or ANY OTHER.

I apologize, I misread your post.

Unionist

I'd say, Magoo, that anyone who debates this provocative issue with you or Pondering has unlimited time to waste on their hands. If you don't respect Québec's right to self-determination, find another vocation in life. I fervently hope Trudeau sounds like you and Pondering when he visits here. He will destroy his pathetic little party in ways that his daddy could only have dreamed of doing.

ETA: Apologies to Magoo, misread his post.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

As a consolation prize, perhaps you could quote some time when I said something really clever.  I could use the "likes".  Wink

lagatta

Above ANYTHING ELSE in my life, his method for producing skin-on but crisp and non-greasy poultry!

This IS NOT a joke.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

swallow wrote:

DaveW wrote:

just back from the Townships and a beautiful sunny week (don't miss the Ayer's Cliff Fair!)

Hey, were you there Friday? My kid won second-place in one of the races. And got to go on bumper cars for the first time. He was very excited. 

But maybe we should all stay away, I hear there were some separatists about! 

Why would you want to avoid separatists?

Um, they are mocking you, Pondering.

That can occur in multiple directions.

So maybe you get it now?

I always have "got it".  The majority of Quebecers want to remain Canadian and don't have any more problems with provincial/federal issues as any other Canadians. There was a time when there were problems but Bill 101 did it's job as did other measures like giving control over immigration to Quebec. Time to accept that the majority of Quebecers do not see separation as progressive or beneficial to the province or it's peoples. Progressives in Quebec and elsewhere may be enamoured with the idea but there is nothing automatically democratic or progressive about being pulled or pushed into separation.

Sovereignists may not like the idea but the fact is we already have political sovereignty in Quebec the same as everywhere else in Canada. We live in a democracy. We have used that sovereignty to twice vote against separation no matter the way the question is worded. Since then separation has only gotten less popular.

Some of you say then so what, that means it's just theoretical anyway. Well if it is just theoretical, then there is no reason to enact the Sherbrooke Declaration nor to repeal the Clarity Act. 

Here is an explanation of the Clarity Act:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act

On September 30, 1996, Dion submitted three questions to the Supreme Court of Canada constituting the Supreme Court Reference re Secession of Quebec:

  1. Under the Constitution of Canada, can the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
  2. Does international law give the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? In this regard, is there a right to self-determination under international law that would give the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
  3. In the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the right of the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take precedence in Canada?

As soon as these questions were made public, both parties of the National Assembly, the Bloc Québécois, and numerous federalists denounced Ottawa's gesture.[6]

On August 20, 1998, the Supreme Court answered, concluding that Quebec cannot secede unilaterally under Canadian or international law. However, the Government of Canada would have to enter into negotiations with the Quebec government if Quebeckers expressed a clear will to secede. It confirmed that the Parliament of Canada had the power to determine whether or not a referendum question was clear enough to trigger such negotiations. The Constitution of Canada would remain in effect until terms of secession were agreed to by all parties involved, through an amendment to the Constitution, which needs the consent of the federal Parliament and every province.[1] These terms would have to respect principles of democracy; minority and individual rights as outlined in the Canadian constitution.[7]

The court did not define what a clear majority means, and left that definition to politicians.[8]

Any negotiations would need to consider "many issues of great complexity and difficulty", such as economics, debt, minorities, Aboriginals, and boundaries. The court stated that:

"Nobody seriously suggests that our national existence, seamless in so many aspects, could be effortlessly separated along what are now the provincial boundaries of Quebec".[8]

Both the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada publicly stated that they were very pleased with the opinion of the Supreme Court, which stated both that Quebec could not legally separate unilaterally from Canada, and that the Government of Canada would have a legal obligation to enter into separation negotiations with Quebec in the event that a clear majority of its populace were to vote in favour of independence.....

.......

The key points of the legislation included the following:

  • Giving the House of Commons the power to decide whether a proposed referendum question was considered clear before the public vote;
  • Specifically stating that any question not solely referring to secession was to be considered unclear;
  • Giving the House of Commons the power to determine whether or not a clear majority had expressed itself following any referendum vote, implying that some sort of supermajority is required for success;
  • Stating that all provinces and the First Nations were to be part of the negotiations;
  • Allowing the House of Commons to override a referendum decision if it felt the referendum violated any of the tenets of the Clarity Act;
  • The secession of a province of Canada would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada.

Canada has a role to play in protecting Canadian Quebecers and ensuring our will is truly being expressed not the will of the Quebec politicians and elites.

There is no active movement in Quebec protesting the Clarity Act. This is entirely generated by the NDP in an effort to appeal to a minority of Quebecers. That's fine. They have every right to try to appeal to a particular segment of the population. They do have to be up front about it.

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

swallow wrote:

DaveW wrote:

just back from the Townships and a beautiful sunny week (don't miss the Ayer's Cliff Fair!)

Hey, were you there Friday? My kid won second-place in one of the races. And got to go on bumper cars for the first time. He was very excited. 

But maybe we should all stay away, I hear there were some separatists about! 

Why would you want to avoid separatists?

Um, they are mocking you, Pondering.

That can occur in multiple directions.

So maybe you get it now?

I always have "got it".  The majority of Quebecers want to remain Canadian and don't have any more problems with provincial/federal issues as any other Canadians. There was a time when there were problems but Bill 101 did it's job as did other measures like giving control over immigration to Quebec. Time to accept that the majority of Quebecers do not see separation as progressive or beneficial to the province or it's peoples. Progressives in Quebec and elsewhere may be enamoured with the idea but there is nothing automatically democratic or progressive about being pulled or pushed into separation.

Sovereignists may not like the idea but the fact is we already have political sovereignty in Quebec the same as everywhere else in Canada. We live in a democracy. We have used that sovereignty to twice vote against separation no matter the way the question is worded. Since then separation has only gotten less popular.

Some of you say then so what, that means it's just theoretical anyway. Well if it is just theoretical, then there is no reason to enact the Sherbrooke Declaration nor to repeal the Clarity Act. 

Here is an explanation of the Clarity Act:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act

On September 30, 1996, Dion submitted three questions to the Supreme Court of Canada constituting the Supreme Court Reference re Secession of Quebec:

  1. Under the Constitution of Canada, can the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
  2. Does international law give the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? In this regard, is there a right to self-determination under international law that would give the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
  3. In the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the right of the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take precedence in Canada?

As soon as these questions were made public, both parties of the National Assembly, the Bloc Québécois, and numerous federalists denounced Ottawa's gesture.[6]

On August 20, 1998, the Supreme Court answered, concluding that Quebec cannot secede unilaterally under Canadian or international law. However, the Government of Canada would have to enter into negotiations with the Quebec government if Quebeckers expressed a clear will to secede. It confirmed that the Parliament of Canada had the power to determine whether or not a referendum question was clear enough to trigger such negotiations. The Constitution of Canada would remain in effect until terms of secession were agreed to by all parties involved, through an amendment to the Constitution, which needs the consent of the federal Parliament and every province.[1] These terms would have to respect principles of democracy; minority and individual rights as outlined in the Canadian constitution.[7]

The court did not define what a clear majority means, and left that definition to politicians.[8]

Any negotiations would need to consider "many issues of great complexity and difficulty", such as economics, debt, minorities, Aboriginals, and boundaries. The court stated that:

"Nobody seriously suggests that our national existence, seamless in so many aspects, could be effortlessly separated along what are now the provincial boundaries of Quebec".[8]

Both the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada publicly stated that they were very pleased with the opinion of the Supreme Court, which stated both that Quebec could not legally separate unilaterally from Canada, and that the Government of Canada would have a legal obligation to enter into separation negotiations with Quebec in the event that a clear majority of its populace were to vote in favour of independence.....

.......

The key points of the legislation included the following:

  • Giving the House of Commons the power to decide whether a proposed referendum question was considered clear before the public vote;
  • Specifically stating that any question not solely referring to secession was to be considered unclear;
  • Giving the House of Commons the power to determine whether or not a clear majority had expressed itself following any referendum vote, implying that some sort of supermajority is required for success;
  • Stating that all provinces and the First Nations were to be part of the negotiations;
  • Allowing the House of Commons to override a referendum decision if it felt the referendum violated any of the tenets of the Clarity Act;
  • The secession of a province of Canada would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada.

Canada has a role to play in protecting Canadian Quebecers and ensuring our will is truly being expressed not the will of the Quebec politicians and elites.

There is no active movement in Quebec protesting the Clarity Act. This is entirely generated by the NDP in an effort to appeal to a minority of Quebecers. That's fine. They have every right to try to appeal to a particular segment of the population. They do have to be up front about it.


Look all this crap you are throwing around about the Quebec borders is the sort of right wing talking points I used to hear in Alberta. Most of the time it was not from Conservatives but nut bars to the right of them. I hope Quebec stays, but if they do it will be for their reasons and not because of colonialist threats. Very few marriages stay together when one of the spouses starts threatening the other about the dire consequences if they leave. You don't hear the sort of crap you are pedalling here too often anymore because even the right wing whack jobs have come to understand that.

lagatta

That stuff about "Canadian Quebecers" sounds like some crap from William Johnson. Protecting you from the horrible Québécois people...

No interest in a referendum or anything these days, but lots of interest in fighting rightwing bilge.

 

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
Look all this crap you are throwing around about the Quebec borders is the sort of right wing talking points I used to hear in Alberta. Most of the time it was not from Conservatives but nut bars to the right of them. I hope Quebec stays, but if they do it will be for their reasons and not because of colonialist threats. Very few marriages stay together when one of the spouses starts threatening the other about the dire consequences if they leave. You don't hear the sort of crap you are pedalling here too often anymore because even the right wing whack jobs have come to understand that.

It is hypocritical to suggest that Canada is devisable but Quebec is not. It also isn't true. The indigeneous people of Quebec have treaties with Canada that Canada is legally required to respect. That can't be unilaterally transferred to Quebec. Quebecers have a right to know that. The Supreme Court said that boundries would have to be negotiated.

DaveW

swallow wrote:

DaveW wrote:

just back from the Townships and a beautiful sunny week (don't miss the Ayer's Cliff Fair!)

Hey, were you there Friday? My kid won second-place in one of the races. And got to go on bumper cars for the first time. He was very excited. 

was he on a plowhorse?, ha

 

 

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Look all this crap you are throwing around about the Quebec borders is the sort of right wing talking points I used to hear in Alberta. Most of the time it was not from Conservatives but nut bars to the right of them. I hope Quebec stays, but if they do it will be for their reasons and not because of colonialist threats. Very few marriages stay together when one of the spouses starts threatening the other about the dire consequences if they leave. You don't hear the sort of crap you are pedalling here too often anymore because even the right wing whack jobs have come to understand that.

It is hypocritical to suggest that Canada is devisable but Quebec is not. It also isn't true. The indigeneous people of Quebec have treaties with Canada that Canada is legally required to respect. That can't be unilaterally transferred to Quebec. Quebecers have a right to know that. The Supreme Court said that boundries would have to be negotiated.


Yes, just like one spouse says to another that he/she will take the other one for everything they have if they divorce. That always keeps a marriage together- threats.Yeah, your just telling Quebecers this because their stupid and because they have a "right to know". It's not a threat. LOL Give your head a shake.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Look all this crap you are throwing around about the Quebec borders is the sort of right wing talking points I used to hear in Alberta. Most of the time it was not from Conservatives but nut bars to the right of them. I hope Quebec stays, but if they do it will be for their reasons and not because of colonialist threats. Very few marriages stay together when one of the spouses starts threatening the other about the dire consequences if they leave. You don't hear the sort of crap you are pedalling here too often anymore because even the right wing whack jobs have come to understand that.

It is hypocritical to suggest that Canada is devisable but Quebec is not. It also isn't true. The indigeneous people of Quebec have treaties with Canada that Canada is legally required to respect. That can't be unilaterally transferred to Quebec. Quebecers have a right to know that. The Supreme Court said that boundries would have to be negotiated.

Yes, just like one spouse says to another that he/she will take the other one for everything they have if they divorce. That always keeps a marriage together- threats.Yeah, your just telling Quebecers this because their stupid and because they have a "right to know". It's not a threat. LOL Give your head a shake.

No, Canada would not necessarily get to "keep" any part of what is now considered Quebec. Indigenous people of the north have their own agency and I can't imagine any scenario in which they would not take advantage to demand their own sovereignty. I can't imagine anyone having more right to it than indigenous peoples.

In any divorce both partners lose out. They just consider the cost worth the separation. No lawyer worth their salt would promise spouses that they will leave a marriage without cost. Both Quebec and the rest of Canada would lose out in a divorce. Canada is greater than the sum of it's parts.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

 

It is hypocritical to suggest that Canada is devisable but Quebec is not. It also isn't true.

That's a line straight from Howard Galganov. You're treading on thin ice.

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Look all this crap you are throwing around about the Quebec borders is the sort of right wing talking points I used to hear in Alberta. Most of the time it was not from Conservatives but nut bars to the right of them. I hope Quebec stays, but if they do it will be for their reasons and not because of colonialist threats. Very few marriages stay together when one of the spouses starts threatening the other about the dire consequences if they leave. You don't hear the sort of crap you are pedalling here too often anymore because even the right wing whack jobs have come to understand that.

It is hypocritical to suggest that Canada is devisable but Quebec is not. It also isn't true. The indigeneous people of Quebec have treaties with Canada that Canada is legally required to respect. That can't be unilaterally transferred to Quebec. Quebecers have a right to know that. The Supreme Court said that boundries would have to be negotiated.

Yes, just like one spouse says to another that he/she will take the other one for everything they have if they divorce. That always keeps a marriage together- threats.Yeah, your just telling Quebecers this because their stupid and because they have a "right to know". It's not a threat. LOL Give your head a shake.

No, Canada would not necessarily get to "keep" any part of what is now considered Quebec. Indigenous people of the north have their own agency and I can't imagine any scenario in which they would not take advantage to demand their own sovereignty. I can't imagine anyone having more right to it than indigenous peoples.

In any divorce both partners lose out. They just consider the cost worth the separation. No lawyer worth their salt would promise spouses that they will leave a marriage without cost. Both Quebec and the rest of Canada would lose out in a divorce. Canada is greater than the sum of it's parts.


As usual when you are caught in an uncomfortable position you simply redirect and make another point. The point is simple. What you are saying would be perceived as a threat by many people. Threatening won't work and for you to say they need to know these things is condescending and threatening.

swallow swallow's picture

DaveW wrote:

swallow wrote:

DaveW wrote:

just back from the Townships and a beautiful sunny week (don't miss the Ayer's Cliff Fair!)

Hey, were you there Friday? My kid won second-place in one of the races. And got to go on bumper cars for the first time. He was very excited. 

was he on a plowhorse?, ha

It was a foot race. And he won $2! Ayers Cliff, seedbed of capitalism. 

 

Pondering

lagatta wrote:

That stuff about "Canadian Quebecers" sounds like some crap from William Johnson. Protecting you from the horrible Québécois people...

No interest in a referendum or anything these days, but lots of interest in fighting rightwing bilge.

The Québécois people are Canadian. I am Québécois. I am as native as any other Québécois. I was born here, raised here, and lived here all of my life with the exception of a trip west as a teenager. I won't accept being othered.

The 60 to 70% of us that know we already have sovereignty get to have a voice and it is going to get louder. We get to say that Quebec is stronger as one of the founding nations of Canada than it is alone. Successive Quebec governments have had decades to prove that they can serve us better than the federal government. What did they do instead, both PQ and Liberals? They added 30% to our construction projects to pad their pockets and union bosses colluded. Am I supposed to believe all non-construction projects were above-board?

I will be happy to see Montreal get some direct funding from the federal government for transit, social housing and green projects. I much prefer that to the Sherbrooke Declaration which is nothing but an irritant Mulcair is using to appeal to a specific segment of Quebecers, or Québécois if you prefer.

Oligarchs are oligarchs, in French, English, Franglais and every other language of the world. The more people united to rebel against them the better.

Canada is a spectacular country. It wouldn't be half as spectacular if Quebec withdrew and Quebec would be weakened as well. Provincialism and regionalism across Canada weakens us.

We should be willingly renegotiating this:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/n-l-loses-upper-chur...

Martin said Hydro-Qué​bec's refusal to renegotiate a fixed-rate contract that does not expire until 2041 is "an abuse" that ultimately hurts the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. 

Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp., which is largely owned by Nalcor, took its case to redraw the 1969 power price agreement with Hydro-Québec to Quebec Superior Court. 

The 65-year contract, which took effect in 1976, allows Hydro-Québec to buy energy from Newfoundland and Labrador at flat rates established decades ago, and resell the energy to customers at prices several times higher. 

In a 250-page ruling, the court says CF(L)Co did not offer a convincing argument to change the deal.

Quebec is not getting a raw deal from being a member of Canada. We have control over language and culture and immigration. We have sent more Prime Ministers to Ottawa than the other provinces combined.

You believe that Quebec would be better off as an indepedent country, or with more power over it's own affairs than it already has. That's fair. But there is also an argument to be made for federalism and Canadian solidarity. The people of Quebec, of which I am one, have a right to express that too.

A photograph of a high-powered union boss having his back washed by a construction magnate while on vacation caused a stir at Quebec’s corruption inquiry on Monday, Jan. 20, 2014. The 2005 photo entered into evidence shows businessman Tony Accurso scrubbing the back of Jean Lavallee, a former head of the construction wing of Quebec’s biggest labour federation.

HO/Charbonneau Commission

lagatta

"You believe that Quebec would be better off as an indepedent country, or with more power over it's own affairs than it already has. That's fair. But there is also an argument to be made for federalism and Canadian solidarity. The people of Quebec, of which I am one, have a right to express that too".

No, I didn't say that. The RIGHT to national self-determination doesn't mean that it is necessarily better for a given nation to be independent, or that its people should vote that way. I don't know what you are worried about because these days there is no appetite for a referendum, and the most burning issues of national self-determination concern Indigenous nations, not Québécois.

Obviously people have every right to support federalism. Or any other arrangement. Personally, I think we need some kind of accord between Canada, Québec (perhaps Acadia and yes, Newfoundland) and the many Indigenous peoples. You've seriously misread me if you think I'm some kind of blueshirt nationaleuse. The Peoples' Forum in Ottawa grappled with this and many other issues facing us. And we certainly believe in "Pan-Canadian" working-class solidarity (English-speaking Canada, Québec, Indigenous nations and the other oppressed nations I cited).

As for the corruption photo, no shortage of that among the dominant nation either. Many trade unionists here and in many other countries have fought such corruption, and many have paid for it with their livelihoods, and not a few with their lives. But that does NOT mean that class independence isn't an important value as well, Plenty of corrupt upper-class people as well, who steal a lot more than sleazy union bureaucrats.

Pondering

lagatta wrote:
"You believe that Quebec would be better off as an independent country, or with more power over it's own affairs than it already has. That's fair. But there is also an argument to be made for federalism and Canadian solidarity. The people of Quebec, of which I am one, have a right to express that too".

No, I didn't say that. The RIGHT to national self-determination doesn't mean that it is necessarily better for a given nation to be independent, or that its people should vote that way. I don't know what you are worried about because these days there is no appetite for a referendum, and the most burning issues of national self-determination concern Indigenous nations, not Québécois. 

Because I see Mulcair using it in a calculated manner to gain support in Quebec without answering for it in the rest of Canada. If Mulcair is supporting the Sherbrooke Declaration based on principles then he should be prepared to defend those principles on the national stage. It is active legislation that he intends to pass, or at least that is what he claims. In Quebec, it is at the heart of the NDP's intended relationship with Quebec. The fact that he avoids the subject in English is two-faced.

lagatta wrote:
Obviously people have every right to support federalism. Or any other arrangement. Personally, I think we need some kind of accord between Canada, Québec (perhaps Acadia and yes, Newfoundland) and the many Indigenous peoples. You've seriously misread me if you think I'm some kind of blueshirt nationaleuse. The Peoples' Forum in Ottawa grappled with this and many other issues facing us. And we certainly believe in "Pan-Canadian" working-class solidarity (English-speaking Canada, Québec, Indigenous nations and the other oppressed nations I cited). 

I have come more and more to identify the primary battle by far to be between classes. It is even more significant that country borders in some instances. Every other battle, feminism, environmentalism, racism, etc. would be made a hundred times easier if inequality were not so dramatic.

lagatta wrote:
As for the corruption photo, no shortage of that among the dominant nation either. Many trade unionists here and in many other countries have fought such corruption, and many have paid for it with their livelihoods, and not a few with their lives. But that does NOT mean that class independence isn't an important value as well, Plenty of corrupt upper-class people as well, who steal a lot more than sleazy union bureaucrats.

This is true. In no way am I suggesting that entire unions are bad because of corruption in the leadership. Nor do I think all upper class or wealthy people are actively aware of how the system works to benefit them and exploit others unfairly.

 

lagatta

If you support the class struggle, there is no bloody reason to support the utterly bourgeois Liberal party. The NDP is bad enough in that respect, but the libs 100 times worse.

Moreover, while I unlike you am a socialist, I don't believe in such a reductive approach. Feminism, anti-racism, environmentalism and support for the rights of oppressed peoples are PROGRESSIVE movements within the anticapitalist left, which was often an old-boys' club and failed to address these forms of systemic harm caused by capitalism.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

Then that is the argument Mulcair should be presenting to the rest of Canada instead of pretending it's a non-issue that Trudeau is raising without cause. The NDP should defend the Sherbrooke Declaration in all of Canada not just in Quebec.

Anyway, I doubt Trudeau is going to raise it again, since the Liberals don't wish to see their Quebec numbers decline even more.  The economy will likely be the focus from now on.

The sovereignty issue is not a huge focus in this election.  But certainly when Mulcair is asked about it in the ROC, he does discuss it.  (and I'm sure this won't appease you, because, well, you're you, but anyway....) For instance, see Globe and Mail article Mulcair defends Quebec policy as he launches Ontario tour, partially quoted below.   

 

Quote:

The NDP leader defended his position that a bare majority of 50 per cent plus one vote should be sufficient to trigger negotiations on Quebec’s separation from Canada.

And he lashed out at Liberals, who’ve been the most critical of the NDP approach, accusing them of “giving up” on the majority of Quebecers and trying to re-stoke old quarrels.

“I haven’t given up on the majority of Quebecers, unlike the Liberals who have,” Mulcair said at the launch of his tour in downtown Toronto, what he called “Canada’s most important city.”

The NDP has vowed to repeal the Clarity Act, introduced by the Chretien Liberal government in the wake of the razor-thin No victory in the 1995 referendum on Quebec independence.

Mulcair criticized the act for failing to specify the precise threshold needed to trigger separation talks.

“(Liberals) think that they need a strategem, some sort of game-playing politically to say, ‘Well, we won’t tell you what the number is but it’s whatever they get plus a whole bunch more.’ Well, that’s not serious,” he said in response to questions from the media.

Mulcair noted that the “mother of all Parliaments,” in the United Kingdom, accepted a simple majority as the threshold that had to be met in the recent referendum on Scottish independence.

Pondering

I checked out your link. Mulcair is dishonest.

And he lashed out at Liberals, who’ve been the most critical of the NDP approach, accusing them of “giving up” on the majority of Quebecers and trying to re-stoke old quarrels.

“I haven’t given up on the majority of Quebecers, unlike the Liberals who have,” Mulcair said at the launch of his tour in downtown Toronto, what he called “Canada’s most important city.”

The NDP has vowed to repeal the Clarity Act, introduced by the Chretien Liberal government in the wake of the razor-thin No victory in the 1995 referendum on Quebec independence.

Based on advice from the Supreme Court, the Clarity Act states that a clear majority vote on a clear question on secession would be required before the federal government would agree to negotiate a divorce.

Mulcair criticized the act for failing to specify the precise threshold needed to trigger separation talks.

“(Liberals) think that they need a strategem, some sort of game-playing politically to say, ‘Well, we won’t tell you what the number is but it’s whatever they get plus a whole bunch more.’ Well, that’s not serious,” he said in response to questions from the media.

.......

“So, I’ll let the Liberals try to restart the quarrels of the past because they think that that used to help them.”

As he did in the debate he is inferring that it is the Liberals raising the issue when it is the NDP who is restarting old battles.

I want to know why the NDP is raising the topic of separation and repealing the Clarity Act when not even the PQ wants to discuss referendums.

I keep getting told that as there is no threat of another referendum so why do I care? Well given that there is no referendum on the horizon why is Mulcair so intent on stirring the pot? Why does he want to repeal the Clarity Act when no one in Quebec is agitating for it?

You can bet this will be a topic in the French debates and Trudeau will not be avoiding it. He has defended the Clarity Act in Quebec since he became leader and before. Duceppe will be more than willing to debate the Sherbrooke Declaration too.

Pondering

lagatta wrote:
If you support the class struggle, there is no bloody reason to support the utterly bourgeois Liberal party. The NDP is bad enough in that respect, but the libs 100 times worse. 

I'm not a party person and you are much more informed on party history. I am looking at the present, the next two to four years, and which party will likely successfully deliver the most positive changes the fastest. I believe we are going to need deficits and the Liberals have the credibility to run them. I believe the Liberals are pragmatic and making smart decisions like marijuana legalization that can give the economy a big boost.

lagatta wrote:
Moreover, while I unlike you am a socialist, I don't believe in such a reductive approach. Feminism, anti-racism, environmentalism and support for the rights of oppressed peoples are PROGRESSIVE movements within the anticapitalist left, which was often an old-boys' club and failed to address these forms of systemic harm caused by capitalism.

I looked up socialist to double check and I am a socialist at heart although not a specific type. I do believe that workers should own the means of production. I think any company that goes bankrupt should be frozen and employees given an opportunity to turn it into a co-op backed by government funding. That would put an end to planned bankruptcies.

Although I don't suppose it qualifies as socialism I do think Canada Post should be transformed into Canada Communications and take over installation of a fibre optic super highway and cell phone towers that the companies should rent space on instead of allowing the big telecoms to control our communication.

I don't mean that I am against the other movements, the anti-pipeline movement has made a huge impact, only that class war is the issue that can unite us and the key that will unlock the wealth that nurtures generousity of heart.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

As he did in the debate he is inferring that it is the Liberals raising the issue when it is the NDP who is restarting old battles.

If you looked at the article it was the Globe and Mail that stated (emphasis mine),

The Globe and Mail wrote:
And he lashed out at Liberals, who’ve been the most critical of the NDP approach, accusing them of “giving up” on the majority of Quebecers and trying to re-stoke old quarrels.

So obviously they agree with Mulcair's "inference" of the "Liberals raising the issue."

Pondering wrote:
I want to know why the NDP is raising the topic of separation and repealing the Clarity Act when not even the PQ wants to discuss referendums.

I haven't noticed the topic being raised that much in this election.  It's mostly the economy.  Regardless, about why the NDP has this policy, I previously provided a link to Layton talking about the how it is important to New Democrats to one day have Quebec sign the Constitution via setting up the "winning conditions" (aka a respectful environment).   Obviously from the quotes of Mulcair in the article, the Clarity Act is not viewed as respectful by New Democrats (I don't think it's respectful).  So that, I feel, is why the Unity Bill is proposed to replace the Clarity Act. 

Please answer one simple yes or no question for me, that being:  please state how your beloved Liberals are going to approach having Quebec sign onto the Constitution someday.  Do they have a plan?

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Please answer one simple yes or no question for me, that being:  please state how your beloved Liberals are going to approach having Quebec sign onto the Constitution someday.  Do they have a plan?

No they don't although there was some vague mention around when Couillard was elected in Quebec because he has made comments about it.

If there is any chance of Quebec's signature gracing the Constitution it will be with Liberals in power in both Quebec and Canada at the same time but I doubt even that is in the offing.

I see no chance of Couillard signing on to the Constitution at the instigation of Mulcair.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Memo to Gilles Duceppe. Give it up and enjoy your retirement.

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/bloc-quebecois-abandons-sovereignty-slogan-1....

lagatta

Indeed. Huge back step by the Bloc. And what a wimpy new slogan.

Duceppe's return was always a bit pathetic, un "baroud d'honneur". Sure, he is physically fit and mentally witty, but he should enjoy those qualities otherwise, including as a political commentator.

swallow swallow's picture

What do we want? Managerial incrementalism under the leadership of a highly respected and competent advocate of Quebec leading to as-yet undefined "gains"! 

When we do want it? ... Well, actually, we don't want it. Please, retire with some dignity, Gilles. 

lagatta

The "qui prend pays, prend parti" (mari) placards are still up around here. Poor Gilles. Think of our old pal Jean Doré and how lucky you are to be alive and in good mental and physical shape, as is your companion Yolande

Personally, I understand him, as he was witnessing the  "quétainisation" (Kitschifying) of his party under the sad Mario Beaulieu. It must have made his blood boil...

Unionist

Haven't talked to Gilles in about 5 years. I have no clue what's going through his head right now. Whatever it is, I hope it doesn't stay there long.

DaveW

funny op-ed cartoon today showed PKP and Duceppe cycling away , on stationary bicycles;

that's about how much ground they are gaining!

lagatta

cartoon reference, please? 

As for anglo media, the Gazoo is speaking of a "urination incident"... Normal people and other mammals urinate several times a day. The point is not "urination", but gross disrespect for other people's private property (and health) despite them being the supposed defenders of private property.

 

 

Pages