The nation of Quebec
Claude Boucher
ab...@torfree.net (Bob Allisat) wrote (écrivait) :
>ERIC LAURENCE REED (re...@sfsu.edu) asked:
>: Could someone fill me in on what kind of country Quebec would make?
>
>
> It will make a very small, very interesting
> and very nice country about the size of old
> New France. It will extend along both sides
> of the St. Lawrence river and a little inland.
Back to the border of New France. Great! So in exchange for the northern
parts of Quebec, we could get back the pre-1763 French territories!
Hmmmm... Will we grant a distinct society clause to the people of southern
Ontario?
Just kidding!
Claude
Serge Comtois
> It will make a very small, very interesting
> and very nice country about the size of old
> New France. It will extend along both sides
> of the St. Lawrence river and a little inland.
>
> Unless Quebec makes some concessions to native
> peoples it will NOT include the vast Northern
> areas including the notorious James Bay Project.
> Those territories belong to Cree and Inuit
> peoples who have expressed an interest in
> remaining associated with the country called
> Canada.
>
> Bob Allisat
Didn't the James Bay Agreement (between the natives and the Quebec gvt.)
include a promise by the former to give up its claim on the James Bay
area?
Neil
>
> ERIC LAURENCE REED (re...@sfsu.edu) asked:
> : Could someone fill me in on what kind of country Quebec would make?
>
> It will make a very small, very interesting
> and very nice country about the size of old
> New France. It will extend along both sides
> of the St. Lawrence river and a little inland.
>
> Unless Quebec makes some concessions to native
> peoples it will NOT include the vast Northern
> areas including the notorious James Bay Project.
> Those territories belong to Cree and Inuit
> peoples who have expressed an interest in
> remaining associated with the country called
> Canada.
Explain to me why Montreal, which as a city consistently has voted
overwhelmingly against separation, should be included in this new,
fantastical "country"?
*Vive le Canada uni!*
| | | |
| | |^| | |
| | <^\| |/^> | |
| | <__ __> | |
| | | | |
| | | |
******Neil Singh*****
Michael Kyba
wishes to enact a radical change that will affect all future
generations, and is intended to be perminant, is that of supramajority.
For example, to change the Canadian constitution, something like a
two thirds majority is required. A certain number of provinces (7 I
think?) representing a certain percentage of the population.
Amendments to the constitution of the United States require a similar
supramajority. The basic idea is that because future generations
who will have to live with the changes have no voice in the decision,
we are obliged to be more or less of one mind in making these changes.
With regard to secession, the changes will affect the rest of the
country as well, and we have no voice in the decision, so it would
only be acceptalbe for Quebec to secede if they were of one voice in
this desire. Which they are not. It would clearly be unthinkable
to allow a tyranny of the majority, indeed the slimmest of majorities,
over the many Canadians who live in Quebec.
One possible way out would be to allow each region of the province the
option of secession. Because the vote was split very much along
regional lines, this would effectively mitigate against any tyrany
of majority. The Nation of Quebec option would certainly not include
the northern two thirds of the provence, and most likely not include
Montreal.
The reluctance of reasonable Canadians to discuss the options of
independence for the Quebecois is understandable. We don't want to
think about something so painful. But if we do not, we only make
it easier for petty nationalists to paint an unreasonably blissful
picture of independence. Quebecers have the right to make an
informed choice between Canada and independence, and the lack of
reasonable discussion in the rest of Canada impairs their ability
to make such an informed choice.
Michael Kyba
David Voisine
: ERIC LAURENCE REED (re...@sfsu.edu) asked:
: : Could someone fill me in on what kind of country Quebec would make?
: It will make a very small, very interesting
: and very nice country about the size of old
: New France. It will extend along both sides
: of the St. Lawrence river and a little inland.
: Unless Quebec makes some concessions to native
: peoples it will NOT include the vast Northern
: areas including the notorious James Bay Project.
: Those territories belong to Cree and Inuit
: peoples who have expressed an interest in
: remaining associated with the country called
: Canada.
: Bob Allisat
:
--
^^^^^^^^^^^Hosea 3:5 Then the people of Israel shall turn back^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^and seek the Lord, their God, and David, their king.^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^..TORONTO...David Voisine <bo...@freenet.toronto.on.ca>...CANADA..^^^^
^The Newsgroup: alt.david Paraclete's http://www.geopages.com/Athens/1933^
Roger-Daniel Laberge
Neil <neil...@gas.uug.arizona.edu> wrote in can.francais :
[...]
>Explain to me why Montreal, which as a city consistently has voted
>overwhelmingly against separation, should be included in this new,
>fantastical "country"?
Tant qu'ą niaiser, niaisons: il y a un vieux couple qui occupe une
maison un tout petit peu en biais de ma résidence et qui a voté NON.
Je pense qu'eux aussi voudraient rester rattachés au Canada. Alors
taillons un autre petit trou dans le gruyčre.
..................................................
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ Roger-Daniel Laberge
rlab...@megatoon.com
..................................................
Bob Allisat
: Explain to me why Montreal, which as a city consistently has voted
: overwhelmingly against separation, should be included in this new,
: fantastical "country"?
Because it is undeniably a part of Quebec.
BA
**100% REAL** http://www.vrx.net/allisat **NOT from concentrate**
Sid Mitchell
>Neil (neil...@gas.uug.arizona.edu) wrote:
>: Explain to me why Montreal, which as a city consistently has voted
>: overwhelmingly against separation, should be included in this new,
>: fantastical "country"?
> Because it is undeniably a part of Quebec.
> BA
more stupid reasoning from the idiot in Toronto...
D'Amboise Charles
>ab...@torfree.net (Bob Allisat) writes:
>>Neil (neil...@gas.uug.arizona.edu) wrote:
>> BA
All right, my dear intelligent fellow.
Your right, it's stupid. Then, if quebec becomes independant,
francophones cities in the rest of canada will be able to decide that
they want to be in quebec, and that they don't want to stay in canada.
If you said that his comment is stupid, then it means you agree with this
one...
Bye bye.
T.Downing
>: overwhelmingly against separation, should be included in this new,
>: fantastical "country"?
>
>> Because it is undeniably a part of Quebec.
>
He's right! It is undeniable!
The simple act of asserting something to be factual does not make it
so nor does it prove it to be so if it is.
Montreal is part of the Province of Quebec, for the moment.
T.Downing, Montreal
Mark Suggitt
city state.
Brent Taylor
>All right, my dear intelligent fellow.
>Your right, it's stupid. Then, if quebec becomes independant,
>francophones cities in the rest of canada will be able to decide that
>they want to be in quebec, and that they don't want to stay in canada.
>If you said that his comment is stupid, then it means you agree with this
>one...
Well, it's safe to agree with that because the Francophone cities in
the rest of Canada would never be stupid enough to separate and run
off in a fool's marriage with the government of a separate Quebec,
which as done more to screw them out of their own linguistic
privileges than any anglophone government back home.
>Bye bye.
Close the door behind you.
Brent S.D. Taylor - VE1JH | Central Park 1965-1971
Doaktown on the Miramichi | Meadowbrook 1971-1973
New Brunswick, Canada | Lachine High 1973-1975
Grid Square FN66WN | Looking for exiles...
r.a.s.n./ NASCAR / MWDX / 6M VUCC #5481
Ron Webb
>: overwhelmingly against separation, should be included in this new,
>: fantastical "country"?
>
>
> Because it is undeniably a part of Quebec.
It is also apparent that is seems to be ok for Quebec to
separate from Canada but it isn't ok for parts of Quebec to
separate from Quebec.
Cut them back to what they were before confederation and then
kick them out. (we can have referendums too)
Philip Kremer
Mark Suggitt <msug...@bfsmedia.com> wrote:
>All hail the free city of Montreal and the return of the
>city state.
Nobody is suggesting that Montreal become an independent state, in
case the rest of the Province of Quebec wants to separate and Montreal
votes against it. Montreal would make a fine province! (If PEI can
be a province, then so can Montreal.) Or a fine addition to
Ontario...
-PK
tire...@magnet.ca
>Neil (neil...@gas.uug.arizona.edu) wrote:
>: Explain to me why Montreal, which as a city consistently has voted
>: overwhelmingly against separation, should be included in this new,
>: fantastical "country"?
> Because it is undeniably a part of Quebec.
> BA
I agree Bob, that Montreal is undeniably a part of Quebec, JUST as
Quebec is undeniably a part of Canada!
If Quebec can separate from Canada, it would be a double standard not
to equally agree then that Montreal can separate from Quebec.
Best wishes,
Tiresius
tire...@magnet.ca
>All hail the free city of Montreal and the return of the
>city state.
The city state has always been the fundamental building block, and it
is quite natural that this be so. It is only in relatively recent
history, that the concept of "political nations" became popular.
With the political borders becoming less important the world over, we
will probably see city states regain its status and powers managing
most regional affairs, while larger governments (federal and
provincial in Canada) will be left managing the more global issues and
maintaining standards across all the cities and regions.
Best wishes
Tiresius
Roger-Daniel Laberge
Ron Webb <ronp...@magi.com> wrote in can.francais :
[...]
>It is also apparent that is seems to be ok for Quebec to
>separate from Canada but it isn't ok for parts of Quebec to
>separate from Quebec.
>Cut them back to what they were before confederation and then
>kick them out. (we can have referendums too)
Je voudrais être généreux et dire que voilà un beau raisonnement de
pied mais il y a une limite à la générosité et il faut bien
reconnaître une bottine quand on est en sa présence.
Je me prépare à déménager à Montréal. Alors, quand viendra le temps du
référendum qui séparera le Québec du Canada et que Montréal se
séparera du Québec par référendum, est-ce que je devrai moi aussi
organiser un référendum chez moi pour me séparer de Montréal? Je ne
suis vraiment pas sûr de pouvoir trouver un chef pour le camp du NON
puisque la loi électorale interdit de recourir à quelqu'un d'un autre
appartement et je n'ai vraiment pas envie de voir mon appartement
envahi par le contenu d'une dizaine d'avions en provenance de tous les
coins du Canada. Je pense donc que je vais plutôt déclarer mon
indépendance unilatéralement.
Roger-Daniel Laberge
kre...@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Philip Kremer) wrote in can.francais :
>In article <30AE47...@bfsmedia.com>,
>Mark Suggitt <msug...@bfsmedia.com> wrote:
>>All hail the free city of Montreal and the return of the
>>city state.
>Nobody is suggesting that Montreal become an independent state, in
>case the rest of the Province of Quebec wants to separate and Montreal
>votes against it. Montreal would make a fine province! (If PEI can
>be a province, then so can Montreal.) Or a fine addition to
>Ontario...
À une seule condition: c'est que je puisse séparer mon appartement. Je
sais que mon fils voudra lui aussi séparer sa chambre de mon
appartement mais ça ne me fait pas un pli.
Bob Allisat
: by the same reasoning, Quebec is an undeniable part of Canada therefore
: whey should it be allowed to separate and split a country of over 27MM
: people in two.
At the time of the conquest (Plains
of Abraham and all that shit) Montreal
was a part of New France (Quebec). The
jurisdiction of Canada was a creation
of the British and therefore anything
to do with it does not bind the Quebecers
who once had sovereignity.
Quebec -including Montreal - will form
a nation along the borders of New France
or Lower Canada. If it can negotiate self-
determination with the Inuit and Cree of
the Northern Ungava territories then Quebec
*may* retain it's modern borders. IF.
Next time, Oui!
Bob Allisat
Bob Allisat
: I agree Bob, that Montreal is undeniably a part of Quebec, JUST
: as Quebec is undeniably a part of Canada!
: If Quebec can separate from Canada, it would be a double standard
: not to equally agree then that Montreal can separate from Quebec.
Montreal was a part of Quebec *before*
the British take-over. Any territories
Quebec gained from confederation or
British acts are *not* included in the
nation of Quebec as I see it... unless
Bouchard negotiates with the Ungava
Cree and Inuit and convinces them to
remain with Quebec.
For Quebec Canada is a forced creation
of the British imposed upon them before
they, as a nation, had any chance to reject
or amend it, before quebecois, as a people
formed into full consciousness of them-
selves. Canada is, therefore, a false or
artificial nation to millions of Quebecers.
Next Time. Oui!
martin
>Mark Suggitt <msug...@bfsmedia.com> wrote:
>>All hail the free city of Montreal and the return of the
>>city state.
> The city state has always been the fundamental building block, and it
>is quite natural that this be so. It is only in relatively recent
>history, that the concept of "political nations" became popular.
> With the political borders becoming less important the world over, we
>will probably see city states regain its status and powers managing
>most regional affairs, while larger governments (federal and
>provincial in Canada) will be left managing the more global issues and
>maintaining standards across all the cities and regions.
>Best wishes
> Tiresius
Why stop there? there are the beutiful townships, the st laurence all
the way to ontario and we need clear passage to the rest of eastern
can. the indians up north could be our buddies as well ( they are
conveiniantly close to the power production. I think we would get 80%
in favor of that deal. the strategy is to draw the bounderies along
the demographic scale and use the economic argument that in welfare
payments alone the ROQ (rest of quebec) or inbread quebec or whatever
are costing us too much, in short the stupid level of rhetoric the
seperatists use and since it is a proven formulae and we can probably
muster the bucks to get this gooing , we will win and never ever ever
ever ever ever ever ever ever ever hear about this bullshit again we
will once again prosper in a imigrant bilingual arts intelectual
infested invironment the sun will shine every day ... heck the united
nations will want to move here! (actually, there once was talk about
it.. no shit but since the rise of the fascist movement they changed
their minds for sure) -gotta go- martin
T.Downing
Laberge) wrote:
>>Nobody is suggesting that Montreal become an independent state, in
>>case the rest of the Province of Quebec wants to separate and Montreal
>>votes against it. Montreal would make a fine province! (If PEI can
>>be a province, then so can Montreal.) Or a fine addition to
>>Ontario...
>
>À une seule condition: c'est que je puisse séparer mon appartement. Je
>sais que mon fils voudra lui aussi séparer sa chambre de mon
>appartement mais ça ne me fait pas un pli.
>..................................................
J'ai la même condition pour la séparation du Québec.
En fait, j'ai cinq conditions.
Mais il te faut les deviner.
T.Downing, Montreal
martin
tire...@magnet.ca
>All right, my dear intelligent fellow.
>Your right, it's stupid. Then, if quebec becomes independant,
>francophones cities in the rest of canada will be able to decide that
>they want to be in quebec, and that they don't want to stay in canada.
>If you said that his comment is stupid, then it means you agree with this
>one...
>Bye bye.
I doubt many francophone cities outside of Quebec would want to
separate from Canada to join an indpendant Quebec. Most francophones
I know outside of Quebec are AGAINST Quebec's separation.
Best wishes,
Tiresius
tire...@magnet.ca
>tire...@magnet.ca wrote:
>: I agree Bob, that Montreal is undeniably a part of Quebec, JUST
>: as Quebec is undeniably a part of Canada!
>: If Quebec can separate from Canada, it would be a double standard
>: not to equally agree then that Montreal can separate from Quebec.
> Montreal was a part of Quebec *before*
> the British take-over. Any territories
> Quebec gained from confederation or
> British acts are *not* included in the
> nation of Quebec as I see it... unless
> Bouchard negotiates with the Ungava
> Cree and Inuit and convinces them to
> remain with Quebec.
> For Quebec Canada is a forced creation
> of the British imposed upon them before
> they, as a nation, had any chance to reject
> or amend it, before quebecois, as a people
> formed into full consciousness of them-
> selves. Canada is, therefore, a false or
> artificial nation to millions of Quebecers.
I believe Chris's rebutal to Maurice a few posts back, was well said.
I doubt you will be able to argue convincingly against the reality
that it is quite unimaginable to even consider that Montreal would
stay with an independant Quebec.
Best wishes,
Tiresius
Geoff Guenther
» Nobody is suggesting that Montreal become an independent state, in
» case the rest of the Province of Quebec wants to separate and Montreal
» votes against it. Montreal would make a fine province! (If PEI can
» be a province, then so can Montreal.) Or a fine addition to
» Ontario...
I'd prefer that Montreal become part of B.C. ;-)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
A straight line may be the shortest distance | Geoff Guenther
between any two points, but it is by no means | Computer Science, UBC
the most interesting. | __Õ
_'\<,_
(¤)/(¤)
__________________________________________________/--------z_
\
Charles Phelan
which begins " Je me souviens que nee sous le lis ..." I'd also like to
know who wrote it and when. many thanks CP
Roger-Daniel Laberge
:
dow...@vax2.concordia.ca (T.Downing) wrote in soc.culture.quebec :
[...]
>J'ai la même condition pour la séparation du Québec.
>En fait, j'ai cinq conditions.
>Mais il te faut les deviner.
Pourquoi est-ce que j'aurais envie de jouer aux devinettes?
Fawzi Dormeyer
Could someone please explain to me on what basis would Montreal claim the
right to seceede from Quebec?
The right of a city to self determinate? Is Montreal a nation with a
national assembly, a national flag, with a people having its own
institutions and its own traditions?
Please someone must explain how we came from the right of a nation or a
people to self determinate to the right of a city to self determinate...
Do I see magic wands?...
--
--
Fawzi Dormeyer
De Montréal, au Québec.
====================================================
Hier n'est autre que la souvenance d'aujourd'hui,
et demain est son rêve.
-Khalil Gibran
====================================================
Bob Allisat
: Don't be silly. Canada was created by *Canadians*, and Quebec was 1/4
: of the country at the time of confederation. Britain and France only
: gave assent.
Who's being silly? If it took the
quiet (silent) revolution to provide
a modicum of self-determination to
those willing to brown-nose the US
and Anglo overlords of Quebec the
state of this nation in 1867 was
no-where near a clear consciousness
of self.
Confederation was a cooked colonial
deal and continues to be a cooked
colonial deal. Quebec pulling out is
just a sign of it's maturity and
strong sense of identity. Finally!
Bob Allisat
: I think the last referendum showed the fallacy of assuming that rural
: Quebec can quietly drag Montreal away from Canada. Quebec should get
: used to the idea that it can't have sovereignty and take Montreal with
: it unless it wants to set the stage for long-lasting internal difficulties.
: Quebec wants Montreal because that's where the money is. The same money
: that defeated the referendum.... Montrealers made it quite clear that
: they don't want to go.
Montrealers? By that you mean a number
of things. From personal experience...
Montreal is composed of a majority of
French speaking Quebecers. There is a
minority of this group of indeterminant
number for whom separation poses direct
economic loss. It is natural - if short
sighted and a little cowardly - that this
group votes against soveriegnity every
time. How the PQ/BQ can loosen their
hard-line $$$ self-interest is a good
question. Not for me to answer alas.
Then there's the many new Quebecers of
other than English descent. I think a
decent and successful pitch can be made
to these voters by the PQ/BQ **IF** their
languages and cultures (Greek, Itallian,
Portugeuse etc) can be protected/preserved.
Also there's a huge whack of Anglo's who
are both fluently bilingual and open to
a soveriegn Quebec - once again - if certain
cultural/language protections are offered
to them.
And then there's the intractible West
Island anglo's. These people will NEVER
be consoled. Separatists have to steam-roll
over them... and avoid the trickery of
the federalistes next time around. So these
people can't pull the "Oh Canada Buses"
bunny-monster out of the hat... washing the
hard work of soveriegntists down the drain
in a sea of fear - disguised as patriotism.
Montreal is a fertile ground for Separatistes
to work. But they must be prepared to totally
fuck over - politically speaking - the
federaliste fear mongers and their West Island
bigot cronies. Next time it will happen...
Chris
nb.general:
>Could someone please explain to me on what basis would Montreal claim the
>right to seceede from Quebec?
Considering the province of Quebec has no constitutional right to leave
Canada, the question is hypocritical.
>The right of a city to self determinate? Is Montreal a nation with a
>national assembly, a national flag, with a people having its own
>institutions and its own traditions?
Quebec is not a "nation", but a province. The term "National Assembly" is
misleading, in that it has no special rights that aren't present in any
other layer of government. Montreal has a complete urban government with
taxation rights and regular elections. It is composed of smaller regions
that have some degree of autonomy from the MUC. It has two flags (one for
the city, and another for the MUC) and a coat of arms. It is composed of
a community of people who have less in common with the rest of Quebec than
with Toronto, Ottawa, New York, etc. Montreal is without question a
"distinct society" within Quebec, and should be given the right to self
determination on the same grounds that the province of Quebec wants that
right.
>Please someone must explain how we came from the right of a nation or a
>people to self determinate to the right of a city to self determinate...
>Do I see magic wands?...
No. You see "equality" at work. The only "magic wand" in use here is the
one that the PQ are waving while trying to convince the rest of us that
the Quebec provincial legislature has some special rights that don't apply
to any other federal, provincial, or municipal legislature in Canada.
--
Chris Rasley, Moncton, NB, Canada <cpra...@nbnet.nb.ca>
ATC (Moncton ACC), Private Pilot, Computer Geek, Coffee Addict
My Toys: '95 Ducati 900SSCR, '91 Jeep Renegade, Pentium 133
Mike Trembl
I have no idea who the author is...
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Option HyperCanada: Towards Maximum Satisfaction
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|01 | Definition of Canada
|
| * If the answer to the question "What does Quebec want?" is "Respect for
| Identity", then it can be given by a clear recognition of Quebec in the
| Constitution of Canada as a nation, not as just another province. It
| will also avoid the use of controversial "distinct society". Quebec
| will get more than what they have asked for, and "Quebec Nationalism"
| will lose its raison d'etre, although "Separatists" may still continue
| to exist.
|
| * To achieve maximum satisfaction of all Canadian citizens, the first
| paragraph of the Constitution of Canada shall read the following.
|
| Canada is an officially bilingual (English, French) federal
| democracy with a "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" and a
| principle of "Peace, Order and Good Government", consisting
| of the following distinct units, each of which may choose
| its own priority language(s) and a democracy option (Civil
| Code, Common Law).
| * Nation of Quebec
| * Aboriginal Nations
| * Province of Alberta
| * Province of British Columbia
| * Province of Manitoba
| * Province of New Brunswick
| * Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
| * Province of Nova Scotia
| * Province of Ontario
| * Province of Prince Edward Island
| * Province of Saskatchewan
| * Northwest Territories
| * Yukon Territories
|
| * The words "nation" and "national" will be strictly reserved for Quebec
| and aboriginal nations. Therefore, present federal institutions will be
| renamed with some creativity, imagination and ingenuity.
|
| * Federal institutions:
|
| o National Research Council -----------------| Canadian Research
| Council
| o National Library of Canada ----------------| Library of Canada
| o National Archives -------------------------| Archives of Canada
| o National Arts Centre ----------------------| Canadian Arts Centre
| o Department of National Defence ------------| Canadian
| Peace-Keeping Forces
| o National Gallery of Canada ----------------| Canadian Museum of
| Arts
| o ...
|
| * National/Provincial institutions:
|
| o Quebec National Assembly ------------------| (no change required)
| o National Library of Quebec ----------------| (no change required)
| o Ontario Legislative Assembly --------------| (no change required)
| o Saint Jean-Baptiste Day -------------------| La Fete Nationale
| o ...
|
| * Such a clarification eliminates the inconsistency, once and for all, of
| having a nation within a nation. More importantly, it goes a long way
| to satisfy the desire of the citizens for a more flexible federalism,
| as well as to grant psychological pride and honour for Quebec to be
| different from the others. Moreover, I would be happy to see
| constitutional bilingualism retained, while others would be happy to
| see French as the constitutional language of priority. Since all units
| are recognised as distinct, there would not be polarisation between
| "English Canada" and "Quebec" solitudes.
|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|02 | Institutional Reform and Division of Powers
|
| * The foremost objective of the quick change in the constitution is to
| re-define Canada, and set a stage for further rationalisation of
| power-sharing within the federation in a logical manner with cool heads
| instead of an environment of emotinal uncertainty and a series of
| never-ending unity crises.
|
| * If the Allaire Report of the Liberal Party of Quebec calls for 22
| provincial jurisdictions for Quebec, exceed their expectations and give
| them more. In return, the Federal Government would close the
| notwithstanding clause, retain the power to set up new programs with
| the understanding that they be eventually handed over to the nations
| and provinces. The major role of the Federal Government would be to
| guarantee citizenship and human rights, national/provincial
| equalisation, and the following fundamental principles for every aspect
| of government services.
|
| o Comprehensiveness
| o Universality
| o Compatibility
| o Portability
| o Accessibility
| o Public Administration
| o Minimum Standards
|
| * Today's federal system forces people to choose loyalty. For example, my
| household of 5 people must fill out as many as 6 income tax forms a
| year (2 Federal personal income tax forms, 2 Quebec personal income tax
| forms, 1 Federal business income tax form, 1 Quebec business income tax
| form). In contrast, the GST/PST declaration for my small enterprise is
| harmonised into a single form with both Canadian and Quebec logos. It
| is ironic that only Quebec businesses benefit from the GST/PST single
| filing at present (except for Alberta which has no PST).
|
| * Due to the lack of compatibility and portability, I have to pay cash to
| a doctor or a hospital in other provinces for partial re-imbursement
| later on by the Quebec Health Insurance Plan. If I move to another
| province or territory, I would have to experience a series of
| nightmares in education, driver's license and vehicle registration,
| among others.
|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|03 | Virtual Constitutional Assembly in CyberSpace
|
| * My proposal is to set up a "Virtual Constitutional Assembly" as the
| ultimate participatory democracy in CyberSpace, and hold an on-line
| Canadian Constitution contest.
|
| * The objective is to come up with a few different versions of a new
| constitution, and hold a multiple-choice referendum to have the
| citizens vote for the best solution. Each version would have a
| moderator who converts the E-mail or form input from the general public
| into legal text with explanatory annotation on the World-Wide Web site.
| The bottom line is that the constitutional process would be open to any
| citizen who are interested in contributing to Canada, but in plural
| manner to achieve maximum satisfaction.
|
| * Logistically, a master "Virtual Constitutional Assembly" World-Wide Web
| site would have to be set up. I might even volunteer the HyperInfo.CA
| site, if the federal government subsidises the maintenance cost.
|
| * This may be way ahead of its time, but some M.P.s and Senators as well
| as parties are already on the Internet with their own World-Wide Web
| Home Page, and Internet is growing at a phenomenal rate in Canada.
| There is even "Internet Tips Line" (1-900-451-5053 extension 642)!
--
Mike Trembly <mi...@compact.com>
Compact Group
T.Downing
>Could someone please explain to me on what basis would Montreal claim the
>right to seceede from Quebec?
>The right of a city to self determinate? Is Montreal a nation with a
>national assembly, a national flag, with a people having its own
>institutions and its own traditions?
>Please someone must explain how we came from the right of a nation or a
>people to self determinate to the right of a city to self determinate...
>Do I see magic wands?...
>
Reason #1: It is our democratic right to separate from Quebec if 50% +
1 decides that that is what we want to do.
Tom Downing
Montreal, the greatest City in the World /// Montréal, la plus belle Ville du Monde
cjo...@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: In article <49gja9$4...@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>, tire...@magnet.ca wrote:
: >ab...@torfree.net (Bob Allisat) wrote:
: >>tire...@magnet.ca wrote:
: Could someone please explain to me on what basis would Montreal claim the
: right to seceede from Quebec?
: The right of a city to self determinate? Is Montreal a nation with a
: national assembly, a national flag, with a people having its own
: institutions and its own traditions?
: Please someone must explain how we came from the right of a nation or a
: people to self determinate to the right of a city to self determinate...
: Do I see magic wands?...
Montreal is "culturally distinct" from the rest of Quebec. It
has a significant "ethnic" and "linguistic" minority population, just
like Quebec does within Canada.
If you see magic wands, they must also be present in saying that
Quebec can secede. Montreal can be considered a nation, just as Quebec can.
If a "distinct" minority within a nation has a right to secede,
such as Quebec from Canada, then would not a "distinct" minority within
that new nation also have a right to secede? Do the natives not have the
right, if Quebec seceded, to secede from Quebec as well? If the natives
have it, being a "distinct minority" within a nation, would not the
Gatineau/Hull region have it as well? After all, they have a significant
"minority" population. If one socio-political entity has the right to
separate from a larger one, then smaller socio-political entities (like
Montreal, the Gatineau, the North, etc...) have the right as well.
Once you start dividing, it's impossible to draw a line....
Ellie Charest
Organization: >> coffeehaus << " We percolate great ideas. "
Distribution:
cjo...@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
Except that you have to make a distinction between the "right", the
"will" and the "power" to secede. Quebec has all three. Other cases need
particular analysis. Simple analogies don't make the world go round, my
friend...
Turgon
Fawzi Dormeyer
() wrote:
>Fawzi Dormeyer (fa...@cam.org) wrote:
>: In article <49gja9$4...@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>, tire...@magnet.ca wrote:
>: >ab...@torfree.net (Bob Allisat) wrote:
>: >>tire...@magnet.ca wrote:
>[Much deleted]
>
>: Could someone please explain to me on what basis would Montreal claim the
>: right to seceede from Quebec?
>: The right of a city to self determinate? Is Montreal a nation with a
>: national assembly, a national flag, with a people having its own
>: institutions and its own traditions?
>: Please someone must explain how we came from the right of a nation or a
>: people to self determinate to the right of a city to self determinate...
>: Do I see magic wands?...
>
> Montreal is "culturally distinct" from the rest of Quebec. It
>has a significant "ethnic" and "linguistic" minority population, just
>like Quebec does within Canada.
> If you see magic wands, they must also be present in saying that
>Quebec can secede. Montreal can be considered a nation, just as Quebec can.
I believe you should open a dictionary and read the actual definition of
"nation". You might have some surprises...
> If a "distinct" minority within a nation has a right to secede,
>such as Quebec from Canada, then would not a "distinct" minority within
>that new nation also have a right to secede? Do the natives not have the
>right, if Quebec seceded, to secede from Quebec as well? If the natives
>have it, being a "distinct minority" within a nation, would not the
>Gatineau/Hull region have it as well? After all, they have a significant
>"minority" population. If one socio-political entity has the right to
>separate from a larger one, then smaller socio-political entities (like
>Montreal, the Gatineau, the North, etc...) have the right as well.
> Once you start dividing, it's impossible to draw a line....
A people of a nation draws it.
Dennis Kuska
split up Quebec !!!
Curt Springer
>If Quebec has the right to split up Canada, then Canada has the right to
>split up Quebec !!!
Damn right! Let's do it horizontally -- the topsoil goes with the
independent Quebec, the clay/hardpan stays in Canada, and the bedrock
becomes a native territory.
Curt (qui aurait ecrit en francais, s'il avait trouve tous les mots dans sa
dictionnaire)
Dennis Kuska
and N.W.Territories are just as much "Distinct Societies" as Quebec
claims to be. Each has their own cultures and traditions, and each have
a great many things to be proud of. Let's face it, Canada is made up of
a cultural "mosaic" which gives this great country it's character. It is
based on all citizens being equal, so when you identify a particular
group as having "special" rights and priviledges it goes against all
that Canada was intended to be. All citizens of Canada should be granted
the same "special" rights and priviledges as Quebec citizens. All
Canadians should be equal!!
Desy Michel
Excellente idee. Mais il reste les gens. Il faut trouver une solution au
probleme de la citoyennete. Faisons donc appel a la chainsaw divine;
decoupons en morceaux ces pauvres heres qui n'ont pas demande a naitre
ici: leur tete sera quebecoise, leur tronc sera canadien et et leurs bras
et jambes seront envoyes a l'ONU pour bien marquer notre attachement a la
communaute internationale.
For every problem there's a solution.
______________________________________________________________________________
Michel Desy "There was once a little sausage named Baldrick,
Dept. Philosophie And it lived happily ever after".
Universite de Montreal -S.O. Baldrick (Blackadder III)
des...@ere.umontreal.ca -dLsK! R.I.P......
______________________________________________________________________________
T.Downing
wrote:
snipped:
previous stuff about Montreal's right to secede from Quebec vs
Quebec's right to secede from Canada
>
>Except that you have to make a distinction between the "right", the
>"will" and the "power" to secede. Quebec has all three. Other cases need
>particular analysis. Simple analogies don't make the world go round, my
>friend...
>
This sure sounded familiar.
"Kingdom, Power and Glory"?
T.Downing
Lemieux Brigitte
::bo...@vaxxine.com says...
::If Quebec has the right to split up Canada, then Canada has the right to
::split up Quebec !!!
:Damn right! Let's do it horizontally -- the topsoil goes with the
:independent Quebec, the clay/hardpan stays in Canada, and the bedrock
:becomes a native territory.
That, my dear Curt, deserves the medal for the funniest post I've read
_anywhere_ on Usenet in months! Man, if we have one of those DAC meetings
in the next few weeks, you have _got_ to show up. I'd be honored to shake
your hand.
Vincent (this message was relayed by Brigitte, alleluia)
T.Downing
>spri...@tiac.net (Curt Springer) writes:
>
>>In article <49r6s2$d...@alpha.vaxxine.com>, bo...@vaxxine.com says...
>
>>>If Quebec has the right to split up Canada, then Canada has the right to
>>>split up Quebec !!!
>
>>Damn right! Let's do it horizontally -- the topsoil goes with the
>>independent Quebec, the clay/hardpan stays in Canada, and the bedrock
>>becomes a native territory.
>
>>Curt (qui aurait ecrit en francais, s'il avait trouve tous les mots dans sa
>>dictionnaire)
>
>Excellente idee. Mais il reste les gens. Il faut trouver une solution au
>probleme de la citoyennete. Faisons donc appel a la chainsaw divine;
>decoupons en morceaux ces pauvres heres qui n'ont pas demande a naitre
>ici: leur tete sera quebecoise, leur tronc sera canadien et et leurs bras
>et jambes seront envoyes a l'ONU pour bien marquer notre attachement a la
>communaute internationale.
>
>For every problem there's a solution.
>
I smell a movie. Monster from Montreal. It could be modeled after
"Invasion of the body snatchers". Mad scientist creates virus that
turns normal fun loving French Canadians into crazed separatists.
After an incubation period of 14 days from first exposure, the victims
of the virus turn violent. They try to obtain guns but are turned down
at Canadian Tire on some sort of technicality concerning their
firearms aquisition certificates. In desperation, they turn to the
woodworking department and load up on power tools of various sorts.
They then proceed to pop up at unexpected locations and create mayhem
with their chainsaws, power drills, sanders, etc.
The ending? That's anybodies guess.
T.Downing
tire...@magnet.ca
>In article <49gja9$4...@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>, tire...@magnet.ca wrote:
>>ab...@torfree.net (Bob Allisat) wrote:
>>
>>>tire...@magnet.ca wrote:
>>>: as Quebec is undeniably a part of Canada!
>>>: If Quebec can separate from Canada, it would be a double standard
>>>: not to equally agree then that Montreal can separate from Quebec.
>>
>Could someone please explain to me on what basis would Montreal claim the
>right to seceede from Quebec?
It would be the same democratic right of a group of people wishing to
formulate its own society. It is similar to the arguments put forward
by Quebec nationalists.
>The right of a city to self determinate? Is Montreal a nation with a
>national assembly, a national flag, with a people having its own
>institutions and its own traditions?
I doubt if Montreal would secede to be its own country, it is would
most likely to be to form another province IN Canada, a province that
would never have left Canada.
A "national assembly," perhaps not, but I do not see why the
superstructure of the MUC would not easily form a provincial governing
body with minor alterations.
A "national flag?" Neither does Quebec which has a provincial flag at
present. Perhaps the hypothetical province of Montreal would adopt
the city's flag as its provincial flag, or create a new one.
As for "people," Montreal has always had a diverse group of people.
It considers itself cosmopolitan and diverse, mulitcultural if you
wish.
Montreal does have its own traditions and institutions. Many of the
hospitals of Montreal (including some being closed) were NOT built by
government money, but by the charity of Montrealers. The same is true
of McGill University.
>Please someone must explain how we came from the right of a nation or a
>people to self determinate to the right of a city to self determinate...
>Do I see magic wands?...
There is no magic wands. Quebec separating from Canada is not a
"right" of a nation nor a people. It is the desire of its population
to be an independant country.
Similarly, IF Montreal chose to separate, it is not a "right" of a
nation, but the desire of its population. (Again, unlikely to form a
new country, but to remain as a province in Canada.)
I will agree, that Montreal separating is a "messy" affair, but so is
Quebec separating a "messy" affair. If Quebec sets a precedant, I am
afraid that there will be many "messy" affairs.
Best wishes,
Tiresius
Bill Frampton
nor the power to secede.
The Constitution specifies what legal rights and powers our governments
possess, and the Quebec Superior Court confirmed that separation is
illegal today. And since the NO side won the referendum (despite the
separatists' pathetic attempts at cheating) it doesn't have the will
either!!
Let's get one thing clear: Quebec is NOT a nation. It's a province of
Canada. Those who don't like it have a simple choice: apply for a visa,
pack your bags, and get on a plane for some other country. Would you
prefer Haiti, Algeria, or Benin? If not, I suggest you shut up and
learn to like this country.
Vive le Canada uni!
Bill Frampton.
tire...@magnet.ca
>07322...@fawzi.hip.cam.org> <49o2qv$f...@news.sas.ab.ca>:
>Organization: >> coffeehaus << " We percolate great ideas. "
>Distribution:
>cjo...@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
>: Fawzi Dormeyer (fa...@cam.org) wrote:
>: : In article <49gja9$4...@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>, tire...@magnet.ca wrote:
>: : >ab...@torfree.net (Bob Allisat) wrote:
>: : >>tire...@magnet.ca wrote:
>: [Much deleted]
>: : Could someone please explain to me on what basis would Montreal claim the
>: : right to seceede from Quebec?
>: Montreal is "culturally distinct" from the rest of Quebec. It
>: has a significant "ethnic" and "linguistic" minority population, just
>: like Quebec does within Canada.
>: If a "distinct" minority within a nation has a right to secede,
>: such as Quebec from Canada, then would not a "distinct" minority within
>: that new nation also have a right to secede? Do the natives not have the
>
>Except that you have to make a distinction between the "right", the
>"will" and the "power" to secede. Quebec has all three. Other cases need
>particular analysis. Simple analogies don't make the world go round, my
>friend...
You forgot an IMPORTANT fourth necessity, the VIABLILITY !!!
If the VAST majority (>70% let's say, or at least the same percentage
separatists want to use for Quebec) of Montrealers want to secede,
then they have the "RIGHT."
The "WILL" of Montrealers to secede is growing stronger daily. This
"will" has been slowly building as the politics of Quebec has been
quite heavy for Montreal to bear. I do not doubt, if Quebec secedes,
the "WILL" in Montreal to secede will surprise us all!
The "POWER" to secede derives from all FOUR aspects. Montreal will no
doubt fulfill all four more easily than Quebec.
The "VIABILILITY" of Montreal forming a province that remains in
Canada is hardly questionable. Would a separate Quebec be "viable?"
Many have good arguments that a separate Quebec would not be "viable!"
Best wishes,
Tiresius
tire...@magnet.ca
>Chris (cpra...@nbnet.nb.ca) wrote:
>: I think the last referendum showed the fallacy of assuming that rural
>: Quebec can quietly drag Montreal away from Canada. Quebec should get
>: used to the idea that it can't have sovereignty and take Montreal with
>: it unless it wants to set the stage for long-lasting internal difficulties.
>: Quebec wants Montreal because that's where the money is. The same money
>: that defeated the referendum.... Montrealers made it quite clear that
>: they don't want to go.
> Montrealers? By that you mean a number
> of things. From personal experience...
> Montreal is composed of a majority of
> French speaking Quebecers. There is a
> minority of this group of indeterminant
> number for whom separation poses direct
> economic loss. It is natural - if short
> sighted and a little cowardly - that this
> group votes against soveriegnity every
> time. How the PQ/BQ can loosen their
> hard-line $$$ self-interest is a good
> question. Not for me to answer alas.
Montreal does indeed have a large number of francophones. But do
remember that a large number of francophones (40%) across the rest of
Quebec also voted "no" to separation.
Yes money does play a role. Why should it not? Montreal has been
hard hit by the politics of our province, and Montrealers are in a
good position to see the economic burden that separation entails.
To convert francophone Montreals in general, you will have to stop the
hardships that have been forced upon it by Quebec city and NOT the
rest of Canada, or some other fictitious ghost.
> Then there's the many new Quebecers of
> other than English descent. I think a
> decent and successful pitch can be made
> to these voters by the PQ/BQ **IF** their
> languages and cultures (Greek, Itallian,
> Portugeuse etc) can be protected/preserved.
The vast numbers of all non-francophone Quebecers speak French. The
garner the non-francophone vote, you will have to do a number of
things...
1. Heavily chastise, if not out right dissassociate, anyone you
makes "ethnic" slurs, or speaks in a manner that might be perceived as
racist.
2. Consider every Quebecer as an equal, and not discriminate
against non-francophones. (eg the Quebec beuracracy is 96%
francophone!)
3. Remove restrictive and discriminatory laws.
4. If we are to have French proficiency tests for professionals,
then ALL Quebecers INCLUDING francophones must have to pass them.
> Also there's a huge whack of Anglo's who
> are both fluently bilingual and open to
> a soveriegn Quebec - once again - if certain
> cultural/language protections are offered
> to them.
Same points as above...
> And then there's the intractible West
> Island anglo's. These people will NEVER
> be consoled. Separatists have to steam-roll
> over them... and avoid the trickery of
> the federalistes next time around. So these
> people can't pull the "Oh Canada Buses"
> bunny-monster out of the hat... washing the
> hard work of soveriegntists down the drain
> in a sea of fear - disguised as patriotism.
You make it sound as if the West Isalnd is a bastion of English!!!
The West Island is VERY bilingual. The Veudreuil riding is 70%
FRANCOPHONE !!! (Sorry for only having the figures of Vaudreuil
riding available, which encompasses the West Island towns of Kirkland
to the Western tip of Montreal, as well as Hudson all the way to the
Ontario border!) AND just north of Kirkland is Pierrefonds which is
quite French!
So this "Intractable West Islanad" is NOT an ENGLISH bastion, but a
bilingual area. You will have to "convert" the francophones here as
well as anywhere else in Quebec.
> Montreal is a fertile ground for Separatistes
> to work. But they must be prepared to totally
> fuck over - politically speaking - the
> federaliste fear mongers and their West Island
> bigot cronies. Next time it will happen...
>
But are they the SAME separatists???
Montreal never seriously considered disassociating themselves from the
rest of Quebec (ROQ), but the hardships it has suffered, and the
"separation at ALL costs" (forget governing) that is coming from
Quebec City IS proving fertile ground for a MONTREAL independance
movement!!!
(Personally, I hope it never gets to this!)
Best wishes,
Tiresius
rk...@ivory.trentu.ca
>This is the most sensible solution for the Constitution I have seen so far, although
>I have no idea who the author is...
>
extremely offensive as well as totally unacceptable. Now I would love to work
out a solution that would see Quebec's recognition go beyond merely being
symbolic, but I refuse to betray my identity as a Canadian by accepting this
rubbish for the reasons below.
>|01 | Definition of Canada
>|
>| * If the answer to the question "What does Quebec want?" is "Respect for
>| Identity", then it can be given by a clear recognition of Quebec in the
>| Constitution of Canada as a nation, not as just another province. It
I don't think people have trouble with that- respect for the identity of Quebec
is prevalent within the civilian population. However, many Canadians also have
an identity, and they would feel wronged and slighted if this reality isn't
affirmed in the Constitution.
>| will also avoid the use of controversial "distinct society". Quebec
>| will get more than what they have asked for, and "Quebec Nationalism"
>| will lose its raison d'etre, although "Separatists" may still continue
>| to exist.
>|
Absolutely...I'd be one of them...a British Columbian separatist!
>| * To achieve maximum satisfaction of all Canadian citizens, the first
>| paragraph of the Constitution of Canada shall read the following.
>|
>| Canada is an officially bilingual (English, French) federal
>| democracy with a "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" and a
>| principle of "Peace, Order and Good Government", consisting
>| of the following distinct units, each of which may choose
>| its own priority language(s) and a democracy option (Civil
>| Code, Common Law).
Kinda deceptive...isn't it? I mean, then you should write in "Canada is a
citizenship, nothing more. Only two nations reside in Canada: the Quebecois
and Aboriginal peoples."
>| * Nation of Quebec
>| * Aboriginal Nations
>| * Province of Alberta
>| * Province of British Columbia
>| * Province of Manitoba
>| * Province of New Brunswick
>| * Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
>| * Province of Nova Scotia
>| * Province of Ontario
>| * Province of Prince Edward Island
>| * Province of Saskatchewan
>| * Northwest Territories
>| * Yukon Territories
>|
>| * The words "nation" and "national" will be strictly reserved for Quebec
>| and aboriginal nations. Therefore, present federal institutions will be
This is absolutely unacceptable. What about the "Canadian" people....do we not
count? Nation is a concept which is prevalent in three communities- to suggest
that Canada is a blanket identity, and Quebec and Aboriginal peoples comprise
the only "nations" in this country is inflamatory, ignorant and extremely lame.
Many Canadians would see this for what it is...a sellout!
>| renamed with some creativity, imagination and ingenuity.
>|
Not really....I've learned to call a spade a spade- this is a sellout, plain
and simple.
>| * Federal institutions:
>|
>| o National Research Council -----------------| Canadian Research
>| Council
>| o National Library of Canada ----------------| Library of Canada
>| o National Archives -------------------------| Archives of Canada
>| o National Arts Centre ----------------------| Canadian Arts Centre
>| o Department of National Defence ------------| Canadian
>| Peace-Keeping Forces
>| o National Gallery of Canada ----------------| Canadian Museum of
>| Arts
>| o ...
>|
These titles have historical significance, and should be viewed as neither
inflamatory or inappropriate since they have changed to reaffirm that Canada is
no longer a "colony" of Britain. To make the change now is pointless, and
would no doubt be resisted by many Canadians on the premonition that you'd be
stripping them of their culture, which of course you would be.
>| * National/Provincial institutions:
>|
>| o Quebec National Assembly ------------------| (no change required)
>| o National Library of Quebec ----------------| (no change required)
>| o Ontario Legislative Assembly --------------| (no change required)
>| o Saint Jean-Baptiste Day -------------------| La Fete Nationale
>| o ...
>|
>| * Such a clarification eliminates the inconsistency, once and for all, of
>| having a nation within a nation. More importantly, it goes a long way
>| to satisfy the desire of the citizens for a more flexible federalism,
>| as well as to grant psychological pride and honour for Quebec to be
>| different from the others. Moreover, I would be happy to see
>| constitutional bilingualism retained, while others would be happy to
>| see French as the constitutional language of priority. Since all units
>| are recognised as distinct, there would not be polarisation between
>| "English Canada" and "Quebec" solitudes.
>|
On the contrary, the polarisation would be immense, just reversed. Heard of
the expression "two wrongs don't make a right?" You are depriving Canada of
it's status as a "nation," granting Quebecois and Aboriginal peoples the status
as "nations," and relegating the citizens throughout the rest of the country to
becoming "nameless, faceless, cultureless peoples." Do you really think that
you could push through a change without alienating the majority of people
outside of Quebec or Aboriginal peoples? BTW while you have trouble with the
"inconsistency" of a "nation within a nation," whose to say that others have
that same trouble. We Canadians don't ask that Quebec be denied of their right
to being recognized as a distinctive nation, we simply ask that we be treated
fairly. Your inflamatory comment would cause an erruption of discontent that
would probably result in Canadians wishing for Quebec to leave- is that what
you really want?
>|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|
>|02 | Institutional Reform and Division of Powers
>|
>| * The foremost objective of the quick change in the constitution is to
>| re-define Canada, and set a stage for further rationalisation of
>| power-sharing within the federation in a logical manner with cool heads
>| instead of an environment of emotinal uncertainty and a series of
>| never-ending unity crises.
>|
Expect a bomb to errupt if this ever was implemented- many provinces will not
accept the stripping of their identity in the sake of recognizing Quebec as a
nation.
>| * If the Allaire Report of the Liberal Party of Quebec calls for 22
>| provincial jurisdictions for Quebec, exceed their expectations and give
>| them more. In return, the Federal Government would close the
>| notwithstanding clause, retain the power to set up new programs with
>| the understanding that they be eventually handed over to the nations
>| and provinces. The major role of the Federal Government would be to
>| guarantee citizenship and human rights, national/provincial
>| equalisation, and the following fundamental principles for every aspect
>| of government services.
>|
Even the Liberal Party of Quebec rejected the Allaire Report and it's demands
(which includes control of foreign affairs among other things), and I haven't
heard of a Quebecer interested in renewing the country who would want control
of foreign affairs (at least, not total control). Of course, when you mean
"give them more," you understand that to do so would mean giving Quebec control
of defense, capital expenditures, etc.... Wouldn't it solve everything by
simply recognizing their independence?
>| o Comprehensiveness
>| o Universality
>| o Compatibility
>| o Portability
>| o Accessibility
>| o Public Administration
>| o Minimum Standards
>|
I think more Quebecers are interested in decentralisation....that includes
handing over powers with as little trouble as possible. I think this might
have too many strings attached in order to appease any province, let alone
Quebec, following Ottawa's moving in that direction.
>| * Today's federal system forces people to choose loyalty. For example, my
>| household of 5 people must fill out as many as 6 income tax forms a
>| year (2 Federal personal income tax forms, 2 Quebec personal income tax
>| forms, 1 Federal business income tax form, 1 Quebec business income tax
>| form). In contrast, the GST/PST declaration for my small enterprise is
>| harmonised into a single form with both Canadian and Quebec logos. It
>| is ironic that only Quebec businesses benefit from the GST/PST single
>| filing at present (except for Alberta which has no PST).
>|
I don't understand why you mention this here. Of course, if you live in
Quebec, it runs it's own provincial taxation scheme while the others let Ottawa
collect the taxes. Can't comment on GST/PST forms.....I'm too young to own a
business right now.
>| * Due to the lack of compatibility and portability, I have to pay cash to
>| a doctor or a hospital in other provinces for partial re-imbursement
>| later on by the Quebec Health Insurance Plan. If I move to another
>| province or territory, I would have to experience a series of
>| nightmares in education, driver's license and vehicle registration,
>| among others.
>|
Yes...these are under provincial jurisdiction. Do you really think that you
can take them back without disrupting the whole process of decentralisation?
Does the "nation" of Quebec have to change to suit the rest, or is it up to the
provinces, with profoundly weaker titles and no identity (thanks to this
proposal) that have to give in?
Chris
> I doubt if Montreal would secede to be its own country, it is would
>most likely to be to form another province IN Canada, a province that
>would never have left Canada.
Under the current Canadian constitution, Montreal can't become a new
province or join Ontario. Any change in provincial boundaries can only be
done with the permission of all directly affected provinces, plus Ottawa.
Obviously, Quebec will never assent to such a transfer of
land/population/money/jobs out of Quebec. Montreal would have to wait
until after Quebec leaves Canada, and then seceed from the independant
Quebec to form an internationally recognized nation, city-state,
protectorate, or territory. Only then could it apply to rejoin Canada,
most likely as a new territory. It would take years for Montreal to
become part of Ontario, assuming that was the wish of the people.
--
Chris Rasley, Moncton, NB, Canada <cpra...@nbnet.nb.ca>
ATC (Moncton ACC), Private Pilot, Computer Geek, Coffee Addict
My toys: '95 Ducati 900SSCR, '91 Jeep Renegade, Intel Triton P-133
Standard Disclaimer: As usual, my aviation posts do not
neccessarily reflect official Transport Canada policy.
D'Amboise Charles
>You are very much mistaken. Quebec has neither the right, nor the will,
>nor the power to secede.
>The Constitution specifies what legal rights and powers our governments
>possess, and the Quebec Superior Court confirmed that separation is
>illegal today. And since the NO side won the referendum (despite the
>separatists' pathetic attempts at cheating) it doesn't have the will
>either!!
Wrong.
The quebec superior court didn't say referendum was illegal, but that it
was unconstitutional.
The referendum is perfectly legal.
Quebec *never* signed the constitition, it has been imposed to us.
So we don't care wheter or not it's unconstitutional.
Rick Sutcliffe
damb...@ERE.UMontreal.CA (D'Amboise Charles) wrote:
> The quebec superior court didn't say referendum was illegal, but that it
> was unconstitutional.
> The referendum is perfectly legal.
> Quebec *never* signed the constitition, it has been imposed to us.
> So we don't care wheter or not it's unconstitutional.
That's interesting. There are a lot of laws in this country that I have
never signed. I am bound by them anyway.
Rick
--
Rick Sutcliffe Assoc. Prof. Computing/Math Trinity Western University
comp.lang.modula-2 FAQ maintainer & WG13(Can) chair. Not speaking for TWU/WG13
SLIMJIM
Bill Frampton <bil...@sonetis.com> wrote:
>You are very much mistaken. Quebec has neither the right, nor the will,
>nor the power to secede.
>
Quebec a majority OUI victory would of been a legitimate mandate to
negotiate a separation. Couls imagine the consequences of a refusal by
Canada to acknoledge a democratic vote to secede? It would be a scandal
of international proportions and would cause soccial unrest beyond your
wildest dreams.
>The Constitution specifies what legal rights and powers our governments
>possess, and the Quebec Superior Court confirmed that separation is
>illegal today. And since the NO side won the referendum (despite the
>separatists' pathetic attempts at cheating) it doesn't have the will
>either!!
>
The constitution isn't a constitution, it's a pathetic piece of british
legislation and it never imagined the possibility of breakup. I doubt
that there are many constitutions that provide the means to break up a
country.
>Let's get one thing clear: Quebec is NOT a nation. It's a province of
>Canada.
It is a nation my friend, and it's because of the attitude of reactionary
anglophones like you that we in Quebec have this anguishing situation on
our hands. Try to be more comprehensive of the alienation that many
quebecois feel by the refusal of their countrymen of recognising this
fact. There are three nations in Canada with no distinct bounderies. The
aboriginal nation, the native indians. The founding francophone nation
and the founding anglophone nation. We could go on into the immigrants
that followed but I think it would be pointless because thay have for
most integrated into the billingual system.
>Those who don't like it have a simple choice: apply for a
visa,
>pack your bags, and get on a plane for some other country. Would you
>prefer Haiti, Algeria, or Benin? If not, I suggest you shut up and
>learn to like this country.
How can you call Parizeau a right-wing fascist when some Canadians have
this attitude?
>
>Vive le Canada uni!
>Bill Frampton.
Here is the only line where I agree with you, but the context behind it
must change if you want your united Canada to stand a change against the
secetionist and decentralising forces not only in Quebec but all of
Canada. Expand your mind to new ideas my fellow federalist. Mais n'oublie
pas que semer le vent recolte la tempete et c'est ce que tu fais!!!
Yuani Fragata
son of portuguese immigrants
non-anglo/franco/allophone
just plain Canadian and Quebecois
Concordia University
Montreal, Quebec
Rick Sutcliffe
(SLIMJIM) wrote:
>
> It is a nation my friend, and it's because of the attitude of reactionary
> anglophones like you that we in Quebec have this anguishing situation on
> our hands. Try to be more comprehensive of the alienation that many
> quebecois feel by the refusal of their countrymen of recognising this
> fact. There are three nations in Canada with no distinct bounderies. The
> aboriginal nation, the native indians. The founding francophone nation
> and the founding anglophone nation. We could go on into the immigrants
> that followed but I think it would be pointless because thay have for
> most integrated into the billingual system.
>
Tilt. The notion that the English speaking parts of what is today called
Canada are a monolithic nation is as myoptic and as mistaken as it could
possibly be. You wish to think of Francophone Canada as a nation (which
it may or may not be; I cannot presume to say) so you project that thought
onto the rest of the country and refer to it as a nation (distinct from
Quebec.) It is not. Frankly, BC has more in common with Quebec in many
ways than it does with Ontario.
>
> Here is the only line where I agree with you, but the context behind it
> must change if you want your united Canada to stand a change against the
> secetionist and decentralising forces not only in Quebec but all of
> Canada. Expand your mind to new ideas my fellow federalist. Mais n'oublie
> pas que semer le vent recolte la tempete et c'est ce que tu fais!!!
>
You make a good point here, and reinforce mine. The West has been
exploited long enough by the centre. It needs to take control of its own
destiny and chart its own course as a nation. (Sound familiar?)
T.Downing
>On Mon, 04 Dec 1995 01:12:24 GMT, tire...@magnet.ca wrote in nb.general:
>
>> I doubt if Montreal would secede to be its own country, it is would
>>most likely to be to form another province IN Canada, a province that
>>would never have left Canada.
>
>Under the current Canadian constitution, Montreal can't become a new
>province or join Ontario. Any change in provincial boundaries can only be
>done with the permission of all directly affected provinces, plus Ottawa.
Screw the constitution, I never signed it.
Merry Christmas/Joyeux Noël
T.Downing
Jeff Gagnon
Bill Frampton <bil...@sonetis.com> writes:
>You are very much mistaken. Quebec has neither the right, nor the will,
>nor the power to secede.
>The Constitution specifies what legal rights and powers our governments
>possess, and the Quebec Superior Court confirmed that separation is
>illegal today. And since the NO side won the referendum (despite the
>separatists' pathetic attempts at cheating) it doesn't have the will
>either!!
Wrong.
The quebec superior court didn't say referendum was illegal, but that it
was unconstitutional.
The referendum is perfectly legal.
JG:
No, you are wrong on both counts. Justice Lesages said that the
"referendum question" was "illegal", but that he would allow it because
it might be more harmful to the petitoners "civil rights".
And BTW,
** "unconstitutional" does not = "legal" ......??
Unless, one is an expert spin-doctor. And also their are no rights
to unilateral secession in Canada. We would have to make new rules for that.
But I would suggest that Canada should feel no shame in rejecting
a 50% + 1 formula for separating. It should logically be a REAL majority
of voters when we are dealing with the issue of "separation".
Like a 2/3's majority ........
Dam:
Quebec *never* signed the constitition, it has been imposed to us.
So we don't care wheter or not it's unconstitutional.
JG:
Too bad it is legally binding in both Canadian and International law.
And too bad Que. has used the "notwithstanding clause" In The 1982
Constitution, to over-ride supreme court decisions.
That's called a gov't using the constitution and also covers
"precedent" in legal terms.
So the Que. gov't is legally bound by the 1982 Constitution.
Tough, mais nons ......???
--
Jeff Gagnon
av...@freenet.carleton.ca (Jeff Gagnon) - (613)838-4716 /24 hrs.
"Graphics Unlimited" - Desktop/word/print brokering
- Desktop publishing/word processing
Fromm Richard W
> Date: Thu, 07 DEC 1995 19:16:27 GMT=20
> From: T.Downing <dow...@vax2.concordia.ca>
> Newgroups: can.politics, ott.general, mtl.general, tor.general,
> kingston.general, qc.general, nb.general, man.general, can.english,
> can.francais, can.schoolnet.chat.students.sr, carleton.general,
> soc.culture.quebec, alt.can, soc.culture.usa, can.general
> Subject: Re: The nation of Quebec=20
>=20
> On Wed, 06 Dec 1995 00:31:59 GMT, cpra...@nbnet.nb.ca (Chris) wrote:
>=20
> >On Mon, 04 Dec 1995 01:12:24 GMT, tire...@magnet.ca wrote in nb.general=
:
> >
> >>=09I doubt if Montreal would secede to be its own country, it is would
> >>most likely to be to form another province IN Canada, a province that
> >>would never have left Canada.
> >
> >Under the current Canadian constitution, Montreal can't become a new
> >province or join Ontario. Any change in provincial boundaries can only =
be
> >done with the permission of all directly affected provinces, plus Ottawa=
.
>=20
> Screw the constitution, I never signed it.
>=20
>=20
> Merry Christmas/Joyeux No=EBl
> T.Downing
>=20
>=20
Then the federal government should "screw" transfer and equalization=20
payments that are proportionally greater than Quebec's population in=20
relation tto the rest of Canada. Afer all "u never signed it".
Richard Fromm
Windosr, Ontario
fab
HUMAINS DU QUEBEC,AUSSI AU LIEU DE PARLER DE REFERENDUM,PARLEZ
DES PROBLEMES QUI TOUCHENT LES VRAIS QUEBECOIS,LES VRAIS
HUMAINS!
Fawzi Dormeyer
dow...@vax2.concordia.ca (T.Downing) wrote:
>On 30 Nov 1995 12:32:26 GMT, fa...@cam.org (Fawzi Dormeyer) wrote:
>
>>Could someone please explain to me on what basis would Montreal claim the
>>right to seceede from Quebec?
>>The right of a city to self determinate? Is Montreal a nation with a
>>national assembly, a national flag, with a people having its own
>>institutions and its own traditions?
>>Please someone must explain how we came from the right of a nation or a
>>people to self determinate to the right of a city to self determinate...
>>Do I see magic wands?...
>>
>Reason #1: It is our democratic right to separate from Quebec if 50% +
>1 decides that that is what we want to do.
>
I don't believe Montrealers constitute a people or a nation, thus Montreal
doesn't have the internationaly recognized right to self determinate.
Your logic would suggest that every minority, in every country, that do
not constitute a people would have the right to seceede. So we would see
a couple of new countries on the world map, like East L.A. or Harlem, or
maybe East Marseille...
I believe that would create a very strange and chaotic world... Might be
interesting though, to see what new city of the world would want to seceed
this week. There could be a city of the week contest. Maybe each city
could build its own little castle and have its own little army. And maybe
the game could be to conquer the city next door to have a bigger city...
Sounds like déjà vu to me...
Desy Michel
>fab <DFABIAN@.AEI.CA> writes:
Je sais pas mais faudrait peut etre pas laisser de cote les faux humains.
J'en connais plusieurs, et puis, bon, ils sont pas si mechants. Leur
origine extra-terrestre peut effaroucher certains homocentristes, mais il
faut garder l'esprit ouvert.
______________________________________________________________________________
Michel Desy "Worlds......colliding....!"
Dept. Philosophie -G. Costanza
Universite de Montreal
des...@ere.umontreal.ca DAC industries: threads r' us.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mailhot Pascal
>>fab <DFABIAN@.AEI.CA> writes:
>>>VOUS ALLER AVOIR VOTRE PAYS QUAND VOUS RESPECTEREZ LES ETRES
>>>HUMAINS DU QUEBEC,AUSSI AU LIEU DE PARLER DE REFERENDUM,PARLEZ
>>>DES PROBLEMES QUI TOUCHENT LES VRAIS QUEBECOIS,LES VRAIS
>>>HUMAINS!
>Je sais pas mais faudrait peut etre pas laisser de cote les faux humains.
>J'en connais plusieurs, et puis, bon, ils sont pas si mechants. Leur
>origine extra-terrestre peut effaroucher certains homocentristes, mais il
>faut garder l'esprit ouvert.
Tu connais des faux humain? Pourrais-tu m'en presenter? Je me suis
toujours demande de quoi cela avait l'air, un faux humain.
Par ailleurs, il y a les chiens aussi. Ne doit-on pas apprendre a les
respecter? On devrait tenir un referendog la dessus. C'est du moins
l'opinion d'Aramis.
--
Pascal Mailhot
Mailhot Pascal
>VOUS ALLER AVOIR VOTRE PAYS QUAND VOUS RESPECTEREZ LES ETRES
>HUMAINS DU QUEBEC,AUSSI AU LIEU DE PARLER DE REFERENDUM,PARLEZ
>DES PROBLEMES QUI TOUCHENT LES VRAIS QUEBECOIS,LES VRAIS
>HUMAINS!
C'est vrai ca Fab. Parlons donc de societe et de culture. C'est ca les
vrais problemes!
Et pour te remercier de ton effort, je te donne une carte de membre du
DAC gratis. C'est pas gentil ca?
--
Pascal Mailhot
Alec Vondjidis
>We live in a democracy friend. Even though I oppose the separation of
>Quebec a majority OUI victory would of been a legitimate mandate to
>negotiate a separation. Couls imagine the consequences of a refusal by
>Canada to acknoledge a democratic vote to secede? It would be a scandal
>of international proportions and would cause soccial unrest beyond your
>wildest dreams.
Hmmm. I actually do have a problem with a simple majority vote. There
is a long term parliamentary tradition that votes of far reaching
importance have to be won by a 2/3+1 majority. This applies to many
countries in the world, and it often applies to constitutions. The reason
for this is the desire for the preservation of the status quo, unless there
is a very clearly articulated will by the people to modify this status
quo.
The procedure is designed to make radical changes in the way our society
is organized, hard to implement. I think this should be so.
Now, a refusal by Canada to recognize a democratic vote to secede would
indeed cause major social unrest, especially in the area of the country
which voted for the secession.
I seriously doubt, however, that many governments around the world would
say too much about it, if Canada announced that the Quebec issue was an
internal Canadian matter. France would probably say something, the US
would mostly keep out of it, as long as New York kept getting its power.
Too many other countries are supressing "separatist" movements for them
to be able to take too holy a position on the issue
>The constitution isn't a constitution, it's a pathetic piece of british
>legislation and it never imagined the possibility of breakup. I doubt
>that there are many constitutions that provide the means to break up a
>country.
I don't know about the first part of the paragraph, but you are absolutely
correct about the second. In most constitutions there is no provision for
the break up of the country. This is why for most countries a break-up
of the country would be considered unconstitutional and treasonous.
Generally, countries do not form themselves, with an option for break-up.
However, most countries whose consitution do not have an option for break-
up, do have a formula for ammending the constitution and adding such an
option should it be the will of the population.
>It is a nation my friend, and it's because of the attitude of reactionary
>anglophones like you that we in Quebec have this anguishing situation on
>our hands. Try to be more comprehensive of the alienation that many
>quebecois feel by the refusal of their countrymen of recognising this
>fact. There are three nations in Canada with no distinct bounderies. The
>aboriginal nation, the native indians. The founding francophone nation
>and the founding anglophone nation.
The Random House College dictionary provides the following definition
of a nation:
na-tion (nay'shuhn) n.
1. a body of people, associated with a
particular territory, that is
sufficiently conscious of its unity to
seek or to possess a government
peculiarly its own.
2. the territory or country itself.
3. a. an American Indian people or tribe.
b. a member tribe of an American Indian
confederation.
Nation implies a definable territory. i.e. distinct boundaries.
I think the word you may be looking for is (again from Random House):
peo-ple (pee'puhl) n. pl. <-ples> for 4, v. <-pled, -pling>
n.
..
4. the entire body of persons who constitute
a community or other group by virtue of
a common culture, religion, or the like.
>Canada. Expand your mind to new ideas my fellow federalist. Mais n'oublie
>pas que semer le vent recolte la tempete et c'est ce que tu fais!!!
Yuani:
How can federalism, diluted to an extent that would make Quebec or Western
separatists happy, still be called federalism?
How can splitting our 20 something measly millions of Canadians into 12
some independent nations, conceivably result in a stronger Canada.
All the best,
Alec _____________________________________
this message originated from:
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes
Alec Vondjidis
>> I doubt if Montreal would secede to be its own country, it is would
>>most likely to be to form another province IN Canada, a province that
>>would never have left Canada.
To this, Chris (cpra...@nbnet.nb.ca) responded:
>Under the current Canadian constitution, Montreal can't become a new
>province or join Ontario. Any change in provincial boundaries can only be
>done with the permission of all directly affected provinces, plus Ottawa.
Tiresius was referring to a separation of Montreal from Quebec at a
time that Quebec would be separating from Canada.
It is obvious, to me, that if there was a clear-cut desire of a majority
of Montrealers to join Ontario, at the time that Quebec was leaving Canada,
there would be very little that Quebec could do to prevent it, if Quebec
wished to effect an amicable parting from the rest of Canada.
>Obviously, Quebec will never assent to such a transfer of
>land/population/money/jobs out of Quebec. Montreal would have to wait
Quebec may not prefer it, but if a pre-condition of separation negotiations
was that every region which indicated its clear desire to stay in Canada
would be allowed to do so, Quebec would certainly have to consider it.
>until after Quebec leaves Canada, and then seceed from the independant
>Quebec to form an internationally recognized nation, city-state,
>protectorate, or territory. Only then could it apply to rejoin Canada,
No. The two would be simultaneous. Quebec is the one doing the seceding
bit. Montreal would be refusing to secede. This is different from Montreal
seceding from Canada first (together with the rest of Quebec), and then
seceding from Quebec.
There is no way that the Canadian government could allow an area that
had voted to stay in Canada to be forced to leave Canada. At least
without being accused by other Canadians of betraying its own citizens
and their interests in order to accommodate a foreign country.
>most likely as a new territory. It would take years for Montreal to
>become part of Ontario, assuming that was the wish of the people.
We are of course assuming a lot of things. We are assuming that Quebec
will separate, which, I at least, hope it never does. We are assuming that
even though Quebec votes for separation, Montreal votes against it. We
are also assuming that Montreal then votes to stay in Canada.
Then comes the question as to how this will be done. Well, depending on
how Quebec proceeds (by force or negotiation) with the hypothetical
separation, that is where the negotiation over Montreal (and other
areas) would come into play.
>Chris Rasley, Moncton, NB, Canada <cpra...@nbnet.nb.ca>
All the best,
Chris
can.schoolnet.chat, etc. doing there in the first place?]
On Thu, 07 Dec 1995 19:16:27 GMT, dow...@vax2.concordia.ca (T.Downing)
wrote in nb.general:
>>Under the current Canadian constitution, Montreal can't become a new
>>province or join Ontario. Any change in provincial boundaries can only be
>>done with the permission of all directly affected provinces, plus Ottawa.
>Screw the constitution, I never signed it.
I guess that means that Ottawa is free to amend the constitution without
the assent of Quebec, right? After all, why should Quebec have the right
to veto constitutional changes if it doesn't recognise the constitution in
the first place? Do you want your cake, or would you rather eat it?
Normally I find Preston Manning quite boorish and offensive (and
particularly disagree with his party's xenophobic platform), but I think
his ideas on constitutional change, separation, and divesting power to the
provinces are spot-on. It's quite obvious that confederation is wearing
out-- regional identification has become so strong that we are now a
nation of 6 or 7 "distinct societies" who are constantly fighting for
power and attention from Ottawa. It's time we prepared for the seemingly
inevitable dissolution of the federation, and put the appropriate policies
in place *before* they are needed. That way, regions can argue the
benefits and costs of separation without the discussion degenerating into
accusations of smear campaigning and fear-mongering. The biggest problem
with the Quebec referendum was that both sides were promoting their vision
of an uncertain future-- we need to address that uncertainty, so that any
future votes can be cast based on established policy.
--
Chris Rasley, Moncton, NB, Canada <cpra...@nbnet.nb.ca>
ATC (Moncton ACC), Private Pilot, Computer Geek, Coffee Addict
My toys: '95 Ducati 900SSCR, '91 Jeep Renegade, Intel Triton P-133
Standard Disclaimer: As usual, my posts to aviation newsgroups
De Repentigny Yves
>VOUS ALLER AVOIR VOTRE PAYS QUAND VOUS RESPECTEREZ LES ETRES
>HUMAINS DU QUEBEC,AUSSI AU LIEU DE PARLER DE REFERENDUM,PARLEZ
>DES PROBLEMES QUI TOUCHENT LES VRAIS QUEBECOIS,LES VRAIS
>HUMAINS!
C'est vrai que c'est dur d'etre un vrai nu-main, surtout ces jours-ci
alors que le froid nous mordille les doigts comme c'est pas possible.
De plus, ce jeune homme est gentil de penser aux myopes qui ont tant de
problemes a lire les petits caracteres. Dommage que sur USENET, ecrire en
majuscule soit considere comme l'equivalent de crier.
--
Yves de Repentigny
De Repentigny Yves
>des...@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Desy Michel) writes:
>>Je sais pas mais faudrait peut etre pas laisser de cote les faux humains.
>>J'en connais plusieurs, et puis, bon, ils sont pas si mechants. Leur
>>origine extra-terrestre peut effaroucher certains homocentristes, mais il
>>faut garder l'esprit ouvert.
>Tu connais des faux humain? Pourrais-tu m'en presenter? Je me suis
>toujours demande de quoi cela avait l'air, un faux humain.
Il parait que ca ne parle jamais de politique et que ca n'insulte jamais
les gens. Je paierais cher pour voir une creature de ce type. Gardons
la foi et continuons de preparer la Terre a la venue de ces envahisseurs
bien-aimes.
--
Yves de Repentigny
Ellie Charest
: tur...@coffeehaus.com (Ellie Charest) wrote:
: >Except that you have to make a distinction between the "right", the
: >"will" and the "power" to secede. Quebec has all three. Other cases need
: >particular analysis. Simple analogies don't make the world go round, my
: >friend...
: You forgot an IMPORTANT fourth necessity, the VIABLILITY !!!
: If the VAST majority (>70% let's say, or at least the same percentage
: separatists want to use for Quebec) of Montrealers want to secede,
: then they have the "RIGHT."
: The "WILL" of Montrealers to secede is growing stronger daily. This
: "will" has been slowly building as the politics of Quebec has been
: quite heavy for Montreal to bear. I do not doubt, if Quebec secedes,
: the "WILL" in Montreal to secede will surprise us all!
: The "POWER" to secede derives from all FOUR aspects. Montreal will no
: doubt fulfill all four more easily than Quebec.
: The "VIABILILITY" of Montreal forming a province that remains in
: Canada is hardly questionable. Would a separate Quebec be "viable?"
: Many have good arguments that a separate Quebec would not be "viable!"
And many have good arguments that a separate Quebec would be viable.
What's your point? Do you really think that a referendum on Montreal
secession would win? Man, I wish I had the same assurance about the next
Quebec referendum.
: Best wishes,
: Tiresius
Turgon
tire...@magnet.ca
Dear Turgon,
You brought up that to secede, a society needs the "right," the "will"
and "power" to secede. I agreed, and added an important forth
necessity, the "viabiliy," to show that IF the Montreal area decided
to secede, they too would be able to. That Quebec is not the ONLY
ones who would be able to secede.
As to the "viablitity" of a separate Quebec, perhaps if our economy
today was more stable, I would be able to argue for a viable Quebec.
However, our economy at present is so fragile, that such an attempt
will reduce us even further.
Do not forget, that the world right now is in a fairly precarious
situation. Economies, peoples and even cultures the world over are
presently under tremdous pressures and flux. We are going through
something similar to what the "Industrial Revolution" was, EXCEPT that
it is occuring at a much more rapid rate.
Even IF these world changes were not occuring, with our present
fragile economy, a separate Quebec has a questionable viability.
Considering these world changes, the idea becomes suicidal for Quebec
to even contemplate this idea UNTIL the dust has settled from these
changes in about 20 years or so.
Best wishes,
Tiresius
Greg Goss
>> Once you start dividing, it's impossible to draw a line....
>
>A people of a nation draws it.
For example, the people of Montreal Island.
De Repentigny Yves
Stephen Jenuth
>Wrong.
>The quebec superior court didn't say referendum was illegal, but that it
>was unconstitutional.
>The referendum is perfectly legal.
>Quebec *never* signed the constitition, it has been imposed to us.
>So we don't care wheter or not it's unconstitutional.
Although the amendments to the Canadian constitution made in 1982
were never approved by the Quebec National Assembly, the constitution
still applies to Quebec. While some people talk about signing the
constitution, no one really signed it. It was a simple act of the
British Parliament and was finally proclaimed in force by the Queen
in Ottawa. I suppose that that was signing it, but not really.
The Quebec courts apply the Canadian constitution (including the
amendments made in 1982 and subsequently) in the same way as the
courts of the other provinces do.
Of course, under the constitution, all the provinces are somewhat
different and have their own distinct rules which apply to them in
their relations with their citizens and with the federal government.
Quebec has a legitimate beef about not having its concerns recognized
in the 1982 amendments and their seems little reason not to do something
to try and repair those problems. The same goes for the native
peoples.
And if Canadians could ever agree, maybe something could be done
with the Senate....
--
Stephen Jenuth
(jen...@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca)
Roger-Daniel Laberge
can.francais:
Fromm Richard W <fr...@server.uwindsor.ca> wrote in can.francais :
>Then the federal government should "screw" transfer and equalization=20
>payments that are proportionally greater than Quebec's population in=20
>relation tto the rest of Canada. Afer all "u never signed it".
>Richard Fromm
>Windosr, Ontario
I think it would be better that Quebec stop paying taxes to Canada.
After all, "OUI" never signed it.
Alexandre Gracovetsky
> JG:
> Too bad it is legally binding in both Canadian and International law.
> And too bad Que. has used the "notwithstanding clause" In The 1982
> Constitution, to over-ride supreme court decisions.
> That's called a gov't using the constitution and also covers
> "precedent" in legal terms.
> So the Que. gov't is legally bound by the 1982 Constitution.
> Tough, mais nons ......???
Rules and regulations are changed every day in our society. All the time,
with little or no exception. The constitution is just another piece of paper
that the people are, in growing numbers, voicing their objections to.
Note that before the '82 backstab, there was a firm support for federalism.
Why on earth would anyone change something for the worse when it actually
worked fairly well for 100+ years?
Now, the majority, a clear majority, want sever changes done to the
constitution. If the ROC is unwilling to decentralize it's powers to the
benefit of all provinces, then QC wants out. QC (to be very blunt) does not
want to bother itself on how NFLD runs it's affairs. QC only wants control
over how the spending is made within it's own borders.
Despite my yes vote, the ROC has in effect been given a last chance. A
chance that I believe ROC will not capitalize on to once and for all bring a
constitution that for all intents and purposes would be a Meech lake accord,
and everyone would ignore NFLD like they should have should they say no
again to the hand that feeds them.
Bouchard too is confident that the ROC will never work towards meeting the
demands of the people. By taking a slower approach and avoiding referendum
questions, the only thing Quebecers get to watch for unity topics are the
laughable Cretien proposals and the (snicker) hard line by Manning.
This non-progressive action by Cretian/Manning will harden the soul of each
Quebecer when the next time comes in a few years to vote again. No amount of
promises to change will affect the outcome.
IF I am wrong and the ROC do push for what QC has wanted, then support for
soverienty will crumble. The past wrong doings, having been corrected, will
be no argument to seperate. Either way, the desires of the majority will
have been met.
Alexandre.
Concordia, Montreal.
Jeff Gagnon
Jeff Gagnon (av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
JG:
Well, interesting way of looking at it.
The bottom line is that "legally" the chances of Quebec staying
with Canada are a lot better than them SEPARATING.
Countries actually forming are not decided on SIG debates. And I
stand by my assertian that Canadians will have a say on what land goes
where or who will secede from who.
Rightly or wrongly. Canadians will decide this issue.
And Canadian laws are all designed to keep a country together.
If "separatists" can't even discuss factual/historical
constitutional laws then who is trying to fool who.
Take care.
prod...@synapse.net
says...
>
>fa...@cam.org (Fawzi Dormeyer) wrote:
>>> Once you start dividing, it's impossible to draw a
line....
>>
>>A people of a nation draws it.
>
>For example, the people of Montreal Island.
What, in the name of who ever, is " a people of a nation "?
The people of Montreal... a people of a nation? What part of
Montreal?
Paul
Alexandre Gracovetsky
> JG:
> Well, interesting way of looking at it.
> The bottom line is that "legally" the chances of Quebec staying
> with Canada are a lot better than them SEPARATING.
> Countries actually forming are not decided on SIG debates. And I
> stand by my assertian that Canadians will have a say on what land goes
> where or who will secede from who.
> Rightly or wrongly. Canadians will decide this issue.
> And Canadian laws are all designed to keep a country together.
> If "separatists" can't even discuss factual/historical
> constitutional laws then who is trying to fool who.
> Take care.
The issue of what land goes where has already been decided long ago. The
boundaries of QC to govern has been decided when changes were made to what
was then upper/lower Canada.
Secondly, The laws we had was what was keeping us together, with exception
to what was then an extreme minority of fanatical seperatists. After
'82...well....come on, would you not have a grudge if you were living by
rules imposed on you???
To respond to the thread of Montreal seperating from QC, it is not viable
IMHO. For one thing, MTL, like any other city in QC has a dependance on the
province that is tied in physical terms, like Hydro.Secondly, the economy of
MTL does not command the resources to become it's own state, or be able to
operate as a state of what would be the ROC.
Respectfully, Alexandre.
Stéphane Poirier
Montréal aussi le deviendra! C'est évident...!
Montréal? Toutes les parties de Montréal? Doit-on inclure aussi:
-Laval?
-la rive-nord?
-et la rive-sud?
-le plateau Mont-Royal lui, peut-il devenir un pays? Hum, question
importante, non? Mais s'il devenait un état associé au Québec? Et cela,
directement au coeur du territoire de la cité-état de Montréal!!
-ma rue dans tout cela? Je pense que en tant que rue-état nous avons le droit
à l'autodétermination.
-le très fédéraliste Outaouais, lui, que fera t-il? Je pose la
question, mes amis.
Bref, j'entrevois l'assemblée générale à l'ONU passer d'environ 200 états, à
près de 400, suite à un futur référendum québecois donnant le oui gagnant. Et
vous, à combien s'élève votre prédiction?
J'espère apporter une réelle contribution positive à cet important aspect, de
la question "séparatiste".
............................................................
.... <<<<< Stéphane Poirier >>>>> .....
... <<<<< poir...@jsp.umontreal.ca >>>>> ....
.. <<<<< étudiant en informatique >>>>> ...
. <<<<< Université de Montréal >>>>> ..
............................................................
Jeff Gagnon
Reply-To; av...@Freenet.Carleton.CA (Jeff Gagnon)
References:
Organization: The National capital FreeNet
Jeff Gagnon (av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
> JG:
> Well, interesting way of looking at it.
> The bottom line is that "legally" the chances of Quebec staying
> with Canada are a lot better than them SEPARATING.
> Countries actually forming are not decided on SIG debates. And I
> stand by my assertian that Canadians will have a say on what land goes
> where or who will secede from who.
> Rightly or wrongly. Canadians will decide this issue.
> And Canadian laws are all designed to keep a country together.
> If "separatists" can't even discuss factual/historical
> constitutional laws then who is trying to fool who.
> Take care.
Alexandre:
The issue of what land goes where has already been decided long ago. The
boundaries of QC to govern has been decided when changes were made to what
was then upper/lower Canada.
JG ... again:
Yes, but "separatists" are attempting to break a legal
"confederation" contract that decided the first portion of "upper/lower"
Canada concept and "re-defining"Canada's relation to a PARTNER in the
formation of the country.
There is also the 1898 and 1912 "Quebec Land Transfer" Acts to
consider as part of that 1867 "Canada Act".
When one partner wants to opt out of the "confederation" contract
then do they get to keep the cottage ....??
This is the way LAWYERS and JUDGES look at "territorial rights" in
Canadian and International law. They base their judgements on what is an
actual country and who has legal jurisdiction/precedence over "disputed"
areas.
Sorry, that negates Quebec "sovereigntists" claims of territorial
rights. The day before "Confederation" Quebec had a territory legally
recognized as being about the size of P.E.I.
Anything else after that falls under the agreements of
"Canadian/Quebec" laws and land transfer legislation.
Native groups also have legitimate land claims in Quebec as well
as in Canada, so the whole land thing is moot sometimes.
The bottom line is that we, as the normal example of 90's
Canadians {Franco or Anglo) will have to live amongst one another regardless.
Mainly because, all of our shared lands were not made to be
divisable by law or geography. Or even being legally divided would we ever be
totally non-interactive or "separate" from each other.
That is why our "Canadian" lands are not easily disected. We have
many cultures to answer to in the long run as well has historical
foundations for the formation of an actual "country" land claim.
Some of those laws favour those baaad "Anglos" for land claims. I
may not agree, but that is a consideration.
** Hence, the possibility that Quebec would lose a large (especially
Northern) portion part of their province as a direct result of "separation."
Alexandre:
Secondly, The laws we had was what was keeping us together, with exception
to what was then an extreme minority of fanatical seperatists. After
'82...well....come on, would you not have a grudge if you were living by
rules imposed on you???
JG ... again:
Fine and dandy. The difference is that I didn't vote for Trudeau
either. And I have always spent alot of time in Quebec (or a 20 min.
drive) so I sometimes laugh at this "rules imposed on you" rhetoric that
is repeated.
Try being a English-speaking/half-breed Quebecois (well a couple of
miles away these days .... ??)
Admittedly, my impressions of living in Anglophone majority
communities is limited. Talking about language rules or proposed "country"
changes imposed upon you these days from "separatists" is not quite the
same in my predominently-Francophone world of living and business.
Sorry, but I think some people believe living and working with
people is different in some ways rather than just a chore. Trying to form a
separate "nation" on those premises just tries to legitimize ones way of
feeling like a separate "Canadian" and one is that is better than other
Canadians.
The problem is that is wrong to think that some group is so high
and mighty that they are the "pure-laine" version of the TWO/2 "founding
nations" of the present Canadian territories (natives don't come into
TWO/founding nations.... "TWO founding nations" coming right out of the
"separatist" ... Bill 1 gospel) AGAIN somehow makes this a TOLORANT vote
for the realities of living in a diverse nation.
The difference is that ALL Canadians have gov'ts hi-jack voters
personal agenda's.
Trying to pretend that this is a Canada vs Quebec/English vs
French load of propaganda is what CANADIANS have really been jerked around
with.
From both "fed's" and "separatist" sides and amateur opinionaters....
PERIOD ....?? (Grin)
Using the "1982 Canada Act" is a red-herring. It was forced on
everyone. Trying to make it an "Anglais" debate over it is whining and false.
Most of us didn't seem to want it to go that way.
Stop whining .......??
Again we go back to if that "1982 Canada Act" was so bad, wasn't
it kind of interesting that the "notwithstanding clause" overturned
"supreme court" decisions on the "invalidity" of Bill 101 and Bill 178.
And again I would ask "separatists" to spare me the BS that "1982
Constitution" issues are somehow how more harder on poor pitiful Quebec
"separatists" rights than a "Bill 101" that tells you what language you
have to speak period, be you immigrant, Anglo, or business in Quebec.
Egads.... the hardships of paying the rent because of the "1982
Canada Act/Constitution amendments that further enshrine Quebec
Francophones language and property rights in Canada as an amendment
to the "BNA/Canada Act."
Oh woe is meeeee ........ ??
Alexandre:
To respond to the thread of Montreal seperating from QC, it is not viable
IMHO. For one thing, MTL, like any other city in QC has a dependance on the
province that is tied in physical terms, like Hydro.Secondly, the economy of
MTL does not command the resources to become it's own state, or be able to
operate as a state of what would be the ROC.
Respectfully, Alexandre.
JG ... again:
I don't even want to discuss "Montreal" territorial rights.
Needless to say, add that to the fire ...... by the be-gumby's.
Respectfully and nice talking to you .
Jeff Gagnon
Jerry Alary
Ne viens pas mêler l'Outaouais avec Montréal, les fédéralistes de
chez nous le sont dû principalement aux trois facteurs suivants:
1. Le gouvernement du Québec les a toujours négligé (pas le cas
avec Montréal).
2. La qualité de vie (Personne peut nier l'impact économique d'une
séparation avec les emplois des deux côtés de la rivière).
3. Le gouvernement fédéral nous a servi beaucoup plus qu'il nous
a nui.
Si on veut comprendre, il faut vraiment regarder les faits.
Salutations cordiales
Jerry Alary
Murray Robertson
Quebec joined confederation willingly. As a part of the nation of
Canada, Quebec did not have to sign for it to be valid, any more than
if they were a municipal government or a condiminium council.
Be proud to be Canadian! There's nothing wrong with being Quebecois,
except that there are too many who do not seem to realize that the
world does not end at the arbitrarily designated line which separates
Quebec frm Ontario.
BC has plenty of problems with Ontario and Ottawa(and Quebec) and
their general failure to realize that BC even exists. Quebec is not
the only provine where separatist feeling exist. How many Quebecers
even know this? Almost as many Quebecers as live here now.
Many Quebecers who visit BC (sometimes for skiing, sometimes for
work-related reasons) would never go back to Quebec. What the
difference is from other Quebecers is that they have experienced more
of what it is to be Canadian. Out here, the weather is warmer, the
scenery is more dramatic, we are usually less inclined to be racist,
the economy is stronger(even without the politically inspired gifts
that Ottawa gives Quebec (& Newfoundland)) and we welcome Quebecers.
Face it, Quebecers can be British Columbians easily. All they have to
do is come. They won't want to go back.
Their kids can be educated in French. They can have work and respect.
They don't have to huddle together either in inappropriate self-pity
or to keep warm. Come on out. We will welcome you.
prod...@synapse.net
Ontario still believe it pays for EVERYONE...well it does not.
Ontario PROFITS from everyone...
Paul
Jeff Gagnon
Ontario PROFITS from everyone...
Paul
JG:
This trend to compare who's taxes/province pays more than the
other is getting downright silly, lately.
"ONTARIO PROFITS FROM EVERYONE" , according to Paul Rodgers.
Based on what Paul???
Your total lack of willingness to usually show FACTS and sources
for your broad definitive assetions. Maybe a little 'Bias' there, mon amis.
And does this drivel really need to be posted to school-groups and
all over hells half-acre.
And it is not like you were responding to anything but a sarcastic
posting in the first place. The scary part is that you actually believe
YOUR drivel.
Is there really such a lack of intellect in the "separatist" camp
that we must constantly be subjected to cliches and emotional drivel that
has no basis on the present truth.
Always some emotional-driven, facts be damned, I want a country
because I want one period, and next-time Qui win drooling is really
getting to be pathetic.
Is there actually a "separatist" out there who can have an
intellectual discussion out there and not turn it into a BAD CANADA/BAD
ANGLAIS masturbation exercise ........?
Fawzi Dormeyer
(Jeff Gagnon) wrote:
> And it is not like you were responding to anything but a sarcastic
>posting in the first place. The scary part is that you actually believe
>YOUR drivel.
>
> Is there really such a lack of intellect in the "separatist" camp
>that we must constantly be subjected to cliches and emotional drivel that
>has no basis on the present truth.
>
> Always some emotional-driven, facts be damned, I want a country
>because I want one period, and next-time Qui win drooling is really
>getting to be pathetic.
>
> Is there actually a "separatist" out there who can have an
>intellectual discussion out there and not turn it into a BAD CANADA/BAD
>ANGLAIS masturbation exercise ........?
>
If you had an ounce of respect for a political opinion other than your own
you might see something else than a "BAD CANADA/BAD ANGLAIS masturbation
exercise".
First you keep calling us "separatists" when we call ourselves
sovereignists. We don't call you unionists or integrists for wanting to
maintain the integrity of Canada we call you what you call yourselves:
federalists.
To have an intelectual discussion on an equal level with someone maybe you
should try using a terminology that is less degrading with the one your
trying to get intellectual with...
We are not out to separate your country, but to create a new one, to build
our own. And we have every chance of doing that in a very short while...
so instead of thinking of every possible way of denying that fact maybe
you should start rethinking the new Canada that that situation would
create. And try to make it a viable country even without Quebec. And if
Quebec is such a burden on Canada, you should have no problem doing so...
Second the issue is not an economic one, but a cultural one. We want to
be recognized internationaly as a people and as a nation. We want to
identify to a nation that resembles us. We want to manage our own
affairs.
No one can predict a credible and specific economic outcome more than five
years from now. At the most some general tendencies could be drawn, but
trying to show that Quebec whith its actual boundaries and population isnt
viable is pure speculation.
And to say that an emotional argument to demonstrate the attachment to
one's country or nation shows a lack of intelect, might be insulting to
many Canadians that demonstrated their "love" for the Canada they now know
on the eve of the referendum.
--
--
Fawzi Dormeyer
De Montréal, au Québec.
====================================================
Hier n'est autre que la souvenance d'aujourd'hui,
et demain est son rêve.
-Khalil Gibran
====================================================
Doug Manzer
(Fawzi Dormeyer) wrote:
> ...We want to
> be recognized internationaly as a people and as a nation. We want to
> identify to a nation that resembles us. We want to manage our own
> affairs.
I hear this so much from Quebec sovereigntists. But in fact, less
than half of you want those things!
Your government received less than 50% popular vote in the last
election, yet it spent a whole lot of public money on the
referendum. In effect, a MINORITY of voters was able to make a
decision like that against the majority's will. Are you hoping
for some similar machination so that a Francophone minority can
somehow engineer a separation, be recognized internationally,
identify to a nation and manage Quebec's affairs -- against
the wishes of a majority of your citizens?
Regards, D.M.
Jeff Gagnon
In article <DJxn9...@freenet.carleton.ca>, av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(Jeff Gagnon) wrote:
> And it is not like you were responding to anything but a sarcastic
>posting in the first place. The scary part is that you actually believe
>YOUR drivel.
>
> Is there really such a lack of intellect in the "separatist" camp
>that we must constantly be subjected to cliches and emotional drivel that
>has no basis on the present truth.
>
> Always some emotional-driven, facts be damned, I want a country
>because I want one period, and next-time Qui win drooling is really
>getting to be pathetic.
>
> Is there actually a "separatist" out there who can have an
>intellectual discussion out there and not turn it into a BAD CANADA/BAD
>ANGLAIS masturbation exercise ........?
>
Fawzi writes:
If you had an ounce of respect for a political opinion other than your own
you might see something else than a "BAD CANADA/BAD ANGLAIS masturbation
exercise".
JG:
Based on what? Is not the usual "separatist" arguement a BAD
CANADA/BAD ANGLAIS arguement?
Do you have some FACTUAL basis for thinking it is otherwise?
Fawzi writes:
First you keep calling us "separatists" when we call ourselves
sovereignists.
JG:
Then I guess then you better INFORM your PQ buddies and BQ buddies
that due to your opinions on the matter, they better stop calling
themselves "separatists" ...... ??
Fawzi writes:
We don't call you unionists or integrists for wanting to
maintain the integrity of Canada we call you what you call yourselves:
federalists.
JG:
I'm not a "federalist" ........
Just someone who thinks that Quebec "Separatists" dwell to much on
"ethnic cleansing" .......
Fawzi writes:
To have an intelectual discussion on an equal level with someone maybe you
should try using a terminology that is less degrading with the one your
trying to get intellectual with...
JG:
I'm sorry that I cannot have an intellectual discussion with
someone that can't string two words together without sounding like Fred
Cayou.
That is your problem, not mine .....
Fawzi writes:
We are not out to separate your country, but to create a new one, to build
our own. And we have every chance of doing that in a very short while...
so instead of thinking of every possible way of denying that fact maybe
you should start rethinking the new Canada that that situation would
create. And try to make it a viable country even without Quebec. And if
Quebec is such a burden on Canada, you should have no problem doing so...
JG:
Then maybe you should have respect for my father who is buried in
Quebec.
Maybe you should understand that after 5'000 years of my family
living in the area that is commonly described as Quebec that your
"separatist" dream of "2/two founding nations" in no way includes my
culture/language or otherwise.
Fawzi writes:
Second the issue is not an economic one, but a cultural one.
JG:
I remember the very first postings when the latest "referendum"
exercise was fresh. ECONOMICS was the message that "separatists" tried to
justify their dream of a "nation".
Unfortunatly the NEW "separatist" dream falls apart when most of
your "separatist" buddies can't prove the falsehood that Quebec pays more
in taxes than it recieves.
The reality is that Quebec recieves 4-5 $Billion/per yr. more from
ROC ....
That's a fact .....
Fawzi writes:
We want to be recognized internationaly as a people and as a nation. We
want to identify to a nation that resembles us. We want to manage our own
affairs.
JG:
It is too bad you wish to TOTALLY ignore the fact that my family
has been in the present territories of Quebec for a few thousand more
years than you and somehow we are not part of the "separatist" version of
TWO FOUNDING NATIONS ...... ???
Fawzi writes:
No one can predict a credible and specific economic outcome more than five
years from now. At the most some general tendencies could be drawn, but
trying to show that Quebec whith its actual boundaries and population isnt
viable is pure speculation.
JG:
Too bad your dream of a Quebec nation doesn't include my family or
ancestors.
ONLY FRANCOPHONES ............???
T.Downing
>First you keep calling us "separatists" when we call ourselves
>sovereignists. We don't call you unionists or integrists for wanting to
>maintain the integrity of Canada we call you what you call yourselves:
>federalists.
I want to be called 'Your Highness'.
Merry Christmas/Joyeux Noël
T.Downing
Fawzi Dormeyer
dma...@wimsey.com (Doug Manzer) wrote:
>In article <fawzi-23129...@fawzi.hip.cam.org>, fa...@cam.org
>(Fawzi Dormeyer) wrote:
>
>> ...We want to
>> be recognized internationaly as a people and as a nation. We want to
>> identify to a nation that resembles us. We want to manage our own
>> affairs.
>
>I hear this so much from Quebec sovereigntists. But in fact, less
>than half of you want those things!
When I say "we", I mean Quebec's sovereignists. And from what I understand
all of us sovereignists want that.
>Your government received less than 50% popular vote in the last
>election, yet it spent a whole lot of public money on the
>referendum. In effect, a MINORITY of voters was able to make a
>decision like that against the majority's will. Are you hoping
>for some similar machination so that a Francophone minority can
>somehow engineer a separation, be recognized internationally,
>identify to a nation and manage Quebec's affairs -- against
>the wishes of a majority of your citizens?
What you call a machination, I call the rules of democracy. For exemple,
when a non-majoritary government is elected it is still recognized as
representing the whole country and all of its citizens. So such a
government makes decisions presumably against a majority's will, but those
decisions are still legitimate. But when it comes to making decisions
which puts back on the table the two founding nations principle, against
the will of one of the two, than that legitimacy is questioned.
And the whole point of a referendum is to make sure that a majority of
citizens want the same thing, and that, in all good faith, canot be
engineered.
Marc Thibault
>Second the issue is not an economic one, but a cultural one. We want to
>be recognized internationaly as a people and as a nation. We want to
>identify to a nation that resembles us. We want to manage our own
>affairs.
In other words, you want to build an ethnic nation. You are
uncomfortable with a Canada that, more than any other nation on the
planet, is racially and culturally tolerant. Quebec's romantic
nationalists have grown in number, if not intelligence, in perfect synch
with Canada's increasing multiculturalism. For some reason, the
Pure Laine find a nation defined by a belief system too much of an
intellectual challenge. Family trees are easier to grasp. Maybe it's
the result of excessive inbreeding.
To be Canadian, and not just somebody living here, I take
part in a great egalitarian experiment that is still being
defined. How much easier to be Quebequois - because my grandmother
Philomene was Quebequoise! No complicated relationships, no
xenophobic fears to overcome.
In a country that is trying to break down ethnic barriers and remove
racism from the stage, Quebec's "sovereigntism" is degenerate.
--
Cheers,
Marc
---
This is not a secure channel; assume nothing.
Marc Thibault Information Systems Architect
http://www.synapse.net/~mthibault
Key fingerprint = 76 21 A3 B2 41 77 BC E8 C9 1C 74 02 80 48 A0 1A
Jeff Gagnon
In article <fawzi-23129...@fawzi.hip.cam.org>, fa...@cam.org
(Fawzi Dormeyer) wrote:
> ...We want to
> be recognized internationaly as a people and as a nation. We want to
> identify to a nation that resembles us. We want to manage our own
> affairs.
I hear this so much from Quebec sovereigntists. But in fact, less
than half of you want those things!
Your government received less than 50% popular vote in the last
election, yet it spent a whole lot of public money on the
referendum. In effect, a MINORITY of voters was able to make a
decision like that against the majority's will. Are you hoping
for some similar machination so that a Francophone minority can
somehow engineer a separation, be recognized internationally,
identify to a nation and manage Quebec's affairs -- against
the wishes of a majority of your citizens?
Regards, D.M.
JG:
Be wary of speaking the truth to Quebec "separatists". You will be
accused of being oppressive and heaven help your soul for pointing out the
obvious lie that they speak for ALL of Quebec.
That is what the "next time" game is all about. Manipulate the
populace until they get their wishes and pretend everyone in Quebec wants
that.
bb...@netonecom.net
So much Bull, enough to get sick.
I have lived in Ontario for many years and have always been treated like a
second class citizen. I lost count of the times I've been told to speak white
because I was speaking in French. Here in the US I am treated just like any
other person. I'm sure all people in Quebec want is similar treatment which
I'm sure will never happen. For that reason alone Quebec should become an
independant country.
If you wonder why I live in the USA. Well, I was discusted by the treason
of our leaders in 1970 when several of us were arrested without valid reason.
I made my life here and am happy, I still think Quebec is a wonderful place to
live. If I had two choices as to where I would live
1-Live in English Canada with a very highly paid job
2-Live in Quebec on public assistance
I would choose No 2
By the way I'm a well paid Electronics Engineer.
Michel Catudal
A proud Franco American
Vive Le Quebec Libre
bb...@netonecom.net
>T.Downing
Your Highness should go sit on his throne. Don't forget a book or newspaper!
And don't forget to flush!
Michel Catudal
A proud Franco American
from Michigan
Vive le Quebec libre
Jeff Gagnon
In <30D6EA...@direct.ca>, Murray Robertson <mrob...@direct.ca> writes:
>Wrong.
>
>Quebec joined confederation willingly. As a part of the nation of
>Canada, Quebec did not have to sign for it to be valid, any more than
>if they were a municipal government or a condiminium council.
>
(snip .......)
So much Bull, enough to get sick.
I have lived in Ontario for many years and have always been treated like a
second class citizen. I lost count of the times I've been told to speak white
because I was speaking in French. Here in the US I am treated just like any
other person. I'm sure all people in Quebec want is similar treatment which
I'm sure will never happen. For that reason alone Quebec should become an
independant country.
If you wonder why I live in the USA. Well, I was discusted by the treason
of our leaders in 1970 when several of us were arrested without valid reason.
I made my life here and am happy, I still think Quebec is a wonderful place to
live. If I had two choices as to where I would live
1-Live in English Canada with a very highly paid job
2-Live in Quebec on public assistance
I would choose No 2
By the way I'm a well paid Electronics Engineer.
Michel Catudal
A proud Franco American
Vive Le Quebec Libre
JG:
Maybe your biggest complaint is that you use like to blow up
mailboxes in your youth ......
I recognize the name ........
Maybe your biggest complaint is that Canada wouldn't put up with
terrorists.
Maybe your only complaint is that you are merely some criminal who
has escaped justice by fleeing to the states .......
Maybe if you were SO comfortable about Quebec, you wouldn't be
pretending to LOVE Quebec and playing political games while being a
hideout in la belle America ........?
Maybe you are so full of shit that you are living in the States of
America because you are not welcome here in the first place ....
Maybe, Maybe ..........
Jeff Gagnon
In article <DJxn9...@freenet.carleton.ca>, av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(Jeff Gagnon) wrote:
> And it is not like you were responding to anything but a sarcastic
>posting in the first place. The scary part is that you actually believe
>YOUR drivel.
>
> Is there really such a lack of intellect in the "separatist" camp
>that we must constantly be subjected to cliches and emotional drivel that
>has no basis on the present truth.
>
> Always some emotional-driven, facts be damned, I want a country
>because I want one period, and next-time Qui win drooling is really
>getting to be pathetic.
>
> Is there actually a "separatist" out there who can have an
>intellectual discussion out there and not turn it into a BAD CANADA/BAD
>ANGLAIS masturbation exercise ........?
>
Fawzi writes:
If you had an ounce of respect for a political opinion other than your own
you might see something else than a "BAD CANADA/BAD ANGLAIS masturbation
exercise".
JG:
Based on what? Is not the usual "separatist" arguement a BAD
CANADA/BAD ANGLAIS arguement?
Do you have some FACTUAL basis for thinking it is otherwise?
Fawzi writes:
First you keep calling us "separatists" when we call ourselves
sovereignists.
JG:
Then I guess then you better INFORM your PQ buddies and BQ buddies
that due to your opinions on the matter, they better stop calling
themselves "separatists" ...... ??
Fawzi writes:
We don't call you unionists or integrists for wanting to
maintain the integrity of Canada we call you what you call yourselves:
federalists.
JG:
Fawzi writes:
JG:
Fawzi writes:
Second the issue is not an economic one, but a cultural one.
JG:
I remember the very first postings when the latest "referendum"
exercise was fresh. ECONOMICS was the message that "separatists" tried to
justify their dream of a "nation".
Unfortunatly the NEW "separatist" dream falls apart when most of
your "separatist" buddies can't prove the falsehood that Quebec pays more
in taxes than it recieves.
The reality is that Quebec recieves 4-5 $Billion/per yr. more from
ROC ....
That's a fact .....
Fawzi writes:
We want to be recognized internationaly as a people and as a nation. We
want to identify to a nation that resembles us. We want to manage our own
affairs.
JG:
It is too bad you wish to TOTALLY ignore the fact that my family
has been in the present territories of Quebec for a few thousand more
years than you and somehow we are not part of the "separatist" version of
TWO FOUNDING NATIONS ...... ???
Fawzi writes:
No one can predict a credible and specific economic outcome more than five
years from now. At the most some general tendencies could be drawn, but
trying to show that Quebec whith its actual boundaries and population isnt
viable is pure speculation.
JG:
Too bad your dream of a Quebec nation doesn't include my family or
ancestors.
ONLY FRANCOPHONES ............???
Michel Catudal
> Maybe your biggest complaint is that you use like to blow up
>mailboxes in your youth ......
>
> I recognize the name ........
>
> Maybe your biggest complaint is that Canada wouldn't put up with
>terrorists.
>
> Maybe your only complaint is that you are merely some criminal who
>has escaped justice by fleeing to the states .......
>
> Maybe if you were SO comfortable about Quebec, you wouldn't be
>pretending to LOVE Quebec and playing political games while being a
>hideout in la belle America ........?
>
> Maybe you are so full of shit that you are living in the States of
>America because you are not welcome here in the first place ....
>
>Maybe, Maybe ..........
>--
>Jeff Gagnon
How dare you accuse people of being criminal? For your information I have never
done anything that would be outside the law except a few traffic tickets which
I've paid for. Don't go and accuse people that you don't know of thing that they
didn't do.
As far as my choice to live here; nobody forces me to stay here. The USA is a
free country where our government doesn't suck us dry like your socialist government
in Canada. My love for Quebec is genuine since my folks are from there and I spent
most of my youth there. My wife and kid are born in this land and I'm a US citizen.
Being also a Canadian citizen I have every right to give my opinion on the political
issues in Quebec. By the way I'm also of Iroquois descent, my ancestors have most
likely been in this land longer than yours.
I go in Quebec or Ontario whenever I please and no one has any reason to keep
me from visiting. My American dollars are just as good as anybody's else's.
Michel Catudal
A proud American
Magic BBS
> Maybe your biggest complaint is that you use like to blow up
> mailboxes in your youth ......
>
> I recognize the name ........
>
> Maybe your biggest complaint is that Canada wouldn't put up with
> terrorists.
>
> Maybe your only complaint is that you are merely some criminal who
> has escaped justice by fleeing to the states .......
>
> Maybe if you were SO comfortable about Quebec, you wouldn't be
> pretending to LOVE Quebec and playing political games while being a
> hideout in la belle America ........?
>
> Maybe you are so full of shit that you are living in the States of
> America because you are not welcome here in the first place ....
>
> Maybe, Maybe ..........
> --
> Jeff Gagnon
> "Graphics Unlimited" - Desktop/word/print brokering
> - Desktop publishing/word processing
USA is lucky , they have Michel. Here we have to put
put up with Jeff's moronic preaching.
--
Fawzi Dormeyer
Mais tout ce que j'ai eu comme réponses se sont des insultes, des
insinuations non-fondées, et des interprétations tordues de ce que j'ai
écrit.
J'ai du froisser bien des sensibilités, en partageant mon opinion...
Fromm Richard W
> Date: Sun, 24 DEC 1995 22:05:28 GMT
> From: Jeff Gagnon <av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
> Newgroups: can.politics, ott.general, mtl.general, tor.general,
> kingston.general, qc.general, nb.general, man.general, can.english,
> can.francais, can.schoolnet.chat.students.sr, carleton.general,
> soc.culture.quebec, soc.culture.usa, can.general
> Subject: Re: The nation of Quebec
>
>
>
> In article <fawzi-23129...@fawzi.hip.cam.org>, fa...@cam.org
> (Fawzi Dormeyer) wrote:
>
> > ...We want to
> > be recognized internationaly as a people and as a nation. We want to
> > identify to a nation that resembles us. We want to manage our own
> > affairs.
>
> I hear this so much from Quebec sovereigntists. But in fact, less
> than half of you want those things!
>
> Your government received less than 50% popular vote in the last
> election, yet it spent a whole lot of public money on the
> referendum. In effect, a MINORITY of voters was able to make a
> decision like that against the majority's will. Are you hoping
> for some similar machination so that a Francophone minority can
> somehow engineer a separation, be recognized internationally,
> identify to a nation and manage Quebec's affairs -- against
> the wishes of a majority of your citizens?
>
> Regards, D.M.
>
> JG:
> Be wary of speaking the truth to Quebec "separatists". You will be
> accused of being oppressive and heaven help your soul for pointing out the
> obvious lie that they speak for ALL of Quebec.
> That is what the "next time" game is all about. Manipulate the
> populace until they get their wishes and pretend everyone in Quebec wants
> that.
>
>
> --
> Jeff Gagnon
> av...@freenet.carleton.ca (Jeff Gagnon) - (613)838-4716 /24 hrs.
> "Graphics Unlimited" - Desktop/word/print brokering
> - Desktop publishing/word processing
>
>
The'"next time will be on the rest of Canada's terms and not just on
Quebec's terms. Enough nonsense is enough.
Michel Catudal
>USA is lucky , they have Michel. Here we have to put
>put up with Jeff's moronic preaching.
>--
Oh Well at least he's not insulting me like your favorite Moron.
For your information, I'm usually a sweet person. Morons drive me creasy, I
have to tell them off with what I think will tick them off and I try not to be
vulgar, unlike some unfriendly letters from Canadian Rednecks in my EMAIL.
People here think that Canadians are all nice and sweet people but when
I read the Internet lines I get a completely different opinion.
Am I getting the cream of the Crop or I am getting just a bunch of Obnoxious
Morons?
I lived many years in English Canada and was never treated correctly by Anglos
even though I tried my best to speak English. I now speak English with a US
southern accent. (From my Cherokee/Irish wife with a tiny Cadienne flavor)
In Ontario, I ended up living where it was mostly Italians and found them to be
very nice. I wish I could say the same of all Anglos but unfortunately...
In response to a note about my favorite singer Dean Martin from which I have
over 50 different albums, this morning I got a letter of insults from some jerk
who didn't bother to identify himself.
Mes best wishes to you and your family for the new year.
Michel Catudal
A Proud Franco American