Stephane Dion - Toast on day 1?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

john stark

unread,
Jan 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/25/96
to
Mr. Stephane Dion, the new minister of intergovernmental affairs, and a
reported strong federalist began his (probably short) career in this position
stating he is in favour of distinct society in the Constitution, a position
VERY strongly rejected by Canadians, not once, but TWICE.

This along with the bill C-110 veto basically implements Meech thru the back
door.

What happened to our supposedly "federal" government? I fail to see much
difference between Cretiens "team" and Bouchards "team" unless it is the
degree of commitment to federalism, from 0 in Bouchards case to at best a 5 in
Chretiens Quebec "team".

Either the country has to lose Chretien or they should expect to lose the
country. If Mr. Dion is a "federalist", is it only because Chretien offered
him something or would he be equally federalist for a non-Quebec prime
minister? What difference would there be if Dion was in the PQ party?

Perhaps the only way to solve this is for provincial governments to start
their own Department of Quebec affairs (a post not to be held by the premier)
and look for an arrangement amongst the 10 provinces without the federal
government (which has practically lost the country once and now has an
unacceptable bias against TROC in negotiations with Quebec).

Once an agreement has been reached, and perhaps presented to the electorate as
required by law in BC and Alberta unless public opinion appears to be
enormous, it could either be presented to the federal government (with the
expectation it would be sabotaged) or simply agree that on publication of the
agreement, it would be up to the next federal government to implement it.

If an agreement is not reached, and the federal government cannot reconstruct
itself to represent Canada, undoubtably the next federal election will be
fought over who can represent Canada in negotiations with Quebec in which case
Chretien will be toast. I find it difficult to believe that an agreement
could not be negotiated.

Either way, bill C-110 is unacceptable. Distinct society will not come for
free with the current massive monetary transfers to Quebec and Chretiens
governement has too great a conflict of interest to ignore.

John Stark
Vancouver

Sylvain G. Leblanc

unread,
Jan 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/26/96
to
john stark wrote:
>
> Mr. Stephane Dion, the new minister of intergovernmental affairs, and a
> reported strong federalist began his (probably short) career in this position
> stating he is in favour of distinct society in the Constitution, a position
> VERY strongly rejected by Canadians, not once, but TWICE.
>
> This along with the bill C-110 veto basically implements Meech thru the back
> door.
>
> What happened to our supposedly "federal" government? I fail to see much
> difference between Cretiens "team" and Bouchards "team" unless it is the
> degree of commitment to federalism, from 0 in Bouchards case to at best a 5 in
> Chretiens Quebec "team".
>

If you don't see a difference then it shows you truly don't understand Quebec.



> John Stark
> Vancouver

Vancouver, that explains everything.


Sylvain Leblanc
---------------------------------------------
leb...@ccrs.emr.ca
bl...@freenet.carleton.ca
http://metro.turnpike.net/~leblanc/index.html

Gerald Olchowy

unread,
Jan 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/26/96
to
jst...@wimsey.com (john stark) writes:

>Mr. Stephane Dion, the new minister of intergovernmental affairs, and a
>reported strong federalist began his (probably short) career in this position
>stating he is in favour of distinct society in the Constitution, a position
>VERY strongly rejected by Canadians, not once, but TWICE.

I dislike the distinct society clause, but it was mainly defeated twice
because of the stupidity of politicians and the political elites. The
clause by itself only requires 50% and 7 of ten provinces to ratify...
yet they insist on packaging it in ridiculously large packages of
constitutional changes requiring unanimity.

I think a simple clause by itself could succeed in getting the necessary
support...even with a referendum...heck...it is conceivable that I would
even vote for a carefully defined distinct socity clause (since we defacto
have one already)...it is usually the junk that it packaged with it that
tends to drive me to oppose it.

Constitutional change would happen steadily if the powers that be went one
clause at a time.

Gerald


Bosse Dominique

unread,
Jan 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/27/96
to

John,

This is just to assure you that Stephane
Dion is the most fundamentalist brand of
federalist you can find in Quebec. He is
the truest hard-liner you can imagine. The
Quebec Liberal Party, not exactly known for
its soveregnist positions, is extremely
embarrassed by his nomination.

Moreover, Stephane Dion is disliked in
Quebec more than you will ever dislike
him. Everything about him rubs us the
wrong way: his ideas, his manners, the
way he speaks. I don't know if it comes
through in English, but he is an intellectual
snob who thinks indecently highly of himself.

Because of all of this, I agree that he
will not last long -- or Canada won't last
long, or both, why not?

jst...@wimsey.com (john stark) writes:

>Mr. Stephane Dion, the new minister of intergovernmental affairs, and a
>reported strong federalist began his (probably short) career in this position
>stating he is in favour of distinct society in the Constitution, a position
>VERY strongly rejected by Canadians, not once, but TWICE.

>This along with the bill C-110 veto basically implements Meech thru the back
>door.

>What happened to our supposedly "federal" government? I fail to see much
>difference between Cretiens "team" and Bouchards "team" unless it is the
>degree of commitment to federalism, from 0 in Bouchards case to at best a 5 in
>Chretiens Quebec "team".

>Either the country has to lose Chretien or they should expect to lose the

>country. If Mr. Dion is a "federalist", is it only because Chretien offered
>him something or would he be equally federalist for a non-Quebec prime
>minister? What difference would there be if Dion was in the PQ party?

>Perhaps the only way to solve this is for provincial governments to start
>their own Department of Quebec affairs (a post not to be held by the premier)
>and look for an arrangement amongst the 10 provinces without the federal
>government (which has practically lost the country once and now has an
>unacceptable bias against TROC in negotiations with Quebec).

>Once an agreement has been reached, and perhaps presented to the electorate as
>required by law in BC and Alberta unless public opinion appears to be
>enormous, it could either be presented to the federal government (with the
>expectation it would be sabotaged) or simply agree that on publication of the
>agreement, it would be up to the next federal government to implement it.

>If an agreement is not reached, and the federal government cannot reconstruct
>itself to represent Canada, undoubtably the next federal election will be
>fought over who can represent Canada in negotiations with Quebec in which case
>Chretien will be toast. I find it difficult to believe that an agreement
>could not be negotiated.

>Either way, bill C-110 is unacceptable. Distinct society will not come for
>free with the current massive monetary transfers to Quebec and Chretiens
>governement has too great a conflict of interest to ignore.

>John Stark
>Vancouver


--
Dominique Bosse'

courrier-e: bos...@ere.umontreal.ca

john stark

unread,
Jan 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/27/96
to

> John,

> This is just to assure you that Stephane
> Dion is the most fundamentalist brand of
> federalist you can find in Quebec. He is
> the truest hard-liner you can imagine.

Well to me, federalist or separatist or sovereignist, means very little
difference. Either one represents Quebec and that's what BC has to deal with.
Bourassa wasn't a treat to deal with because like Chretien, he does not want
the situation to come to a concludion. Here, I think we're coming to
conclusions very rapidly and that is that there are 9 provincial governments
and 2 Quebec governments.

John Stark
Vancouver

Paul Rodgers

unread,
Jan 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/27/96
to
In article <bossed.8...@alize.ERE.UMontreal.CA>,
bos...@ERE.UMontreal.CA says...

>
>
> John,
>
> This is just to assure you that Stephane
> Dion is the most fundamentalist brand of
> federalist you can find in Quebec. He is
> the truest hard-liner you can imagine. The

> Quebec Liberal Party, not exactly known for
> its soveregnist positions, is extremely
> embarrassed by his nomination.
>
> Moreover, Stephane Dion is disliked in
> Quebec more than you will ever dislike
> him. Everything about him rubs us the
> wrong way: his ideas, his manners, the
> way he speaks. I don't know if it comes
> through in English,

Oh, he comes through all right; à la Jean Chrétien:-))


but he is an intellectual
> snob who thinks indecently highly of himself.
>
> Because of all of this, I agree that he
> will not last long -- or Canada won't last
> long, or both, why not?


The crash nomination of Stéphane Dion in Ottawa has become a
nightmare, an ambarassement for the Quebec Liberal Party, but a
blessing to nationalist, for he will supply all ammunitions needed,
and more.

And Don Newman is happy that the federalists found their man " to
sell Canada to Quebec ".:-))

Jean Chretien not satisfied to have insulted Canada outside Quebec
with his fire sales of Vetos. He claims to have had to go outside
his causus to find talents, implicitly labelling his collegues as
incompetents. Hardly a winning formula.

Ottawa knows best how to shoot itself in the foot. Now, it is left
to Canadian medias to blame the separatists for the sheeps to start
screaming wolf:-))

Paul

rk...@ivory.trentu.ca

unread,
Jan 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/28/96
to
In article <jstark.93...@wimsey.com>, jst...@wimsey.com (john stark) writes:
>Mr. Stephane Dion, the new minister of intergovernmental affairs, and a
>reported strong federalist began his (probably short) career in this position
>stating he is in favour of distinct society in the Constitution, a position
>VERY strongly rejected by Canadians, not once, but TWICE.
>
I think that there are many who think distinct society is now a dead end
street. Why then, do these gentlemen not look at the possibility of
recognizing the existence of three "nations" within Canada- First Nations,
Quebecois and Canadians? I mean, surely the majority of Canadians would not
feel so threatened if we understood that this recognition would not diminish
the scale of our citizenship in this country. I have hope though...M. Dion
appears to be very articulate and sure of himself- something that recent
constitutional ministers have lacked.

>This along with the bill C-110 veto basically implements Meech thru the back
>door.
>
>What happened to our supposedly "federal" government? I fail to see much
>difference between Cretiens "team" and Bouchards "team" unless it is the
>degree of commitment to federalism, from 0 in Bouchards case to at best a 5 in
>Chretiens Quebec "team".
>

C'mon John....they have to do something. I think they have something
planned....we'll have to wait and see. Charlottetown and Meech both appeared
to me to be ways of reforming Canada to Quebec's benefit while preserving a
strong central gov't. M. Dion has mentioned that he will seek devolution of
power....and any federalist in Quebec who has been listening to the people
knows that this is what could solve many of Quebec's problems with Canada.
Decentralisation also helps BC John.....assholes in Ottawa can't enforce their
hypocrisy on our beloved province if they don't have the authority. And what
do I mean by hypocrisy? Quite simply...Quebec envokes language legislation
contrary to the constitution, and all the supreme court did was rule it
unconstitutional- Ottawa has done nothing. BC places a paltry residency
requirement on Welfare because it doesn't want to lower it's rates like the
other provinces, and can't handle a flood to BC's system from across Canada-
and immediately BC sees a reduction in transfers (basically, since BC pays more
into the system then it gets out, Ottawa's just robbing the province of more of
our own money) without even having a date in the supreme court first.

>Either the country has to lose Chretien or they should expect to lose the
>country. If Mr. Dion is a "federalist", is it only because Chretien offered
>him something or would he be equally federalist for a non-Quebec prime
>minister? What difference would there be if Dion was in the PQ party?
>

Well John, I do think that he's a federalist....and he fought hard for the NON
side in the Oct. 30 vote from what I hear. He'll learn, and his ideas will
develop.....give him some time before you jump the gun and attack him.

>Perhaps the only way to solve this is for provincial governments to start
>their own Department of Quebec affairs (a post not to be held by the premier)
>and look for an arrangement amongst the 10 provinces without the federal
>government (which has practically lost the country once and now has an
>unacceptable bias against TROC in negotiations with Quebec).
>

This could be very interesting.....a true confederation negotiated without the
Feds to "fuck" everything up (forgive the cursing). The more I think about it,
the more I like it.

>Once an agreement has been reached, and perhaps presented to the electorate as
>required by law in BC and Alberta unless public opinion appears to be
>enormous, it could either be presented to the federal government (with the
>expectation it would be sabotaged) or simply agree that on publication of the
>agreement, it would be up to the next federal government to implement it.
>

This is a terrific idea John....and I think that considerable pressure could be
put on Ottawa to accept the arrangement. Yesterday on "On the Line," one
"intellectual" presented the case that Chretien is now thinking that the unity
debate is no longer just about Quebec seceding.....the fact that BC now has 2
ministers in the new Cabinet is supposed to point to the reality that more and
more British Columbians are feeling further and further from Ottawa- and that a
new wave of secession could sweep through the West if something isn't
accomplished. Whatever the case, I hope this last round of talks produces
something- I think it's the last chance to salvage the country.

>If an agreement is not reached, and the federal government cannot reconstruct
>itself to represent Canada, undoubtably the next federal election will be
>fought over who can represent Canada in negotiations with Quebec in which case
>Chretien will be toast. I find it difficult to believe that an agreement
>could not be negotiated.
>

Something could be....I'm sure of it. Would the Feds be too greedy
though...that's the question. Are they power gluttons (as so many of the old
liberals appear to be....fighting to maintain Federal power) too ignorant of
present day logic to effectively govern us, or are they flexible enough to bend
with time. The difference is simple- one shovels billions into Quebec to try
and buy unity....the other is serious enough about change to realize that the
new reality is far larger and more important than their silly desire to retain
central control of matters best served at the local level.

>Either way, bill C-110 is unacceptable. Distinct society will not come for
>free with the current massive monetary transfers to Quebec and Chretiens
>governement has too great a conflict of interest to ignore.
>

True enough....many Canadians do feel this way, and even though I'm not among
them, I can understand the reason that that particular term causes so much
friction. There is room to negotiate, however- and recognition of all of us as
that which we are (nations- three to be exact) has a greater chance of success
than one term that alienates everyone else.

rk...@ivory.trentu.ca

unread,
Jan 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/28/96
to
In article <3108FB8E...@FreeNet.Carleton.Ca>, "Sylvain G. Leblanc" <bl...@FreeNet.Carleton.Ca> writes:

>Vancouver, that explains everything.
>
Beg your pardon? How does that explain everything, funnyboy? C'mon
Sylvain....show your true colours here and expose all of those lame, ignorant
stereotypes about the West Coast and it's people. I'll be waiting to hear the
logic that prompted this response concerning one of North America's great
cities.


Ellie Charest

unread,
Jan 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/28/96
to
john stark (jst...@wimsey.com) wrote:
: Mr. Stephane Dion, the new minister of intergovernmental affairs, and a
: reported strong federalist began his (probably short) career in this position
: stating he is in favour of distinct society in the Constitution, a position
: VERY strongly rejected by Canadians, not once, but TWICE.

: This along with the bill C-110 veto basically implements Meech thru the back
: door.

[MUNCH]

I think this post gives a clear indication on how separation is
inevitable. Quebecois see Dion as a hard-line federalist, who's going to
have a tough-sell in increasingly nationalist Quebec.

ROCanadians are going to see in Dion a soft nationalist who wants to
start the constitution game again.

Of course he's going to fail miserably. I can't wait, personnaly (but
that's my bias talking).

When are you guys going to learn that Meech (and probably Meech+) is the
absolute minimum to even hope keeping Quebec in the constitution?

Elie Charest

john stark

unread,
Jan 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/28/96
to

>I think this post gives a clear indication on how separation is
>inevitable.

Nope! Quebec won't leave.


>When are you guys going to learn that Meech (and probably Meech+) is the
>absolute minimum to even hope keeping Quebec in the constitution?

When will Quebec realize that that kind of a change isn't free? Some fairer
distribution of money has to be found such as a constitutional amendment
whereby Quebec is limited to their share of revenue raised thru taxes within
Quebec. Since that would be more than difficult, the end result would be
separation.

John Stark

>Elie Charest


Equality Party

unread,
Jan 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/28/96
to
john stark (jst...@wimsey.com) wrote:
: Mr. Stephane Dion, the new minister of intergovernmental affairs, and a
: reported strong federalist began his (probably short) career in this position
: stating he is in favour of distinct society in the Constitution, a position
: VERY strongly rejected by Canadians, not once, but TWICE.

: This along with the bill C-110 veto basically implements Meech thru the back
: door.

Agreed. This is a a serious weakness in his recent pronouncments. The
Senate is now looking at C-110. They should be encouraged to reject the
veto and distinct society via apprpriate ammendments. More positively Mr
Dion has said that if Canada is divisible then so is Quebec. The
separatists are apoplectic!

: What happened to our supposedly "federal" government? I fail to see much

: difference between Cretiens "team" and Bouchards "team" unless it is the
: degree of commitment to federalism, from 0 in Bouchards case to at best a 5 in
: Chretiens Quebec "team".

There is a difference but it's not yet enough for us. Chretien is paid to
defend the Canadian constitution, including Quebec. The so-called "unity
cabinet" has many flaws but what do you expect from a Liberal government
that has built careers on appeasement? Perhaps this is the first step in
a stiffening of their resolve. The Equality Party will certainly hold their
feet to the fire until they do.

: Either the country has to lose Chretien or they should expect to lose the

: country. If Mr. Dion is a "federalist", is it only because Chretien offered
: him something or would he be equally federalist for a non-Quebec prime
: minister? What difference would there be if Dion was in the PQ party?

One point, he could not be in the PQ and come out in favour of partition.

: Perhaps the only way to solve this is for provincial governments to start

: their own Department of Quebec affairs (a post not to be held by the premier)
: and look for an arrangement amongst the 10 provinces without the federal
: government (which has practically lost the country once and now has an
: unacceptable bias against TROC in negotiations with Quebec).

Sorry, we don't agree with this. There's too much bureacracy now and it
wouldn't work anyway as there would be no Canada focus. The provinces
have always acted a bit like barons before Runnymeade. We don't think
that they could build, or keep, a nation. Who would speak for Canada?

: Once an agreement has been reached, and perhaps presented to the electorate as

: required by law in BC and Alberta unless public opinion appears to be
: enormous, it could either be presented to the federal government (with the
: expectation it would be sabotaged) or simply agree that on publication of the
: agreement, it would be up to the next federal government to implement it.

: If an agreement is not reached, and the federal government cannot reconstruct

: itself to represent Canada, undoubtably the next federal election will be
: fought over who can represent Canada in negotiations with Quebec in which case
: Chretien will be toast. I find it difficult to believe that an agreement
: could not be negotiated.

We doubt that an agreement would be forthcoming. However, there may be
something in the idea that loyal Canadian provinces *might* just be able
to set an agenda that the feds would have to follow but it would have to be
pan-Canadian, not a typical Meech or Charlottetown power grab by the
provinces.

: Either way, bill C-110 is unacceptable. Distinct society will not come for
: free with the current massive monetary transfers to Quebec and Chretien's
: governement has too great a conflict of interest to ignore.

Bill C-110 *is* unacceptable. We call upon the Senate to kill it. Also,
you may have a point about conflict of interest.

: John Stark
: Vancouver


--
Equality Party Leader's Office, Montreal, Quebec.
*** UNEQUIVOCALLY CANADIAN ***
"POUR UN QUEBEC MEILLEUR!" ** Qui tacit concentera **
"FOR A BETTER QUEBEC!" ** He who is silent consents **

john stark

unread,
Jan 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/28/96
to
In article <4ehd4h$o...@ocean.CAM.ORG> ega...@CAM.ORG (Equality Party) writes:

>: Perhaps the only way to solve this is for provincial governments to start
>: their own Department of Quebec affairs (a post not to be held by the premier)
>: and look for an arrangement amongst the 10 provinces without the federal
>: government (which has practically lost the country once and now has an
>: unacceptable bias against TROC in negotiations with Quebec).

>Sorry, we don't agree with this. There's too much bureacracy now and it
>wouldn't work anyway as there would be no Canada focus. The provinces
>have always acted a bit like barons before Runnymeade. We don't think
>that they could build, or keep, a nation. Who would speak for Canada?

We have 2 territorial governments
9 provincial governments
2 Quebec governments
---------------------------------------------------------
and 0 Canadian governments.

John Stark
Vancouver

Sylvain Leblanc

unread,
Jan 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/29/96
to

I have some very good friends living in BC, but they don't really know
what's going on in Quebec, and the same about us can be said.
John made a remark about Chretien and Bouchard, putting them in the same basket,
only someone who doesn't understand Quebec could say that. Since he is from
Vancouver, a city "far away" from Quebec, it may explain the ignorance on
the "Quebec problem". It was not an attack on Vancouver.

As for the stereotype issue. I don't have any specific ones about the West Coast.
I'll juge for myself if I can finally go there, while I have friends with guest
rooms :)

Sylvain


Paul Rodgers

unread,
Jan 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/29/96
to
In article <DLwr1...@coffeehaus.com>, tur...@coffeehaus.com
says...

>
>john stark (jst...@wimsey.com) wrote:
>: Mr. Stephane Dion, the new minister of intergovernmental affairs,
and a
>: reported strong federalist began his (probably short) career in
this position
>: stating he is in favour of distinct society in the Constitution,
a position
>: VERY strongly rejected by Canadians, not once, but TWICE.
>
>: This along with the bill C-110 veto basically implements Meech
thru the back
>: door.
>
>[MUNCH]

>
>I think this post gives a clear indication on how separation is
>inevitable. Quebecois see Dion as a hard-line federalist, who's
going to
>have a tough-sell in increasingly nationalist Quebec.
>
>ROCanadians are going to see in Dion a soft nationalist who wants
to
>start the constitution game again.
>
>Of course he's going to fail miserably. I can't wait, personnaly
(but
>that's my bias talking).
>
>When are you guys going to learn that Meech (and probably Meech+)
is the
>absolute minimum to even hope keeping Quebec in the constitution?
>
>Elie Charest

The ROC missed the constitutional train between 1981 and 1982.

Stéphane Dion is an intellectual as we find so many in English
canadian universities. Why not one of them put himself at the
disposal of the despot PM to sell the Canada they know so well to
Quebec? Can we detect a colonialist attitude whereby, the dominant
group feels the need to put forth a colaborator to oppress his own,
at the benefit of the dominant's interest? Or is the ROC
intellectually bankrupt?

Dion and LuLu Robillard are on their way to handing to sovereignists
their dream on a silver plate. Thank you sovereignist makers in
Ottawa.

Paul Rodgers
Hull, QUÉBEC


Bruce Jonathan Schuck

unread,
Jan 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/29/96
to
Ellie Charest (tur...@coffeehaus.com) wrote:

: john stark (jst...@wimsey.com) wrote:
: : Mr. Stephane Dion, the new minister of intergovernmental affairs, and a
: : reported strong federalist began his (probably short) career in this position
: : stating he is in favour of distinct society in the Constitution, a position
: : VERY strongly rejected by Canadians, not once, but TWICE.

: : This along with the bill C-110 veto basically implements Meech thru the back
: : door.

: [MUNCH]

: I think this post gives a clear indication on how separation is
: inevitable. Quebecois see Dion as a hard-line federalist, who's going to
: have a tough-sell in increasingly nationalist Quebec.

: ROCanadians are going to see in Dion a soft nationalist who wants to
: start the constitution game again.

We love the way he has exposed Bouchards foolishness. If Canada
can be partitioned, so can Quebec.

: Of course he's going to fail miserably. I can't wait, personnaly (but

: that's my bias talking).

He has already nailed Bouchard by opening up the partition question.

In years to come, when some of Quebec secedes, and much of it stays
in Canada, you will learn to curse the name of Bouchard.

: When are you guys going to learn that Meech (and probably Meech+) is the

: absolute minimum to even hope keeping Quebec in the constitution?


We learned the hard way that:

1) Quebec will NEVER tell us exactly what they want because they
always want MORE!

2) Bouchard wants out, and no mattere what we offer he will respond
by calling it an insult, therefore the secret is to offer him
and Quebec only the truth about secession. It will be ugly
and ROC will be mean and nasty!

It's already working.


--
My opinions are my own. They are neither the opinion or official
position of my employer. Anyone who thinks that they are should
get a life.

john stark

unread,
Jan 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/29/96
to
In article <mailhop....@mistral.ERE.UMontreal.CA> mai...@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Mailhot Pascal) writes:


>jst...@wimsey.com (john stark) writes:

>> 9 provincial governments
>> 2 Quebec governments
>>---------------------------------------------------------
>> and 0 Canadian governments.


>Quebec: 2/9 of the governance

>It's still unproportionnal with the % of the population.

It is when you consider the relative power of those government.

John Stark
Vancouver

>--
>Pascal Mailhot

Mailhot Pascal

unread,
Jan 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/29/96
to
jst...@wimsey.com (john stark) writes:

> 9 provincial governments
> 2 Quebec governments
>---------------------------------------------------------
> and 0 Canadian governments.


Quebec: 2/9 of the governance

It's still unproportionnal with the % of the population.

--
Pascal Mailhot


Bruce J Schuck

unread,
Jan 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/29/96
to
Paul Rodgers wrote:

> Stéphane Dion is an intellectual as we find so many in English
> canadian universities. Why not one of them put himself at the
> disposal of the despot PM to sell the Canada they know so well to
> Quebec? Can we detect a colonialist attitude whereby, the dominant
> group feels the need to put forth a colaborator to oppress his own,
> at the benefit of the dominant's interest? Or is the ROC
> intellectually bankrupt?


Let me get this right. The dominant group, such as Quebeckers
Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Finance Minister Paul Martin
are colonialists oppressing Quebec?

Loony tunes!


--

Opinions expressed by myself are mine and mine
alone and are not the opinions of my employer.

john stark

unread,
Jan 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/29/96
to
In article <DLy4K...@emr1.emr.ca> Sylvain Leblanc <bl...@FreeNet.Carleton.Ca> writes:
>Newsgroups: soc.culture.quebec,soc.culture.canada,can.politics

>I have some very good friends living in BC, but they don't really know
>what's going on in Quebec, and the same about us can be said.
>John made a remark about Chretien and Bouchard, putting them in the same basket,
>only someone who doesn't understand Quebec could say that.

Not necessarily. If you judge them by their actions (and inactions) and their
commons blind spots (money and the Senate) there is little difference. If
there were no constitutional hassle, they would have no future as neither is a
business or bean counting person. Neither has ever had a real job.

John Stark
Vancouver

haw...@ibm.net

unread,
Jan 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/29/96
to
In <DLwr1...@coffeehaus.com>, tur...@coffeehaus.com (Ellie Charest) writes:

>When are you guys going to learn that Meech (and probably Meech+) is the
>absolute minimum to even hope keeping Quebec in the constitution?

Given that the chief effect of Meech would have been to put
Quebec outside of Canada for all practical purposes, it doesn't
really matter what it might take to "keep Quebec in the
constitution" (whatever that might mean, exactly).

I will always oppose anything that makes Quebec an independent
entity while pretending (faisant semblant) that it remains
canadian.

If the franco-quebecois want to have an independent state, that
can be arranged, but not while they at the same time retain their
enormous power at the federal level in Canada.

Glenn Mor

dominique Frappier

unread,
Jan 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/29/96
to
ega...@CAM.ORG says/écrit
(...)

>Bill C-110 *is* unacceptable. We call upon the Senate to kill it. Also,
>you may have a point about conflict of interest.

>Equality Party Leader's Office, Montreal, Quebec.

Meech was also unacceptable for you. Do remember that support for sovereignty sored to
70% after the rejection of Meech in 1990. Please carry on.

Erick Frappier, Montréal
Vive le Québec libre


Goyette Michel

unread,
Jan 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/30/96
to
Bruce J Schuck <sch...@sfu.ca> writes:

>Paul Rodgers wrote:

>> Stéphane Dion is an intellectual as we find so many in English
>> canadian universities. Why not one of them put himself at the
>> disposal of the despot PM to sell the Canada they know so well to
>> Quebec? Can we detect a colonialist attitude whereby, the dominant
>> group feels the need to put forth a colaborator to oppress his own,
>> at the benefit of the dominant's interest? Or is the ROC
>> intellectually bankrupt?


>Let me get this right. The dominant group, such as Quebeckers
>Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Finance Minister Paul Martin
>are colonialists oppressing Quebec?

Chretien lives since 20 years in Ottawa and Martin is a
Franco-Ontarien (difference there ie NO Quebeckers).

>Loony tunes!

You can say that again.

MG


Bruce J Schuck

unread,
Jan 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/30/96
to
Goyette Michel wrote:
>
> Bruce J Schuck <sch...@sfu.ca> writes:
>
> >Paul Rodgers wrote:
>
> >> Stéphane Dion is an intellectual as we find so many in English
> >> canadian universities. Why not one of them put himself at the
> >> disposal of the despot PM to sell the Canada they know so well to
> >> Quebec? Can we detect a colonialist attitude whereby, the dominant
> >> group feels the need to put forth a colaborator to oppress his own,
> >> at the benefit of the dominant's interest? Or is the ROC
> >> intellectually bankrupt?
>
> >Let me get this right. The dominant group, such as Quebeckers
> >Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Finance Minister Paul Martin
> >are colonialists oppressing Quebec?
>
> Chretien lives since 20 years in Ottawa

How many years did Bouchard live outside Quebec while
an ambassador and Cabinet Minister?

> and Martin is a
> Franco-Ontarien (difference there ie NO Quebeckers).

Do all the Quebeckers who have been PM or Ministers
of the Crown fail the "pure laine" test? Or is it
just the ones who aren't seperatists?

Mulroney, Trudeau, St. Laurent. Were they all oppressors
and not Quebeckers?


> >Loony tunes!
>
> You can say that again.

Thanks. I will. You are loony tunes.

Goyette Michel

unread,
Jan 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/31/96
to
Bruce J Schuck <sch...@sfu.ca> writes:

>Goyette Michel wrote:
>>
>> Bruce J Schuck <sch...@sfu.ca> writes:
>>
>> >Paul Rodgers wrote:
>>
>> >> Stéphane Dion is an intellectual as we find so many in English
>> >> canadian universities. Why not one of them put himself at the
>> >> disposal of the despot PM to sell the Canada they know so well to
>> >> Quebec? Can we detect a colonialist attitude whereby, the dominant
>> >> group feels the need to put forth a colaborator to oppress his own,
>> >> at the benefit of the dominant's interest? Or is the ROC
>> >> intellectually bankrupt?
>>
>> >Let me get this right. The dominant group, such as Quebeckers
>> >Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Finance Minister Paul Martin
>> >are colonialists oppressing Quebec?
>>
>> Chretien lives since 20 years in Ottawa

>How many years did Bouchard live outside Quebec while
>an ambassador and Cabinet Minister?

>> and Martin is a
>> Franco-Ontarien (difference there ie NO Quebeckers).

>Do all the Quebeckers who have been PM or Ministers
>of the Crown fail the "pure laine" test? Or is it
>just the ones who aren't seperatists?

>Mulroney, Trudeau, St. Laurent. Were they all oppressors
>and not Quebeckers?

They are Canadians...quite different.

>
>> >Loony tunes!
>>
>> You can say that again.

>Thanks. I will. You are loony tunes.

Don't talk to yourself...people might question your sanity. ;)

>Opinions expressed by myself are mine and mine
>alone and are not the opinions of my employer.

See?

MG


john stark

unread,
Feb 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/1/96
to

But did Quebec understand why it was unacceptable? Simply put there was no
interprestation on parts and on other parts like the veto, Quebec refused to
discuss changes to the Senate. Why should BC put up with 1/4 of the Senate
representation that Quebec has? No answer - no trust!

John Stark
Vancouver


Brian Graham

unread,
Feb 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/1/96
to
Actually, he should be toasted for his comments on day 1.
Finally Quebec may start hearing the TRUTH, whether they like it
or not.
--
Brian

Bruce Jonathan Schuck

unread,
Feb 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/1/96
to
Goyette Michel (goy...@ERE.UMontreal.CA) wrote:
: Bruce J Schuck <sch...@sfu.ca> writes:

: >Goyette Michel wrote:
: >>
: >> Bruce J Schuck <sch...@sfu.ca> writes:
: >>
: >> >Paul Rodgers wrote:
: >>
: >> >> Stéphane Dion is an intellectual as we find so many in English
: >> >> canadian universities. Why not one of them put himself at the
: >> >> disposal of the despot PM to sell the Canada they know so well to
: >> >> Quebec? Can we detect a colonialist attitude whereby, the dominant
: >> >> group feels the need to put forth a colaborator to oppress his own,
: >> >> at the benefit of the dominant's interest? Or is the ROC
: >> >> intellectually bankrupt?
: >>
: >> >Let me get this right. The dominant group, such as Quebeckers
: >> >Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Finance Minister Paul Martin
: >> >are colonialists oppressing Quebec?
: >>
: >> Chretien lives since 20 years in Ottawa

: >How many years did Bouchard live outside Quebec while
: >an ambassador and Cabinet Minister?

: >> and Martin is a
: >> Franco-Ontarien (difference there ie NO Quebeckers).

: >Do all the Quebeckers who have been PM or Ministers
: >of the Crown fail the "pure laine" test? Or is it
: >just the ones who aren't seperatists?

: >Mulroney, Trudeau, St. Laurent. Were they all oppressors
: >and not Quebeckers?

: They are Canadians...quite different.

How about Bouchard. Was he an oppressor too when he served in
Mulroneys cabinet?

Oppressor to saviour to fool in a short time span.

His "Country Test" was wonderfully laughable and has helped
seal the fate of the soon to be partitioned Quebec.

The Province of Montreal.

--

My opinions are not those of my employer

Goyette Michel

unread,
Feb 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/1/96
to
sch...@sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

>Goyette Michel (goy...@ERE.UMontreal.CA) wrote:
>: Bruce J Schuck <sch...@sfu.ca> writes:

>: >Goyette Michel wrote:
>: >>
>: >> Bruce J Schuck <sch...@sfu.ca> writes:
>: >>

>: >> >Let me get this right. The dominant group, such as Quebeckers
>: >> >Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Finance Minister Paul Martin
>: >> >are colonialists oppressing Quebec?
>: >>
>: >> Chretien lives since 20 years in Ottawa

>: >How many years did Bouchard live outside Quebec while
>: >an ambassador and Cabinet Minister?

>: >> and Martin is a
>: >> Franco-Ontarien (difference there ie NO Quebeckers).

>: >Do all the Quebeckers who have been PM or Ministers
>: >of the Crown fail the "pure laine" test? Or is it
>: >just the ones who aren't seperatists?

>: >Mulroney, Trudeau, St. Laurent. Were they all oppressors
>: >and not Quebeckers?

>: They are Canadians...quite different.

>How about Bouchard. Was he an oppressor too when he served in
>Mulroneys cabinet?

One must experience the federalist "dream" to open his eyes
and support the sovereignty of Québec.

>The Province of Montreal.

You mean West-Island.

MG

Goyette Michel

unread,
Feb 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/2/96
to
sch...@sfu.ca (Bruce Schuck) writes:

>In article <goyettm....@alize.ERE.UMontreal.CA>, goy...@ERE.UMontreal.CA says...

>Actually, he was just an opportunist jumping from the sinking ship.

Yep I know the condition of Canada...A sinking ship.

>>
>>>The Province of Montreal.
>>
>> You mean West-Island.

>The partition of Quebec is now inevitable if the PQ try
>another referendum after having already lost two.

Well, you can keep West-Island for the good it will do you.

MG
MISSS


Evan Leibovitch

unread,
Feb 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/2/96
to
In article <4eiv7u$4...@morgoth.sfu.ca>,
Bruce Jonathan Schuck <sch...@sfu.ca> wrote:

>Ellie Charest (tur...@coffeehaus.com) wrote:

>: I think this post gives a clear indication on how separation is
>: inevitable. Quebecois see Dion as a hard-line federalist, who's going to
>: have a tough-sell in increasingly nationalist Quebec.

>: ROCanadians are going to see in Dion a soft nationalist who wants to
>: start the constitution game again.

In other words, he's pissed off the xenophobes on both sides.
A good start.

>We love the way he has exposed Bouchards foolishness. If Canada
>can be partitioned, so can Quebec.

It's a language Quebecois understand, not the "separation will cost $$"
stuff that Martin mumbled during the referendum. Dion is taking aim,
one by one, at the myths of the nationalists, and I take some comfort
in his getting under the skin of this forum's nationalist apologists.

He has attacked the lack of logic in the nationalist cause. Together
with protections (over the objections of ROC xenophobes) that address
the genuine fears of Quebecois wrt cultural assimilation, it's a
long-term strategy that I believe will work.

>: Of course he's going to fail miserably. I can't wait, personnaly (but
>: that's my bias talking).

Of course he'd not going to convince the separatist hard-liners; his
first good decision was to not even bothering to appeal to them the way
Mulroney and Chretien have tried so far. Dion is going for mainstream
Quebec, the part of the population that is looking for a future, and
isn't sure whether Canada or a sovereign Quebec can deliver a better
future. Cultural maturity and security is but one part of this future.
The Quebecois francophones I have spoken to hate *all* the politicians,
PQ, PLQ, BQ, PLC, the whole bunch -- the question boils down to who they
mistrust the least.

If Dion can present a no-BS refutation of the nationalist myths,
(a simple task for someone who sets himself to do it) he'll accomplish
the necessary task.

>In years to come, when some of Quebec secedes, and much of it stays
>in Canada, you will learn to curse the name of Bouchard.

I don't think so. Even a piece of Quebec becoming sovereign is better
for nationalists than living under the Oppressive Hand of the
Federalists. Let 'em have it.

>: When are you guys going to learn that Meech (and probably Meech+) is the

>: absolute minimum to even hope keeping Quebec in the constitution?

Meech itself was a declaration of two nations. This is as much an insult
to the hundreds of nations that make up Canada as the status quo is to
nationalists. It institutionalizes the denial of Quebec nationalists
that Canada has evolved beyond French and English colonialism.

>2) Bouchard wants out, and no mattere what we offer he will respond
> by calling it an insult, therefore the secret is to offer him
> and Quebec only the truth about secession. It will be ugly
> and ROC will be mean and nasty!
>
>It's already working.

So who plays good cop to Dion's bad cop? Jean Charest? :-)

--
Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
SCO & Novell Unix Master Reseller / ev...@telly.org / (905) 452-0504
There are two types of people: those who divide people into two types,
and those who don't.

Bruce Schuck

unread,
Feb 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/2/96
to

>


>>The Province of Montreal.
>
> You mean West-Island.

The partition of Quebec is now inevitable if the PQ try
another referendum after having already lost two.

--

Justin Valcourt

unread,
Feb 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/9/96
to
ev...@telly.telly.org (Evan Leibovitch) wrote:

>It's a language Quebecois understand, not the "separation will cost $$"
>stuff that Martin mumbled during the referendum. Dion is taking aim,
>one by one, at the myths of the nationalists, and I take some comfort
>in his getting under the skin of this forum's nationalist apologists.

Exactly. The gauge to judge the effectiveness of any plan against the
separatists is - How loud does it make them scream?

Bouchard's assertion that, say, partition will increase the Yes vote
is silly. If he actually thought it were true, he wouldn't comment on
it and let it help the separatists.

-
Proactive Canadian Home Page
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/voy/canada.htm


Luc Richard

unread,
Feb 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/10/96
to
> Exactly. The gauge to judge the effectiveness of any plan against the
> separatists is - How loud does it make them scream?
>
> Bouchard's assertion that, say, partition will increase the Yes vote
> is silly. If he actually thought it were true, he wouldn't comment on
> it and let it help the separatists.
>
> -J.Valcourt,

Bonsoir, first,it is the plain truth that some soft federalist
in Québec (the ones who vote) will prefer an independant Québec instead
of a part of Québec. Chrétien even said one day " Le Canada, mon pays.
Le Québec, ma patrie" This show what sentiment will prevail in the last
curve, just before sending canadian troup in our territory. Can you
sincerely imagine, that Canada is ready to occupied Quebec military ? If
yes, for how many years ?

nite, regards,
Luc @Anjou

Evan Leibovitch

unread,
Feb 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/11/96
to
In article <311D66...@login.net>, Luc Richard <lra...@login.net> wrote:

>> Bouchard's assertion that, say, partition will increase the Yes vote
>> is silly. If he actually thought it were true, he wouldn't comment on
>> it and let it help the separatists.

>Bonsoir, first,it is the plain truth

Ah, another separatist possessor of "truth" -- halleluyah!

>that some soft federalist
>in Québec (the ones who vote) will prefer an independant Québec instead
>of a part of Québec.

Maybe what they really prefer is *both* -- an independent part of Quebec :-).

Justin Valcourt

unread,
Feb 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/17/96
to
Luc Richard <lra...@login.net> wrote:

Interesting post.

>First, it is the plain truth that some soft federalist

>in Québec (the ones who vote) will prefer an

>independent Québec instead of a part of Québec.

Well here's the situation.

Soft federalists have two choices, vote Yes, or vote No.

If they vote No then it's a 100 percent guarantee that Quebec's
borders stay intact.

If they vote Yes, then there's a chance that Quebec leaves Canada with
all that land it has now, and there's also a chance that it will be
partitioned.

Even if we assume the chances of partition of being very low, it's
still a possibility.

So soft federalists should ask themselves, do they feel lucky? Take a
chance on voting Yes, you *will* get an independent Quebec, but you
might not get a Quebec that looks they way it does now.

So, when you say that soft federalists would prefer an independent
Quebec instead of part of Quebec it doesn't make sense. If they have
part of Quebec they still have an independent Quebec. So in effect
you are giving them two choices, voting Yes, or voting Yes.

How magnanimous.

>This show what sentiment will prevail in the last

>curve, just before sending canadian troops in our
>territory.

Well there already are Canadian troops in Quebec. Can you guarantee
that if Quebec pushes through the UDI that *all* of them will convert
to a newly formed Quebec army? Certainly not those who are stationed
in Quebec and who were born elsewhere.

In such an event, Quebec would have a problem on its hands without
Ottawa having lifted a finger.

>Can you sincerely imagine, that Canada is ready to occupied Quebec
>military ? If yes, for how many years?

My position is that if Quebec votes to go, let Quebec go. I don't
want to see force used at all. Funny though that it's Bouchard that's
refusing to commit to a non-violent UDI.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages