babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Layton and his team clearly chose this phrase with great care. As originally spoken by Lucien Bouchard, the phrase was used to mean social circumstances in which a clear majority of Quebecers would vote yes on independence. Layton was leveraging the weight the phrase has acquired, but using some verbal jiu jitsu to reverse the momentum, toward federalist aims. In his speeches, it is used to mean social circumstances in which Quebecers and other Canadians can successfully resolve their differences. You can disagree with the effectiveness of this approach if you wish, but it is clearly not incompetent or ill thought out.
Is it a good time - yes, our institutions are unrepresentative and failing, there is a pressing need for this - and it is not just a "what does Quebec want" issue, the inequities in the system are impacting all regions - there is not just a single agenda that has to be addressed.
Is it a bad time - yes, very bad, our Prime Minister practices little other than the politics of division and neither he nor his government are suitable or capable of negotiating the fair compromises that need to be worked out. When the PM plays a zero sum game, everyone else plays by the same rules... it is a lose, lose, lose situation.
Else - probably, it is time for someone to frame the issues (plural dammit, plural) and steer the discussion away from cosmetic make-overs.
______________
@Aristotle, equilization payments have only been around since 1957 (at least in a formal fashion). Personally, alarm bells go off in my mind when someone starts insisting on them being dragged into consitutional discussions.... I guess this make me NOT a chequebook federalist.
@reefermadness-
You must have a significant financial interest in keeping the Canadian Empire together. If the democratic will of the Quebec people is that they want national self-determination, no progressive should stand in their way. If you are not progressive, it matters little what you think as you are on the wrong side of history.
To say that Canada would be 'lost' or 'broken' with a new arrangement with a free Quebec is histrionics of the worst kind bordering on imperialist chauvanism.
Accept a free and independent Quebec, if that is what the people of Quebec want. We have no business standing in the way of the democratic will of a people.
Oh, he chose this phrase, which will remind Quebeccers how close we came last time, with great care. What a relief. His communications team isn't forgetful, they're just not very bright. But why did he choose to talk about this at all?? Is this really at the top of the agenda in Quebec? As people are sandbagging their houses with federally funded sandbags, are they thinking "As soon as this is over, we really need to seperate"??
Oh, and here's another history lesson that the NDP braintrust might take into account. During Meech and Charlottetown, we had federal politicians running around making proposals in Quebec without any apparent regard for how well these would go over in Canada as a whole. Then, when the deals were presented elsewhere, there was no explanation why Quebec needed special powers or what would happen to it without them. Instead, the message was basically "This is what we need to do to keep the country together". It shouldn't have been a huge surprise to the elites when Canadians overwhelmingly rejected what was proposed. (Apparently, it was, though).
So, what do we have now??? Jack Layton running around Quebec floating proposals that will go over elsewhere like a lead fart. And still no explanation as to why Quebec needs this special protection and what will happen without it.
So, first maybe you could point out where I appear to be "standing in the way of the democratic will of a people". If a clear majority of people express a consistent wish to leave on the basis of a clearly worded question, I'll be the first to say "Just leave the $8 billion dollars in equalization money on the counter and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out". But first, we'll have a discussion with some of Quebec's minorities to see which ones might not want to go with the newly independent Quebec. Like, maybe the Anglophone minority. And the First Nations. After all, if Canada is divisible, so is Quebec.
And when you talk about histrionics, maybe you could pick up a few history books and read about what happens when countries break up. Sometimes it's peaceful. Sometimes not. Let's say, hypothetically, that following a vote where 50.5% of the population vote yes to a nebulous question (like the 1995 referendum only a different result) that the National Assembly unilaterally declare independence. Let's also say that First Nations hold a meeting and declare that they are separating from Quebec to rejoin Canada. Most of the people in the southern, populated areas aren't too happy to see a big chunk of the forsests, hydroelectric dams and minerals slip away. Now what?
The bottom line is that nothing I've said is inconsistent with Quebec separating - if that's really what they want. I don't think they've thought it through in terms of costs and benefits but that's a separate issue.
But to have Jack running around and stirring shit up again? That's just crazy.
You are flailing about hysterically, and not making any sense. It is futile to converse with you, so I am stopping.
So is Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Manitoba. Why single out Quebec on the equalization file?
Equalization payments are a crude form of redistribution of wealth, albeit between bureaucracies. Why would a progressive person be against that?
How about that seat redistribution?
So it looks like Quebec won't be the only province that benefits from the NDP proposal.
Because at the moment, I don't see Jack Layton running around those provinces provoking separatist sentiment. Are you worried he's about to start poking separatists in Prince Edward Island too?
Read again. Under the proposed legislation, provinces (including Quebec) that are over-represented won't get additional seats. The NDP is proposing that Quebec gets more seats, even though it already has more than warranted by its population. And only Quebec.
ReeferMadness, you're talking a lot about equalization; it's a classic federalist argument in Quebec and one constantly used in The Globe and Mail toxic comment section. But if you look at it from a Canadian point of view, Quebec's departure from Canada would save the taxpayers $8 billion a year (or Manitoba, Ontario and the Maritimes would get a bigger share of Quebec's former share).
And as a federalist argument in Quebec, it's pretty awful too. Simply because it places Quebec federalists as perpetual beggars; people using it are increasingly being labelled dépendantistes, in opposition to indépendantistes.
No need to be a hard core Quebec evil separatist to agree that the way the federal government has been run since 2006, an independent Quebec could probably recoup the whole amount by setting the right priorities. Warning: with Harper on the loose, it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
As for equalization, the program would stay regardless of Quebec relationship with Canada. It's plain textbook fiscal policy, as it tries to balance the budget capacity of regions in a diverse country. And if you need to talk about it, you might want to call for an increase, because right now the oil-exporting provinces are sucking the life out of many importing ones.
bouchecl, I don't mind the equalization program. In fact, like you I might like to see it increased. But I believe in being honest with one another. If Quebec separates, it's going to hurt. It's going to hurt Quebec. It will hurt the maritimes. It will hurt Ontario. And that's the best case scenario.
And for what? I keep asking what Quebec will get outside of Canada that it doesn't already have. Nobody seems to have an answer. A lot of certain pain for no certain gain seems like a bad deal to me.
Back to Layton. Skewing confederation to make Quebec happy will be accepted by Canada as a whole providing:
In terms of guaranteeing Quebec 24% of HoC seats in perpetuity, I ask why? What will that do? What proof does anyone have that Quebec needs such a guarantee. What about other minorities like, say, the First Nations? Shouldn't they get some kind of guarantee first?
WRT your final point, you seem to be implying that an independent Quebec or a Quebec that negotiates some kind of sovereignty association will still be receiving equalization payments. There is no way that will happen. There is a huge emotional attachment to this country and that includes Quebec. But if Quebec rejects this country, you can expect that emotional attachment to quickly turn to a groundswell of resentment.
Do what you will. But do it with your eyes wide open.
Lefauve, why don't you just tell me what your point is? I don't read French and I'm not going to go digging for this unless I at least have some idea what you're trying to say.
Either that or press the English button on the top left and it will magically become readable to English speakers.
Quebec is the squeaky wheel in Confederation. BC gets screwed in every aspect of the federation to a greater degree than Quebec. Yup some provinces get a better deal than others but it sure as fuck isn't my province.
We already have PEI with guaranteed number of seats so it takes almost three of my neighbours votes to elect an MP compared to electing 1 Islander MP. I personally will vote against any proposal that perpetuates discrimination based on geography. I voted against the last round of constitutional changes primarily because there was no way I was willing to set in stone things like the Senate. I read all the reports and studies and flew across the country to meet with Quebecois students to discuss the proposals.
Even then the disconnect was the same. The Quebecois saying we have the right to self determination but on our terms. Most of us from the west had the same opinion that yes Quebec has the right to self determination but if they secede then they don't get to set the terms.
There are host of real issues like the use of Canadian passports. There would have to be a phase out that recognizes the rights of the people in Quebec who were citizens at the time of secession. Over a couple of generations the problem can resolve itself but it is a serious issue that needs negotiation. The division of assets would have to be negotiated. Someone like me from BC sees a whole lot of Hull that my tax dollars built for the benefit of the country not a single province. Then there would be the problem of the NDP losing over half its caucus. I believe that if the people of Quebec vote to secede that they are implicitly saying they do not want representation in the H of C so if the government of Canada accepts the secession then I would expect the resignations of all the Quebec MP's in solidarity with the will of the majority. That would likely trigger an election and one can only imagine what kind of MP's will arrive in Ottawa to negotiate the terms of secession.
Just some sober thoughts on the rocky road ahead.
I think that the NDP policy on Quebec was drafted by central Canadians with little thought to the rest of the country and how it will go over. I think that in Ontario a policy guaranteeing rights to its sister province will have lots of support. However outside of Upper and Lower Canada this kind of deal will not be supported. We already get screwed by central Canada why would we want to imbed it permanently in the constitution?
NS, you and I both know that if the NDP wins the next federal election on strength from Ontario and Quebec while Western Canada stays Conservative, people will scream "Western Alienation!" from the rooftops. The NDP needs a strategy that will win it votes in every region of the country, the Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, and the West. We shouldn't have to divide ourselves against one another.
@ Aristotleded24
I'm not so sure about the wextern alienation cry - despite how things are skewed by first past the post - particularly in Saskatchewan. But when you look at the history of where most Canadian NDP provincial governments were elected, it's not really us who I expect would feel alienated by them.
The NDP was born in the west, after all.
I agree. That is why I want to point out that the reality of Canada as two nations ended in 1867. The NDP caucus has a strong BC component. I only hope they end up being more in tune with their voters views on the constitution than last time. People in BC want fairness in our country. The historic grievance argument has no legs in BC. Quebec is on the other side of the continent. Any historic grievances are not with BC.
Quebec has never been in a nation to nation relationship with any province other than Ontario. BC did not join Upper and Lower Canada it joined a confederation of provinces. I doubt if voters on the rock in 1949 thought they were voting to be in anything other than a federation of provinces. The federal NDP, Conservatives and the Liberals in the last constitutional debate forgot that they represent voters who don't agree with the central Canadian consensus. The Reform was the result and Harper is the bastard child of that movement.
As for Quebec referendums most people I know would prefer to have Quebec in the country but accept they have every right to secede. There is both good will and respect but their will be no acceptance of a deal that gives more democratic clout to some areas of the country. We are either all citizens with equal voting rights or Quebec can have its own country. No one I know would accept a set in stone minimum % of seats. Given the ratio of seats to population is within a couple percentage points it seems Quebec is one of the few places in Canada currently getting its proper share. Its going to take some real good arguments to say they deserve more seats based on pre-Confederation history.
Further to "the reality of Canada as two nations ended in 1867," the First Nations reality was not even considered at the time, and will have to be in order to move things forward. Meech Lake failed for taking that into consideration.
I agree completely. I was only talking about the two settler cultures in central Canada. I am not FN's so I will let them speak to what nations have historic claims to the "Founding Nations."
I also believe that if we reopen the constitution then we need to deal with the 1870's lies that led to BC joining the federation. The majority of BC is unceded FN's land and that reality is being resolved in slow motion while mineral and resource development in disputed territories is going on at double time. There are a lot of real historic injustices buried in our constitutional arrangements. Fixing the relationship with BC FN's ranks a lot higher in my scale of constitutional wrongs to be righted than guaranteeing Quebec extra seats because it is a special province.
The NDP needs to be careful what they are putting on the table in this debate. It better not just be the consensus of the Ottawa policy wonks or it will fail and leave everyone in the country more divided. A two nation federation is not on in western Cananda, expecially one in which one of the "nations" is given a bonus weight to their citizens votes in the federal parliament.
@ NS
Although it depends on which "two nations" we are talking about. Upper and Lower Canada ran in to that in the 1840s. And 1867 brought Canada together with the Atlantic colonies.
As for 1870, obviously the prize was B,C, and preventing American encroachment, but the first step was dealing with the cluster of cultures in Red River, and the nations in between Canada and B.C. who had their land stolen and sold out from under them before there were any treaties.
It's not a partisan issue, but an issue where Western Canada votes differently than Ontario/Quebec and is out-voted by Ontario/Quebec in the process. I remember the grumbling when the Liberals used to win majorities without a great deal of support in Western Canada.
@ Aristotled24
Yes, I hear you. On the other hand, this is the second election in a row where some of us out here have been thankful that Quebec voted the way it did, and validated the way a lot of us voted.
I am aware of the central Canada arrogance thing, but this is not quite the same. THere is a solid core of NDP support out here.
The BC politicians said they didn't need to sign treaties in BC. That is the lie I am referring to. They perpetuated that lie until the 1920's when FN's were about to take them to the Privy Counsel. BC and Canada's response to this legal action was to make it a crime to hire a lawyer to work on native land claims. They also banned the potlatch which in many FN's served as the record of their land holdings and changes to rights to resource use within the community.
Here is a good chronology of events in colonial BC. The FN's claims in BC like their cultures and traditions are completely separate from the Prairie nations.
ETA When BC joined Confederation FN's citizens outnumbered white settlers about 2 to 1 and the Chinese population was nearly as large as the european population. The FN's and Chinese didn't get a vote. If Canadians want to talk about historic grievances in the context of the constitution then lets talk.
http://fathertheo.wordpress.com/2010/10/02/an-informal-chronology-of-the-aboriginal-land-question-in-b-c/
@ NS
Not to mention the territories (like south okanagan and kootenays) where they assumed everyone had been killed by smallpox, so they didn't have to make treaties