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
RP- I know many have said that the NDP got lucky in Quebec- so it is not you.
Trouble is this denies the efforts the NDP made in Quebec over a long time and the strong commonness in values and positions. Worse it assumes Québec votes by accident or does not know what it is doing when it votes. I don't like the implication.
WD- I won't go after the PR team of the NDP-- I accept that we would not know what they would have done if Jack had not become ill and died but it is safe to say that more than complicated things especially as two candidates from Québec ran in the leadership race.
I am somewhat torn when it comes to how to respond to those saying Québec is just like the rest of Canada or trying to understand sovereignty. First there is a lot of propaganda to this effect and many people across the political spectrum in the ROC believe it-- sincerely and not to be mean. Perhaps there should be a sticky thread on the topic that we could have out there to explain this and then refer people to it as it comes up. The trouble with some starting point discussions is you can give up the learning/teaching opportunities when you do that. Since this is so core to the basis of what Canada and Québec are then it could be a huge missed opportunity since I find a lot of people appreciate the explanation and are prepared to accept it once this explanation has been made.
I fairness to many who hold this view-- I think many of them have never heard the argument. As correct and as compelling as it is if a person has never heard it and wants to I'd rather do the education thing than beat them up about it. I recognize that for those of the Québec nation this is harder to accept. It is sad that they live inside a state that simply does not talk enough rationally about basic things like who we are.
I think I will always have some discomfort with the word 'nation.' I feel the term attempts to draw a sharp line through broad grey zones. While some may see recognition of a nation as a protective measure, it could just as well have an exclusionary and isolating effect.
My feeling is, as far as semantics go, that 'un peuple' and even 'distinct society' are more innocuous terms, while the word 'nation' is more susceptible to hijack by demagogues. I am wary of the idea of official recognition of Quebec nationhood, even the limited 'soft' recognition given by Harper.
I recognize and admire the fact that a distinct culture exists in Quebec and I wish to see it thrive, most preferably as a part of Canada. And I recognize the francophone presence (which goes beyond Quebec both eastward and westward) not as one group among many, but as a founding group of the entity called Canada.
I have to echo PET: Why should francophone culture in Canada, if it is confident, need special protection?
(A note on the term 'nation' in 'First Nations' that I'm sure someone else could expound: My guess is the word nation in this context was adopted to give first peoples an equal footing with the colonizing powers and their gun-backed Westphalian notions of nationhood, sovereignty and diplomacy, in contrast to indigenous concepts of group membership.)
ilha formosa
It hardly matters what you or I or anyone thinks, because some aspects of this have been ruled on by the highest court in the land. That is - if the people of Quebec decide in a referendum that they want to leave the nation of Canada then our govenrment is compelled to recognize that decision and begin negotiations.
There is nothing grey whatsoever about that.
There are certainly different opinions about the meaning of "nation" as a cultural concept as opposed to a political one, Or sovreignty, or the overlap of francophone culture in Canada and Quebec. And even differences of opinion regarding clarity.
And regarding First Nations, I am no expert, but I know there are some people who see themseives as a separate and sovreign political entity, and refuse to participate in Canadian politics for that reason. While that feeling isn't universal, I see them (and the Metis nation, and for that matter the provisional government of Red River, which negotiated entry into Canada) as real nations, not just pretend ones.
But regarding the political power of the people of Quebec to leave Canada if they choose, and their distinct status on a number of political and legal fronts, that is clear.
Quite a while ago, and in another thread, I (and others) suggested that Harper wants Quebec to separate, because that would take the focus off what his government is doing elsewhere. On the other hand, does Harper really want to be remembered as the Prime Minister who lost Quebec?
He's going to be remembered poorly by many even if Quebec remains in Canada. As for Conservative Canada, if he provokes the exit of Quebec he will seal his legacy as the Greatest Prime Minister Ever.
That's what is so disturbing here. While Harper alienates Quebec he is cheered on by his base. It's not that they don't know the threat to the country. To them, the threat is a promise.
Former Reform MP Lee Morrison, from a letter to the editor a couple of weeks ago: "Canada can no longer afford our relationship so, I say to the PQ and my old parliamentary colleagues in the BQ, please hold another referendum and win. In negotiating terms of separation, the government of Canada should be generous because, whatever the cost, Canada will be well rid of this sick society."
Another thing: the subtraction of Quebec from Canada eliminates 70+ anti-Conservative votes from the electoral equation. I think it's naive to believe the alienation is accidental or inept. Harper knows what he's doing. I don't think we've fully woken up to it yet.
On edit: Is Harper Splitting Up Canada? Though no allowance that it may be on purpose.
Quebec has the right to decide its own future. I never said anything different and no one else has either. Quebec has had the most progressive parliamentarians over the last 25 years. They were primarily PQ and BQ. The federalist Quebec politicians have been less than progressive like Trudeau of the send in the tanks and lock up peaceful separatists fame, or Mulroney of the NAFTA fame (which many "progressives" in Quebec supported). Then we got Chretien and Martin. This progressive has little use for the federalist PM's Quebec voters have foisted on us although I admire the provincial PQ's legacies. I hope Mulcair turns out to be better than his predecessors but I do note he seems to really like free trade and I fear he will try and succeed where Trudeau and Mulroney failed and he too will fail.
I still note that no one has taken up my offer of drafting a proposal that will pass in Quebec and in other provinces as well. I have no problem with Quebec seceding I just don't believe it is my place to make any offers to prevent that because I am not from Quebec. If the people of Quebec can come to a consensus on what they think the constitution should look like I am willing to listen and might even vote for it but I'll be damned if I want a federal party getting into the middle of your nations debate over your place either in or out of the confederation.
My view of the constitutional issue is Trudeau tried and failed, Mulroney tried and failed and the PQ tired and failed twice. So tell me what do you think will pass the referendum test?
Sovereignty-association
Not to take any blame away from Trudeau (I don't, since he is the one who used it) but the initial demand came from Bourassa, no?
And if anything, his failure was a partial one.
Robert Bourassa demanded the Armed Forces from Trudeau.
http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/docs/october/le...
Please define. The devil is in the details.
Nationhood....Full power over the feds on everything from domestic and social policies,taxation,immigration etc...while still remaining in Canada.
I am not sure what the point of "remaining" in Canada would be if Quebec has full power over everything. Do you envision still electing MP's to help decide what the policy for the mythical ROC would be? Quebec gets full powers and seats in the House of Commons? I am not sure if you will find a majority in 6 other provinces for that proposal.
Once Quebec is a nation,it doesn't need federal MP's...Quebec would have it's own constitution and be in control of its destiny and its will.
We'd share the same currency,military and border.
At the moment,technically,we don't need a referendum to distinguish ourselves as a nation...That fact has been resolved,most recently by King Stephen.
And acting as a sovereign nation can be accomplished within Canada.
For example,Quebec wants its own gun registry..Who's to stop us?...It doesn't matter what Canada thinks or says....We are a nation.
Alan, SA did not pass the referendum test before. I don't think SA is any better bet than the status quo in a referendum. I'd argue most people are looking for something else.
To some degree as well much has been achieved. And much is still wanting.
Québec wants (in my opinion) not only an admission that it is a nation but a culture in Canada of acceptance of that fact. By that I mean not only rhetoric but a reflection in policy. In some cases that means opting out with full funding, the creation of parallel but different program delivery. In other cases it means not being so stupid as they were with the long gun registry.
A key aspect of the development of a nation must also be the ability to negotiate if not outright control its financial destiny. This means that the federal government must be especially sensitive to the economic policy of Canada when it comes to Québec. That does not mean unfairness in terms of getting more as some suggest in English Canada. But it does mean compromises in economic direction at times to accommodate difference and priorities of Québec. Québec is not asking for more than the other provinces- it does not worry about what other provinces have or do. It is asserting the right to be different. It expects Canadians through the federal government to respect its institutions, language, culture and national identity.
The notion of asymmetry is confusing for many. It is not that Québec is expecting more or needs to be different so much as the ability to make its way with accommodation in those areas. There is no presumption at all that Québec would not respect any other province or region of Canada to do the same. It would expect in that case that both sit down with the feds and work out how each could achieve those stated objectives and still work together in the federation. Failing that it preserves the right to leave-- which also preserves the right to be here -- by choice rather than anything else.
If you imagine Canada as a cooperative that works as much as possible by consensus but where a part could do something different, with its institutions and identity respected, I see no reason to presume that Québec could not remain within Canada and function quite well. In this case there are many functions of the federal government that Québec would work with without any real issue. You only start to have a problem if you imagine all provinces must function the same way in a centralized structure that lacks the cultural capacity to recognize difference in choice, reality and identity. Once you recognize that Québec is not owned as the sovereign territory of Ottawa and Canada is not an empire but a state that we choice to be part of based on a series of arrangements then you are much of the way there. The idea of fairness is not in dispute either. Québec is not asking for anything unfair and is not seeking to define who else is or is not entitled to whatever it has. and it is not asking for more than it's share of the wealth of the nation-- although as other provinces do as well, at times it may not agree with everyone else on what that is. This is the key.
Kropotkin -- Alan does not want to be part of Canada. Perhaps he is not the best person to negotiate with if that is your objective. However, there are those who want to have a place for Québec in Canada and perhaps if you address what they are looking for they can be satisfied even if Alan, respectfully, is beyond reach. Much of this is not about dislike for Canada but a feeling that Canada cannot ever meet the minimum requirements for happy cohabitation. If you desire Canadian unity, as I do, then exploring those may be more rewarding than exploring a point of view that does not desire the same objective as you.
While Québec certainly has the right to self determination not everyone feels the same way as Alan. I have been trying to explore some of the ideas that could make living in the same state possible. I don't presume that Alan has any obligation to agree with me or work to the same goal I might have and I won't measure the merits of my words only against the opinion of a person who doe snot share that objective. There are many other things I can agree on with Alan so that would be where I would focus my attention in discussions with him...
You do realize your proposal requires a complete rewrite of the constitution. If you don't need federal MP's then it might fly. Who do you envision controlling the policy decisions that would effect the shared currency? The military doesn't much matter since the Canadian Forces are under the command of the White House anyways and if we tried to change that relationship they would likely instigate a coup.
Fair enough,Sean.
But part of being a nation is functioning as a nation.
I don't see policies becoming the exact reverse of Canadian policies but there are some differences in philosophy.
There's something to be said when the Charest government challenges the feds..It shows that there are some real deep seeded differences.
I think the constitution should be re-written or atleast revised to recognize Quebec as a nation.
As for the Armed Forces,I never suggested a Quebec Army.
Speaking of "Quebec and the federation" equalization payments ought to figure in the mix. Are we happy with the formula? With Alberta earning gazillions from the tar sands that pollutes the planet and especially Canada, should Quebec and the provinces be asking for more since we have to deal with the consequences of Alberta's pollution and contribution to climate change - not to mention the damage done by the petrodollar economy?
That's a bit of a mixed bag, Boom Boom.
Though really, it is the companies which pollute that should be forced to cut back, or at least clean up the mess. We all know the people of the province, and to a lesser degree, the whole country, are going to wind up paying for all of these messes.
And it doesn't really have anything to do with equalization. Except that In a perverse way, they already are paying for those "gazillions" because they probably wouldn't be "have" provinces without the resource revenue. And it would be even better if the provinces charged decent royalties, and processed in-house, instead of ripping themselves off by giving it all away.
But really, have provinces don't have any monopoly on environmental destruction. It's just that the sheer scale of the tar sands has drawn a lot of people's attention away from everything else that is going on.
Et voilà.
Harper makes a limited statement recognizing Quebec as a "nation." The statement has no legal force, but hard-line interpretations of the word are being used to push for separation. Or, "rupture" - is that word used any longer, to refer to Quebec's departure from Confederation?
What would this mean legally? And what would it mean in relation to First Nations?
I've heard satirical jokes to the effect that Quebec wants to be an independent country inside a strong united Canada. But I thought they were just jokes.
The science isn't settled on that. Just ask Dani Smith. ;-)
But why do we choose to be a part of it? What I'd like to see, are some federal powers over language education. Canada should aim to become a country whose citizens are functional in at least two languages, including at least one official language. This would be fitting with what Canada is becoming, when you look at the likely immigration trends.
And having more people functional in both official languages wouldn't turn anglophones into Quebecois, but it would help bridge the so-called 2 solitudes.
The conversation has to be about more than who gets what. If there is to be a united Canada in the future, *Who* do we want to be?
Sovereignty-association was officially defined in the Government of Quebec December 1979 White Paper entitled: "La nouvelle entente Québec-Canada". Just for you guys, I've dusted up my copy, so here goes.
Chapter 4 of the said paper goes into a detailed description of the proposal. Sovereignty-association is defined on pages 59-63 of the document as, and I'm paraphrasing here:
I was thinking the same thing when I read that.
Marriages often work well when both sides recognize that they are both there through choice and have the power to leave if they choose.
Wanting to have a power means wanting to make a choice. That does not mean every power will be exercised or every option taken.
Being independent does not necessarily mean living separately. It means the ability to do so and that when you live together this is by choice not because you are forced. This is the relationship most of those in Québec who want to stay in Canada want recognized. Those who insist on limiting Québec to something less than this are only inspiring Québec to prove it has the right and ability to be separate.
You cannot express a desire to live with someone if they want to insist that you cannot leave.
As for the independent country in a united Canada comment-- I have explained where that miscommunication comes from. Those who want an independent country do not want it within Canada. Others want to see Québec nationhood respected but are happy to see this within a united Canada. There is no contradiction as I have explained. Nor is recognition of the rights of FN people's a contradiction.
this conversation is just bad.
What makes it bad and how do you think it could be made better, FFK?