Moved some old talk to Talk:Politics of Canada Archive 1
I admit I have only quickly glanced at the above comments but one thing for sure it appears that the never-ending debate over Quebec extends beyond Canadians. I made some minor adjustments only to this page because, and I will be polite, it was anti-English Canada propaganda bullshit. Pure and simple. I plan to rewrite this one day soon but I suggest for non-Canadians who admit they known nothing about Canada but then insert comments, that they read my work carefully when done. It will be NPOV and factual to a fault. And, I write with extensive knowledge and authority on the subject. I suspect that Eclecticology is 1) a former resident of Quebec, who 2) left not long after 1976, and 3) is from Hampstead or Cote. St. Luc?....DW - October 23/02
- So now DW is expecting us to take his speculative imaginings as truth. Eclecticology
P.S. For American readers: Britain does not have a Constitution. Canada did not either until 1982 despite it commonly being referred to as "patriation." In fact, Canada existed as a Dominion under an 1867 British act of Parliament referred to the British North America Act. (BNA Act).
- Why is it that people like DW, who have already convinced everyone that they don't know what they're talking about, want to keep trying to prove it?Eclecticology
Dear Eclecticology: I was responding to a request by TokerBoy to comment on this issue. I shall, for the moment, bite my tongue at remarks that come from a certain narrow segment of the population. However, rather than espouse intellect, Eclecticology might consider demonstrating it by actually editing properly the subject page so that others may then see real knowledge at work....DW
To hell with it. I have a question for Eclecticology. The subject page here, the page on the province of "Quebec" and the page on Canada, were all propaganda with a clear and distinct anti English-Canadian bias but worded so that unsuspecting Americans or others from around the world, might think it to be factual. How come, you who claim to be from British Columbia, in all the time this crap was sitting here, did absolutely nothing to correct the lies and innuendo until I came along? I believe that is called being a hypocrite....DW Esq.
I haven't looked at the other pages you've mentioned, DW, but checking the history on Politics of Canada, your (recent) edits seem to be entirely clarifying the political structure of Canada and have nothing to do with correcting any bias. That is, of course, welcome, as is correcting any real or percieved bias. I would like to point out that Eclecticology was the only person who helped me NPOV the article as described above; you may disagree that that is what we did, if so specific POV quotes from the article are most welcome. I also thank you for your comments on the British/Canadian Constitution (or lack thereof). I don't think this changes what the article should say, but I could be wrong and some clarification on that point in the article itself would be welcome. If you would like to NPOV the national unity section, I welcome the discussion. Tokerboy 21:12 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)
- "Propaganda" is a term that has been used by both sides in this article, and, as I pointed out much earlier in this page, an expression such as "separatist government" is informative when used only once, but propagandistic when constantly repeated. Certainly, DW, your participation in a page does draw attention to a subject, but not for the reasons that you may wish to believe. There are many articles with "crap" on them, but failing to notice that or even failing to do anything about it doesn't make anyone a hypocrite. Some of us don't have the time, and some of us would prefer to be more thoughtful in our responses. Eclecticology
Now, I'm very confused. In Talk:Quebec, You (DW) typed: "The cost to defend his rights enshrined in the Constitution of Canada in 1867, bankrupted Hyman Singer." 1867 is significantly before 1982. Tokerboy 21:15 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)
The BNA Act of 1867 has always been referred to as Canada's Constitution by the population at large, the politicians, and the media. Hence I did too. But, it is not, even though the BNA Act is a massive document that outlines in much the same manner as a formal constitution, the manner in which Canada would function as an "independent" Dominion. I am only popping in bits here and there that bother me the most until I can do a well researched and accurate rewrite vis-a-vis on one I could do off the top of my head.....DW
Amongst numerous initiatives, the conference members examined the recommendations of a Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission, the question of a Charter of Rights, regional disparities, and the timeliness of a general review of the Constitution (the BNA Act).
- Do you (DW or someone else) mind explaining what the BNA Act is some point before you mention it in the national unity section? I tried to explain it based off what you told me, but I decided it would be better to let someone with firsthand knowledge do it.
the Parti Québécois was founded by René Lévesque, whose Mouvement souveraineté-association
- Is the capitalization of Mouvement souverainete-association correct?
In French, capitals are a rare thing, even months and days of the week aren't capitalized."
"The Government of Québec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Québec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad - in other words, sovereignty - and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; no change in political status resulting from these negotiations will be effected without approval by the people through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Québec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Québec and Canada?"
- Is this the official English version?
I don't know, but it appears to be --am looking for it."
Despite losing the vote to secede from Canada, the separatist Parti Québécois government of Quebec made specific demands as minimum requirements for the Province of Quebec.
- I don't like this sentence, though I'm not entirely sure why. First of all, which vote does this refer to? I think the primary problem is the "despite." If the province lost the referendum for independence, I would expect them to make demands for changes to the provincial status. The "despite" makes it seem like the vote was for no change, and Quebec went ahead and demanded changes instead.
These demands were all accompanied by a requirement that taxes collected by the federal government be handed over to Quebec to pay the costs.
- This might just be my ignorance of Canadian taxes, but did the money come above and beyond whatever the standard allotment is for Quebec to run its multifarious programs, or do provinces not otherwise recieve federal money for such things? Also, just to verify, the money in question came from all over Canada and just Quebec's taxpayers, right?
Actually this is multi-levelled:1) The Federal Government collects taxes all over Canada and gives some of it to the poorer provinces so as to maintain some degree of economic balance. In the case of Quebec, the Province receives more from the Federal Gov't than it pays in. 2) When Quebec is asking for new powers, it needs the money to pay for them. The inference using the phrase with "despite", is that Quebec, as part of Canada, with the powers to the provinces the way they were, has prospered, enjoying a far better standard of living than 99% of all other countries, including France. I'll add a note about decentralization shortly, because the Federal Gov't of Canada has already granted the Provinces more individual power than any industrialized democracy in the world ---and now many see it has been to Canada's detriment because as one example, there are more trade barriers between Canadian Provinces than there are bewteen Canada and Mexico!...DW
- I changed "despite" to "after" and moved the funding issue to the list with the other demands. I don't really understand what you mean by the inference. If there are facts missing, add the facts but I don't think inferences have any place in an encyclopedia. Each statement should mean exactly what it says, no more and no less. Tokerboy 19:44 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)
The separatist government of Quebec, in line with its policy of the duality of nations, objected to the new Canadian constitutional arrangement of 1982, with its formula for future constitutional amendments that failed to give Quebec absolute veto power over all constitutional changes including those unanimously supported by both the federal government and the nine other Provinces.
- The presence of this paragraph before the section on the patriation of the constitution implies that the "constitutional arrangement of 1982" was a separate event which took place before the patriation. Is this deliberate/correct?
"constitutional arrangement of 1982" (not my words) IS the patriation....DW
I've reorded the paragraphs and made this clear (I think). Tokerboy 19:44 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)
failed to give Quebec absolute veto power over all constitutional changes including those unanimously supported by both the federal government and the nine other Provinces.
- "Absolute veto" is detailed enough. I'm deleting the "unanimously..." clause as an unnecessary duplication.
Actually, unanimously is proper -- under the Constitution it requires less than unanimous approval to amend the Constitution. The point being made that even when unaimous 1 province Quebec wants a veto over the other nine.
That's the definition of the word "veto," at least as I understand it. Does the word mean something different in the Canadian Constitution? The fact that the president of the US has veto power means he can stop legislation that is unanimously supported by Congress. Anything less would not be veto power. Tokerboy 19:44 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)
Quebec's provincial government, then controlled by a party who advocated remaining in Canada on certain conditions, endorsed the accord (called the Meech Lake Accord).
- What's the name of the party?
Liberal Party of Quebec.
I put it in. Tokerboy 19:44 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)
The high profile of these two separatist parties led to a second referendum in 1995 in which the province's separatist governing party declared that a result of 50% plus 1, meant a victory for the party's goal of separation from Canada.
- This makes it sound as though the referendum was on the 50% plus 1 thing, and not on independence. I am rewording it to "The high profile of these two parties led to a second referendum on independence in 1995. The Parti Quebecois declared that a result of 50% plus 1 (person) in favor would be a victory."
This referendum, was a major concern for the country as the question posed was not only ambiguous, but declaring the basis of a 50% plus 1 result meant that 12% of the citizens of the Province Quebec were able to determine the fate of the entire nation of Canada. Held unilaterally in Quebec on October 30, 1995 the referendum resulted in a narrow 50.56% to 49.44% victory for Quebec staying as part of Canada versus breaking up the country.
- At this point, there is a fundamental shift in what is being discussed. What is the connection between Quebecois independence and Canada's future existence? Why isn't it possible for Canada to exist with nine provinces and three territories, instead of ten and three? I've often heard that Quebecois independence might or probably would mean the disintegration of Canada, but I don't see why it is inherent.
First, all of Canada belongs to Canadians. Just as Abraham Lincoln would not allow the United States to be split, Canadians too feel it is wrong for one part to break up a great nation, particulary when nine provinces have no vote in the matter. Most people find it hard to rationalize the idea that Canada (or any country) can be broken up by a vote of just 12% of its citizens. Too, the breakup of a Nation by a Province is unheard of and contravenes the U.N. charter on the sovereignity of nations. That is why NATO was careful not to side with the rebel forces in the Province of Kosovo to break away from Yugoslavia after our intervention there. In fact, because Koso was a Province, NATO debated interfering in the affairs of another nation but did it for the first time ever.
Also, look at a map. Quebec would control the vital St. Lawrence Seaway (now under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and its original construction and annual upkeep costs are all paid for by the Federal Government with taxes from all Canadians) and could bring the economy of Ontario (Canada's largest economy by far) to its knees almost overnight by blocking access (Quebec Government or Quebec Unions over which Canada would have no authority) through the St. Lawrence Seaway shipping route to the Atlantic ocean. Too, if Quebec separated, the economically depressed Maritime Provinces (N.B., N.S., P.E.I.) would be isolated and have no choice but to join the United States. Then, only God knows what Newfoundland would do. Next, British Columbia could decide to go it alone, as could Alberta who already has had a Western Separatist Party, plus the current leader of the Federal Canadian Alliance party has already said that (rich - oil & gas) Alberta should put a wall around it (much the same as U.S/. Presidential Candidate Pat Buchanan said about putting a giant wall along the US/Canada border. Plus, what happens to the English speaking citizens of Quebec? They already have lost basic rights that other Canadians, Americans, Brits, Aussies, and even French in France, take for granted. For starters English-speaking Canadians in an independent Quebec would lose their Canadian citizenship. What happens to investments from the rest of Canada? Federal government assets? Quebec's share of the National Debt and what happens if Wall Street won't finance it? The return of the Ungava territory that makes up for 80% of the Province of Quebec, (see details inQuebec) and countless other things when breaking up a country. Look at the lesson of Czechoslovakia.
All that may be true, but the way it is worded makes it sound like those were the two choices on the ballot. "Break up Canada" or "Stay in Canada." Is that the question that people actually answered on the ballot, or was it "Independence for Quebec" vs. "Stay in Canada." The statement would false because it says that 49.44% voted to break up Canada. Did they? Or did they vote for Quebecois independence? Unless the ballot actually said "break up Canada" or something to that effect, the statement is not true and should be changed. Tokerboy 19:44 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)
Reply, Nov.4/02: Actually, from a legal point of view, Independence for Quebec is in fact and in constitutional law, the break up of Canada. One cannot be accomplished without the other. The question on the 1980 and the 1995 ballot was neither. One of the major issues (as mentioned in the parts of the article I wrote) is that the question was always unclear (lawyers subtle legalese) but done in such a way that the Separatist Government (elected by less Quebecs than the opposition party, and much less than the total vote) could translate it the way it wanted. Many in Quebec (as evidenced by TV reporters numerous interviews) thought the referendum as only a tool to get more power from Ottawa, not independence. Hence the referral to the Supreme Court who stated the question in any future referendum must be clear....DW
The leader of the separatist cause immediately vowed to hold another referendum, saying "It's true we have been defeated, but basically by what? By money and the ethnic vote."
- Can you name the leader and be more specific about the "separatist cause?" Is he a representative of the Parti Quebecois (as I assumed on reading it) or something else?
Based on this infamous racist remark, immigrants and English-speaking citizens of Quebec and in the rest of Canada expressed great concern...
- I don't think this is neutral. Unless there is more to the statement, I don't see why it is necessarily racist to say that the referendum lost because non-francophones voted against it. That is exactly what I would expect to happen, and the "ethnic vote" seems an appropriate way of identifying it. Am I missing something?
I reworded and added a few tidbits and clarifications elsewhere. The only things I forsee any possible debate on are listed above. If I am wrong, DW or Eclecticology or someone else can feel free to add to the above list. Tokerboy 18:55 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)
Yes, you are missing the point. All citizens have the right to vote in a democracy, in Canada we do not discriminate who can vote between Indo-Canadians, WASPS, etc. and the remark by the Premier of the Province of Quebec would be the equivalent of the Governor of Texas saying he would have won the election if it weren't for the Black vote. Too, the "money" is an inference to a perceived English-Jewish business elite in Quebec. This racist statement caused a national outrage and led to the Premier's resignatio....DW
I have reworded it to make that clear. Tokerboy 19:44 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)
I added a few maps on the Quebec page....DW
As it stands now, more than 50% of this page is about Quebec/national unity and gives the impression that that is the only thing that Canadians ever discuss. That isn't even true in Quebec. Maybe we should move all the material about the unity question to another page. - Montréalais
- I agree. There's a lot more to Canadian politics than domination by central Canada. ☮ Eclecticology 19:08 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
--
- I agree, but what topics should be addressed? Healthcare is an easy one, as is foreign affairs and the military. Trade historically, but I don't know if there's much disagreement there anymore (if the NDP still against free trade/NAFTA?).
- There are also, of course, a bunch of 'minor' issues - same sex marriages, drug policy, death penalty, etc. - that get people riled up. Maybe they could all be grouped as "social policy"?
- In general, I think the reason unity and centralization vs. decentralzation gets so much play is that Canadians tend to agree on just about everything else :) It's amayzing to watch politics from the US and Europe and note that the different sides tend to disagree much of the time! The only arguments we ever seem to have in Canada deal with 'degree' rather than 'kind'. -- stewacide 08:09 20 May 2003 (UTC)