[h.f. wolff]

Quebec wants to be independent in a strong and united Canada.<br /> <br /> You think I am joking?<br /> <br /> Quebec has the best of two worlds:<br /> <br /> 1) It's language laws are protected by the Canadian government. If Quebec were independent the laws would be illegal under NAFTA. Mind you there is no guarantee that Quebec would be admitted to NAFTA. Many other laws would come under U.N. scrutiny and would attract intrnational condemnation. The schooling laws are a case in point.<br /> <br /> 2) Quebec has the stupid taxpayers from Ontario and Alberta paying its bills. AND QUEBEC WANTS MORE, MUCH MORE! The code words here are "fiscal imbalance" which the federal government and Quebec have recently bandied about. Albertans and Ontarians: hold onto your wallets, it's about to get picket even more.<br /> <br /> 3) Quebec already does pretty well what it wants without any interference from Ottawa or the Canadian provinces. In Quebec, for example, the driver's licences are in french only......just try to rent a car in the U.S. and explain to the rental clerk what it is you are showing as driver's license. In Ontario all provincial documents and highway signs are bilingual, even though the number of French speakers in Ontario is far less than the number of English speakers in Quebec. The population of Ontario is much greater than Quebec's, which skews the percentages even further.<br /> <br /> I could go on, but you get the idea.<br /> <br /> Having said all that, Quebeckers by and large are among the nicest people I have ever had the pleasure to work with. And that includes some die-hard separatists. It is hard to dislike a people like that. I believe that Quebeckers are being misled by provincial and federal politicians of all stripes, aided and abettet by the media, especially the french CBC.<br /> <br /> H.F. Wolff

[FurGaia]

Quebec is <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/04/11/premiers060411.html">not the only one</a> complaining about "fiscal imbalance", on which BTW there is an interesting discussion <a href="http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/CommentView.aspx?guid=86492ca6-b79c-4367-8b8e-fb6bf1290638">here</a>. More questions than answers, but interesting nonetheless. This is a complex issue ...

[michou]

First off and in response to h.f. wolff, French is not a foreign language in North America. It was spoken on this continent as early as 400 years ago and it still is. For United Statians to not understand or know this is one thing, as everyone knows they suffer from a belly button complex, but for a Canadian to state the same is definitely a sign of North American assimilation to the U.S. at its worse. <br /> There is no sign over North America saying : HERE, WE SPEAK ENGLISH !<br /> <br /> Hypothetical question. If let’s say 30 or even 20 years ago, Newfoundlanders had held a referendum to decide whether to stay or leave the Canadian federation, would Canadians have put in the same effort to denigrate them while telling them they had to stay ? I doubt it. With petrol now close to Newfoundland’s shores, mindsets may have changed about the province’s value within Canada, but before then, the place was always tagged by other Canadians as being a welfare pit, hanging on Canada’s coat tail.<br /> <br /> In the case of Québec, it is useless telling Québécers to put up and shut up. Not all Québécers are separatists, though I will remind you that 2 political parties now support Québec sovereignty and another one claims more autonomy for the province. Even the Liberal party has always refused to sign Canada’s constitution, as it did not fill Québec’s basic aspirations and requirements. For those who may have forgotten, it is a Liberal government’s Prime Minister who stated the following in 1990 : «Le Canada anglais doit comprendre de façon très claire que, quoi qu'on dise et quoi qu'on fasse, le Québec est, aujourd'hui et pour toujours, une société distincte, libre et capable d'assumer son destin et son développement.» (Translation : "English Canada must clearly understand that, whatever is said and whatever is done, Quebec is, today and forever, a distinct society, free and capable of meeting its own destiny and assuring its own development.")<br /> <br /> Will Canada ever be able to provide Québec with what it wants and needs? Not in the sense most Canadians would read the question. I don’t believe it can unless the federation changes into a real confederation of nations, where each nation can opt out from any programs or policies not seen to fit its own needs or wants. Any pan-canadian surveys will give you the reason as to why this is so. Still today in 2006, Québécers don’t have the same political or society vision for their Québec nation than Canada does for its federation. Always, Québécers’ visions are different than how Canadians perceive theirs. Nothing will change with Harpers’ option of ‘open federalism’. Just one indication of this difference occurred during the American preparations for invading Iraq. More than 60 % of Canadians supported Americans at the time, while 78 % of Québécers were against it. We can almost say that Anglo Québécers supported the move while a the totality of French Québécers didn’t. Opinions about this particular issue has probably changed amongst Canadians but at the onset, a majority of them were all gun-ho to jump in and join Britain, the U.S and Australia in what turned out to be bloody fiasco. The same polarity between Canada and Québec still exists today in regards to the Afghanistan question. The polarity exists on almost all other issues, how we envision child care, business development, political party rules and regulations, immigrant integration, even in Québec’s development as a laic society. And this is to name just a few of those differences without the mention that we don’t even speak the same language, though more than 40 % of French-Québécers are bilingual. It would also be erroneous to conclude that Québec separatists are solely French unilinguals. The opposite is closer to the truth as bilingual Québécers are better positionned to experience the differences between both entities, Québec and Canada. <br /> <br /> The Québec sovereignty movement is not anti-Canadian. It is about maturity, taking full control of its own state affairs, having its own voice and say on the international scene, having the ability to develop a society which mirrors Québec’s distinct identity, the responsibility to make its own decisions and then stand and meet its destiny on its own terms, good and bad alike. This is in a nutshell what sovereigntists want for Québec and they want a Québec where they can decide what they need, without a federation of provinces having the audacity of trying to define it for them and then deciding on the course of action to fill them in Québec’s stead. <br /> <br /> For forty years and even 260 odd years now, first the British and then English Canadians have tried to put Québécers in their place, sometimes by force, hoping they would finally fold and join Canada’s constitutional monarchy. Why Canadians still believe this may eventually happen is beyond me. Most Québécers like me have nothing against Canada and Canadians as such, we just want to manage our own affairs and on our own terms, in other words, to be sovereign. Canadians should support any nation that wishes this to be so but since it is one of their conquest that desires it, obviously, it does not seem to gain much approval within the federation. <br />

[michou]

[QUOTE BY= FurGaia] It seems that there is a press release from Harper's office that indicates that he now knows what Quebec wants. It reads: <br /> <br /> <b>"The truth is that Quebecers want neither the Liberal view of federalism nor the Bloc view of independence. " ....</b> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> This particular sentence by Harper really pissed me off. If Québécers do not aspire to independence, then why in the hell would they have voted in so many Bloc members to Canada’s parliament ? In that single sentence, Harper not only denigrates Québécers political choices, he also makes Canada’s entire democratic process look like a sham, as if a vote does not mean anything once you are in power. He should be reminded at every opportunity that his government was elected with a mere 36 % of Canada’s popular approval and he should be helped down from his exalted and imaginative pedestal at every stop.

[FurGaia]

One thing bothered me in that press release and that is why I started this forum. I wanted to highlight the fundamental difference inherent in Harper's discourse between starting a dialogue on the premise of "what the other side WANTS" compared to "what the other side NEEDS". <br /> <br /> Quebec is a case in point. Harper is not at all interested in what Quebec "wants". Michou's input above would not hold water with him. He knows what Quebec "NEEDS" since, don't you know, "[t]hey've had 40 years to adopt [the Liberal view of federalism] or [the Bloc view of independence] and they aren't going to." Obviously he means that "they" aren't going to adopt either view. What arrogance!<br /> <br /> But the arrogance does not stop there. "We are going to turn the page", he says. Who are "We"? "Not just by rejecting separation" (which he just implied above that "they" have rejected - so "we" = "they"), "but by changing the debate, changing the agenda and changing the federation." He IS talking down to Quebecers! This is big daddy 'now-nowing' his naughty kids! <br /> <br /> The same arrogance is being dished out towards the rest of Canada. "Get used to it!" Will we? I suspect Quebec will not. Will the rest of Canada? That is the question.<br /> <br />

[h.f. wolff]

michaud <br /> <br /> You speak of maturity and taking responsibility for your own actions as a nation.....grandiose words indeed but the are NOT implemented by Quebec.<br /> <br /> What is the first sign of maturity when a young person grows up and wishes to live on his own? He gets a job, pays his own bills, and doesn't have to rely on the good graces of his parents anymore. At least not if he is a person of integrity.<br /> <br /> Public opinion polls were conducted in Quebec just prior to the referenda on separation from Canada, and the recurring theme of opinions was as follows:<br /> <br /> 1) Quebec would STILL receive transfer payments from the Canadian taxpayer after separation<br /> 2) Quebeckers would still carry a Canadian passport after separation<br /> 3) Quebec would not be responsible for its share of the national debt after separation<br /> 4) Quebec would still use the Canadian dollar after separation<br /> 5) Quebec would "walk away" with all the territory currently under its jurisdiction<br /> 6) Quebec farmers would retain their access to Ontario markets for milk and pork (which Ontarians can get cheaper elsewhere)<br /> 7) The U.S. would welcome Quebec with open arms into the NAFTA agreement. (Read the history of how the U.S. treats the smaller countries of South and Central America. This will give you some insight into what Quebec would be in for.) <br /> <br /> Does that sound like the opinions of a well-informed public about to vote on becoming a country separate from Canada? Hence my statement earlier that Quebeckers are being lied to by all who have an axe to grind in this issue.<br /> <br /> If Quebeckers were to travel more within Canada instead of running to Florida every time the temperature drops to the freezing mark, they would have a much better understanding of this beautiful country they are part of.<br /> <br /> The difference between you and me is that you only look at the soft "it would be nice if we could only do this..." ie. emotional,issues, whereas I concentrate on the hard points that must be resolved before one can talk about separation. Ignoring the hard points will lead to disaster, the form of which is exceedingly difficult to predict with any accuracy.<br /> <br /> When all is said and done, do I think that Quebec can exist as a separate country? The answer has to be yes, obviously. But, what kind of country would it be? What would be its standard of living? What role would it play in the international arena? It is on these points that Quebeckers are being lied to by ALL politicians and the media, because these types are able to protect their standard of living, or even improve upon it (they would be in charge of a country, and rank has it's privileges!) But the unilingual "pure wool" Quebecker is left to pay for all the lofty trappings of grandeur that Quebec separatists are wont to espouse, without any comments on where the money would come from. <br /> <br /> H.F. Wolff

[gaulois]

"If Quebeckers were to travel more within Canada instead of running to Florida every time the temperature drops to the freezing mark, they would have a much better understanding of this beautiful country they are part of."<br /> <br /> In my neck of the woods the good Canadians headover in droves to Palm Springs, Vegas, and Phoenix. What's your point?

[michou]

[QUOTE BY= h.f. wolff] michaud [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> The name is michou, with a small m. <br /> <br /> Before being able to do anything you say, Québec first has to decide to opt out of the federation. To negotiate any of those things with Canada before the population has made its choice would be pointless. To even insinuate that Québécers are not aware of all the issues you mentionned says much about what you think of them in general. Not a good starting point in any negotiation. This is just like Harper who has decided what Québec wants and needs. Same arrogance. <br /> Most of your statement in points 1) 2) 3) etc... are based on a false premise. The last referendum question was about negotiating with Canada on a 'sovereignty-association' partnership. So Québécers were not uninformed at all in their opinions or ideas about the association part. The next referendum may well portend to outright independence and as such, opinions, objectives, negotiation issues will be totally different. <br /> <br /> No Québécer considers Canada to be their mother or father, nor do they believe France or England is either. I also hold to be true that we are a people of integrity, as much as the next Canadian is.<br /> <br /> As for asking Québécers to travel more often within Canada, go tell the same to the thousands of young Québécers who head west every summer months. My own daughter will do the same this year, hoping to make a bit of money doing harvesting and traveling at the same time. I will have you take you note that it is ESPECIALLY when our young people travel across Canada that they discover what a beautiful place it is but also, how the society they grew up in is truly different from the rest of Canada. They usually come back even more ardent in their wish for an independent Québec. <br /> <br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= h.f. wolff]The difference between you and me is that you only look at the soft "it would be nice if we could only do this..." ie. emotional,issues, whereas I concentrate on the hard points that must be resolved before one can talk about separation. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I don't believe we have been introduced yet. I'm michou. Pleased to meet you. Now what were you saying again about our differences ? <br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= h.f. wolff]Ignoring the hard points will lead to disaster, the form of which is exceedingly difficult to predict with any accuracy. [/QUOTE].<br /> <br /> I agree with you on both points. Québécers are no more ignoring the facts than you are, and like you, no one can predict the outcome with any accuracy. Our best bet is to hope both sides will negotiate in good faith, without undue threats or tantrums. <br /> <br /> The rest of your comment was pure whitewash and there is no need to discuss it any further. <br /> <br /> When all is said and done, Harper had better be careful with this option of 'open federalism' and his paternalistic approach to decide for Québec and Québécers what they want and need. Québécers were told the same for over a century by the Catholic church, during what is commonly known as "la grande noirceur", and look what happened. <br /> Québec's churches are now empty and today, the province finds itself on the Vatican's list as being in need of missionaries.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= h.f. wolff] michaud <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I've warned you before Herr Wolff, namecalling will not be tolerated.<br />

[Brent Swain]

Quebec wants to constanly dangle the threat of separatism over Canadians ,as leverage ,to get far more than their share of the goodies, indefinitely. It has always worked in the past and will always work in the future , until they make the fatal mistake of carrying out their threat, and find themselves in a third world country with their language and culture protected only within Quebec borders ,rather than the current situation where it is protected over half a continent.<br /> Be careful what you wish for , you may get it.Then you'll be in deep shit.<br /> Brent

[michou]

[QUOTE BY= Brent Swain] Quebec wants to constanly dangle the threat of separatism over Canadians ,as leverage ,to get far more than their share of the goodies, indefinitely. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Your comment does not explain why Québécers are debating the question of separatism between themselves. I invite you to join a québec political forum to see for yourself who's threatening who. <br /> You may be surprised by what you read and find there.

[h.f. wolff]

[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] [QUOTE BY= h.f. wolff] michaud <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I've warned you before Herr Wolff, namecalling will not be tolerated.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Still having trouble with the written word, Caleb? Dr or Dr. or whatever you call yourself?<br /> <br /> Where have I addressed anybody with a derogatory name???<br /> <br /> H.F. Wolff

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= h.f. wolff]<br /> Still having trouble with the written word, Caleb? Dr or Dr. or whatever you call yourself?<br /> <br /> Where have I addressed anybody with a derogatory name???<br /> <br /> H.F. Wolff[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> How about your second sentence above?<br /> <br /> Name calling does not have to be derogatory for offence to be intended. 'michou' has asked you to address her as such, not as 'semi-hot'.<br /> <br /> We will not address semantics, we will have an on-topic, civil discourse.

[h.f. wolff]

[QUOTE BY= michou] [QUOTE BY= h.f. wolff] michaud [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> >>>The name is michou, with a small m.<br /> [/quote]<br /> <br /> I apologize, michou, for misspelling your name.<br /> <br /> My pregnant wife and I moved to Quebec in 1975, just before bill 101 was introduced as law. This law compelled children to undergo language tests prior to admittance to English speaking schools. Additionally, although I have most of my education in English, in Canada no less, this would not have been sufficient to gain admittence for my children to English schools. Fortunately my wife was educated in the U.K., and this was the only reason my sons were "permitted" to attend English schools. We still have the "license" signed by the then minister of education.<br /> <br /> The Olympic games were in 1976 and Quebeckers are just finishing paying for them. The stadium HAD to be a french design, right? Made of exposed concrete in your climate, right?<br /> <br /> I was engineer (licensed Ingineur) at one of the major engineering / fabricating firms in Quebec at that time, and we could have built the same design from steel, galvanized and painted, for less than one tenth of the price paid for concrete. But we were perceived as an "English" firm, and naturally we couldn't be considered for something french, right? (the 1000 or so shop and construction workers were primarily Quebecois! Nice people to a fault, and the main reason I learned some french).<br /> <br /> The part I detest is that Canadians wound up paying for it, even if not directly.<br /> <br /> Of course you wave off the points 1) to 7) I made earlier, because you are unable to counter with anything but hand-waving.<br /> <br /> The points I made were written up in the press and reported upon by tv. (except point 7). Perhaps not the most reliable of mediums, but, I lived in Quebec for 14 years, volunteered in the first referendum, and have at least a fair understanding of what is going on in Canada and Quebec. I had numerous discussions with separatists at my employers, and neighbours, some bright people among them, but intellectually dishonest. Would not supply answers to the hard question: "Who pays"?<br /> <br /> An old saying goes: "Money makes the world go round". And the very first step to independence is to show at least to your own people that you are capable of paying your bills, or at least answer: "WHAT IS THE PRICE OF SEPARATION"?<br /> <br /> And the Quebec separatists are not only unable or unwilling to do that, but advocate that it will be 'business as usual' after separation.<br /> <br /> The man / woman in the street, the poor souls who will wind up paying for the illusions of grandeur bandied about by the separatists, are left in a fog, additionally confused by the clear-as-mud question on the referendum ballot.<br /> <br /> Bon chance, michou, au revoir.<br /> <br /> H.F. Wolff

[michou]

[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] <br /> Name calling does not have to be derogatory for offence to be intended. 'michou' has asked you to address her as such, not as 'semi-hot'.<br /> <br /> We will not address semantics, we will have an on-topic, civil discourse.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> ROTFL !!! <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <br /> <br /> Without you Dr. I would never have realized that being called michaud could be read as an insult, Michaud being a common family name in Québec. <br /> <br /> But looked at it this way, I think I'd rather be thought of as semi-hot than as a halved cabbage !!! LOLOLOL !!!