"Heads will roll...just watch me"

[notyoueither]

It's funny, but he was hitting some chords. Anyone who has been around for long enough has no illusions that Party A will be any better than Party B when it comes to abuse of powers after they've been around long enough.

He seems to be arguing for more power for individual MPs. He seems to be arguing against the power of the parties and the PMO.

I am not dismissing him, yet. This could get very interesting, and if he is for real it could be very good for Canadian political life. But first, he is going to have to show that he can walk the talk.

[Zylka]

Even I'm slightly open to the claims - and don't consider the Liberal party as something all that horrible. Yet at the same time; these guys have in the 90's alone set absolute record in the modern west for "party which didn't do what it said it would"

Hopefully he's not as fraudulant as that face-sack pile of corporate Quebec rimjob lacky garbage. Hope your boys skull gets raped by a defective snowmobile at the beloved Bombardier, you cowardly Franco trollfetus

[Mr. Harley]

notyoueither, thank you for the clarification. I had assumed when listening to news reports the under the various agreements in the last decade that ALL the Native Peoples groups had won the same language rights. It's tough to keep track of the fine points of one country's politics from outside.

By the way, nice thread. I'm comparing it to our USA based threads, and it's a little, less, shall we say rhetorical. Is it better Canadian manners, or is it just you folks. If it's the latter, I want to import some.

[Ben Kenobi]

Is it better Canadian manners, or is it just you folks.

Zylka speaks for many of us so that we don't have to.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by joncha


Yeah... I must have hallucinated that whole referendum thing. The equality of nations idea is just a product of my imagination.

jon.

There's a difference between saying that some Quebecois stick to the idea of the two founding people, and saying that they think they should get 50% of the pie.
Where did you get this "equality of nations" expression? Where and when have you heard any Quebec representative use it as a justification to ask for "50% of the pie"?

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I agree. However, Quebec needs to realise just how good they have it here in Canada, how much their language rights are respected and upheld. I cannot think of a minority that gets as much respect as the Quebecois do in Canada.

Would you like to make a comparison between the way the french minorities in provinces other than Quebec have been treated since the beginnings of this country and the way the english minority has been treated in Quebec? I am certain that that would prove very educational.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I would argue that this diversity (we are one of the most diverse) would be better represented by Canadians first last and foremost, without making distinctions between French and English.

The distinction is not artificial: it's there! There are english speaking people and french speaking people in tis country! Where it doesn't make a difference it is not used, but where it does, it is.

BTW- Quebec, only has 1/4 of the votes in Canada, so why should they be apportioned 50% of the votes?

There you go again... You jut made that demand up and now you're using it to feed your flaming. Where and when did Quebec demand 50% of the pie?

[FS*]

Paul Martin certainly seems eager to please, and there's plenty of reasons for that. I suppose time will tell.

It's not like there's much choice.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Richelieu


Would you like to make a comparison between the way the french minorities in provinces other than Quebec have been treated since the beginnings of this country and the way the english minority has been treated in Quebec? I am certain that that would prove very educational.

I was waiting for someone from Quebec to respond to those posts. They were... interesting. However, I'm curious about this.

Do you see problems with how French minorities have been treated in the RoC in recent history?

[notyoueither]

The meltdown continues:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...///?hub=Canada

John Bryden quits Liberals, eyes Conservatives

CTV.ca News Staff

Liberal backbencher John Bryden says he's lost confidence in the Liberal party in the wake of the sponsorship scandal and is quitting the party, saying he is considering joining the Conservatives.

"In the past few years, the Liberals have changed dramatically," Bryden told an Ottawa news conference. "It has become an organization that's imbued with an awful lot of cynicism. It's an organization that people like myself can't trust to be fair.

"It's an organization, I'm sorry to say, that I'm not sure can still lead the country in good governance."

The Ontario MP said the sponsorship scandal that has exploded over the last month forged his anger with the party.

"The sponsorship file has brought to the surface doubts about the Liberal Party in the public view, and brought about doubts for me as well."

"The party has changed and is not what it once was. It has turned in on itself. I cannot operate in an environment of cynicism," he added.

Bryden, 60, said he plans to talk to Conservatives in his riding about running for their party, and will sit as an Independent in the meantime.

"I will talk to the Conservatives, primarily because, while I have many differences with the party, it's still a party of idealism. It thinks it can affect change," Bryden explained.

He later told CTV's Mike Duffy that he hasn't been happy with Prime Minister Paul Martin's leadership.

"I don't think he's been very good for the party. I have to be honest about it," he said. "I think he's made some decisions that are inconsistent with what I want to see happen, both in Parliament and in legislation."

Bryden's announcement Tuesday morning reportedly took his own office staff by surprise. The Conservatives and the Prime Minister’s Office also said they were caught off guard.

Bryden says he called Martin after making his announcement and says the prime minister was disappointed he didn't call beforehand.

Bryden has been an MP for 11 years in the riding of Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot in southern Ontario.

He sat on the Commons public accounts committee when it reviewed the federal sponsorship spending fiasco, and has been critical of the affair.

A former journalist who has worked at The Hamilton Spectator, The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star, Bryden has also pressed for the overhaul of the Access to Information law.

Bryden has unsuccessfully called on the government to expand the law so it could include more Crown corporations and agencies. The issue has come to the fore this month with revelations that some Crown corporations received millions of dollars in the sponsorship scandal.

Bryden has also vocally opposed the Liberals' legislation on same sex marriage.

He has recently complained that supporters of Paul Martin have been trying to push him out of the riding. He says it's because he remained neutral in the Liberal leadership race.

Though several Conservatives have jumped to the Liberals in recent months, including Scott Brison and John Herron, Bryden would become the first Liberal this year to reverse the trend.

An Ipsos-Reid poll completed for CTV News and The Globe and Mail shows that public support for the Liberals is slipping, with only 35 per cent of decided voters supporting the party. The Conservative Party is the big beneficiary of the Liberals' misfortune. They gained three points of support, to 27 per cent.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...///?hub=Canada

Liberal support still sliding, poll finds

CTV.ca News Staff

Despite a determined effort to restore Canadians' confidence in government, support for the ruling Liberal Party continues to slide. A new poll shows support for the Liberals has fallen another four points since Thursday.

The Ipsos-Reid poll completed for CTV after Prime Minister Paul Martin's weekend public relations blitz, shows the Liberals would be able to count on only 35 per cent of decided voters across the country.

The new Conservative Party of Canada appears to be the big beneficiary of the Liberals' misfortune. They gained another three points, pushing their support among decided voters to 27 per cent.

In contrast, the NDP slipped a percentage point to 17 per cent, while the Bloc Quebecois edged up a point to 11 per cent.

When the numbers are broken down regionally, they paint an even more dismal picture of Martin's re-election prospects.

In Quebec, the sponsorship fiasco has hit the Liberals hardest. In only four days, the party dropped nine points to 31 per cent of decided voters. The effects aren't confined to Quebec. From Ontario west, province after province registered a Liberal decline.

Only in Atlantic Canada has the Martin message seemed to be working. Voter support in the Maritimes actually increased five percentage points to a convincing 47 per cent of the decided vote.

Treasury Board president Reg Alcock told Canada AM that he thinks Canadians are justified in their anger about the scandal.

"It's not a big surprise. Canadians are angry and they have a right to be angry. But when you begin to look at where responsibility lies, you realize that Paul is the guy who is trying to fix this," he said.

Nevertheless, the results are sure to be disappointing for the prime minister and his team, in light of the concerted damage-control campaign waged even before Auditor General Sheila Fraser released her scathing indictment of the government's mishandling of a federal sponsorship program designed to boost Canada's profile in Quebec.

Martin has been spearheading a textbook crisis management strategy designed to saturate the airwaves with his message. He has empathized with Canadians' outrage, and even expressed some measure of his own anger, all the while presenting the impression of total public disclosure and complete media availability.

Alcock says the strategy is working.

"When I ask people across the country, 'Do you believe that Paul Martin is responsible for creating this mess?' they don't. They know that's not Paul Martin's style of government. They know he has been working to fix this," Alcock says.

And yet the numbers paint an interesting picture of blame. Ipsos-Reid found that 22 per cent of those polled still blame Martin himself for the sponsorship fiasco. Another 29 per cent point a finger at former prime minister Jean Chretien, while 16 per cent single out former public works minister Alfonso Gagliano.

According to Chretien's former communications chief, the previous prime minister would have handled the situation much differently.

"There was a lot made of how articulate or inarticulate he was and people underestimated often how much of that was by design," Donolo told CTV News, reflecting on Chretien's inimitable public persona.

Donolo says it may now be time for Martin to take a page from his political rival's book.

"It's kind of what I call 'the rule of holes,' when you're in one, stop digging."

The poll was conducted over the last five days, based on a sampling of 1,055 adults. It's considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

[notyoueither]

Pretty sweet that Liberals are now crossing the floor to join the Conservatives. Well, one Liberal, at least it's a start. I wonder if some of the people who jumped ship are having second thoughts about conceding the new party to others.

I find the bit about Liberal support in the Maritimes going up sort of amusing, or baffling. One of those, I can't decide which.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I was waiting for someone from Quebec to respond to those posts. They were... interesting. However, I'm curious about this.

Do you see problems with how French minorities have been treated in the RoC in recent history?

Aren't you from Quebec NYE?

Personally, I don't see huge problems. But it's true the English minority's rights are much more respected in Quebec than the French's in ROC.
Still, it remains French schools and hospitals are gradually being closed throughout Canada, in part because of the relative decline of the French population outside of Quebec.

Remember David Levine? He was appointed manager of an hospital in Ottawa. Guess what happened? Hundreds of demonstrators, protesting against Ontario hiring a separatist.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Richelieu


There's a difference between saying that some Quebecois stick to the idea of the two founding people, and saying that they think they should get 50% of the pie.
Where did you get this "equality of nations" expression? Where and when have you heard any Quebec representative use it as a justification to ask for "50% of the pie"?

From, among other places, the 1980 referendum:

"The Government of Quebec 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 Quebec 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 Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?"

from the Government of Canada website

The emphasis in the quote in mine.

jon.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by joncha


From, among other places, the 1980 referendum:



from the Government of Canada website

The emphasis in the quote in mine.

jon.

Fool joncha. Equality of nations does not mean Quebec gets 50% of the vote.

[FS*]

A liberal crossing the floor to join the conservatives? Sacre bleu!

Interesting times indeed.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Fool joncha. Equality of nations does not mean Quebec gets 50% of the vote.

Did I say that they did?

From me, a couple pages ago, "Thus Quebec should get 50% of the pie"

Equality of nations means an equal share in federalism.

jon.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by joncha


Did I say that they did?

From me, a couple pages ago, "Thus Quebec should get 50% of the pie"

Equality of nations means an equal share in federalism.

jon.

Ah.

[notyoueither]

It doesn't mean 50% of the seats in the Commons, or the Senate, or 50% of Federal expenditures. That's what I think of when I hear 50% of the pie.

It means that the seperatists cloaked their claims in 'the equality of nations'. That got turned down, unless I'm misremebering the result of the vote. So, why maintain that the people of Quebec want that when in fact they have said 'non', twice.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It doesn't mean 50% of the seats in the Commons, or the Senate, or 50% of Federal expenditures. That's what I think of when I hear 50% of the pie.

It means that the seperatists cloaked their claims in 'the equality of nations'. That got turned down, unless I'm misremebering the result of the vote. So, why maintain that the people of Quebec want that when in fact they have said 'non', twice.

You're mixing up plenty of things here.

There were two referendas about the separation itself: one in 1980, the other in 1995.
1980 was much more mild in the question, and was rejected.
1995 had a much more 'agressive' question, and was lost by a tiny margin.
(not that I'm implying any causality between the roughness of the question and the result, however)

Meanwhile, there were two attempts made by moderates from both sides striving for a compromise.

Lake Meech was rejected because of Prince Edward's Island. Quebec had AGREED on it, however.
Charlottetown was rejected in a referendum, because it was considered INSUFFICIENT by Quebec and TOO GENEROUS by RoC.

So Quebec would agree anytime on something like Meech; it does want equality. Anything less is not acceptable for most Quebecois, who would rather have outright sovereignty.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Aren't you from Quebec NYE?

Personally, I don't see huge problems. But it's true the English minority's rights are much more respected in Quebec than the French's in ROC.
Still, it remains French schools and hospitals are gradually being closed throughout Canada, in part because of the relative decline of the French population outside of Quebec.

Remember David Levine? He was appointed manager of an hospital in Ottawa. Guess what happened? Hundreds of demonstrators, protesting against Ontario hiring a separatist.

I am from and still live in Alberta.

Double wow. There are really different perspectives on minority rights. What we hear of is that if you were not educated in English in Quebec (or is that Canada?) then you have no choice but French education for your children in Quebec. Then there's that whole signs issue. The Quebec language laws are widely viewed with dismay outside of Quebec, as far as I know.

In the RoC, everyone has a constitutional right to education in a seperate school system (Roman Catholic) and to be educated in French primarily, no matter where you come from or how your parents were educated. There are French immersion sections of public schools which many anglo children attend (by their choice and that of their parents). Hospitals? There would be a problem and one where nothing is guaranteed by law, so would be more subject to demographics than education is.

The only David Levine that I am familiar with is D Malmo Levine, the pot crusader from around these parts. From what I found on Google, was Mr. Levine harassed for being French, or for his ideology? Seperatism and seperatists are not well liked in many quarters.

[joncha]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It doesn't mean 50% of the seats in the Commons, or the Senate, or 50% of Federal expenditures. That's what I think of when I hear 50% of the pie.

It means that the seperatists cloaked their claims in 'the equality of nations'. That got turned down, unless I'm misremebering the result of the vote. So, why maintain that the people of Quebec want that when in fact they have said 'non', twice.

The result of the last referendum was a virtual tie, with support among francophones (i.e., the "nation" in question) just under 55% IIRC, and just over 5% for non-francophones (both anglophone and allophone).

Nowadays, I guess, "sovereignty-association" and "asymmetrical federalism" are used more often than "equality of nations," but the meaning is the same.

jon.

[notyoueither]

So the 50% of the pie comments were not accurate, but were intended to indicate that Quebecois want to have a large degree of control over their own collective destiny?

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Double wow. There are really different perspectives on minority rights. What we hear of is that if you were not educated in English in Quebec (or is that Canada?) then you have no choice but French education for your children in Quebec.

If your parents have not been educated in an English school in Quebec, you must go to a French school- up until High School.
In fact, minority rights are respected. This law is here to impose French school to immigrants.

Then there's that whole signs issue. The Quebec language laws are widely viewed with dismay outside of Quebec, as far as I know.

The outside panels of shops must be in French (except brand names). Inside, any language can be used, as long as French is the prevailing language.
Outside FEW exceptions (which are heavily publicized by who-knows-who-got-an-interest-in-doing-it), the language law is not blindly and severely applied, and is actually NOT respected in many places who get away with it.

In the RoC, everyone has a constitutional right to education in a seperate school system (Roman Catholic) and to be educated in French primarily, no matter where you come from or how your parents were educated. There are French immersion sections of public schools which many anglo children attend (by their choice and that of their parents).

Not quite. This has been a century-long dispute (esp. in Manitoba). Reports show it's increasingly hard to French parents in RoC to send their children to French school.

Hospitals? There would be a problem and one where nothing is guaranteed by law, so would be more subject to demographics than education is.

Demographics are indeed a problem. It appears French hospitals have been on the top of the list when it comes to government cuts, though.

From what I found on Google, was Mr. Levine harassed for being French, or for his ideology? Seperatism and seperatists are not well liked in many quarters.

This one made quite a fuss over here. Actually, dismissing an employee because of him being federalist or separatist is unthinkable and certainly unethical.

[joncha]

Originally posted by notyoueither
So the 50% of the pie comments were not accurate, but were intended to indicate that Quebecois want to have a large degree of control over their own collective destiny?

Not inaccurate at all. And it's not an either-or question.

A good illustration of the 50% point is the different perceptions of government contracts (putting the crooked ones aside for the moment). From a national equality point of view, projects should alternate between french and english Canada. Most western Canadians tend to get irate at this idea. Although opposition to it is usually couched in terms of merit (ie, the contract should go to the best company), most western Canadians can accept the idea that contracts alternate between provinces, or between regions (in order to foster local job-creation).

jon.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
If your parents have not been educated in an English school in Quebec, you must go to a French school- up until High School.
In fact, minority rights are respected. This law is here to impose French school to immigrants.

So if I moved to Quebec with my family, being from Alberta, I would have no choice in which language my children were educated?

The outside panels of shops must be in French (except brand names). Inside, any language can be used, as long as French is the prevailing language.
Outside FEW exceptions (which are heavily publicized by who-knows-who-got-an-interest-in-doing-it), the language law is not blindly and severely applied, and is actually NOT respected in many places who get away with it.

OK. I hear you, but what we hear about is when a shop keeper does get entangled. Here you can have your store signs in French, or Swahili, inside and out if you wish. Now, I also understand that the position of English in Alberta is not judged to be of any concern for our future, and that the position of French in Quebec could be of more concern to Francophones there. I am simply contrasting to examine the issue of minority rights.

Not quite. This has been a century-long dispute (esp. in Manitoba). Reports show it's increasingly hard to French parents in RoC to send their children to French school.

Hmmm. Do you have links to any of these reports? In English I am afraid as French never took when they tried to teach it to me. I am very certain that the availability of French immersion here (Edmonton) is much more wide spread than 30 years ago when I was of school age. French immersion didn't exist in the Public School System, you had to go into the Seperate School System to get it.

Also, French parents have won affirmation of their rights to schooling for their children. That they had to fight for them may not be so good, but they won. I can go looking for sources if you wish. I think it would still be balanced by demographics somewhat though. Putting up a school or bringing in a teacher for 1 family in a 20 family community would not be practical and I do not think is required.

Demographics are indeed a problem. It appears French hospitals have been on the top of the list when it comes to government cuts, though.

Why do you say that? There are significant populations of Francophones in Northern Alberta. I doubt they ever had a French only hospital of any sort, but in Edmonton or around St. Paul, and in many other places, there would have been no shortage of French speaking staff in hospitals.

Is it different in Ontario and New Brunswick?

This one made quite a fuss over here. Actually, dismissing an employee because of him being federalist or separatist is unthinkable and certainly unethical.

From what I was able to find, I can see why it would have been an issue inside Quebec.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by joncha


Did I say that they did?

From me, a couple pages ago, "Thus Quebec should get 50% of the pie"

Equality of nations means an equal share in federalism.

jon.

No it doesn't.

Here's the question:

The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations

Now where do you get that it means 50%? Explain it to me please. Because from what i can read, it means that the two government taking part in the negociations would be equal, each representing it's nation and that the new agreement would also reflect this equality of nations.
NB: the french version refers to "principe de l'égalité des peuples" - principle of the equality of the peoples. Not much of a difference, but still. That's why i had never heard of the equality of nations expression: i had never read the english version of the question.

this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad - in other words, sovereignty

The way i read it, it would mean: we get 100% of our pie. Do whatever you want with yours.

- and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency

Free trade + common currency. This part of the question being the first lure for the soft nationalists. We're going but we're not going...

no change in political status resulting from these negotiations will be effected without approval by the people through another referendum;

We will only negociate this new deal. We are not declaring sovereignty or independance, or association or whatever the heck it is we're talking about. We'll ask you again before we do that. Second lure.

on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?"

So: whaddaya say?

So i'll just say it again: that 50% of the pie thing is a figment of your imagination.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by joncha


Nowadays, I guess, "sovereignty-association" and "asymmetrical federalism" are used more often than "equality of nations," but the meaning is the same.

jon.

Again: BS.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by joncha


Not inaccurate at all. And it's not an either-or question.

A good illustration of the 50% point is the different perceptions of government contracts (putting the crooked ones aside for the moment). From a national equality point of view, projects should alternate between french and english Canada.

jon.

Need i say it again?

[Mr. Harley]

For the French Canadians posting here - a question. If Quebec does indeed change it's relationship with the rest of Canada, would you support a seperate refendum giving the Native Peoples in the northern part of the province the same right, i.e. they can take their people, and ancestral territory along with it, back into Canada and leave Quebec? Keeping some sort of administerable boundaries, of course.

This is where I have found almost EVERY seperatist group falls down, thoughout the world. They want their own territory, with their own primary rights, but then they want to deny that same privaledge to minorities inside the new territories boundaries. By the way, small Native American groups in Canada have made the same complaint reference the larger tribes that are running the native territories (I can't spell the name and am too lazy to google it). Just some thoughts to chew on.