"Heads will roll...just watch me"

[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.

[Fake 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.

[Fake 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?

[Fake 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.