Not so fast Mr. Martin...

[Ben Kenobi]

It would be nice to see a government that had the balls to stand up against the States.

Yes, it would be.

What Ottawa needs to do is sit down with them and reach an agreement that benefits all.

No. What needs to happen is that Ottawa needs to come in and say, no one gets to fish. Period. Restrictions to one apply to all.

it was the Tories who were at the helm when the alarm bells were going off, did mismanage the fish stocks.

True, they both have responsibility, but you can't just saddle the fishermen without also slamming the government.

[Ben Kenobi]

OB:

As I said, the Conservatives will have to show moderation,

And become Liberal-lite? No thanks. I think their platform is just fine the way it is.

they might be in for a comeback in 2009 (not necessarily many seats but maybe, say, the same % of votes as the liberals).

In Quebec, or in all of Canada? If the former, I agree. If the latter, I say why wait? They can beat these Liberals this year.

If you permit me a comment: I believe Quebec's separation would be a benefit for everyone- Ontario, Maritimes, the West and Quebec. If ever someone in RoC showed initiative in discussing separation terms with Quebec, it could convince the moderate nationalists to vote YES and solve a lot of issues about Canadian politics

No. I'm sorry. Seperation and not 'sovereignty association' will destroy the Quebec economy, and destroy the territorial integrity of Canada. It solves nothing, but again, revives the spectre of seperation which scares businessmen wanting to invest in a secure and stable Canada.

We like the folks in Quebec, even if we think they are spoiled brats out West who deserve everthing they can get on this corruption scandal.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
OB:

And become Liberal-lite? No thanks. I think their platform is just fine the way it is.

I was answering NYE, who asked about the Conservatives in Quebec. This is why

In Quebec, or in all of Canada? If the former, I agree. If the latter, I say why wait? They can beat these Liberals this year.

My point was that they won't make a comeback in Quebec unless they move to the center.
I was not at all pretending to know what they should be, but rather observing what they'd need to gain seats in Qc.

No. I'm sorry. Seperation and not 'sovereignty association' will destroy the Quebec economy, and destroy the territorial integrity of Canada. It solves nothing, but again, revives the spectre of seperation which scares businessmen wanting to invest in a secure and stable Canada.

Quebec has already been hurt by the separatist movement. The industries that had to leave have already done it. Besides, most are willing to accept a few years of economic incertitude.

My point here, I remember you, is that Quebec has not signed the Constitution, and, as such, has not officially recognized the authority of the federation. The separatists can't go forward because they were unable to gather a majority behind them, and even the federalists are not willing to join the Constitution as it is.

The federal will have either to accept a compromise, or accept Quebec's separation. You just can't keep going like the Constitution was not an issue. Meech and Charlottetown are considered to be 'sovereignty-association', BTW.
Statu quo is not an option.

We like the folks in Quebec, even if we think they are spoiled brats out West who deserve everthing they can get on this corruption scandal.

I have nothing against RoC either. BTW, the idea that the scandal is 'Quebecois' is pure BS. Scandals have historically spoiled every party.

[Ben Kenobi]

that Quebec has not signed the Constitution, and, as such, has not officially recognized the authority of the federation. The separatists can't go forward because they were unable to gather a majority behind them, and even the federalists are not willing to join the Constitution as it is.

So what would be acceptable clauses to have Quebec sign the constitution?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So what would be acceptable clauses to have Quebec sign the constitution?

I don't know. Meech rallied huge support in Qc, but was ill-received in RoC.
Charlottetown was considered insufficient by 55% in Quebec (I think the same % rejected it in RoC because they thought of it as being too generous).
Independance is still supported by 44-48% in Qc.

Since RoC doesn't seem willing to offer any serious compromise, I think independance is the better alternative (for everyone).

The thing is, Quebec's part in the federation, both in GDP and population, is decreasing. An agreement that would guarantee Quebec 25% of seats, 25% of senators, 3 out of 9 Supreme Court judges, is doomed to become unfair.
So, why waste time on useless stuff while we can solve the problem once and for all by giving Quebec outright autonomy and having some sort of EU federative pact with RoC?

[Ben Kenobi]

Since RoC doesn't seem willing to offer any serious compromise, I think independance is the better alternative (for everyone).

One could say the same for Quebeckers.

Why can't we hammer out a compromise? Surely now, that we have seen the problems of seperation, we can start to move beyond the problems of Meech lake and the Charlottetown accord.

Where we start is with the same question I asked you. What does Quebec want most from Canada?

I think a deal can be reached, and we can do far better than Mr. Chretien's legacy of obfuscated Clarity.

[Ben Kenobi]

So, why waste time on useless stuff while we can solve the problem once and for all by giving Quebec outright autonomy and having some sort of EU federative pact with RoC?

That's having your cake and eating it too. You are not going to get a good deal out of seperation. You will destroy your economy, and Canada's together. It is not an acceptable option, when compared to making compromises to remain in the Canadian federation.

People in Quebec are not being told this. They are not being told what will happen to them if they seperate, so they hold out for more. It would be a disaster for both.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
One could say the same for Quebeckers.

Not really. Since they joined the federation at a time they were an oppressed minority of the British Empire, they have the right to reconsider their position, now that they are more respected.

Why can't we hammer out a compromise? Surely now, that we have seen the problems of seperation, we can start to move beyond the problems of Meech lake and the Charlottetown accord.

Economic problems would not be that bad- maybe less GDP growth for a few years, but nothing like a depression. For many in Quebec, the issues of language, rights, and autonomy are much more important than growth %s.
If any politician in RoC ever had the courage to propose something like Meech, separatism would immediately die. Which leads us to:

Where we start is with the same question I asked you. What does Quebec want most from Canada?

Again, most Quebecers (60+%) would take independance along with EU-style federation- (custom and monetary union, free trade agreement, tax harmonization, student mobility, etc.)

If that turns out to not to be feasible, here is what is needed to shut down most of the separatist movement:

-recognition of a fixed number of MPs, senators, and Supreme Court judges

-the exclusive power to set immigration policy

-a great diminution in federal taxation and power. In other words, the federal would withdraw from any field that falls within provincial competence when asked to, and hand the involved money to the province

-that any major international treaty must be agreed on by Quebec

I think this is the only way to put an end to the separatist movement. And I don't foresee any compromise close to this one anytime soon.

I think a deal can be reached, and we can do far better than Mr. Chretien's legacy of obfuscated Clarity.

Maybe.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
People in Quebec are not being told this. They are not being told what will happen to them if they seperate, so they hold out for more. It would be a disaster for both.

Don't worry, the federalists keep repeating this EVERYTIME, and the corporatists media never lose an occasion to beat on this dead horse.

The argument is as old as the moon, and most are tireing of it. Serious scholar studies tend to show the oppsosite: that separation would have a minor effect on the economy.

If RoC really thinka that it would be a disaster, they're not playing smart to avoid it. The lack of serious compromise is seriously fueling separatist support.

[Ben Kenobi]

Economic problems would not be that bad- maybe less GDP growth for a few years, but nothing like a depression.

What assumptions are you making? What kind of trade agreement do you presume to have with Canada?

Secondly, it's not just about Quebec. It is not fair to the Maritimes if Quebec leaves without them getting a say, as you cannot preserve the territorial integrity of Canada.

Third, what if you lose all of Northern Quebec because they wish to remain in Canada? What about the entire Island of Montreal? Canada is divisible, so is Quebec.

would take independance along with EU-style federation- (custom and monetary union, free trade agreement, tax harmonization, student mobility, etc.)

No deal. What then?

-recognition of a fixed number of MPs, senators, and Supreme Court judges

Set at 25%, rounded down? Deal.

-the exclusive power to set immigration policy

Why? No province has that right to reject those who would otherwise be able to come into Canada? No deal, given the complications regarding terrorism requiring a common national immigration policy.

-a great diminution in federal taxation and power. In other words, the federal would withdraw from any field that falls within provincial competence when asked to, and hand the involved money to the province

What areas? That's the sticky wicket for this one.

-that any major international treaty must be agreed on by Quebec

Again, that would reduce the sovereignty of Canada, to serve beneath Quebec. We just got out from Britain, now treaties would need to be approved by Quebec. No deal.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai

What was the Churchill quote about it's awful, but it's less awful then the alternatives.

I agree that NEP was idiotic and should never have been done. I just not convinced that any other system would have prevented it.

The point isn't if one system or another will prevent something that has already happened from happening, the point is how to reign in the dictatorial powers of the PM so that we are more likely to get better government.

Just about anything would be better than the status quo. Free MPs from party discipline on anything other than money bills (confidence) but how do you do that when the PM has to sign nomination papers and the party pays the freight for campaigns?

A Senate where Alberta's Senators could have at least had a chance to defeat the NEP would be better than a Senate where it was rubber stamped by the geriatric wings of the Liberals and Conservatives. They wouldn't stand in the way, even if they felt that maybe they should, because they lack mandates and that would be undemocratic.

I like it. It would be nice to see a government that had the balls to stand up against the States.

BUT, can you imagine the howls of outrage that would come from Alberta if Ottawa slapped export tarriffs on natural gas and oil. They'd be rioting in the streets of Calgary!

Well, there would be two alternatives. Slap an export tariff on the gas, not the oil, and require it to be paid above and beyond the market price for natural gas. Use those funds to defray the costs of supporting the people who have been dislocated by repeated breaches of NAFTA. I'm not sure if this is too likely to be practical.

The other alternative is simply to shut off the tap for gas. I am sure that the MidWest has other supplies, but the supply coming from Alberta is a major chunk of it no doubt. The price of gas would go through the roof in the United States in very short order, I would imagine. Those screams would very likely be heard in Washington.

Now, we are not allowed to do any such thing by the terms of NAFTA. Once we begin to supply them they are assured of the continued supply, at market prices. The point being though that the US is ignoring NAFTA and is in breach of the treaty. They have been at least 3 times as far as lumber is concerned, but somehow the home grown lumber lobby counts for more in Washington than honouring treaties with Canada does.

As a temporary measure to call American politicians' and administrators' attention to the fact that we're pissed off about their policies, I think Albertans could be convinced.

Screwing with oil wouldn't do anything. They have alternative supplies. Gas is where their attention can be commanded, and maybe Hydro.

What? You want to create nobility and appoint them to the senate?

Anyways, the Brit system is not much different from ours. They both operate from a basic belief of parlimentary supremacy.

I said, look at the Brit system, which we already have btw except that the Senate distains the use of their powers. Give the members of the Senate mandates that would allow them to use the powers the Constitution gives them. They already are cut out of money bills, that is the purview of the Commons, so the power of the purse would remain with the representatives of populations. Maybe though, give them powers to oversee expenditures, if they don't already have them, so as to be a check on just the sort of thing that just came to light.

The Senate is part of Parliament, btw. It should be the lesser power in the arrangement, but that does not mean that it should be the idiot child that simply nods in agreement.

[RedFred]

Too much stuff to respond to.

One thing though is the idea that Layton would somehow increase BC NDP support is particularly bizarre. Given all the scandals in the BC provincial NDP in recent years the current scandal will have them running away from the NDP if anything.

[Wezil]

NYE - We are the #1 supply of oil to the US (Saudi's are #2). Shutting that tap will get lot's of notice.

Re - the ongoing lumber dispute. I say take a similar approach. Stop ALL lumber/wood products shipments south (and compensate our workers in the meantime). The domestic US market cannot meet demand - hence skyrocketing prices on everything from paper to new houses. This too will be noticed in Washington rather quickly.

As has been said: We need a Fed gov with gonads. I don't blame the US for continuing to ignore treaties when there is no price to be paid for doing so. Time to give them a reason to play nice.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Wezil
NYE - We are the #1 supply of oil to the US (Saudi's are #2). Shutting that tap will get lot's of notice.

... and invaded.

[Ben Kenobi]

Re - the ongoing lumber dispute. I say take a similar approach. Stop ALL lumber/wood products shipments south (and compensate our workers in the meantime). The domestic US market cannot meet demand - hence skyrocketing prices on everything from paper to new houses. This too will be noticed in Washington rather quickly.

Why not?

As for invasions, been there, done that. You still failed.