[Brother Jonathan]

You’re right — it does provide an interesting comparison. But is the comparison moot? That is, are there many “soft federalists” who would change their vote to <i>Oui</i> if budget projections indicated a sovereign surplus? Or are there many “soft sovereigntists” who would change their vote to <i>Non</i> if the money were better within Confederation?

[sebastien]

<br /> What do you want cmab ?<br /> Agaist well organized canadian propaganda in Québec, sometimes some québécois propaganda is welcomed...<br /> Don't you think ?

[sebastien]

[QUOTE BY= Brother Jonathan] You’re right — it does provide an interesting comparison. But is the comparison moot? That is, are there many “soft federalists” who would change their vote to <i>Oui</i> if budget projections indicated a sovereign surplus? Or are there many “soft sovereigntists” who would change their vote to <i>Non</i> if the money were better within Confederation?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Tu dois parler de la Pseudo-Confédération Brother !<br /> Ne l'oublie jamais.<br /> Nous vivons dans une Fédération, pas une Confédération.<br /> Nos amis canadians aiment bien se bercer d'illusions qu'ils vivent dans une Confédération, n'est-ce pas cmab ????, mais ce n'est pas le cas !<br /> <br /> Si nous vivions dans une vraie Confédération, comme la Suisse, peut-être ne serais-je pas souverainiste !!!

[sebastien]

[QUOTE BY= cmab] As most of you know, Francois Legault did a ''show'' budget, to demonstrate Quebec finance under a sovereign Quebec. The buget will have a surplus of 17G$ over 5 years. However, Francois legault's budget does not reflect reality. Richard LeHier, a former ministry deleguate under Parizeau, said the budget does not consider a lot of factors.<br /> <br /> Here's an interesting article. It's in french.<br /> <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Alors tu renseignes nos amis canadians cmab ???<br /> Étrange comment personne ne te répond sauf Brother !<br /> Peut-être cela ne les intéresse juste pas !<br /> Peut-être perds-tu ton temps ?<br /> <br /> Allez mon ami, la souveraineté du Québec est une bien meilleure chose !

[michou]

<b><a>La souveraineté rendrait-elle les investisseurs irrationnels ?</a></b><br /> Joseph Facal, Professeur à HEC Montréal et ancien président du Conseil du trésor du Québec <br /> Les Affaires samedi 4 juin 2005 <br /> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br /> On peut invoquer d'excellents arguments pour ou contre la souveraineté du Québec ou le fédéralisme canadien. Mais il est frappant de voir à quel point ce débat a évolué au cours des dernières années. On en a vu une nouvelle manifestation à l'occasion de la récente publication, par le député péquiste François Legault, d'une étude sur les finances publiques d'un Québec souverain. <br /> Il fut une époque où une telle initiative se serait immanquablement retournée contre ses auteurs. Leurs adversaires n'auraient eu aucun mal à la descendre en flammes. Ils auraient soutenu que l'accession du Québec à la souveraineté se solderait par une retentissante faillite, et la majeure partie de la population les aurait cru. <br /> Les choses ne se présentent plus de la même façon aujourd'hui. Les arguments budgétaires ne jouent plus automatiquement en faveur de l'option fédéraliste. À l'époque où Québec et Ottawa traînaient tous les deux des déficits monstrueux, le camp fédéraliste avait beau jeu d'additionner la part québécoise du passif d'Ottawa à celle du Québec. Il était irréfutable qu'un Québec souverain viendrait au monde lourdement handicapé. L'élimination des déficits et les gigantesques surplus fédéraux, dont le Québec obtiendrait une part à négocier, améliorent notablement la rentabilité financière d'un Québec souverain. <br /> Évidemment, on ne peut demander à la science de tout prévoir. Le passage du statut de province à celui de pays serait plus ou moins facile selon la clarté du résultat du référendum, la réaction du Canada anglais, et celles des milieux d'affaires et de la communauté internationale. <b>Mais on se demande bien quel intérêt le Canada aurait, malgré son dépit, à devenir durablement irrationnel et à se faire mal lui-même.</b> C'est sans doute ce qu'ont dû se dire les peuples de quelques-uns des 32 nouveaux pays apparus dans le monde depuis 1980. <br /> On peut à bon droit soulever de réelles objections sur tel ou tel aspect de l'étude Legault. Mais il est symptomatique de l'évolution des choses que <b>même les adversaires les plus acharnés de la souveraineté ne remettent plus en cause la viabilité d'un Québec souverain et n'évoquent plus désormais que les incertitudes de la période de transition. Ils savent bien que la majorité ne croit plus à l'apocalypse.</b> <br /> <b>Les économistes fédéralistes défendent d'ailleurs un Canada imaginaire plus que le Canada réel.</b>Il est vrai qu'en théorie le fédéralisme canadien aurait pu faciliter l'accès au marché nord-américain, la coordination des politiques, les économies d'échelle et permettre les transferts financiers des provinces riches vers les provinces pauvres. <br /> Dans la réalité, il y a plus d'entraves au commerce entre les provinces qu'à celui avec les États-Unis. Les dédoublements administratifs et les politiques contradictoires, dus aux empiètements d'Ottawa dans les champs de compétence des provinces, tuent toute possibilité de coordonner quoi que ce soit, comme en témoignent nos sempiternelles querelles. L'imprévisibilité des transferts fédéraux rend impossible toute planification budgétaire sérieuse pour des provinces constamment sur la corde raide et les force à quémander de l'argent à Ottawa, qui préfère saupoudrer les milliards en fonction des comtés dont les libéraux fédéraux ont besoin pour demeurer au pouvoir. <br /> <b>Il est de bonne guerre de s'interroger sur les impacts économiques de la souveraineté. Mais il est clair désormais qu'il y a aussi des coûts élevés à rester dans le Canada. </b>

[Marcarc]

This is far more a problem in Quebec than outside. There will always be canadians who will grasp at straws for any reason to keep Quebec in Canada, and they are usually variants of 'I like it that way' and 'what will WE do without them?' <br /> <br /> We already know what spokespeople of the elite in journalism will say, the same thing they always parrot when anything of substance comes up. For years Canada itself had huge deficits and debt, but nobody said 'Canada will cease to function'. However, lobbyists are always at work, namely convincing older canadians that even if the deficits to GDP were smaller than during the war it was going to make us go bankrupt. Similar things will no doubt be said in Quebec, it is up to Quebecers to educate other Quebecers.<br /> <br /> The budget release was a step in the right direction, far more relevant to me is the constitution. Quebec already does have pretty significant autonomous powers so no doubt many will maintain 'why bother changing?' Quite rightly they also maintain that the Bloc gives them plenty of leverage in Ottawa, and adds to the idea that if you have considerable power over the rest of the province and the federal government is typically consiliatory at home-why give that up?<br /> <br /> The money issue is a non sequitor, the real issue is politics. Where's the constitution? What's the process? What about native rights and border issues? Unfortunately if we had a better system now we could start the ball rolling, instead of the pointless bickering that goes on now.<br /> <br /> It may be clutching at straws but the native issue is the only issue for me. We already have toll highways across the country so even if Quebec had a toll to get through on the TCH it would be no big deal, however, native rights still are yet to be settled, or even discussed. For example, will a sovereign Quebec recognize a sovereign Mohawk nation? Will it stop putting pressure on native bands to accept proposals they play no part in drafting-namely where they agree or it gets done anyway. <br /> <br /> The process is one that I would expect there to be hundreds of books on, yet I'm surprised to find very little out there. If Quebecers are like the ROC, and polls show they are, they have as little faith in their political leaders. However, though I haven't seen it on the web or at the library that may be english canada's way of trying to get us to believe that no progress on this is being made.

[sebastien]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] <br /> <br /> The money issue is a non sequitor, the real issue is politics. Where's the constitution? What's the process? What about native rights and border issues? Unfortunately if we had a better system now we could start the ball rolling, instead of the pointless bickering that goes on now.<br /> <br /> It may be clutching at straws but the native issue is the only issue for me. We already have toll highways across the country so even if Quebec had a toll to get through on the TCH it would be no big deal, however, native rights still are yet to be settled, or even discussed. For example, will a sovereign Quebec recognize a sovereign Mohawk nation? Will it stop putting pressure on native bands to accept proposals they play no part in drafting-namely where they agree or it gets done anyway. <br /> <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> There's some writings and talks about the natives in a sovereign. <br /> <br /> You talk about natives rights in a sovereign Québec. Why don't we talk about their rights in Canada right now. It won't be different in Québec.<br /> <br /> Let's not forget that at the beginning of the french and english colonies, Natives saw the french settlers and the Coureurs des Bois (White Indians as the british called them) better than the english settlers.<br /> <br /> The french colony was smaller and less intrusive.

[Jesse]

[QUOTE BY= sebastien] <br /> Let's not forget that at the beginning of the french and english colonies, Natives saw the french settlers and the Coureurs des Bois (White Indians as the british called them) better than the english settlers.<br /> <br /> The french colony was smaller and less intrusive.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> And yet they were still foreign invaders. And a sovereign quebec would still be a foreign occupier of native lands. The reason that native rights are brought up is that if Quebec has the right to secede from Canada, the first nations have the right to secede from quebec, taking their land with them. That severely changes the situation and needs to be taken into account in any budgets or economic analyses.

[michou]

[QUOTE BY= jesse] [QUOTE BY= sebastien] <br /> Let's not forget that at the beginning of the french and english colonies, Natives saw the french settlers and the Coureurs des Bois (White Indians as the british called them) better than the english settlers.<br /> <br /> The french colony was smaller and less intrusive.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> And yet they were still foreign invaders. And a sovereign quebec would still be a foreign occupier of native lands. The reason that native rights are brought up is that if Quebec has the right to secede from Canada, the first nations have the right to secede from quebec, taking their land with them. That severely changes the situation and needs to be taken into account in any budgets or economic analyses. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> My question is, why isn't Canada going forward on this issue, lead the way and give first nations their sovereignty NOW, including all that comes with it...you know, land, compensation, apologies etc...? <br /> Or maybe I am mistaken and first nations only exist in Québec ?<br /> Are you all waiting, as usual, for Québec to open the ball and lead the rest of Canada ? <br /> <br /> Don't profess for others what you cannot deliver yourself.

[Jesse]

[QUOTE BY= michou]<br /> My question is, why isn't Canada going forward on this issue, lead the way and give first nations their sovereignty NOW, including all that comes with it...you know, land, compensation, apologies etc...? <br /> Or maybe I am mistaken and first nations only exist in Québec ?<br /> Are you all waiting, as usual, for Québec to open the ball and lead the rest of Canada ? <br /> <br /> Don't profess for others what you cannot deliver yourself. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I would point at the recent creation of Nunavut as Canada giving First Nations more power and control over their lands, especially insofar as the structure of the territorial government:<br /> <br /> From wikipedia:<br /> ----<br /> Nunavut's head of state is a Commissioner appointed by the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As in the other territories, the commissioner's role is symbolic and is analogous to that of a lieutenant-governor. While the Commissioner is not formally a representative of the Queen of Canada, the role of representing the crown has accrued to the position.<br /> <br /> The members of the unicameral legislative assembly are elected individually; there are no parties and the legislature is consensus-based. The head of government, the premier of Nunavut, is elected by and from among the members of the legislative assembly.<br /> <br /> The territory's first parliament was dissolved on January 16, 2004, with elections scheduled for February 16. See Nunavut general election, 2004.<br /> <br /> Faced by criticism of his policies, Premier Paul Okalik set up an advisory council of 11 elders, the inuit qaujimajatuquangit, whose function is to help integrate Inuit culture into the territory's political decisions.<br /> <br /> The territory has an annual budget of $Cdn 700 million, provided almost entirely by the federal government. Prime Minister Paul Martin designated support for the Canadian North as one of his priorities for 2004, with an extra $500 million to be divided among the three territories.<br /> ----<br /> -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunavut<br /> <br /> <br /> Would Quebec grant such control to First Nations? Listening to the francocentric rhetoric from most separatists, I strongly doubt it.

[Marcarc]

The reason I bring it up with regards to Quebec is because it is an opportunity for Quebec, and because in a new country we have a moral responsibility with regards to how natives are treated should Quebec separate. That isn't a kick at Quebec, we already know that we are morally culpable with regards to natives in Canada. Few people are saying that Quebec SHOULD be talking native rights because Canada is-far from it. Canada is horrible when it comes to native rights, we know that and currently there are hundreds of organizations working to change that, but our machinations are limited. However, natives ARE canadian and did overwhelmingly vote against secession, that is why it is an issue-not to mention Oka and the fact that the Mohawk Nation is the only one I am aware of that is espousing complete sovereignty. The idea that 'well you don't give a &^%$ about natives so why should we?' just doesn't cut it. <br /> <br /> There has been some slow progress in Canada, namely BC, but I wouldn't call Nunavit a real success story.

[sebastien]

[QUOTE BY= jesse] <br /> <br /> Would Quebec grant such control to First Nations? Listening to the francocentric rhetoric from most separatists, I strongly doubt it. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Francocentric rhetoric ???????<br /> Geee... we are not monsters my friend.<br /> Help us separate in peace and we want bother you no more in Canada !!!!!!<br /> Francocentric ???<br /> Just keep in mind that if you hear so much about Québec francophones its because partly YOU are doing all that you can to keep Québec inside Canada !!!!!<br /> Just kick us out of Canada geee...<br /> <br /> You read too much negative opinions of those Anglo-Québécois jerks who spit on the sovereignists !<br /> Angryphones they are called ! <br /> <br /> Why would Québécois be so much bad politicians ???<br /> Let's hope Québec treat well its Natives. Like Canada its in own way. We are already separated. Let's sign the treaty of sovereignty of Québec !<br /> <br /> Here's "Paix des Braves" in 2001 signed between the Québec governement and the Cris. Chief Moses said the Federal should have a look to know how to negociate with the Natives in the future.<br /> <br /> <br /> " Dans leurs discours, tant Bernard Landry que le chef Ted Moses ont souligné le caractère «historique» de l'entente, «une première au Canada» a estimé l'ineffable anthropologue Rémy Savard. Moses a rendu hommage au «courage» du premier ministre Landry pour la signature de l'entente. «Le Québec devient un chef de file dans l'application des principes reconnus par les Nations-Unies pour le développement des autochtones, a-t-il déclaré. Le Québec pourra montrer que le respect des autochtones est compatible avec son intérêt national». M. Moses a conseillé au gouvernement fédéral de s'inspirer de l'entente signée à Waskahgamish dans ses négociations avec les autochtones."

[Marcarc]

I've read the 'Paix au braves' yet it is little more than talk. The Catch 22 is that there are limits on what Quebec can do because native issues are federal. Go to the website of the department of indian affairs and it sounds like a literal love in with natives, from the governments press releases we'd think that natives are the most cherished and cared for 'special interest group' in canada. We just recently saw a lovely love in in Ottawa where even the chiefs came out glowing, however, in context that means nothing. <br /> <br /> As far as Quebec goes we do have to admit that Oka occurred in Quebec and it is a HUGE shiner for an independant Quebec. While some within the provincial government were personally involved and made real attempts to deal with the situation, they were virtually shut out later in the standoff. There is a commentor on here claiming that we should 'just let Quebec go' as if he were speaking for the entire province, even if that were true it is equally easy for a seceding government to 'just let the mohawks go'. All it takes is a press release. <br /> <br /> They don't do it for the same reason the rest of Canada doesn't do it, first, we're a racist nation (at the governmental level at least), and second, we want to make sure we have corporate access to the land. For a seceding quebec to say that they'd let mohawks be sovereign would be political suicide. So we have a similar thing to what goes on in Canada, nice words and agreements and so long as natives don't want to interrupt development, we'll even include them in corporate deals now-which occurs far more out west than in Quebec.

[sebastien]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] I've read the 'Paix au braves' yet it is little more than talk. The Catch 22 is that there are limits on what Quebec can do because native issues are federal. Go to the website of the department of indian affairs and it sounds like a literal love in with natives, from the governments press releases we'd think that natives are the most cherished and cared for 'special interest group' in canada. We just recently saw a lovely love in in Ottawa where even the chiefs came out glowing, however, in context that means nothing. <br /> <br /> As far as Quebec goes we do have to admit that Oka occurred in Quebec and it is a HUGE shiner for an independant Quebec. While some within the provincial government were personally involved and made real attempts to deal with the situation, they were virtually shut out later in the standoff. There is a commentor on here claiming that we should 'just let Quebec go' as if he were speaking for the entire province, even if that were true it is equally easy for a seceding government to 'just let the mohawks go'. All it takes is a press release. <br /> <br /> They don't do it for the same reason the rest of Canada doesn't do it, first, we're a racist nation (at the governmental level at least), and second, we want to make sure we have corporate access to the land. For a seceding quebec to say that they'd let mohawks be sovereign would be political suicide. So we have a similar thing to what goes on in Canada, nice words and agreements and so long as natives don't want to interrupt development, we'll even include them in corporate deals now-which occurs far more out west than in Quebec. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> What do you know about the mohawk crisis ?<br /> Are you native ?<br /> Do you live in Québec ?<br /> In Montreal ?<br /> Near the reserve ?<br /> <br /> What I know about it is that the Québec government tried to deal as best as it can. Like it does right now in the middle of the crisis of leadership going on in the Mohawk reserve with James Gabriel not being recognized as the chief. Very complicated stuf. Political mess.<br /> <br /> Iroquois vs Hurons.<br /> <br /> Mohawks were traditionnaly against the french settlers.<br /> Canada would continue to hold on to those reserves on the Québec territories. What does it have to win ? Strange political strategy. The only thing we can see here is a strategy to scare the Québécois to vote YES. That's all. End of the story.

[Marcarc]

From your remarks I know far more than you do. There are six good books on the topic at the library, several written by reporters who were there, and a couple written by natives who were there, and one documentary which provides some visuals. There is also several United Nations reports on it. I suggest anybody out there who thinks the government "did the best it can" check them out.