[Marcarc]

Quebec is an extremely unique situation in the world, however, one 'can' look at former colonies turning independant. Ireland, for example, is 'sort of' similar. However, in international commerce and politics the only things predicted that 'would' happen, depend on the views of the writer. <br /> <br /> In 1995 Canada's debt was much higher than today. Investors don't like uncertainty so there is always 'the chance' of capital flight. This is partly why the referendum didn't specifically state separation, but 'begin discussions'. This would appease speculators, and peaceful discussions of separation would be assured because both 'countries' want to appear a 'safe' investment. To me this virtually guarantees there will be no direct democracy initiatives in a new Quebec, but that's just my opinion.<br /> <br /> Diane Francis' is typically full of &&&&, but those are valid points. The quotes you mention I can't verify except the Parizeau one, which I remember clearly. They were pilloried in the english press, however, they are quite true (Quebec relies more on immigration than before the quiet revolution, the federal government has often been described by various parties as a vicious influence, and polls show that clearly natives opposed the plan.<br /> <br /> I'm currently researching the money in referendum issue but haven't got to the Quebec referendum. There are typically tight spending restrictions on referenda, yet sometimes they are not enforced. Quebec would have different ones than other provinces since unless it is a national referenda it is up to the provinces to make legislation. In the 1992 referenda the 'vote yes' to the Charlottetown Accord spent around ten times what the 'vote no' side did. However, the 'vote no' side was helped by legislation that guaranteed them equal television representation (to at least keep it fair I suppose)<br /> <br /> I have heard all kinds of 'stories', most are that the federal side spent more money, which I doubt but still don't know, and remember reading that many 'no' votes weren't counted and some 'yes' votes were counted twice, but I'm still yet to find good information on the subject.<br /> <br /> In a referendum it is often a criteria that individuals and corporations can't just spend when they want. This is another reason that I support direct democracy in Canada so fully since we do these things much better (sometimes) than the states. There, in citizens' initiatives, it is often seen as 'freedom of speech' to be able to spend whatever one wants (that obviously favours corporations). They are not always enforced however, in New Brunswick there were NO financial restrictions placed on the Video Lottery Terminal referendum so the millionaire owners virtually ran a blitzkrieg of ads on radio, in print, and television, while the other side, mainly consisting of church groups, had to keep calling into phone in talk shows and send letters to the editor. That's just for information's sake, because I'm not positive what the specifics of the Quebec case were. However, I do remember reading that Quebec referenda were typically designed and composed (the question I mean) by 'yes' and 'no' committees, which is actually the way it should be done (again, unlike other canada referenda)<br /> <br /> Bouchard was a member of the conservative party, so it's not surprising that he spoke like that quote, in fact his job would rely on it, so you can't read too much into it (and it doesn't really matter, one can change one's mind).<br /> <br /> There is legislation on getting work off to vote, that is the case in all elections, although I'm not positive about the 'being paid' part. If you work at Tim Horton's they can't put you on a 24 hour shift the day of an election, but they don't have to pay you for for the full day if you work part time.<br /> <br /> The native question, obviously, is a HUGE issue to complex for discussion here. It was too complex for them to even discuss it then. How it would have been handled is anyone's guess. We should keep in mind though that treaties and native rights have ALWAYS taken a back seat in our country and to think that somehow it would suddenly become THE issue is to grant way too much goodwill to governments who have always been, at the very best of times, 'insincere'. Native land claims are highly speculative, and are usually ignored anyway. <br /> <br /> In my opinion the only reasonable way around it is to let them 'secede' from Canada by offering them far more than they could ever expect from Canada, and put it in writing, thus creating a kind of swiss state where the 'federal' Quebec government has no jurisdiction over most of native governance and still supplies 'reparations' or 'investment' to alleviate native's poverty and give them access to new economic structures. That's, again, just my opinion, because it is a 'sticky wicket' as they say.<br />

[Marcarc]

I've done some research, I'll only post one entire article here as the others are long and technical. They latter basically describe, in legal terms, that the canadian Supreme Court CAN"T 'unilaterally' separate, while the Quebec National Assembly says it can. The following article refers to the poster's question about spending limits on individuals and corporatons and whether they must go through committees-this appears to be true. The following article makes the claim of 'freedom of speech' for individuals and corporations, as the americans and british do.<br /> <br /> I'd like to first stick in my two cents. First, most provinces have spending restrictions, however, these haven't been challenged in court because few provinces have referenda, and when they do they don't use them-most likely because they don't want to (can't) defend lawsuits. As I said previously, this can be mitigated by the government 'subsidizing' the less 'monied' campaign to a certain extent, as was done in 1992.<br /> <br /> However, I would like to point out, for those 'die hard' individual rights fans, that we live in a country which lets government overrule individual rights on an almost daily basis. The other idea, that my freedom of expression, expressed in talking to friends, writing letters, and yelling from soapboxes is the same freedom of expression as the Aspers, who can put the entire mainstream media to work, is clearly absurd. We have to remember that these are 'spending restrictions' which means that if one of the Aspers has an opinion he should start his own webblog like everybody else. <br /> <br /> This is an unfortunate occurence, but not surprising, where direct democracy is led by 'the money', like in the states. In Quebec it is different, and I congratulate them for that. Under no circumstances do I think letting corporations and their millionaires run referenda is a good thing. Anyway, heres' the article..<br /> <br /> <br /> A bad rule bites the dust<br /> by William Johnson, [email protected] <br /> OTTAWA -- The Supreme Court of Canada did more yesterday than rip the heart out of Quebec's Referendum Act, when it granted the appeal of Robert Libman, defended by Julius Grey, and financed by Howard Galganov's Quebec Political Action Committee. Implicitly, the court passed judgment on Quebec's political class and on the authoritarianism that makes Quebec a distinct society. <br /> <br /> The highest court, unanimously, found that the referendum law's almost total ban on independent spending by individuals or groups during a referendum campaign violated Quebecers' freedom of expression and freedom of association, and was unjustifiable in a free and democratic society, not only under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but also under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. <br /> <br /> Remember, this is a law passed by the Parti Québécois government in 1978, applied by that same government for its referendum in 1980, a law kept by the Quebec Liberal Party after it came to power in 1985 and applied in its Charlottetown Referendum in 1992. It is a law that was upheld by a judge of the Quebec Superior Court in 1992, and by the Quebec Court of Appeal in 1995. <br /> <br /> Politicians and pundits sang the law's praises. Even yesterday, after the judgment of the highest court, PQ government ministers were claiming there was a "consensus" in favour of this law in Quebec, and that it was the finest expression of "Quebec democracy" as usual, the word "Quebec" qualified and diminished the word "democracy." <br /> <br /> <br /> Media consensus<br /> There seemed to be a consensus in the Quebec news media by both word and silence that the restrictive Referendum Act was something for Quebecers to be proud of and for others to emulate. Before the Charlottetown Referendum, Le Devoir denounced in violent terms the "fraud" that was to be perpetuated in the rest of Canada because the referendum would not be held under the same restrictive rules that applied in Quebec and nowhere else in the world. The Bloc Québécois MPs claimed the referendum would have no legitimacy for that same reason. <br /> The same restrictive law was applied in the 1995 Quebec referendum. Again, there was no outcry in the news media about the violation of the citizens' right to freedom of expression and freedom of association. Even when the Special Committee on Canadian Unity, including Guy Bertrand, Brent Tyler, Keith Henderson, and others, was prevented by the No Committee from campaigning as an affiliated group, there was no outcry in the press. The Gazette treated it as an amusing colour story. CJAD's Jim Duff tore a strip off the Special committee because it appealed to the Conseil du Référendum to have the right to speak. It then won the right to talk about the importance of the constitution and the rule of law but only in the last week of the campaign, when it was too late. <br /> <br /> <br /> Unlike U.K. law<br /> Something has been rotten in the state of Quebec since 1977 when the PQ proposed this iniquitous law, camouflaging it in lies, such as pretending that it was modeled on the United Kingdom's 1975 referendum law on membership in the European Community. It was a slander against Britain to say that it would ever have passed such a repressive law. <br /> Almost everything was different, except the existence in both of two umbrella committees, recipients of government grants. But in Britain, a country that believes in democracy rather than "Quebec democracy," citizens were allowed to campaign at will outside the umbrella committees, and there was no attempt to force the two committees to spend exactly the same amount, as Quebec enacted. <br /> <br /> The Supreme Court bent over backward to accommodate Quebec as much as it possibly could. But its judgment created a loophole that restores freedom to the citizens and makes the act, as it was, unenforceable. <br /> <br /> The PQ can use the "notwithstanding" clause to suppress freedom again and re-enact a scandalous referendum law. But if it does so, what credibility will the referendum enjoy, what legitimacy will attach to its results when the whole world will know that the rules of the referendum campaign are unworthy of a free and democratic society? <br /> <br /> Quebec has yet to assimilate the culture of liberal democracy<br />

[Dr Caleb]

I can't speak to all of it, but I'll answer where I can . . I'm relying on my memory here which isn't bad with recent items, but can be inaccurate due to time and large quantities of alcohol and illicit substances in my past <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'><br /> <br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Armageddon]<br /> Pg. 63- Canada would have been another Mexico-which is why U.S. President Bill Clinton in a press conference days before the referendum uncharacteristically told Quebecers to vote No. Washington was worried.<br /> Now, is this all true? Wouldn't this make statements made by 747 regarding the U.S. untrue?<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I remember this. It seems like a sound reason for his statements. If the Canadian dollar collapses and takes our economy with it, the US loses it's largest trading partner because we'll no longer be able to afford their products.<br /> <br /> _707 make a statement that was untrue? I thought all seperatists had flawless facts and sound arguments . . . *sniff* BWwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaahhahahahahahahahaha! *hehe*<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Armageddon]<br /> Pg. 63- During the referendum, Bouchard said the problem with Quebec was that not enough white babies were being born. Is this true?<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Yes. I remember reading this. I was sad when he lost his leg, because that disease should have killed that racist traitor.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Armageddon]<br /> Pg. 56- Could enumerators before the referendum strike a vter off their list if they suspected the voter was not a citizen? Can a Quebec separate with a 50%+1 majority?<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Most certainally. My mother and uncle were both born in Quebec, so they had Quebec birth certificates. When both tried to register to vote in the referendum, they were disqualified because they had spent more than 2 years outside of Quebec in a certain time period (in the previous 10 years I think). Which is why _707's desire to allow only 'quebecois' people qualified to vote in the next referendum just stinks of these tactics.<br /> <br /> No, Quebec cannot leave on a 50% +1 majority due to the clarity act. Of course, separatists view the clairity act as illegal, and ignore any precedent that would give the appearance that it was law, going back to the 1600's if nessecary to make their point.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Armageddon]<br /> Pg. 58-<br /> Can the Natives secede from Quebec if Quebec secedes from Canada, and then rejoin Canada?<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I believe the clarity act allows for this.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Armageddon]<br /> Pg.55- Was Lucien Bouchard Canada's Secretary of State for Citizenship and Immigration in the 1980's? If yes, did he write to new citizens with this letter...<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Yes, he was Sec of State. I don't know about the letter.

[Marcarc]

I thought I'd stick in that 'going back as far as the 1600's' is not as absurd as it sounds, many native treaties date from around that time. We should also remember that the supreme courts ruling in large part relied on the BNA of 1867, which isn't exactly yesterday. In our british parliamentary system it makes no difference 'how long ago' legislation was made, so long as it wasn't superceded.<br /> <br />

[Dr Caleb]

That's kind of my point. For the seperatists to want to go back to there pre-1700's borders, it's kind of ignoring the BNA of 1867, treaties of upper and lower Canada . . etc.<br />

[fleur-de-lys]

[QUOTE]That's kind of my point. For the seperatists to want to go back to there pre-1700's borders, it's kind of ignoring the BNA of 1867, treaties of upper and lower Canada . . etc.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> We are not ignoring that, je me souviens des unions forcés.<br /> <br /> <br /> Diana Francis is an american who doesn't know about Canada history.

[samuel]

Perfect timing to rehash this thread fleur-de-lys. All your answers are below Armageddon and Diane Francis can choke on her propaganda.<br /> <br /> Canada violated the most sanctimonious fabric of our society, democracy! Canada did this with dirty money, it abused its immigration powers and it appointed the lawers who helped them achieve this to the staus of judge. Federalists did this and to this day they are still running the country and these criminal judges are still sitting in the highest offices of justice.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?showtopic=9649">http://www.vivelecanada.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?showtopic=9649</a>

[Marcarc]

"Canada violated the most sanctimonious fabric of our society, democracy"<br /> <br /> That's actually pretty funny, it blends into propaganda quite well! I repeat, canada is NOT a democracy, and never has been. It's use of democratic tools have been sparse and constructed in such a way that canadians can have no real power. To look back at 1867, since that's what is being referred to, no votes or referenda were held that anyone agreed to and most of the 'fathers of confederation' were unelected officials. New Brunswick voted preceding the 1867 union in a referendum which rejected the union. Following the union Nova Scotians formed a political party whose sole purpose was rejection of the union, sort of an 1800's Parti Gaelicois. In fact, if Quebec really were interested in 'bringing down canada' (and their ignoring of these facts prove that they aren't) they would simply remind Atlantic Canadians of their historical roots, which have been a rejection of federalism and a long history of 'trying to change the system from within' and having little success. If Quebec actually discussed a useful type of federation like the Swiss, they would probably have the support of natives and maritimers as well! (well, OK, that's probably a stretch)<br /> <br /> If you look at democratic theory and world history, in effect that's what democracy is-a rejection of authoritarian rules. Meaning, that there can be all the written jurisprudence in the world, and if people vote to chuck it, it's gone! You can have all the laws and courts on your side, but if the people decide otherwise-it's otherwise. Unless of course you admit that your society is held together by the barrel of a gun, in which case all democratic theory becomes moot.<br /> <br /> <br />

[samuel]

You are eating up the propaganda Mararc. Québec is not interested in "bring down Canada", separatists are not evil get that our of your system. Until today's revelations, I felt no hatred towards federalists. We simply want to preserve our language and cultural values before it's completely obliterated. Why is that so difficult to understand? Federalism has a track record of failure and cultural genocide with Natives and increasingly more so with Québécois. Someone has to stop the beast's rampage and today is another turning point towards that end, you can count on it.

[Brother Jonathan]

[QUOTE by Marcarc]</b> In 1995 Canada’s debt was much higher than today.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> Presuming that you’re referring to the net federal debt here, according to Statistics Canada the debt was $550.7 billion in 1995, and nine years later in 2004 it was $523.7 billion. (Compare that to nine years earlier: in 1986 it was $245.2 billion! <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/eek.gif' alt='Eek!'>)<br />

[Marcarc]

<b>In fact, if Quebec really were interested in 'bringing down canada' (and their ignoring of these facts <i>prove that they aren't</i></b>)<br /> <br /> Dude, READ the comments before you reply to them!<br /> <br /> <br /> I meant to say deficit, not debt. While deficit fighting has been pretty much entrenched, attacking the debt hasn't (at least as public policy).

[samuel]

I apologise, I sometimes get confused with English writing styles. My name is Samuel btw, dude is what my children called their friends five years ago when it was the "in" thing.

[Armageddon]

[QUOTE BY= Samuel] I apologise, I sometimes get confused with English writing styles. My name is Samuel btw, dude is what my children called their friends five years ago when it was the "in" thing.[/QUOTE]<br /> Well, it's still the "in" thing, among other words, such as dawg, so don't worry people, you can still say dude. Just don't abuse it, or teens such as I will be embarassed.<br /> Samuel, you seem to judge Diane Francis so harshly, when she wasn't only going to criticize the separatists. <br /> " Fighting for Canada is a damning indictment, not only of Lucien Bouchard and his Bloc Quebecois, but also of Ottawa, the news media, and the traditional political parties". That seems to suggest the Liberals and what used to be the PC party were to, "capitalizing on it" as she said. And considering she's been associates with Parizeau and has met other Quebecois of high stature, I don't see her as doing anything bad if she's revealing the truth (if she is).<br /> Mararc, how does is typically full of "ship"? I ask out of curiousity, and thanks for confirming my post!<br /> I hope to put up more questions when I got some reading done.

[Marcarc]

Wow, the french really are the language police!<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> Excuse my not being 'cool', but since I'm over thirty that's not something I have to worry about (after all, the only reason to be 'cool' is to get laid<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> <br /> <br /> I could write an essay on Francis, but you can find many on the web, I've avoided the right wing, so called conservative, pseudo journalism since I graduated and discovered it for what it is-Orwellian trash talk. <br /> <br /> When talking economics 'conservatism' is one thing, and political 'conservatism' another. When you combine them together you get yet another beast. Just as an example, calling oneself 'fiscally conservative' and then throwing blanket support for building up a massive debt and deficit in a specious war venture (ANY war venture) is quite an oxymoron. <br /> <br /> In other words, she has a certain point of view. Not only does she have a certain point of view, but she 'preaches' a certain point of view. There's a difference there, everybody has a point of view, in journalism-as well as academia, the idea is to overcome your subjectivity. That of course is never completely successful, but the more it is the closer to good writing it is. When you 'preach' your ideology you've essentially admitted that your arguments are one sided and specious. <br /> <br /> In most cases with conservative writing you will find that an 'issue' is presented in such a way as to make the reply seem reasonable. Only certain facts are admitted of course, or the whole thing crumbles. You will notice this in the extreme in the states, where there is virtually no attempt at explaining the issues, unless they have no political relevance.<br /> <br /> Attacking political entities are typical, what ISN"T typical is bringing in the names of the corporate leaders who are tugging the strings. We live in a world where political decisions are made by rivalry corporate entities-if you don't believe that, you really must be in a fantastic world. <br /> <br /> My point, even if you think I"M full of *&^%, is that every point she mentions is warranted far further study-academic study, NOT journalism. If you are getting your 'information' from journalists you are really missing the point of an information superhighway. She NEEDS to tout a certain point of view, because she needs to sell articles and/or papers. On virtually every issue you can find a dissertation or in depth article by somebody who READS for a living, not WRITES (which are far different practises). The moral of the story is that reading a journalist's works is more of a starting point to understanding, and often not a good one.

[samuel]

[QUOTE BY= Armageddon]Well, it's still the "in" thing, among other words, such as dawg, so don't worry people, you can still say dude. Just don't abuse it, or teens such as I will be embarassed.<br /> Samuel, you seem to judge Diane Francis so harshly, when she wasn't only going to criticize the separatists. <br /> " Fighting for Canada is a damning indictment, not only of Lucien Bouchard and his Bloc Quebecois, but also of Ottawa, the news media, and the traditional political parties". That seems to suggest the Liberals and what used to be the PC party were to, "capitalizing on it" as she said. And considering she's been associates with Parizeau and has met other Quebecois of high stature, I don't see her as doing anything bad if she's revealing the truth (if she is).<br /> Mararc, how does is typically full of "ship"? I ask out of curiousity, and thanks for confirming my post!<br /> I hope to put up more questions when I got some reading done. [/QUOTE]<br /> Then why may I ask have you only propped up her separatist propaganda? Do not take people for fools just because they can't wield the English language as good as you do. If you thought separatists were a threat to Canada, think again. We are quickly finding out Federalists are your country's worst enemies.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Wow, the french really are the language police!<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'>[/QUOTE]<br /> What a cheap shot. For someone who condones Natives taking up automatic weapons, our language policy pales in comparison. You can only wish First Nations pulled together and put their own cultural protections in place, keep ranting about it online I'm sure it helps.