Calling all Separatists!

[Dexter Sinister]

You are wrong. We HAD a veto. But it was removed by Trudeau and his reforms.

No, I am not. A veto was offered in the Victoria Charter of 1971, in the amending formula that required approval of Ontario, Quebec, any two western provinces, and any two eastern provinces. That ensures a veto for Quebec, and everybody agreed, except Quebec, even though it was one of Quebec's demands. Shortly after that conference ended, Bourassa withdrew his agreement. The same formula was offered consistently throughout the 1970s, and was formally rejected twice by Levesque, in 1980 and 1981. Section 41, I believe it was, of the Meech Lake Accord gave every province an effective veto. Before that, as the Supreme Court made clear on December 6th, 1982, nobody had a veto. But the Meech Lake Accords never made it into law. You never had a veto.

And you may recall the role of Elijah Harper, an Aboriginal from Manitoba, in scuppering the Meech Lake Accords? It wasn't Trudeau's reforms.

 

[peps]

I am a volunteer for the PQ and I am very pleased at the tone of this current discussion; very different from many other forums.

Here's what I assume will be voted at the next congress of the PQ which is in june. As soon as the PQ enters power in 2007-2008, he corrects various electoral laws that have been violated by the federal government in the last referendum. It has been proven that in the 1995 referendum, the NO side had 10 times the money of the YES side and that they gave citizenship to tens of thousands of immigrants in quebec, before the time, in order for them to vote no in the referendum. This has been said by many liberal organizers.

After these corrections, the PQ will make an initial constitution of Quebec with some fondamental laws. After that, it will launch a referendum on the accession of Quebec to independence. There will be a vote in the june congress to forget about the "special deal with Canada" for something with a more "international sense". I am for that. I, like most of you, believe that the question should be clear and that it should be made clear in the heads of the population of Quebec that a YES means real independance; we don't vote in further federal elections, we sign our own international treaties, etc... If the people don't want that, then we should not play with the words to get their vote. However, I also think that a negociation would be good. Many services could be kept in common; and we would pay for these services. Like some federal governemental societies like Post Canada. Of course Canadian should agree with that, if they don't we create our own. I am sure that both Quebec and Canada would win by keeping some services in common.

Once the referendum passes, there will be a series of breaking actions towards the federal. (like rapatriation of all taxes, creation of our external affairs ministry, etc...)

It is important to know that for the 18 years the PQ has been in power, even if there wasn't any referendum in sight, they were working for making that transition period easier. They created what we call "l'état québécois". We have way more ministeries that any other provinces, we have our own governmental financial societies, our own heavily funded arts councils, etc... Quebec is already somewhat "a sleeping state". In 1980, Quebec wasn't ready for becoming a country. Now, it is. And today, any country, has small has it may be, can prosper as long as they are part of a large market. And in America, there is no problem about that.

Lastly, there will be a second referendum, after the "tension periods" where there will be the ratification of the first constitution of Quebec. This constitution will have been developped in different forums engaging different people from all regions. It will be the first constitution, this very important document which dictate how we live together as a nation, which will not have been imposed to us by the English Crown.

There's one thing to know about Quebequers it that there are very nationalists, a vast majority of us here don't feel canadian. There is about 40% here who will vote independance no matter what. An additionnal 15-20% percent can be convinced in a referendum period. But these pourcentages could go way higher if they feel that their survivances as a culture is in danger. Like if the supreme court decided one day to make Bill 101 illegal, then Quebec would be out in no time.

To conclude, in my eyes, there is only one possible avenue for Canada as a whole; and this would be an interesting deal for Quebec as for the west. Massive decentralisation. We are a federation right now who wishes to become an unitarian state. If it became again a confederation with various states who take care of their own business but in some issues decide to join power in order to be more efficient. No perequation, no double ministries, no double taxation. Everything is done at the province level.

But this won't happen in a century because canadians "feel" canadian.

 

[Numure]

RE: Calling all Separatis

If theirs one thing one might notice, our discourse is quite clear. We all have the same goal, and somewhat a common vision of things.

I think we can conclude, that the only solution to Canada is Decentralisation.

Anyways, one thing is for sure, even if we split and remain associated, We won't be getting transfer payments. We won't pay for them either. Canada won't perceive taxes. We will give them an amount per capita for services rendered.

But as peps said, the new aim is full independance. With a clear question. That will be decided soon, at the next conference. I shall be apart of it.

 

[DasFX]

Re: RE: Calling all Separatists

If theirs one thing one might notice, our discourse is quite clear. We all have the same goal, and somewhat a common vision of things. I think we can conclude, that the only solution to Canada is Decentralisation.

So why don't we all work towards that goal. I mean collectively, the 10 provinces are much stronger than the federal government.

I don't think the provinces together have ever tried to solve the problem. Most of the time, the Federal government comes up with these accords, why doesn't the provincial governments come up with an accord and present it to the federal government?

 

[Machjo]

What about an EU type of agreement, but mybe more like an EUplus (i.e., it would include comon citizenship, so as not to divide bilingual, first nations and other families living on both sides of the border ( I assume both the feds and the sovereignists can at lest agree on few basic family values like no citizenship barrier between families, no)

 

[DasFX]

Re: RE: Calling all Separatists!

What about an EU type of agreement, but mybe more like an EUplus (i.e., it would include comon citizenship, so as not to divide bilingual, first nations and other families living on both sides of the border ( I assume both the feds and the sovereignists can at lest agree on few basic family values like no citizenship barrier between families, no)

The more and more I read, I get the feeling that Quebec doesn't want complete separation. When I think of separation, I'm thinking of forming a separate country, as separate as we are from Mongolia or Zimbabwe.

However, from the Globe and Mail poll and from those on this board, it sounds to me more like autonomous association. I've read on the PQ and BQ sites that Quebec would still keep the Canadian passport, currency; share a common defense force, and many other things synonymous of being part of the same country. What aspects or areas of independence / self-government is Quebec seeking.

What powers does Ottawa have that Quebec wants or needs to shape its own future and destiny?

I'm confused and I've taken the time to talk with Quebecer when I visit and read all available literature on the issue. So imagine what the average Canadian is feeling.

So really, what does Quebec want? I want specifics, not vague answers like I've been getting here.

 

[Machjo]

Re: RE: Calling all Separatists!

DasFX, I cn't nswer as a Quebecois because I'm not one, though I am a French Canadian and so am naturally concerned about the language (but even then, I'd willingly abandon special rights for French canadians in favour of special protection for First Nations' languages and cultures, but I fear most Quebecois aren't conserned about redressing their own historical wrongs against the first Nations, but rather only those of the anglophones agianst them). In the end, however, sovereingty itself is merely a restructuring of administrative structures. How much sovereingty are they loking for, i don't know. I haven't been living in Quebec for a while now (I've been in chin for the last three yers plus and I love it here). What concerns me more than anything however, is angloCanadian backlash and its potential repercussions. It sounds to me like you're bitter and so would rather take canada down completely rather than just let Quebec leave and build positive relations which could in fact include common citizenship. How does thqat expression go again, "Drown him even if I drown with him". Scary thing is, you just might succeed in destroying Quebec that way, but you'd destry Canada in the process as well.

 

[Jay]

I think we can conclude, that the only solution to Canada is Decentralisation.

Exactly. And it won't matter how load you yell it, or how many times you say it, or write it down, English Canada will not understand it. They have their centralization blinders on, and are going to hold on to centralization and add to it, even if it rips the federation apart. I call them stupid and selfish.

What is really happening here is English Canada is forming a new country, and Quebec didn't sign on to the new country, they want the old one. Since this isn't going to happen, Quebec is leaving and English Canada won't pull its head out of its a$$ long enough to figure out why.

 

[Jay]

You are wrong. We HAD a veto. But it was removed by Trudeau and his reforms.

No, I am not. A veto was offered in the Victoria Charter of 1971, in the amending formula that required approval of Ontario, Quebec, any two western provinces, and any two eastern provinces. That ensures a veto for Quebec, and everybody agreed, except Quebec, even though it was one of Quebec's demands. Shortly after that conference ended, Bourassa withdrew his agreement. The same formula was offered consistently throughout the 1970s, and was formally rejected twice by Levesque, in 1980 and 1981. Section 41, I believe it was, of the Meech Lake Accord gave every province an effective veto. Before that, as the Supreme Court made clear on December 6th, 1982, nobody had a veto. But the Meech Lake Accords never made it into law. You never had a veto.

And you may recall the role of Elijah Harper, an Aboriginal from Manitoba, in scuppering the Meech Lake Accords? It wasn't Trudeau's reforms.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp295-e.htm

"Nonetheless, from 1926 to 1981, there was little discussion of a Quebec veto, especially outside that province. The reason was simple. Legally, or constitutionally, the best argument for a Quebec veto appeared to be based on the premise that the agreement of every province was necessary to "patriate" or significantly alter the Constitution. This changed dramatically after the Supreme Court of Canada decided in 1981 that only a "substantial degree of provincial consent" was necessary.(1)"

 

[DasFX]

I think we can conclude, that the only solution to Canada is Decentralisation.

Exactly. And it won't matter how load you yell it, or how many times you say it, or write it down, English Canada will not understand it. They have their centralization blinders on, and are going to hold on to centralization and add to it, even if it rips the federation apart.

I don't think you can dump this all on English Canada. The west has very much the same concerns as Quebec. The call for decentralization is spreading. Newfoundland/Lab and NS are getting involved; Ontario is starting to make noise.

To be honest, it seems that only the Federal government is trying to retain this centrality. Quebec I think would get further ahead, faster and realize its goal with very little negative impact if it joined forces with other provinces and fought the federal government rather than fighting against them alone.

Average English Canadians don't see what Quebec is seeking, they don't understand. They only hear the negative spin. If Quebec could show that they want an autonomous association similar to the old confederation, then I think many in English Canada would join the cause.

 

[peps]

Here is my opinion on what would be an acceptable autonomous compromise.

- All taxation power to the province. Province then give back to federal for services wanted. Like defense, postal service.
- No perequation.
- All international accords are decided by the provinces in pronvincial comitees.
- No more CRTC, all cultural assets are determined by the provinces.
- Decrease the influence of the federal government in everyday life. By that, cutting the number of ministries only keeping the very essential. Everything else is administrated by the provinces. We are very tired here of the federals who are constantly gaining controls over our juridictions, it should be the contrary. Provinces, who are nearer the people, should gain powers from these no-good Ottawa politicians.

It would be more like 10 states, who join in common, in certain occasion when they feel they have something to gain from it. Federal no longer has that "paternalist" attitude which has actualy ruined Canada for over 40 years.

People are tired here of these endless and useless debates over federal reform. Everytime we tried, it failed. And that's why separation is gaining support. When Meech failed, support rose to 66%. But it is clear that by separating, Quebec doesn't want to make the rest of Canada ennemies. Historicaly, Quebequers were the first canadians and they still have a number of link towards the rest of Canada. But over time, these link are shredding.

A real compromise with the west, a great decentralisation and you kill the souvereignist mouvement; and we end that endless debate. I am sure of that. But I know it won't happen... at least not before 50 years, if not more. It's not in the advantage of the Maritiems province to accept such a deal, nor with the Yukon or Norh-East territories...

And yet, there is no party right now advocating such changes. Conservatives are a bit better on these issues than Liberals or NDP (which is the worst). But Conservatives, believe in federal powers, and they are way way too much socially conservative and that doesn't work at all here. Like 80% of Quebequers are ok with gay marriage; same thing with abortion. We don't feel crime is an issue here, and Harper constantly says there will be more prison time for criminals. And a few years before, Harper was anti-french anti-Bill 101 and that's not very inviting for us.

 

[DasFX]

Here is my opinion on what would be an acceptable autonomous compromise.

It would be more like 10 states, who join in common, in certain occasion when they feel they have something to gain from it. Federal no longer has that "paternalist" attitude which has actualy ruined Canada for over 40 years.

But I know it won't happen... at least not before 50 years, if not more. It's not in the advantage of the Maritiems province to accept such a deal, nor with the Yukon or Norh-East territories...

Wow, a separatist who has an open mind and is at least willing to consider a compromise. Excellent! If only we had more level headed people in places of power.

I think the decentralization you listed is fair. The international accords being negotiated by the provinces and bypassing the federal government might be interesting. This would all have to be negotiated and everyone is going to get everything they want. However nobody is going to get anything if we don't start an intelligent dialogue.

As for the Maritimes, they could function as one group with all 4 eastern provinces forming a regional state. As for the North, well they already don't have the powers that other provinces hold so they could remain more under Ottawa's control. I don't think they have the population to form a regional state.

Who knows what sort of agreement we could have, but no one is really trying. Everyone just keeps spinning the same old message. It is obvious all of them are not that great.

We've had no deal because the Liberals and Conservatives keep rehashing the same message decade after decade. And if separation was so great, then Quebec would have gone long ago instead of merely hoping to capitalize on a federal scandal to squeak out a 50% + 1 majority.

The best solution has not be presented to the Canadian people, why is that?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

... the best argument for a Quebec veto appeared to be based on the premise that the agreement of every province was necessary to "patriate" or significantly alter the Constitution.

What point are you trying to make with this? That's not about the law, that's about an argument from convention that had no formal legal status.

 

[Leveller]

Re: RE: Calling all Separatists!

But this won't happen in a century because canadians "feel" canadian.

This is an interesting question, maybe the most interesting question for Quebec and Canada. Quebec is very important, but not for sentimental reasons like "Canada is unique because of Quebec," etc. It's because for Quebec to assert its national self-determination is the most powerful thing happening north of the 49th that could bring about interesting, beneficial and long-overdue changes. Quebec is already independent now in terms of the thinking of the people, their national maturity, even the institutions they have created, as you point out. The only thing remaining is the timing of when the national self-determination will be asserted. I would love it if Quebec repealed the British North America Act, started a process in which all the people could be involved in the creation of a new constitution, and all the people could vote on it by direct and universal suffrage, etc. And then if Quebec would only deign to call on the rest of us to ALSO DO THE SAME THING. In other words, don't just make some bureaucratic arrangements with us about currency and passports and transportation and suchlike, but invite us to join you on your journey to renew society. We need that too. Quebec would then be independent, but would be neighbours with a friendly country that understood what it had gone through because we are going through a similar process. But Quebec is the breakthrough point for this, not Ontario or anywhere else. Quebec should invite us to wake up and smell the coffee. It's like, if you are neighbours with someone, and they are kind of backward in some respects, you invite them in a friendly way to improve themselves, so that you can have better neighbours. The interest of the Canadian people would be very high. They would be listening to every word coming from Quebec. The opportunity would be there for Quebec to speak as never before, to be heard, to show by example, to shine, to break out of the stale confines of the BNA. It could be a really good thing.

 

[Jay]

... the best argument for a Quebec veto appeared to be based on the premise that the agreement of every province was necessary to "patriate" or significantly alter the Constitution.

What point are you trying to make with this? That's not about the law, that's about an argument from convention that had no formal legal status.

The point is to demonstrate what the Quebec veto is or was.

You don't find that obvious?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

The point is to demonstrate what the Quebec veto is or was.

You don't find that obvious?

No, because it doesn't demonstrate any such thing. It demonstrates only that people argued about it, but as a matter of law, it didn't formally exist.

 

[Jay]

I read it to say that the veto wasn't for Quebec only, but existed within the amendment procedure. Everyone had to agree on amendments. If one didn't, the change would not take place and effectively, that is a veto. I read it to be that this was the case till the Charter. Now 2/3rds of the provinces are needed to make amendments, effectively destroying the "veto".

I think this sums up the “Veto” argument.

At one time there was ability for one province to squash amendments, now one can't do it alone.

You don’t see it that way..?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Calling all Separatists!

You don’t see it that way..?

No. Prior to Trudeau's patriation of the constitution, there wasn't really an amending formula prescribed in law because the main legal document was a statute of the British Parliament, which contained no amending clause. We got some power to change parts of it after 1949, and got complete control of it after patriation. Prior to that there were some assumptions about how it should be amended, including the requirement for unanimity, which turned out not to be true. The Supreme Court struck down that idea when asked about it, so Trudeau was able to patriate the constitution without unanimity, and in particular without the agreement of Québec.

Here's what the basic textbook on the institutions of the Government of Canada had to say about it in 1970: "The formal constitution, the British North America Act, has several claims to distinction, but the most unique are surely these: first, no one knows exactly how many times it has been amended; secondly, there is still doubt as to what is the actual (as opposed to the nominal) process of amendment. The chief reason for these peculiarities is that the act contains no amending clause; and the result of this neglect is that a substantial portion of the act is still amended by the passage of an ordinary act of the British Parliament. ... The people of Canada have so far (1970) been unable to decide what method of amendment they would like to have inserted in the act, and no action can be taken until they somehow contrive to make up their minds."

That predates patriation by over a decade, and was written just before the conference in Victoria in 1971 that started the constitutional negotiation process that eventually resulted in patriation. The book is: R. MacGregor Dawson, The Government of Canada, 5th edition, revised by Norman Ward, U. of Toronto Press, 1970. That particular paragraph, and much more about the state of things prior to all those constitutional negotiations that dragged on for over a decade, starts on page 119. It'll be perfectly clear to anyone who can scare up a copy of that old textbook and reads that chapter that nobody really knew how to amend the Canadian constitution prior to patriation. Nominally it was done by the Canadian Parliament asking the British Parliament to do it, but it was never defined what had to happen in Canada before the Canadian Parliament could take that step. Lots of people assumed unanimity among the provinces was required, but it was never put to the test and the Supreme Court eventually said it wasn't.

That's how I see it: no veto ever existed, for anybody, except for the legally omnipotent British Parliament.

 

[DasFX]

Re: RE: Calling all Separatists!

You don’t see it that way..?

No. Prior to Trudeau's patriation of the constitution, there wasn't really an amending formula prescribed in law because the main legal document was a statute of the British Parliament, which contained no amending clause. We got some power to change parts of it after 1949, and got complete control of it after patriation. Prior to that there were some assumptions about how it should be amended, including the requirement for unanimity, which turned out not to be true. The Supreme Court struck down that idea when asked about it, so Trudeau was able to patriate the constitution without unanimity, and in particular without the agreement of Québec.

Here's what the basic textbook on the institutions of the Government of Canada had to say about it in 1970: "The formal constitution, the British North America Act, has several claims to distinction, but the most unique are surely these: first, no one knows exactly how many times it has been amended; secondly, there is still doubt as to what is the actual (as opposed to the nominal) process of amendment. The chief reason for these peculiarities is that the act contains no amending clause; and the result of this neglect is that a substantial portion of the act is still amended by the passage of an ordinary act of the British Parliament. ... The people of Canada have so far (1970) been unable to decide what method of amendment they would like to have inserted in the act, and no action can be taken until they somehow contrive to make up their minds."

That predates patriation by over a decade, and was written just before the conference in Victoria in 1971 that started the constitutional negotiation process that eventually resulted in patriation. The book is: R. MacGregor Dawson, The Government of Canada, 5th edition, revised by Norman Ward, U. of Toronto Press, 1970. That particular paragraph, and much more about the state of things prior to all those constitutional negotiations that dragged on for over a decade, starts on page 119. It'll be perfectly clear to anyone who can scare up a copy of that old textbook and reads that chapter that nobody really knew how to amend the Canadian constitution prior to patriation. Nominally it was done by the Canadian Parliament asking the British Parliament to do it, but it was never defined what had to happen in Canada before the Canadian Parliament could take that step. Lots of people assumed unanimity among the provinces was required, but it was never put to the test and the Supreme Court eventually said it wasn't.

That's how I see it: no veto ever existed, for anybody, except for the legally omnipotent British Parliament.

Forget all this talk of the BNA act and the repatriation. We should scrap it all and start fresh with something that reflects our current social and economic situation.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Calling all Separatists!

Forget all this talk of the BNA act and the repatriation. We should scrap it all and start fresh with something that reflects our current social and economic situation.

Nice idea in principle, but there are so many entrenched interests I can't see that doing anything but creating massive political instability and uncertainty for a long time. Patriation (not repatriation) was, in the general scheme of things, a relatively minor constitutional change--most of the BNA Act still stands, for instance, including the crucial division of powers-- and it took about 60 years of more or less continuous discussion and negotiation, some of it very acrimonious and divisive, especially the last decade of it, to get there.

Education and health care are the major expense items in provincial budgets, but with the exception of Alberta (at least until the oil runs dry) and possibly Ontario, no province can pay for it all from its own revenue stream, hence the transfer of funds from federal coffers. So what do we do, transfer education and health to the national government which has the revenue, or transfer more taxing powers to the provinces? Big problems either way. I can't see the provinces agreeing to surrender that much, and the massive decentralization implied by the other option looks to me like a sure route to balkanization and the eventual destruction of the nation.

I don't know what the solution is, but I do think Canada, as a nation and an idea, is worth preserving.