Why is it better to build goodwill

Building bridges betweens citizens is a GOOD idea, but only to a point. Separatists shouldn't be coddled. They are the spoiled children of confederation, and it still isn't enough. Building bridges between the federal government and any province is appeasement. Ask the British how well appeasing someone who doesn't want to be appeased works.

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed] Ask the British how well appeasing someone who doesn't want to be appeased works.[/QUOTE] Perhaps the Brits should not have tried to "appease", but to agree on what exactly the colonies were disagreeing on in order to better hang on to them. Check with the great Mahatma: what really matters is not the end point (i.e. separation or stay together), but the path that you travel. The days of the empires are hopefully all over anyhow. Goodwill seems to work better: Québécois have already said no twice on their referendums and the PQ is out. New blood has not been exactly pouring in. Québécois recognize the same need for a multicultural open society than the ROC. What more can you ask for? Some people will always find matters to bicker over and are better left simply ignored. Perhaps we can agree to disagree on this point?

Well, Im Catholic, guilty as charged. So I still believe in staying for better or worse with our marriage!

To some extent I think some of the vehemence (seems to be more one sided here though) can be contributed to the fact that we all know this is all a hypothetical enterprise-unless you live in Quebec. The fact is that Quebec will have referendums when and if it chooses and there really isn't anything the ROC can do. I find it amusing the lengths some people go to to explain why or why not Quebec will or won't have another referendum. Quebec 'has the power' to ask what it wants 'or else' and will follow through on it-good for them! Everywhere else in the country whines about the feds and knows they can't do a damn thing about it. I think that may irk a lot of people right there. They have power-we don't. Even if trade wars or constitution talks took place, it's only Quebecers who would have a say. All those people who were elected and most canadians don't like would be calling the shots for english canada. Here's an interesting idea for running the country. We know that there's a Parti Quebecois who want to separate from Canada. Well, what if EVERY province started a party that was, if not going to separate, existed solely for the benefit of the province. So there would be a Manitoba Party, a Saskatchewan Party, etc. If nothing else it would make federal politics far more interesting.

[QUOTE BY= Macdonald/Borden] Well, Im Catholic, guilty as charged. So I still believe in staying for better or worse with our marriage! [/QUOTE] Don't count on catholicism for that! In Quebec, 99%+ of francos are catholics! The difference between francos and anglos is that anglos don`t have a habit of rocking the established order, even if it doesn't make sense. That you are still stuck with medieval institutions like the Monarchy is beyond us. Same with catholicism. Quebeckers, since the quiet revolution, have taken what they needed out of catholicism and left the rest. I would say that most Quebeckers go to Church at Christmas and Easter, have their children baptised, religious funerals for their dead loved ones, and get married in the Church as opposed to a civil marriage. A Quebecker won't feel less Catholic if he goes against what the Church says about sex before marriage, homosexuality, divorce, etc.

To some extent the previous message is true, but not to a far extent. Most of the things we have that we consider 'uniquely canadian'- our system of medicare, what was previously a decent system of unemployment insurance, what was previously a decent system of health and safety protections, a more equitable division of wealth (you can insert some of your own views here) came as a result of anglos 'rocking the boat'. We also have to remember that as of now it is still a minority of Quebecers who want sovereignty, likewise there are minorities of anglos all over canada, some right on this website and including this website, who are rocking the boat. As I've said before, the PQ hasn't been a grassroots party since they came to power, so for all the idealistic talk there is no evidence that when and if Quebec separates that it will act any less fascist than english canada. Of course the separatists here arguing may make claims about how an independant quebec will function, but they have no more power than the english canadians here who make a claim as to how our federal government will act.

[QUOTE]Marcarc We also have to remember that as of now it is still a minority of Quebecers who want sovereignty,[/QUOTE] A pretty important minority. If you take into account the federalist's fraud in the 1995 referendum (naturalization of immigrants at the last minute, Committee to register voters outside Quebec, registration of non-residents, "love rallye", the yes side would have won. [QUOTE]if Quebec separates that it will act any less fascist than english canada. [/QUOTE] What is your point with this repeated statement, Marcarc? Canada sees itself as the most tolerant society, as the best country in the world! You know Quebec is not fascist. It is the most progressive society in NA. [QUOTE] Of course the separatists here arguing may make claims about how an independant quebec will function, but they have no more power than the english canadians here who make a claim as to how our federal government will act.[/QUOTE] At least the issues that are important to us, like our identity, will be narrowed down.

If the PQ had had a legal leg to stand on in the last referendum they no doubt would have used it. I'm not saying it's not a small minority, but we can't assume to speak for all canadians. One french Quebecer on this website said quite clearly that there are conditions which could exist which would make them not vote for sovereignty. In studies of canada the only place it seems where Quebecers and canadians have a commonality is in distrust of its politicians and the PQ fared no better. Personally, I think that if there had been considerable focus on the structure of Quebec sovereignty,then the referendum would have passed no problem. But that's just me. My thinking is that if english canada functioned more along the lines of a loose federation of states with a different structure of federalism then quebecers may see things differently. This, of course, is precisely what the charlottetown accord promised and canadians voted it down. So, like I've said before, I'm not hopeful that many people agree with me. But dammit, I'll fight to the death for your freedom to vote against me-as long as you're voting!<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'>

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] To some extent the previous message is true, but not to a far extent. Most of the things we have that we consider 'uniquely canadian'- our system of medicare, what was previously a decent system of unemployment insurance, what was previously a decent system of health and safety protections, a more equitable division of wealth (you can insert some of your own views here) came as a result of anglos 'rocking the boat'. We also have to remember that as of now it is still a minority of Quebecers who want sovereignty, likewise there are minorities of anglos all over canada, some right on this website and including this website, who are rocking the boat. As I've said before, the PQ hasn't been a grassroots party since they came to power, so for all the idealistic talk there is no evidence that when and if Quebec separates that it will act any less fascist than english canada. Of course the separatists here arguing may make claims about how an independant quebec will function, but they have no more power than the english canadians here who make a claim as to how our federal government will act.[/QUOTE] in reality, the new approach of the PQ will be to make thing clear. before a new referendum, the functionement of the new quebec will be know and public. And i think it's a very good thing to do...

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] If the PQ had had a legal leg to stand on in the last referendum they no doubt would have used it. I'm not saying it's not a small minority, but we can't assume to speak for all canadians. One french Quebecer on this website said quite clearly that there are conditions which could exist which would make them not vote for sovereignty. In studies of canada the only place it seems where Quebecers and canadians have a commonality is in distrust of its politicians and the PQ fared no better. Personally, I think that if there had been considerable focus on the structure of Quebec sovereignty,then the referendum would have passed no problem. But that's just me. My thinking is that if english canada functioned more along the lines of a loose federation of states with a different structure of federalism then quebecers may see things differently. This, of course, is precisely what the charlottetown accord promised and canadians voted it down. So, like I've said before, I'm not hopeful that many people agree with me. But dammit, I'll fight to the death for your freedom to vote against me-as long as you're voting!<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'>[/QUOTE] Don't forget that the PQ was not alone in 1995. Mario Dumont had joined the yes side. The next referendum won't be a PQ-only thing. My predictions is that all other parties, and there are a lot more now (insatisfaction with the PQ), will join the yes side. "Patapouf" will be left alone and will beg for federalist support. As I said before, I would have been happy with Meech Lake Accord and I think a majority of Quebeckers would have agreed. But Canada has never, and will never recognize us. Let's not open that can of worms again.

[QUOTE BY= Delenda Carthago]As I said before, I would have been happy with Meech Lake Accord and I think a majority of Quebeckers would have agreed. But Canada has never, and will never recognize us. Let's not open that can of worms agaian.[/QUOTE] That last sentance completely underlines the problems in Canada today. All of our problems could be solved if we tried another pakage of major Constitutional reforms, but there is no will to do it. I'm too young to remember Meech and Charlottetown, but I think one of the main reasons they failed was because they were put forward by the same guy who sold Canada off to American corporations. If we employed the Citizen's Assembly model to Constitutional reform, perhaps we could create a new proposal that would be acceptable to most Canadians, and would be free of partisan overtones. I also think that at the time of the Meech/Charlottetown Accords, we still had a lot of people around who thought the best way to solve the so-called "Quebec Problem" was to assimilate Quebecers. Now, I'm not saying I'm glad the people with these opinions have died, I'm just saying I'm glad these ideas are now concidered archaic and inappropriate. The only issue I could see remaining a devicive point in Quebec-ROC relations is the Monarchy. The main reason I think that ROC-ers don't trust republicans is because the most high-profile republican in Anglo-Canada is John Manley, who isn't exactly the model sovereigntist. That is one of the more unfortunate things about english Canada, a constant fear of assimilation into the US that francophones don't have to worry about to the same degree. The only solution I see to this problem is for the ROC to be assimilated into Quebec's culture, which I would prefer much more to being assimilated into American culture. Anyways, wasn't the main reason Meech failed the lack of reforms concerning Aboriginals anyway, something nothing to do with Quebec specifically?

[QUOTE BY= michou]Great suggestion however, Canadians will start complaining about being distinct and will refuse to become assimilated into Québec's culture and language. After all Québec has given and done ... how ungrateful of them ! What Canada needs most is to have a Quiet Revolution of their own. [/QUOTE] Right now, I can see only three paths for the ROC, none of which are maintain the status quo. The first is the easiest: we assimilate into American culture, but after the dramatic upsurge in American fundementalism, most of us are turned off by that idea. The second is what I think is most likely to happen: Quebec and the ROC come to have similar values, and a significant cultural exchange occurs and we realize and appreciate that for all our differences, all of Canada's cultures do have one underlying similarity that make our country distinct from the rest of the world. The third is the least likely to happen, which would be the total "Quebecanization" of Canada, which would certainly solve a lot of problems, but would deny over 200 years of non-francophone contribution to Canadian society. I really think the counrtry most of us would wish to be a part of could best be described as a multicultural nation with two dominant cultures that appreciate and accentuate each other, ying and yang, with a significant contribution from this land's first peoples, and an ever growing community of diverse peoples from across the globe.