Fière d'être Canadien????
Elvis @ Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:19 pm
grainfedprairieboy wrote????
$1:
How can you possibly argue that Queerbecors have been unfavourably taxed by the federal government?
I don't read my post again.
Est t'il plus rentable d'être quebecois ?
Ça c'est une bonne question Gazz mais vois tu ce que l'on sait avec certitude aujourd'hui c'est que ce ne sera pas une catastrophe. Mais plutôt un désagrément temporaire.
On ne fait pas parti d'un pays parce que c'est rentable, mais parce que l'on s'identifie à ce pays comme étant notre patrie. Cela n'a pas de prix! Les raisons économique des fédéralistes ne sont pas suffisante pour justifier le maintien du Québec dans la Fédération Canadienne. Il faut que les Québecois arrête de jouer leur double jeu et se branche. Soit on est des Canadiens de la province de Québec ou bien on est Québecois. Entre les deux, point de salut.
grainfedprairieboy @ Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:31 pm
Elvis Elvis:
Est t'il plus rentable d'être quebecois ?
Ça c'est une bonne question Gazz mais vois tu ce que l'on sait avec certitude aujourd'hui c'est que ce ne sera pas une catastrophe. Mais plutôt un désagrément temporaire.
On ne fait pas parti d'un pays parce que c'est rentable, mais parce que l'on s'identifie à ce pays comme étant notre patrie. Cela n'a pas de prix! Les raisons économique des fédéralistes ne sont pas suffisante pour justifier le maintien du Québec dans la Fédération Canadienne. Il faut que les Québecois arrête de jouer leur double jeu et se branche. Soit on est des Canadiens de la province de Québec ou bien on est Québecois. Entre les deux, point de salut.
Ça c'est une bonne question Gazz mais vois tu ce que l'on sait avec certitude aujourd'hui c'est que ce ne sera pas une catastrophe. Mais plutôt un désagrément temporaire.
On ne fait pas parti d'un pays parce que c'est rentable, mais parce que l'on s'identifie à ce pays comme étant notre patrie. Cela n'a pas de prix! Les raisons économique des fédéralistes ne sont pas suffisante pour justifier le maintien du Québec dans la Fédération Canadienne. Il faut que les Québecois arrête de jouer leur double jeu et se branche. Soit on est des Canadiens de la province de Québec ou bien on est Québecois. Entre les deux, point de salut.
I agree completely. Unfortunately this is not practiced by the separatists who spread economic propaganda. The spirit of Queerbec national identity however, can be argued would not exist had it not been for a Confederation which encouraged it.
Gazz @ Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:40 pm
Ben au quebec au dernier vote on ses identifer au canada !
Elvis @ Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Pas vraiment Gazz Les Québecois on choisit majoritairement rien. N'oublie pas que 60% des Québecois francophone ont voté oui. Et rien n'a été fait pour inclure c'est "Québecois" à la nation Canadienne.... Ahhhh bien sûre à part collé des drapeau du Kanada partout.
Gazz @ Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:49 pm
bla bla bla bla
grainfedprairieboy @ Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:47 pm
My french wife from Queerbec is interpreting your statement to mean you claim that Canada dose nothing to promote Queerbec? You have got to be kidding or she is interpreting wrong because from bilingualism to transfer payments to seats on Francophone organizations to French games and on and on no other province in Confederation even comes a close second. Hell, I’d reckon every other province combined wouldn’t come a close second.
I hate to appear antagonistic but as for 60% of the pure Queerbecois being in favour of sovereignty so what? They are a rapidly dwindling minority as the population stagnates with immigrants making up the new blood and traditional Queerbecors either leaving in droves or not making any new separatist babies.
Elvis @ Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:32 pm
grainfedprairieboy wrote
$1:
My french wife from Queerbec is interpreting your statement to mean you claim that Canada dose nothing to promote Queerbec?
That a weird interpretation. But I can understand the missunderstanding. Billinguisme is something that the Québec fédéralist want for Canada souvrainiste like my self could care less. As for the Francophonie goes this is something that the Québec State did without the original approval of the Canadian government.
If you want to know how much ordinary Quebecer are proud to be Canadian you just have to come to the Canada day celebration in Trois-Rivières. or Rimouski.
You wrote this earlier
$1:
Unfortunately this is not practiced by the separatists who spread economic propaganda.
Can you give me a fews exemple?
Experience has shown me that sometime peception of the ordinary Canadian on this subject is quite inacurate. (I don't blame you personally but the media coverage that you get in Canada)
grainfedprairieboy @ Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:32 pm
Elvis Elvis:
I can understand the missunderstanding. Billinguisme is something that the Québec fédéralist want for Canada
Agreed. And also lieberals pushing their Trudeautopian ideals.
Elvis Elvis:
souvrainiste like my self could care less.
Nor could Joe Albertan. Let the people speak what they want and get the government out of legislating it, financially supporting it etc.
Elvis Elvis:
As for the Francophonie goes this is something that the Québec State did without the original approval of the Canadian government.
Well, not quite a “State” yet, but good on them for exercising their Constitutuional rights. About the only good thing I can say about Queerbec is it has the fortitude to look after its own interests and doesn't sell its people out for the sake of political expediency.
Elvis Elvis:
If you want to know how much ordinary Quebecer are proud to be Canadian you just have to come to the Canada day celebration in Trois-Rivières. or Rimouski.
I've got a cabin about an hour south of Queerbec city where I am known as the local 'bloke'. I fly a massive Alberta flag there and keep the truck registered in Alberta. The several thousand I pay each year to replace windows and paint over the graffiti is a small price to pay for exercising my freedom of expression and patriotism and observing theirs.
Elvis Elvis:
You wrote this earlier
$1:
Unfortunately this is not practiced by the separatists who spread economic propaganda.
Can you give me a fews exemple? [/quote]
I don't think I know where to begin. Lets start with the fiscal imbalance. Queerbecors are often instructed that they disproportionately pay into Confederation when virtually every economist outside Canada, no matter how they slice it, tallies up Queerbec being disproportionately subsidised by Alberta, BC and Ontario. Do you disagree?
Elvis Elvis:
Experience has shown me that sometime peception of the ordinary Canadian on this subject is quite inacurate. (I don't blame you personally but the media coverage that you get in Canada)
Agreed. The media here is anything but unbiased. It is concentrated in the hands of a few with a definite agenda. Having said that, it is very Queerbec sympathetic.
Elvis @ Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:18 pm
$1:
I don't think I know where to begin. Lets start with the fiscal imbalance. Queerbecors are often instructed that they disproportionately pay into Confederation when virtually every economist outside Canada, no matter how they slice it, tallies up Queerbec being disproportionately subsidised by Alberta, BC and Ontario. Do you disagree?
Sure your right but souvrainiste like my self don't want to be dependent on the Canadian federation. The perequation wealth sharing is the only argument left for the Quebec federalist. like streaker call them (Fédéraliste Rentable)
On a side note did you know that the perequation payment that Québec receive represent only 2% of it annual budget? it is not that much you know. But the way they portrait it it's like a real big deal. Here our dear media is constantly reminding us how much dependent we are when in fact we could very well do without. Here our media are very Canada friendly All the Press is own by Gesca communication who is extremly federalist and Québecor média who is more pernicious the only independent newspaper here is Le Devoir who is rated amongst one of the best newspaper among all the Francophonie.
Beside Le Devoir is there any truly independent newspaper in Canada.
grainfedprairieboy @ Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:06 pm
Elvis Elvis:
Sure your right but souvrainiste like my self don't want to be dependent on the Canadian federation.
I am not so sure about that. For example, 51% of all dairy products consumed in Alberta by Federal law must originate in Quebec. In spite of this sort of discrimination, when Quebec dairy farmers were questioned as to the likelihood of this favourable treatment being extended to a sovereign Quebec they were to a farmer convinced that this would continue. Now you likely believe the same thing and that is fine.
Elvis Elvis:
The perequation wealth sharing is the only argument left for the Quebec federalist. like streaker call them (Fédéraliste Rentable)
Much of the debate over Quebec separation has centered around federalists highlighting negative economic impacts with separatists dismissing these with countering fantasy economics. Quebec, like most provinces and certainly the Federal government, is wholly incapable of properly managing its economy and has squandered the inheritance of its future generations. Quebecors under 40 are considered to be the first generation in its history that will not achieve a standard of living superior to the preceding generation. If Quebec wishes to exasperate this problem as a trade off for nationhood then I agree, that should be its prerogative.
Elvis Elvis:
On a side note did you know that the perequation payment that Québec receive represent only 2% of it annual budget? it is not that much you know. But the way they portrait it it's like a real big deal.
I disagree with your assessment. Empirical evidence suggests anywhere from 10-25% of its GDP is gleaned from the efforts of taxpayers in the ROC. But again this is semantics and lets face it, no economic argument I can make will change your mind.
Elvis Elvis:
Beside Le Devoir is there any truly independent newspaper in Canada.
No. But there is the independent weekly Western Standard.
It is an awkward position for me to defend retaining Quebec in Confederation. I personally believe that Canada would be far better off both socially and economically if it could be free of the political shackles of its French masters.
As a Canadian patriot disillusioned with the way Confederation has been corrupted I still believe it is possible to reConfederate this country into a real nation that also respects the integral rights and differences of its various regions. Since Quebec is unlikely to relinquish its near stranglehold on federal power, Canada in my opinion would be a better, stronger and prouder nation without Quebec as the proverbial albatross.
If you really are a separatist and want to realize your dream of nationhood, why not illustrate to Canadians the massive benefits of a Canada without Quebec. Perhaps the knowledge acquired through the development of this new critical position will better prepare sovereignties in general.
Cmmd1 @ Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:10 am
"If you really are a separatist and want to realize your dream of nationhood, why not illustrate to Canadians the massive benefits of a Canada without Quebec. Perhaps the knowledge acquired through the development of this new critical position will better prepare sovereignties in general."
I don't think that Canada will be better. If yes, why Canada try SOOOOOO hard to keep us ?
Canada will not be longer in G8. And not longer the 2nd biggest territory.
Quebec too, but we will be in U.N , the Nord-america-free-trade, Kyoto and other mondial organisation.
But yes, Canada will be a "True" country. No more debate between Quebec vs Canada.
We will a sssssssssooooooo good rivality at Hockey !!!! I WANT TO SEE QUEBEC vs CANADA !!!!
grainfedprairieboy @ Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:40 am
Cmmd1 Cmmd1:
I don't think that Canada will be better. If yes, why Canada try SOOOOOO hard to keep us ?
The influence on Canadian society by Quebec has been indisputably massive. From culture, to values to politics no other province or region comes close by comparison. There is also the fear of change/unknown and the psychological impact of rejection. Further, a disproportionate share of Quebec federal bureaucrats also has had an impact.
Cmmd1 Cmmd1:
Canada will not be longer in G8.
Of course it will. Canada was brought into the G7 originally at the insistence of the USA in order to prevent the Europeans from dominating the organisation. With Quebec gone Canada will be far more likely to return to closer political ties and will strengthen their relationship with the US and by default, will see a reemergence in influencing world bodies and events.
Cmmd1 Cmmd1:
And not longer the 2nd biggest territory.
I reject pride of landmass as a reason for enduring the tyranny of Quebec. And of course, it is perfectly legal for Quebec to separate. It is also considered legal for regions within Quebec to remain in Canada. Most of the province's land mass was ceded to it for administrative purposes only. The bulk of the people in the north and along the borders would likely choose to remain in Canada in a follow on referendum. This is a reality that sovereingntists either conveniently ignore or believe that Quebec's current borders are somehow indisputable. Following the dust settling a yes vote, the Quebec a year later would likely be much smaller in area and closer to the landmass it brought into Confederation, then it is today.
Cmmd1 Cmmd1:
Quebec too, but we will be in U.N , the Nord-america-free-trade, Kyoto and other mondial organisation.
Of course it will. A Canada without Quebec would return to a much more pragmatic State and it would serve us absolutely no purpose to not do as much as we can to include Quebec in trade agreements we are part of.
Curious, why not renegotiate your place in Confederation? For Quebec the effects of sovereignty for at least 2 generations are largely negative, like a tapeworm being removed from the host. Why not use your position of absolute dominance to reestablish your place in Canada while at the same time addressing your concerns?
Bodah @ Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:42 pm
Elvis Elvis:
grainfedprairieboy wrote
That a weird interpretation. But I can understand the missunderstanding. Billinguisme is something that the Québec fédéralist want for Canada souvrainiste like my self could care less.
$1:
My french wife from Queerbec is interpreting your statement to mean you claim that Canada dose nothing to promote Queerbec?
That a weird interpretation. But I can understand the missunderstanding. Billinguisme is something that the Québec fédéralist want for Canada souvrainiste like my self could care less.
Maybe your a different type of sovereigntist but the ones I know, and they are sovereigntists cheer on the bilingualism policy zealously if it can get them a job making 40K + a year.
They of course are under the impression that they would still be able to work in a foreign country's government if should Quebec should become a independent nation.
Dont get me wrong, nothing more than I'd like to see Quebec finally have a place they can call home so both sides can get on with their lives.
I just think theres alot of bull shit flying around the topic.
Elvis @ Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:03 pm
Bodah maybe this will interest you
Patriot love, Quebec-style
$1:
Brigitte Pellerin
The Ottawa Citizen - vendredi 14 juillet 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tuesday I was lamenting the prevalence of nationalism (negative and jealous) over patriotism (positive and proud) in English Canada. So you may be expecting something similar today with regard to Quebec nationalism. Euh, yes, well. See, the thing is, it’s a lot less one-sided over there. Strange, but true.
For some Quebecers, separation of sovereignty is a tool for intimidating the rest of Canada into giving Quebec more power or money, or both, within the Canadian federation.
And, boy, do we know who they are. They are the ones who want Quebec’s specificity, or its nation-ness, officially recognized in the Constitution.
And don’t think they’re all separatists hovering over Jacques Parizeau’s dentist chair. They include the current provincial Liberal government, starting with Premier Jean Charest and his Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Benoît Pelletier, who recently said that while there were no immediate plans to launch a new round of talks on the subject of Quebec’s special place within Canada, "constitutional ambitions remain". Such people may not be explicitely using the direct threat of separation to get what they want. But a bit like former Liberal premier Robert Bourassa at the time of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, they know they don’t have to take the "S" weapon out and wave it around for everyone to know it’s there.
It’s hard to classify these "federalists" or so-called soft nationalists as either patriotic or really nationalist. In the immortal words of comic Yvon Deschamps, what they want is a strong Quebec within a unified Canada. So there’s not much proud patriotism there. But also not a whole lot of bitter jealousy. More a kind of emotional void. (Arguably, it’s an intellectual one as well).
This group also seems to me to include the likes of current Parti Québécois leader André Boisclair, who openly say they want Quebec to be sovereign but don’t quite mean it. It’s as though they were more interested in gaining and wielding power than in "emancipating" their people. Neither hot nor cold, they keep explaining, like Mr. Boisclair did last month, that "sovereignty is not an end in itself," but rather "a toolbox for the future" and that "we want more than sovereignty...we want a successful Quebec." It sounds superficially reasonable, but it’s really quite reasonless. A true patriot knows why sovereignty spells success.
Listening to such lukewarm mush almost makes you appreciate the anti-anglo separatist nationalist types who want their own country to be rid of what they see as anglais domination. It’s a predominantly negative sentiment : they want a sandbox of their own to guard jealously against invasion. It’s a silly reason to want a new country, but at least it beats not having one.
Slightly better, in terms of patriotism, are those who wish to have their own country not because they hate anglos but because they believe it’s important, perhaps even crucial, for this numerically small people of French language and culture to protect their heritage and distinct way of life with all the disposal of a sovereign state. PQ founder René Lévesque was very much like that - at least in this early political years. While he famously said Canada wasn’t the gulag, he also evidently thought it wasn’t good enough for Quebecers’ aspirations as a people. But his separatism was not primarily characterized by intense resentment.
His followers today (not all of whom are in the PQ) have an almost semi-messianic mission. Just last week former PQ leadership contender Louis Bernard wrote in Le Devoir that being a country would give Quebec a way to fulfill "its responsibilities vis-à-vis humanity" by being "a model for the world, different than Canada’s". The example he gave was implementing Kyoto, though there have been others in the past, from promoting peace and understanding to celebrating francophone cultural accomplishments to implementing always more generous social policies. Thus, he wrote, while "Quebec may not have good reasons to break up Canada, it has good reasons to want to become a country."
Of course creating their own country would mean breaking up Canada. But to people like Mr. Bernard it’s collateral damage, not the main motivation. And the main motive is positive not negative.
Perhaps you wouldn’t care to live in his country if it existed. I know I wouldn’t - too small, too French and certainly too lefty for me. But at least the vision Mr. Bernard and his ideological fellows have of their hypothetical country’s mission is a positive one, something that, were they to pull it off, would probably make them extremely proud. In a very patriotic way.
I know it sounds weird, but English-Canadians might want to follow these guys’ example in how they think about their country.
The Ottawa Citizen - vendredi 14 juillet 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tuesday I was lamenting the prevalence of nationalism (negative and jealous) over patriotism (positive and proud) in English Canada. So you may be expecting something similar today with regard to Quebec nationalism. Euh, yes, well. See, the thing is, it’s a lot less one-sided over there. Strange, but true.
For some Quebecers, separation of sovereignty is a tool for intimidating the rest of Canada into giving Quebec more power or money, or both, within the Canadian federation.
And, boy, do we know who they are. They are the ones who want Quebec’s specificity, or its nation-ness, officially recognized in the Constitution.
And don’t think they’re all separatists hovering over Jacques Parizeau’s dentist chair. They include the current provincial Liberal government, starting with Premier Jean Charest and his Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Benoît Pelletier, who recently said that while there were no immediate plans to launch a new round of talks on the subject of Quebec’s special place within Canada, "constitutional ambitions remain". Such people may not be explicitely using the direct threat of separation to get what they want. But a bit like former Liberal premier Robert Bourassa at the time of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, they know they don’t have to take the "S" weapon out and wave it around for everyone to know it’s there.
It’s hard to classify these "federalists" or so-called soft nationalists as either patriotic or really nationalist. In the immortal words of comic Yvon Deschamps, what they want is a strong Quebec within a unified Canada. So there’s not much proud patriotism there. But also not a whole lot of bitter jealousy. More a kind of emotional void. (Arguably, it’s an intellectual one as well).
This group also seems to me to include the likes of current Parti Québécois leader André Boisclair, who openly say they want Quebec to be sovereign but don’t quite mean it. It’s as though they were more interested in gaining and wielding power than in "emancipating" their people. Neither hot nor cold, they keep explaining, like Mr. Boisclair did last month, that "sovereignty is not an end in itself," but rather "a toolbox for the future" and that "we want more than sovereignty...we want a successful Quebec." It sounds superficially reasonable, but it’s really quite reasonless. A true patriot knows why sovereignty spells success.
Listening to such lukewarm mush almost makes you appreciate the anti-anglo separatist nationalist types who want their own country to be rid of what they see as anglais domination. It’s a predominantly negative sentiment : they want a sandbox of their own to guard jealously against invasion. It’s a silly reason to want a new country, but at least it beats not having one.
Slightly better, in terms of patriotism, are those who wish to have their own country not because they hate anglos but because they believe it’s important, perhaps even crucial, for this numerically small people of French language and culture to protect their heritage and distinct way of life with all the disposal of a sovereign state. PQ founder René Lévesque was very much like that - at least in this early political years. While he famously said Canada wasn’t the gulag, he also evidently thought it wasn’t good enough for Quebecers’ aspirations as a people. But his separatism was not primarily characterized by intense resentment.
His followers today (not all of whom are in the PQ) have an almost semi-messianic mission. Just last week former PQ leadership contender Louis Bernard wrote in Le Devoir that being a country would give Quebec a way to fulfill "its responsibilities vis-à-vis humanity" by being "a model for the world, different than Canada’s". The example he gave was implementing Kyoto, though there have been others in the past, from promoting peace and understanding to celebrating francophone cultural accomplishments to implementing always more generous social policies. Thus, he wrote, while "Quebec may not have good reasons to break up Canada, it has good reasons to want to become a country."
Of course creating their own country would mean breaking up Canada. But to people like Mr. Bernard it’s collateral damage, not the main motivation. And the main motive is positive not negative.
Perhaps you wouldn’t care to live in his country if it existed. I know I wouldn’t - too small, too French and certainly too lefty for me. But at least the vision Mr. Bernard and his ideological fellows have of their hypothetical country’s mission is a positive one, something that, were they to pull it off, would probably make them extremely proud. In a very patriotic way.
I know it sounds weird, but English-Canadians might want to follow these guys’ example in how they think about their country.
I think you can guess what type I am.
grainfedprairieboy @ Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:21 pm
I can't.