A Budget under a sovereign Quebec

Fine. You know better than me. The question remains the same : 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. I think the Mohawks would be better served by the Government of Québec since it is located on the Québec territory... Yeah ! Maybe there has been some errors by the past... We will try to sort things out.

There is no 'strategy' here, look elsewhere for propaganda reactions and ulterior motives, if you'd pay attention you know quite well that I've stated often that I would personally vote Yes if I were in Quebec. Keep in mind that all your replies can also be stated about Quebec sovereignty. Canadians can claim that Quebec is far better off within canadian territory, that canada has made mistakes but we will 'sort it out'. Of course thats what an imperial power will say, but as you say elsewhere, there are a thousand reasons for Quebec to separate. Likewise there are a thousand reasons NOT to separate-but that's not the issue. The issue is the rights of secession, which the federal government has already agreed is quite legitimate, although the terms are disputed. Meaning that if Quebecers vote to separate then that decision must be respected. Likewise the same thing goes for natives who wish to secede, and have done so even more emphatically than Quebecers. Most mohawks, and most natives will not even participate in federal or provincial elections, and often rarely even partake in the tribal elections that have been forced on them by the federal government, while the PQ does so for Quebecers. YOU and Quebec have no right to decide what form of government mohawks wish to enact and whether they are 'better off' as part of Quebec, just as canadians have no right to tell you what form you want. And THATS just the beginning of the story.

Ok, sorry, I misunderstood that earlier remark that the reserves would stay as part of Canada. That makes some sense, creates some problems and resolves others. There have been some claims that many high level bureaucrats wanted the Quebec referendum to secede so it could 'pass the buck' of native governance onto Quebec. In THAT case then the concerns that I mentioned have some validity. The trouble is that native treaties are yet to be resolved which makes creating concrete land claims for Quebec a problem. What becomes of federal crown land, for example, or even provincial crown land. If natives have a treaty right to access crown land now, then it would be strange to see native groups in treaty negotiations with Ottawa to establish their rights in Quebec. However, land claims have been passed down to Quebec already somewhat, so there may not be much of an issue there. The biggest problem is that of course you are just some shmoe like me sitting in front of a computer and you will not decide your governments policy any more than I will, so you really can't claim what your government will do.

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Ok, sorry, I misunderstood that earlier remark that the reserves would stay as part of Canada. That makes some sense, creates some problems and resolves others. There have been some claims that many high level bureaucrats wanted the Quebec referendum to secede so it could 'pass the buck' of native governance onto Quebec. In THAT case then the concerns that I mentioned have some validity. The trouble is that native treaties are yet to be resolved which makes creating concrete land claims for Quebec a problem. What becomes of federal crown land, for example, or even provincial crown land. If natives have a treaty right to access crown land now, then it would be strange to see native groups in treaty negotiations with Ottawa to establish their rights in Quebec. However, land claims have been passed down to Quebec already somewhat, so there may not be much of an issue there. The biggest problem is that of course you are just some shmoe like me sitting in front of a computer and you will not decide your governments policy any more than I will, so you really can't claim what your government will do.[/QUOTE] He he... schmoe yeah ! For a Mohawk governement why not ? I think Québec has to be stronger and offer something good for the 11 Nations of its territory to be partners in that new Québec country. I'm sorry Marc but I am now a convinced sovereignist since that Gomery Commission and try to convince people to vote YES to the next referendum. Before, I was a "not so sure sovereignist" but now no doubt ... Sorry for Canada ! Many reasons... One in many, that 330 000 000 $ put on the table to put canadian flags in my face to make you love this country. Corruption done by Québécois federalists afterwards... that is interpretated as being done by Québécois (not federalists just Québécois)... Québécois bashing in the ROC ! What kind of reputation all this mess makes us ? And that's not the fault of sovereignists. Not at all... Some will say : if those sovereignists weren't there in the first place !!! Well, that is very low... and it proves the impossibility of this country... If I were a Canadian I would start to think in a futur Canada without Québec... The Québécois are more different than the Canadians are different than the Americans !!! And still you hold to your country vs USA ! Why

[QUOTE] The Québécois are more different than the Canadians are different than the Americans !!! And still you hold to your country vs USA ! Why [/QUOTE] This has been answered many times in these forums, by various people. For one thing, Canada is *not* just anglophones and francophones; the vast majority of immigrants in the past century have not had english or french as a first language. Canada is a multicultural country, a collection of nationalities within a common territory. If Canada can peacefully have a large Chinese population, then it can have a large quebecois population and still remain as a complete country. As for holding onto Canada vs the USA, that is mainly economic, not cultural.

There are tons of differences between americans and canadians, but they are not cultural OR economic, they are POLITICAL. We have a vastly different political arena. We both have large groups of immigrants from all over, all of them play by the rules of our various governments, which to me is something far different from multiculturalism. Our idea of multiculturalism simply means we won't use state forces to harass you, unless its a sexuality issue. Both country's have ways of 'keeping people in line', the most obvious example of this is native people, but there are others as well. Even mennonites and other religious groups have to modify their beliefs in order to function within our society or else they will be run out. Hardly a 'multicultural' ideal. The grim reality is that the US is the name of a federal country, and Canada is the name of a federal country and the differences are therefore political. There are some canadians that think and act a certain way, and there are some americans that think and act a certain way. Economically both countries have adopted the originally british subsidized form of market capitalism, the differences, as I said, are not economic because both use restricted versions of the profit motive and private property to govern agendas. As far as multiculturalism goes, it's ludicrous to define it in terms of 'we'll let you have a parade' or 'we won't arrest you' as modes of definition. Canada, like every country, has a set of rules that people must abide by or they will not be accepted here. This is why natives live on the periphery of our society, if our country were even remotely 'multicultural', this minority with treaty access to many resources would be the wealthiest in the country, far from it. As far as multicultural goes, people think of 'culture' as historical geneology, far from it. The best way I can explain my point is by looking out east on my current research on Liquified Natural Gas terminals out east. In Maine, every town along the coast had a referenda on whether to allow it, and in every case voted against it, however, the arguments were sometimes different, reflecting the different personalities of the various towns. To me that's multicultural. Any of those towns was free to show it's diversion and vote for it, or some variant of it. Now go north to New Brunswick where of course we have no such rights. There are no referenda, in fact you can read about it in the business friendly National Post where even they denounce the whole thing as a travesty (http://www.canada.com/national/national ... a3760b3731) In case you can't be bothered its about how not only was there no referendum available for the people of St.John, Kenneth Irving went to the mayor who told the council that they had to vote on a resolution THAT DAY to give them a 100 million property tax break. My point is that our economic systems aren't much different, we are both made up of an oppressed original population and various geneologies. What is different is our political system which governs all those things, and there are fundamental differences there in culture. The political system itself is the primary cultural model, and from what I've read that won't even change in a sovereign Quebec.

Premièrement, Frank Legault est un comptable de profession. Quand tu sais comment jouer avec des chiffres, tu peux faire presque n'importe quoi. Je le sais, je suis un comptable aussi. Le Québec recoit $1.5 milliards de plus qu'il contribue à la confédération à chaque année, en plus des subventions données aux entreprises siègées au Québec (Bombardier, Air Canada, Alcan, etc.) La, Frank se retourne et prédit un surplus de $5 milliards dans la 5e année qui suit une déclaration d'indépendence. Je savais que les souvrainistes étaient rêveurs, mais jamais autant que ça!!! First of all, François Legault is an accountant. I can affirm that if you know how to play with numbers, you make them to anything. I know this, I am an accountant myself. Quebec receives $1.5 billion a year more than it contributes to the confederation, not including the various subsidies provided to Quebec head-quartered companies. With all this money, the province still can't pay for its own social programs, yet Legault predicts a surplus of $5 billion within 5 years of independence. I knew sovereignists were dreamers, I just didn't figure it was to this extent.

[QUOTE BY= MadeInCanada] Premièrement, Frank Legault est un comptable de profession. Quand tu sais comment jouer avec des chiffres, tu peux faire presque n'importe quoi. Je le sais, je suis un comptable aussi. Le Québec recoit $1.5 milliards de plus qu'il contribue à la confédération à chaque année, en plus des subventions données aux entreprises siègées au Québec (Bombardier, Air Canada, Alcan, etc.) La, Frank se retourne et prédit un surplus de $5 milliards dans la 5e année qui suit une déclaration d'indépendence. Je savais que les souvrainistes étaient rêveurs, mais jamais autant que ça!!![/QUOTE] Si tu es comptable, tu devrais savoir que le seul reproche envers François Legault fut de ne pas avoir soumis un bilan provisoire pessimiste et moyen avec son bilan optimiste. Ce n'est qu'un exercice financier, il n'y a pas grand chose de plus à dire là dessus.

Merci pour les platitudes, chef. Le problème c'est qu'il a voulu sortir de la propagande déguisée, mais cela puait tellement de bullshit qu'il n'a trompé personne apart les souvairinistes mordus qui n'ont aucun sense de la réalité et aucune connaissances en fiscalité.

Pauvre type. Un partisan avoué de Trudeau, Chrétien ainsi que les Libranos d'aujourd'hui n'a pas à faire la morale ou accuser qui que ce soit de tromperie fondée sur des intuitions paranoïaques.

Ca doit etre bien facile de nommer certains politicien au hasard pour en suite faire des insinuations non-fondees. Beaucoup plus facile que, par example, faire un bon argument. Je ne supportais pas la grande parti des politique de Trudeau, mais je reconnais ce qu'il a fait pour l'identite canadienne. C'est sur qu'il n'a pas reussi a 100%, parce que pendant qu'il pronait le progres et l'egalite parmi tous les Canadiens et Canadiennes, il y en a eu certains qui ont quand meme decide de jouer le role de la victime sans espoir. Le Plaines D'Abaraham, c'est passé.

[QUOTE BY= MadeInCanada] Merci pour les platitudes, chef. Le problème c'est qu'il a voulu sortir de la propagande déguisée, mais cela puait tellement de bullshit qu'il n'a trompé personne apart les souvairinistes mordus qui n'ont aucun sense de la réalité et aucune connaissances en fiscalité. [/QUOTE] Mon comptable est un souverainiste mais ne saurait pas compter ? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/eek.gif' alt='Eek!'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/eek.gif' alt='Eek!'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/eek.gif' alt='Eek!'> Merci pour la plug FaitAuCanada <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'>

[QUOTE BY= MadeInCanada] Le Plaines D'Abaraham, c'est passé. [/QUOTE] Et je suppose que Wilfrid Laurier est d'actualité lui ? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'>

[QUOTE BY= jesse] [QUOTE] The Québécois are more different than the Canadians are different than the Americans !!! And still you hold to your country vs USA ! Why [/QUOTE] This has been answered many times in these forums, by various people. For one thing, Canada is *not* just anglophones and francophones; the vast majority of immigrants in the past century have not had english or french as a first language. Canada is a multicultural country, a collection of nationalities within a common territory. If Canada can peacefully have a large Chinese population, then it can have a large quebecois population and still remain as a complete country. As for holding onto Canada vs the USA, that is mainly economic, not cultural. [/QUOTE] Let's answer another time... Québécois don't want to be an "ethnic population" ... we want to be a people... we want immigrants to be called Québécois like you want newcomers in Canada to be willing to get called Canadians ! "Separatists want to brake the country" ??? We will not brake the Constitution 'cause Québec hasn't sign it. We will only brake the illusion of that country my friend. We will only brake the country in two on geographic map. That's it ! If Canada cannot exists without Québec it has a problem in the first place.

Wow, on voit que c'est toujours les mêmes arguments de la part des souvranistes. Discours inchangé.