Is Quebec federalism the better way?

Thanks for the wrap up. I kinda knew about Meech Lake. I remember everyone being miffed about Quebec wanting to be 'distinct', and there being no real definition of what 'distinct' meant. No province wanted any other to be something different in an equal partnership of 10 provinces. They should have designated every province as distinct.

[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] They should have designated every province as distinct. [/QUOTE] This sounds like a case for massive decentralization. Many hardliners in Quebec have a hard time with this one because what massive decentralization means to the ROC is different than in Quebec. The ROC would be quite quite happy to share the basic housekeeping functions of defense, passport, central bank, and post office. Anything that would require "intelligence" would be far better off closer to the People for better accountability. What strikes me the most as a member of a minority in this debate is that Canadians and Québécois are both hung up on this concept of single nationhood or nation-state (did you notice no answer on related post?). Of course they will never willingly acknowledge that you can have a country with more than one Nation. Kinda like the neighbour south? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'> How can you realistically expect a First Nation or an Anglophone in Quebec call himself Québécois? How can you realistically expect an FHQ or a First Nation in the ROC call himself "Canadian"? In this regard, being Canadien is fundamentally different from being Canadian, whether with or without Trudeau's bilingualism and multiculturalism State act. The irony here is that both the ROC and Quebec sovereignist majorities agree on this single state-nation matter but they just disagree on what is this Nation thing? So I would argue that Quebec "federalism" is not all that different from Canada "federalism". Allez-y, fessez-moi les Québécois (&the Canadians); les minorités sont capables d'en prendre, n'est-ce pas?

Good points Marcarc. I think that most people in Canada want a strong federal government.I know I do.If the provinces have all the power that means 12 little dictators who want everything their way.I feel that would make the country ungovernable. I agree too that there is far too much duplication in government.Perhaps the best is for the feds to make some strong guidelines and then to leave it to the provinces to implement them. The distinct society clause,well what can I say.Anyone I ever knew or talked to about it thought it totally stupid.What is a distinct society? No your post was not a long rant.Good points. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>

Good points, Marcarc. [QUOTE]One of the problems that retarded the growth in the maritimes was that as a poorer province, when the federal government enacted legislation for pensions, provinces were 'required' to match those provisions.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. With the exception of QPP in Quebec, CPP and OAS are administered by the feds. I'm missing something. All of your points are to my mind well taken and I agree with each. [QUOTE] Sorry for the lengthy rant, perhaps this has been said in those other threads on Quebec[/QUOTE] I wouldn't call it a rant. I will point out that yes, much of what you've summarized has been previously discussed elsewhere in our DD threads, Quebec threads or other near commentless threads that end up in the forum basement gathering cobwebs. Unfortunately, we never get around to collecting all of the points made/information shared and summarizing it in a format either ourselves or newcomers could easily access to obtain the views/opinions/information gathered to date on particular topics. In the absence of this resource, the same information/points get rehashed again and again. Canadian 'government' needs to be in whatever form best meets the needs of most citizens, rather than whatever form best meets the needs of government and/or a few citizens or remains bound in some perceived written in stone stasis. The current form of our federal and provincial governments just doesn't cut the mustard in this regard. [QUOTE]If I lived in a municipality (and I do) where chinese is the predominant second language, why in heaven's name wouldn't local government be required to use chinese instead of french?[/QUOTE] Why not? The people funding the services should have some say in how the services are delivered.

In reference to some above points-which is worse-twelve 'little dictators' or one big one? Democracy needs to be as close to the people as possible because one of the tenets of democratic theory (and social theory) is that political organizations WILL try to wrest power to themselves, thus, people have to be close enough to it to effect a change. This is why the one big dictator we've got in Ottawa is simply viewed as an empire builder, which they are-and even more increasingly. My referral on pensions was a historical one, although it was administered by the feds, the provinces had to match it 50-50. This was a big complaint during the Maritime Rights Movement where, as I said, the maritime provinces were virtually bankrupt. What I find interesting is that the usual argument FOR federalism is that people have a severe distrust of provincial politicians (in my view quite rightly). However, in most provinces in Canada one has a far better chance of effecting policy changes in a province than in a federal government far away. Another point was in referral to Quebec's 'nation state' status, which is a good point. My support for Quebecers comes from the experience that only when things are 'forced' is there any real dialogue in this country. I've even seen some mention that Quebecers shouldn't be doing what they're doing, but should be working towards 'direct democracy' which in other words means shut up and maybe some day we'll have proportional representation. What is happening in Quebec is, to my mind, EXACTLY what should be happening in all the provinces. When you read a lot of the documents you find that often there is the recognition of Quebec as being 'multinational', however, the point is well made that there is little detail on whether 'local' lawmakers in native communities and english communities, would be able to override a 'federal' Quebec. It also isn't surprising that this isn't being talked about too much- I have no doubt that there are many 'upper members' of the parties who would love to become little dictators, it's up to the people to stop them. For example, if I were in Quebec right now I'd be offering sovereignty with natives, and working out investments, cost sharing, and land usage. Finally, the direct democracy option is one that I think satisfies EVERYONE involved, from strong federalists to those wanting local decisions made. I have no doubt that as another person stated, people don't want others 'sticking their fingers in their pie' and in return would do the same. It's too bad we weren't as proactive with it as Quebecers.

[QUOTE]Many hardliners in Quebec have a hard time with this one because what massive decentralization means to the ROC is different than in Quebec.[/QUOTE] In what way? [QUOTE]What strikes me the most as a member of a minority in this debate is that Canadians and Québécois are both hung up on this concept of single nationhood or nation-state[/QUOTE] This is backed up by thousands of years of tradition so, yes you're right...it's hard to break free of thinking patterns. The political/legal structure of the 'south' is different than our own however, and with its own issues as a result, however, in the end it comes across that there is still a strong 'national' identity. Stronger than our own, if anything. People might be better off defining themselves by commonly shared, and implemented, values rather than geography.

[QUOTE BY= Calumny] [QUOTE]Many hardliners in Quebec have a hard time with this one because what massive decentralization means to the ROC is different than in Quebec.[/QUOTE] In what way? ... People might be better off defining themselves by commonly shared, and implemented, values rather than geography. [/QUOTE] Can't agree more on this. The reality however is that we live geographically. The symbolism of something like a passport would be very important to many Québécois I would expect. I also have friends that do not get hung up on this and will take the shorter lineup in Heathrow (and can interoperate with several passports). I would expect Canadians to have a real problem with a provincial passport. But then I know First Nations people that would love to have their own passport. And then some Québécois may be quite happy with a passeport canadien. I wish we did not make such a big deal on these legacy matters. Control on your medias (&education) is probably something quite important to Québécois (and FHQs). A lot of what "Heritage Canada" does really... The list goes on: employment, economical development, trade, etc... Why should bureaucrats in Ottawa try to solve these complex problems far away from how these problems manifest themselves. What advantages do we really gain by centralizing the solution to these complex problems?

I couldn't agree more with the above. I live in a fairly well to do city, you rarely see vagrants on the street during the day (run out by cops maybe?) Anyway, there are two universities and several large insurance companies as well as many technical offshoots of the university, notably Research in Motion. The students I may say, seem at least 50% chinese, and with all this in the mix the restaurants are of a certain type and in effect, there is a fairly tactile 'worker-student' feel to the place. Right next door we have a retirement community which is surrounded by mennonite farms and is a HUGE tourism draw (why, I still don't know) while in Kitchener is a little more 'worker class german'. These may be generalizations, but they certainly affect the 'identity' of the place. Add to that the suburban and downtown mix of our city and you can just imagine how crazy it is to set up a 'national identity'. We should do like the states and produce smarmy garbage in our popular media to make people think of us how we want, but the rest seems to me to be pretty local. What I have in common with westerners are the same things I have in common with american southerners and probably even the brazilians. Culture should never be a bureaucratic decision.

[QUOTE]What advantages do we really gain by centralizing the solution to these complex problems?[/QUOTE] These days, probably little or none. On the con side, the situation is left open to mismanagement and corruption. As we've discussed elsewhere, our current political structures are largely a result of response, either here in or England, to particular circumstance at one time or another. These structures are not the culmination of any clearly thought out plan to create a perfect form of 'government'. Even were this not the case, times change and what may have been a good or adequate solution at one time may no longer be in current circumstances. [QUOTE] I wish we did not make such a big deal on these legacy matters. [/QUOTE] Yes, you're right. Too much time is spent discussing issues that are in the main insignificant. Government should be what most citizens believe best fits their needs. To use your example, if on a national basis most are happier with a Canadian passport than provincial, so be it. If most prefer a provincial, than what's the problem? If some prefer Canadian and others provincial, what's the big deal. The provinces desiring provincial passports would be responsible for funding the basically duplicated bureaucracy, dealin with any problems associated with acceptance of the passport by other nations, etc., so where's the harm? If at some point most citizens in the province felt the plan wasn't working as anticipated or desired, they could negotiate to re-enter the overall Canadian scheme. A 'one size fits all' government structure is neither necessary or desirable in a democracy. The imposition of this type of structure is as likely to create more instability over the long term than prevent the same, because eventually people just get tired of living within a structure that offers little apparent value to their daily lives, or in the worth case scenario doesn't serve their needs at all. [QUOTE]Why should bureaucrats in Ottawa try to solve these complex problems far away from how these problems manifest themselves. [/QUOTE] Well, they don't need to be. However, again our current system is in essence based on one which replaced the authority of an absolute monarch with a 'Parliament' representing the will of those people whose will needed to be reckoned with in those days. Many or most inhabitants of a land probably didn't see any great benefit in their lives being dictated by a central authority living some hundreds of miles away in circumstances rather different then their own. However, that's just 'the way things were', and continue to be today. The difference between a democracy and absolute monarchy is that in a democracy the nation should function towards the best interests of the citizens, understanding that best interests may vary across distance, rather than towards the interests of a central authority. In a system where you've just replaced one form of central authority for another, you haven't necessarily changed much. When all is said and done, there isn't a whole lot that makes sense in our current government structures in terms of what citizens currently need from these structures. As I've indicated before, most of the 'problems' we discuss on Vive are directly attributable to our government structures and the inability, or unwillingness, of the same to perform the tasks citizens requires from them. However, until most Canadians are willing to consider change, things will continue to deteriorate. [QUOTE]Can't agree more on this. The reality however is that we live geographically. [/QUOTE] True, but geography isn't a solid basis for a nation, shared values are. If people can't agree on the shared 'real' values that define them as a nation and are willing to implement and practice, they don't really have anything that is likely to stand the test of time. By shared values, I mean something along the lines of as different 'nations' living within something we call Canada we all agree that, 'we don't believe anyone should starve in the streets', 'we don't believe our environment should be destroyed to make a buck', etc., not that we all need to share the same culture, language , etc. [QUOTE]What I have in common with westerners are the same things I have in common with american southerners and probably even the brazilians.[/QUOTE] And it would be in all our best interests to focus on these commonalities, understanding the common interests we share with most others as well as respecting their right to be different from us. Unfortunately, we often seem to get caught up in the reverse, which over time makes us easy pickings for those whose interests don't necessarily correspond to anything desirable for most people, whether Canadian or otherwise. [QUOTE]I think that most people in Canada want a strong federal government.[/QUOTE] We've always had that, it's a large part of the problem. Unfortunately, what some Vive contributors (not you, Spud) seem to define as 'strong central government' seems more in line with dictatorship, rather than anything remotely democratic.

Back to the original Question, I will challenge back by saying that could it be possible that Quebec would in fact be repeating the microcosm of Canada with the main difference being that the majority become Franco and the minority anglo. I will however argue that Quebec will do a better job at multiculturalism and dealing with its minorities that what Canada has done, simply for the reasons that they would be closer and more accountable to them, rather than used as political footballs. Province based "federalism" (where the provinces collect the money and make Ottawa beg for it) seem to make sense to renew Canada.

Having 'Ottawa' needing to beg for money from the provinces wouldn't improve the situation. There should be no question of anyone begging for anything. We need a system where citizens agree what each level of 'government' is responsible to administer, then ensure each is funded accordingly to do its job. There should be no need for various levels of government to squabble over cash. Hypothetically, if citizens decide to opt out of a program at one level and run it at a lower level, they will be responsible to fund the same, e.g., the passport example in the previous post, and would not be required to put funding into the common poll for that program. Municipal/provincial/federal squabbling does not meet the interests of most citizens and does not need to occur in a properly designed administration.

Agree that nobody should have to beg. Perhaps what I am suggesting is more of a strategy to force change similar to the old slash&burn than to expect change to naturally come from the People. It won't. The federal system will never change unless its back is on the wall. Quebec cannot put the federal government back on the wall on its own. I think that is their strongest claim to sovereingty. The ball is on the ROC IMHO to challenge the federal government too and they are not with a few exceptions that get called names of being American sellouts. What I am seeing now is the Conservative Party the only one pushing for change and they are most likely to get elected for this. Most unfortunately their changes come with a neocon/pro-Bush Fraser Institute kind of agenda which I do not want. This is extremely dangerous as you know but should not justify the statu-quo. The NDPs have never pushed for decentralization and they are likely much worse than the Libs on bureaucracies of friends and regulations with no contact with reality. Tell me who could I vote for on the next federal elections that will commit to transfer power from Ottawa to the Provinces and keep some of the basic mid-centre policies (minus the corruption) that Canada has conducted so far. In regards to having to define these common beliefs, don't you trust the People to do it on their own at the provincial level and realize that we share a lot of these without trying to control this up front right away? Think gobally and act locally (or everywhere!). So the further away I can really act on my country is at the provincial level and wish I could vote for a federal party committed to decentralizing Canada. I have called before this party the Canadian Sovereingty party and perhaps would be better called the "Party of the Provinces" (le Parti des Provinces - with the Bloc already being one!) If the People in a Province are too asleep to resist the neocons, then that it the problems of these People in that Provinces. I trust we can resist the neocons in BC if we can get rid of the provincial/federal overlaps. The further away one is from Ottawa, the least likely we are going to trust the centre of the empire. The Americans do have this healthy specticism on central government and I very much share this scepticism. I do understand that Ontario would have much to lose on this decentralization but would ultimately win on belonging to a more functional country. A zero sum game?

[QUOTE]In regards to having to define these common beliefs, don't you trust the People to do it on their own at the provincial level and realize that we share a lot of these without trying to control this up front right away?[/QUOTE] It depends on whether most Canadians want to remain Canadians or would prefer to become a federation of sovereign states. If the latter, we should probably all go our sovereign ways with our relationship being, at best, economic, and an everyman for themself perspective. If the former, my view is that a common set of defined values is required to identify what Canadians as a people want to represent and become, as a glue to bind us together towards a common purpose, if that purpose solely be to ensure that every Canadian has the opportunity for a decent life. Each of us is in essence the sum of the values we hold. The same is true for a nation. The value of a person does not lie in the persons possessions, it lies in the values, integrity, etc. that the person demonstrates. Similarly, the value of a nation is not in the monuments, cuisine or culture it possesses, it's in the values it represents. A national identity doesn't have to be flashy or entertaining, it just needs to represent values of integrity and decency that are lived. We don't have this now, or at least don't have it to an extent where it is in most people's minds a line that can't be crossed. If, for example, one of our values is access for all people to adequate, food, housing, health care, etc., statements from government concerning the unaffordability of any should never be heard. The only reason we seem to almost continuously hear the same mow is that government has become accustomed to being able to make such statements and not being told to hit the road because they are obviously incapable of doing the job we expect them to do. As Marcarc and others have pointed out, the wealth generated in this country is such as to well be able to afford all of the above, and much more if it were utilized to do the same, rather than funneled into relatively few hands. If we don't have a commonly accepted set of values and a line that can not be crossed in terms of those values, we become easy prey for those who have no values, or at least none that most humans would recognize as desirable. [QUOTE]Tell me who could I vote for on the next federal elections that will commit to transfer power from Ottawa to the Provinces and keep some of the basic mid-centre policies (minus the corruption) that Canada has conducted so far.[/QUOTE] Probably no one. As an aside, all provinces have 'conducted' corruption as well and, while not minimizing the problem, the corruption revealed in Canada to date is pretty ante on the the world stage. But if there were, given recent governments in B.C., Alberta, Ontario and others, who's to say this would in the end be beneficial to most provincial citizens, or that the equation would change in any appreciable sense in the higher population provinces. To my mind, jimmying around the current system, whether this be through PR, Triple-E Senates, reallocation of responsibilities to other levels, will not address the real problem. What it might do is delude people into believing something 'real' has been done, nothing more. The problem will only be addressed when citizens take on the responsibility of 'government' decision making. Let's face it. The grass is always greener and the path not taken will in our minds often come to a more desirable destination than the one we have. No one can say for a fact that had Confederation followed more the U.S. model we'd be any better off today than we are now. [QUOTE]I do understand that Ontario would have much to lose on this decentralization but would ultimately win on belonging to a more functional country.[/QUOTE] I understand what you mean here. However, would suggest that we need to stop thinking of things in terms of artificial geographic entities and start thinking in terms of the people who inhabit the same. A discussion of 'provinces' is not the same as a discussion in terms of the citizens who live in those provinces, despite the spin politicians like to put on things. You can, for example, talk about Alberta 'winning' and Ontario 'losing' however, this doesn't automatically translate to a victory or loss felt, or noticed, by most citizens. If you think in terms of most citizens of Ontario, no one loses anything because few actually see significant gains from the maintenance of the political status quo anyway. Overall, I don't have any easy (or possibly achievable) answers. I do know that to get people on board with a program, you need to show them that there is something wrong with the status quo (probably not a hard sell for many Canadians) and offer them a realistic plan to change the same that offers some benefit to them. What we could be doing on Vive is having the more artistic members of our community create posters etc. that could be used to publicize the site (hey, posters worked well for many past political movements) and ensure the site actually contains information that is easily accessible and offers real alternatives most Canadians can identify with, doesn't turn people off and shows them why they should support our goals. Because, in terms of activism, all the 'activity' we need out of most citizens is their vote. Of course, we also need a party for them to vote for, so maybe we should be agreeing on that, or creating one as you suggest (preferably with my 'we'll zero your mortgage platform <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>. That'll bring many (if not bankers) into the fold, among other things).

[QUOTE BY= Calumny] It depends on whether most Canadians want to remain Canadians or would prefer to become a federation of sovereign states. ... Of course, we also need a party for them to vote for, or creating one as you suggest (preferably with my 'we'll zero your mortgage platform <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>. That'll bring many (if not bankers) into the fold, among other things). [/QUOTE] Back to repeating my own script: could Canada not hold a referendum on exactly that question? Or do we need a federal political party that commits to running such a referendum and based on the results would work toward the decentralization? Going through this process looks very healthy to me. It did work in Quebec afterall as far as I can tell (and they are still in to this date): is Quebec not more sovereign today than it was prior to holding its referendums? Could this not work for Canada too? Or are we just affraid of change? Remember that bataille rangées lined up in Ottawa will not be the way to keep our country sovereign from the Americans, but guerilla fronts in each provinces are most effective nowadays: Vive le BC!!!

In terms of a referendum, I don't think you'd be likely to see the same out of a party that wasn't first committed to the concept. Also, decentralizing, or rationalizing. powers, or accountabilities, is not a task that could be completed overnight. I dpn't think you'd want a party that wasn't committed to the concept working to implement the same. However, this is all moot. The first hurdle to be overcome is getting more Canadians on board. We haven't been able to get over that hurdle in thirty years. I envy our Quebec sovereignist friends in that they have an easily identifiable issue (protection of language/culture) that strikes a chord with many, an easily identifiable opponent (Canada) and an easy to understand solution (sovereignty association/separation). That being said, they also have yet to achieve their ultimate goal. Comparitively speaking, the ROC has greater problems in this regard in that the issues are somewhat more nebulous (I mean, what does 'deep integration mean to the avaerage Canadian Canadians...hint...possibly nothing), the 'opponent is a bit more vague, e.g., the corporation one works for, our friends the U.S., and the alternatives/solutions aren't entirely clear. Personally speaking, I've never been one to charge into something involving change unless I have some idea of how the change will improve the current situation. Flying on a wing and a prayer just isn't my thing. To my mind, this is where sites like Vive could be of value, in that potentially they allow different people to share ideas and come up with some common goal towards which to work and tools to aid them in doing so and to aid getting others on board. Discussion of changing anything without first discussing the basics, i.e., what exactly do we have now and where exactly do we want to go may be entertaining however, is to my mind rather futile. Before discussing what government level should be doing what, it's necessary to understand what the desired outcome is, hence my comments concerning values. If, for example, we are prepared to have a nation in which all are assured of a decent living standard, it might be desirable that social safety net type funding be handled at a federal level with all provinces chipping into the pot, as some provinces are likely to always be more affluent than others and therefore some money may need to be moved around. If we'd prefer to have a set of 'sovereign' states that take care of their own citizens based on whatever standard is applicable in that state, then obviously a federal level does not need to be involved in the social safety net business. What are the pros/cons to having various administrative functions at specific levels? What are the consequences of shifting accountabilities around, e.g., less/greater bureaucracy. Using the Quebec example, Quebec has RPP rather than CPP and collects their own provincial taxes. In recent years, we've seen various provinces create their own in some cases rather complex income schemes to separate themselves from a system wherein decisions made by the feds could alter the provincial funding from income tax considerably (although the feds still collect tax for all but Quebec.). Does any of this offer any overall benefit to citizens, or at least one that justifies the duplication of bureaucracy/greater complexity? Who knows? These aren't easy questions to answer, nor would the effort required to do so be an 'exciting' task.