Enters very warily holding a jar of mayonnaise out to everyone
Just have to say it’s refreshing to see a thread about a national goverment issue that doesn’t involve the US. Please carry on. 
I also feel the need to respond to this post before going to bed:
kingpengvin, I am not accusing you of racism, but I’m wondering if, for some people who hold your views, they might not be tinted by some last breezes of racism that doesn’t recognize itself, or rather, “English exceptionalism”. You’re saying that the Quebec independence movement isn’t entirely rational. Well, as I’ve said in my post, there are quite rational reasons for Quebec to want independence (as there are quite rational reasons for federalism too), but of course, nationalism in itself is more based on emotion than on reason. But this holds true of every nationalism, not just Quebec’s. English Canadians’ feeling of being part of this great big country where French and English live in harmony under peace, order and good government isn’t any more rational, given the fact that French and English just don’t really meld in this country. If you don’t believe me, just consider this: in the many threads about Canadian identity I’ve read on this board, there is always a place where someone will give a list of Canadian singers and bands, and I can maybe find Céline Dion on this list, because she’s ultra-famous and has sung in English. Where are all the good Quebec artists and bands? Where are the classics such as Harmonium and Beau Dommage, or the newer favourites such as the Cowboys fringants?[sup]*[/sup] Have English Canadians even heard about them? Probably not, just like most Quebecers don’t really know the great new English Canadian bands. We live separately. In Ray Conlogue’s book I mentioned in my previous post, he makes this point about the English Canadian myth of both cultures melding together.
So the idea of Quebec becoming independent isn’t any more irrational than the idea of making Canada work as a single country. But this doesn’t stop English Canadians from believing that independence is incredibly irrational and that Quebecers must be hopelessly deluded to even consider it. And this is where the slight racism I alluded to earlier comes into play. I remember Lucien Bouchard, then Quebec premier, being described in a book as some sort of megalomaniac with a messianic complex, with the presumably mindless horde of Quebecers following him and seeing him as some kind of modern-day Moses. And I don’t remember any strong voice in English Canada denouncing this kind of rubbish. I know that Bouchard is a charismatic politician, as there has been many in history, Jean Chrétien and Pierre Trudeau being examples for federalist Canada, but can you see how insulting it is to have people insinuating that your nation is, basically, a bunch of idiots following a snake-oil salesman? And that, presumably, it is the role of English Canada to take the little Quebec people under their wing to teach them democracy.
There also seems to be some kind of idea, not really expressed, that if ever Quebec becomes independent, it won’t be as democratic or free as it is currently. Why it wouldn’t be I have no idea. Now, kingpengvin, I know you don’t believe that francophone Quebecers need the guidance of one of the great English peoples in the world to strive as a free society, but I do believe that there are still people who hold such thoughts, even though they don’t admit it to themselves.
duffer: 
*To my great regret, I don’t know any song about the Cowboys fringants, and I’m not even sure if they’re popular anymore. I’m woefully ignorant about Quebec artists, but many people my age like them a lot. I’m not representative of the average Quebecer, maybe because I live so close to the border.
Well that’s good. I can be accused of being myopic or being too English and not understanding my fellow Canadians (But I do Try) I can even accept being called a big fat smelly tete du fromage but I’d take exception to racsist
No Doubt. But that is becoming more and more outdated. There will always be yahoos who complain about Quebec power politics and paint it as a “French thing” that doesn’t mean that the Nation as a whole does not work hard to keep this nation whole through negotiation and comprimise rather than assimilation and force
I will cede some of this to you. Nationalism, in any form is not really rational and is emotional.
I’m not so sure on that last point. Yes in areas where it is French only or English only there is a disconect but are you saying Montreal is full of strife? Sudbury? Cornwall, Edmonston? Maybe not strife but do these communities exist where the two languages co habitate and work together as a community instead of language ghettos?
No it will not be a 100% peace love and joy fest, but this country can and does run quite well as a bilingual nation. No there isn’t much call for it in Calgary, but neither is it in Quebec city. We have bilingualism throughout the nation because it has to be fair all around. Unfortunately some want to be more “practical” and claim it to be a waste of money… usually those people don’t travel too far from their own kind (language wise) so who cares what they think.
That is the big problem with Canada as a whole. We are a highly regionalized Nation. I doubt I can name many Western talents, or Newfoundland bands for that matter. We are a big Country so it is easier to identify with our region rather than the nation. It is sad because to be honest I’m a fan of many a Quebec film. (The last film I watched was “the Rocket” which despite its content about the divisions of language and class in Montreal at the time was the most intigrated and truly Canadian film I have ever seen) We should be working harder to spread our culture East to West but the US pull is strong in English Canada. Our weakness, but not an insurmountable weakness.
I will once again point out there are numerous examples where melding together has happened, but not at the cost of one identity or another. What I believe is a myth is that our differences are somehow inreconsiable.
The attitude comes from the idea put forth on the last run at Seperation with Soverignty association. To the outside it iappears to be having your cake and eating it too. Quebec wants to be a free independant nation that keeps Canada’s currency and Military as well. It sounds like a half assed attempt to split. It appears like the leaderships wish is to become presidents and rulers over their own personal country even if it is still ecconomically fused to a foriegn nation including using a foreign Military.
See above for whay it look sthat way from the outside.
I can see that, but I will not refer to Quebec as your Nation. I believe that those in Quebec city trying to push soverignty have not been entirely honest with the people. That is not to say the people are dupes. It is hard for any individual to know everything about the world around them.
If you are told over and over again by your leadership that you are being ripped off by the rest of the nation and they hate you for being French, and you do have some bad recent history to back that assertion of course it sounds right. The same way that some farmer is Saskatchewan can be told that his tax money is being wasted to train poeple to speak french for the only farmer in the county.
I have never heard that assertion before.
Neither do I. I fully expect that those in Quebec would accept nothing less than a democratic nation should that ever happen.
I do respect The people of Quebec. In the last 30 years they have fought hard to shake off the couruption that plagued the province for decades and are passionate enough to wish that to never happen again. They are forward thinking in many ways especially on many social issues. They have a strong sense of themselves and are vibrant community.
You know what I’m envious and greedy I want that as part of my nation.
I simply disagree with the idea of seperation. It may also be irrational on my part but I believe this confederation should not be broken up. If we allow a division of the Nation then there is a real risk of losing the nation as a whole as each region asserts its distinctive nature.
Also realize that if Canada is divisable so too, is Quebec. After all the Northern portion contains many more natives than Quebecquois, who have already voiced the oppinion they would wish to remain with Canada. That is based on nationalist, race and language issues. The same reasons that Quebec give for its inability to remain in Canada. Should Quebec refuse those wishes?
I also believe there is a misconception within Quebec as to where they actually stand in Canada and what they will really lose. I also belive there is a misconception about the nature of transfer payments and how much Quebec actually gets back.
Also there is the whole idea of sovereignty association that will not ever really happen. There is the real threat of backlash. I can not see an amicable break up, or the rest of the Premieres not trying to find a way to punish Quebec. The rest of Canadians are not likely to change their mood or accept that as well.
[/quote]
Now, kingpengvin, I know you don’t believe that francophone Quebecers need the guidance of one of the great English peoples in the world to strive as a free society, but I do believe that there are still people who hold such thoughts, even though they don’t admit it to themselves.
[/quote]
I agree that there are those who will hold boneheaded ideas. No doubt.
But once again I say that Quebec’s place in Canada is not weak nor is it endnagered. Quebec is that different voice we need in this nation to point to us what being Candian is when English Canda gets too caught up in its love for other more powerful nations.
I will just add something about the Meech Lake Accord, even though I said I wouldn’t, because many English Canadians here seem to misunderstand Valteron’s point about the importance of its rejection on the Quebec psyche. As mentioned by RickJay, the Accord was ultimately doomed by Elijah Harper’s delaying tactics. Harper was concerned that the Accord didn’t give enough consideration to Natives. The Canadian people wasn’t consulted about the Accord, and most English Canadians didn’t really care about it, while a few, as mentioned by Valteron, were against it because it gave “concessions” to Quebec, which is something they didn’t even want to contemplate. As I said, I was too young at the time to care, so I can’t say what the mood in Quebec was, but what Valteron says makes sense to me. The Accord would have declared that Quebec is a “distinct society” in Canada, a term that means basically nothing and doesn’t even come close to recognizing that Quebec forms a nation, but this was all Bourassa could ever get. When the Accord was rejected, maybe English Canadians didn’t even notice, but many Quebecers saw it as the proof that English Canada will never recognize and even less accommodate Quebec’s needs in Canada. This is what led to the resurgence in popularity of the sovereigntist option, and ultimately to the 1995 referendum that almost led to a yes victory. And only at this point did English Canadians start noticing something. I recently read or heard about a survey of Quebecers’ and English Canadians’ opinion of the defining events of Canadian unity (don’t remember where, though, so no cite ready), and the differences were striking. Quebecers considered the defeat of the Meech Lake Accord the most important event, while English Canadians instead saw the 1995 referendum as much more important. I think we can see examples of this in this very thread.
And when English Canadians noticed that something was going on in Quebec, the reaction they had wasn’t the most useful. Many people here talked about the October 27, 1995 love-in in Montreal as a clear sign by English Canadians that they want Quebec to remain in Canada which proves that Quebec should not separate. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Quebec’s separation movement as I described it earlier. The core of this movement isn’t based on the idea that English Canada “doesn’t like” Quebec. Yes, I’m willing to concede that some people in Quebec were more motivated into voting yes because they thought they were hated in the rest of Canada, and maybe this love-in was able to sway a few votes. But frankly, while the idea that English Canada likes my people and thinks we are an important part of Canada sure is nice, it doesn’t have any effect on whether I will vote yes or no in an eventual referendum. And neither should it. As a citizen of Quebec, what I have to consider is whether Quebec’s interests as a nation are met inside of Canada, or at least can eventually be met inside of Canada, or whether going alone as a nation-state is a better idea. Love doesn’t come anywhere near this equation. In fact, I see that Valteron has started [thread=378780]this thread[/thread] about why Canada should be independent of the US, and many people have replied that Canada is very different from the US, and its interests wouldn’t be served by joining the US, so of course Canada should remain independent. And I agree with this, but do note that Canada and the US are historical allies. Canada loves the US, and the US loves Canada (when they notice it). Love is irrelevant in such discussions. I really believe most of the 300,000 or so English Canadians who came to this demonstration didn’t really understand the issues, and some probably didn’t even really know why they were there. Frankly, I absolutely fail to see why this should be considered an example of why Quebec shouldn’t separate from Canada.
Then, after the 1995 scare (for English Canada) was over, they decided that they should try a little tough love. They decided that Quebec wouldn’t be allowed to choose to leave Canada even if it felt it was needed, but there also wasn’t going to be any more discussions on the nature of Canada. If Quebec even thought about separation again, they would try to break it up into parts (more on this below, in my reply to kingpengvin). In other words, English Canada completely closed the door on any possibility for Quebec to discuss its needs as a nation. And I believe that at this point there was also a hardening of English Canadians’ opinion of Quebec and Quebecers, although, as Valteron mentions, in some parts of Canada, this opinion was already quite bad. Why is this important? Because English Canadians control the flow of information about Quebec in North America. They speak English, just like Americans, so most of the information Americans get about Quebec comes through the English Canadian filter. I know that today Quebec has a bad reputation in pretty much all of English-speaking America, or at least in the parts that have heard of it. And this reputation is undeserved. But English Canadians misunderstand the situation, and they then explain it to Americans in a way that makes them look good and us look bad. And in any case, Americans already have a stereotype of “the French” which they then apply to us, even though we have no connection to France other than through history, and even though this stereotype isn’t really correct either. (This, actually, is another example of why love and belonging don’t have anything to do with each other: Quebec and France share a language and have developed close links to each other, we like each other, but there is no way we would ever want a political union, since we are two different nations with different cultures and histories.) So this is why I believe it is a good idea for English-speaking francophones such as me to be available to dispel misinformation about Quebec among English-speaking North Americans. I do believe we are a people that is politically correct to dislike, so it is needed.
I live in Gatineau, just north of Ottawa. Here, the two cultures meet, and no, there isn’t that much strife (although there is, I could give examples), but even here they don’t really meld. That is my point. English and French in Canada don’t fight, even though they might not always like each other, but they just don’t form a single culture, a single nation. We are mostly separate.
I should also mention that what I’m talking about isn’t really a French-English thing, even though it started as such. Franco-Ontarians such as the ones in Ottawa and Sudbury are very different from francophone Quebecers. They live as francophone minorities in an English land, trying to preserve their language and culture (or not, there are Franco-Ontarians who consider it cooler to speak English than French). Quebec has developed a sense of being a different nation, that happens to be mostly French-speaking and descending from French settlers but that does integrate people of different backgrounds (as long as they accept the fact that they live in a place where French is the main language). I work with Franco-Ontarians every day, I know that they are not the same as francophone Quebecers and that their opinion of Canada is closer to the English Canadians’ (added the need for protection of bilingualism).
As I said, this isn’t entirely a language issue, but then again, maybe those who claim that it’s a waste of money to have bilingual services in Calgary or Quebec City are right. As I said, I think it’s an important Canadian myth to believe in a coast to coast bilingual nation, but it remains a myth, and some people, in Western Canada for example, just don’t have anything to do with a second language that they never hear spoken.
Despite this fact, English Canada does share some kind of feeling of belonging to a nation, Canada. Bands such as Great Big Sea, who are from Newfoundland and sing about the sea and pretty much nothing else, are AFAIK reasonably popular across Canada (even I own all of their albums; as I said, I live in a border region and I have a lot of exposure to English Canada). Even the francophones in the rest of Canada I mentioned earlier feel in some way part of this pan-Canadian nation, although they are also exposed to Quebec culture and to their own specific culture. Quebec really has its own culture, mass culture as well as shared history that differs from English Canadian one. Sure, English Canada is fragmented into many regions, with many rivalries between them, but when I hear English Canadians from all provinces talk about what it means to be a (n English) Canadian and talk about their shared culture, I have no doubt they form a true nation.
And it’s nice if you like Quebec cinema and are able to see traces of a shared “Canadian” experience in it. Maybe you’re right, maybe there is something uniquely Canadian in Quebec films that we could also see in English Canadian auteur films. Not knowing that much about cinema, I can’t say for sure. But I think that most English Canadians who enjoy Quebec movies would see them as some sort of “foreign” films. For example, they are in French, which means most anglophones would have to see them dubbed, just like French and other European films.
I’m not saying our differences are irreconciliable, but rather that as Canadians we should recognize that there are several nations that live in the womb of our country and that we should strive to make this coexistence as peaceful as possible. We should drop our founding myths that serve no purpose. But you actually make an interesting point. I said earlier that the Parti québécois’s insistance on trying to prove that sovereingty is economically feasible has alienated some of its supporters, such as Michel Tremblay, who still believe in independence but would rather go back to the real reasons. Michel Tremblay made this declaration a few months ago. Soon after, filmmaker Robert Lepage also came out to say he was unsure of the need for independence, and he said something that made me think. He said that while in English Canada and in Quebec, he doesn’t feel like a Canadian at all, he’s a Quebecer and he feels the two solitudes very strongly. But when he travels abroad, he starts to feel like a part of Canada. It’s as if the idea of Canada comes together to him when he isn’t inside the country. I think this is interesting. If I ever go to Europe and visit the battlefields where many Canadians died during the world wars, I believe I might start feeling the same way. So maybe there is something to Canada after all. But it doesn’t mean that Canadians shouldn’t recognize that they are made of many nations that happen to have worked together and that have become great allies, part of something bigger.
I don’t think there is much talk of an independent Quebec and Canada sharing a military, but a common currency? Yes, that is possible, if Canada allows it. Let’s face it, if Quebec becomes an independent country, it will be both in its interest and in the interest of Canada to keep close ties. Especially with the fact that Canada will be split in two, it will be in everyone’s interest to, for example, ensure free passage of people between the countries. This, of course, would have to be negociated prior to the actual declaration of independence, but I think it’s entirely reasonable to assume that this is what would happen. I even believe that the negociations wouldn’t be too acrimonious, since both Canada and Quebec know that it isn’t in their interest to start disputes.
You seem to believe, as many other English Canadians seem to believe, that independence for Quebec really isn’t an idea that has anything going for it, and that, for some reason, a small cabal of people who have decided that this is what should happen (for reasons known only to them) has been able to convince close to 50% of voters in 1995 to vote in favour of this option. I’ve explained in my first post the reasons for independence, and some of them are quite compelling (there exist, of course, good reasons for remaining in the federation too). Quebec independence isn’t a marginal idea, it is very popular and will remain so in the forseeable future. And it is an idea that is held by very bright people, by people who have thought a lot about it and have decided that it was the best thing to do. Many people who have voted for independence have done so for good reasons, kingpengvin, and they know what the consequences would have been.
I haven’t heard this. Of course, the Parti québécois has been busy trying to prove that Quebec would be richer as an independent country, but as I’ve said earlier this has had the effect of alienating some of its long time supporters and might be one of the reasons why it doesn’t seem to be able to pick up steam despite the unpopularity of the Charest government. But no one really claims that Quebec is being “ripped off” by the rest of the country. And I’ve especially never heard anyone in Quebec City say that the rest of Canada hates us for being French. If you ask any sovereigntist politician, they will tell you that Canada is a great nation full of great people, but that Quebec just isn’t part of it. They will tell you that the reason why Quebec must become independent is to be able to deal with other countries on an equal-to-equal basis. As I’ve said before, love or hate doesn’t have anything to do with it.
I guess not and I’m sure not many people still believe this, and even those who do probably won’t admit it. It’s just the impression that I’ve gotten hearing English Canada say that our politicians lie to us and are trying to coax us into doing something very bad which we don’t really understand. What, you (not you, the impersonal you) think voters in 1995 didn’t know they were voting for independence? You think Quebecers aren’t able to take their own decisions?
That’s good. Many people seem to think that an independent Quebec would become some kind of ethnic republic, while Quebec nationalism is now mostly past ethnic considerations.
I don’t think so, actually. As I’ve said before, I think English Canada has really coalesced into a nation. Many disagreements exist between the regions in the country, but I think English Canadians really care for their country.
I disagree. First, constitutionally speaking, the Supreme Court of Canada has determined conditions for the separation of a province, but there isn’t anything about the unilateral partition of a province. Canada knows that if it tries to break up Quebec, it will face opposition from close to 100% of Quebecers, as well as many Canadians, and in the context of pre-independence negociations there is no way anyone would want to take such a risk. Second, you hold a view of Quebec nationalism that is still ethnic in nature. You consider Quebec nationalism to be an ideology of “the Quebecois”, defined in English as the francophone Quebecers of French ancestry. Quebec nationalism, despite a few dinosaurs who still try to define it in ethnic terms (and they are really few), is now past this. Anyone can be part of the Quebec nation, as long as they agree to follow the values of Quebec and to live in a territory where the main language of business is French. And this has nothing to do with politics, you can be liberal or conservative, federalist or separatist, and be part of the Quebec nation. Due to the decline of natality in Quebec, our future is with immigration. We have already started to build a nation of people that aren’t necessarily descendents of the original settlers, and this thread will only intensify in the future.
If there is a misconception, it must be quite small, because I hear about transfer payments all the time. Everyone who remains the slightest informed in Quebec will have heard about them, and will know that Quebec is a net recipient of transfer payments. Once again, you underestimate the capacity of Quebecers to make informed decisions. And again, the monetary question shouldn’t even be a criterion in the question to create a country or not.
We don’t really know for sure what will happen if there is ever a positive vote in independence. But both Quebec and Canada would find it in their own interest to have an amicable break up. This will happen if English Canada realises that Quebec nationalism isn’t a rejection of them, isn’t based on love or hate or perceived love or hate.
I just want to clarify my thought here. As I said, belonging in the Quebec nation isn’t based on ethnicity anymore. So, in the event of a yes vote, how do you decide who should be allowed to have its territory remain in Canada? You mention the natives in the north. I’m quite ready to allow the natives some kind of self-determination, since they may be said to form nations of their own that are separate from the other nations of Canada. Whether this goes up to allowing them to choose which country they want to be part of, I don’t think so; after all, do they even have a defined territory? But I’d be in favour of some kind of self-determination. How about the anglophones of Western Montreal? Can they say that they reject being part of the Quebec nation, choose that they are instead part of the Canadian nation and have their territory remain in Canada? If so, what happens to those people in Western Montreal who want to be part of Quebec? The only sensible thing is to go with the territorial entity that is internationally recognized, Quebec, territorial entity that is the home of the Quebec nation.
(Emphasis mine.)
Of course, this is a mistake: I wanted to write subtitled, not dubbed. :smack: American movies are shown dubbed in Quebec, but in English Canada Quebec and foreign movies would in all likelihood be shown with English subtitles.
In fact, Quebec movies will also be shown with subtitles in France. Some will claim that this is because the French like to claim that French spoken with any accent other than their own isn’t understandable.
I’ve read, but not understood.
If an “independant Quebec” is to have the same army and currency as the rest of Canada, what exactly will it get that it doesn’t have right now?
In short, to a person pushing for Quebec sovereignty, what exactly does it mean? Is it simply an emotional issue?
If so, why not declare “sovereignty” right now, and have everything stay much as it is? Will people from Quebec be happy with that? 
As I’ve said, an independent Quebec would not want to have the same army as Canada, since it would mean losing sovereignty in its foreign relations. Having the same currency would be mostly a convenience issue, especially for those living on the border, like me, but I must admit that it would lead to some loss of sovereignty in monetary policy. Those who want independence for Quebec want it to be able to deal with other nations as equals, without having to pass through the Canadian federal government and reaching a “Canadian consensus” which doesn’t necessarily reflect the needs of Quebec. So of course, any loss of sovereignty in Quebec’s foreign relations would not be acceptable to them.
I don’t know where kingpengvin heard that an independent Quebec might want to still participate in Canada’s army. If he has a cite for this, I’d like to see it.
This idea that Canada can be split up but Quebec can’t frankly pisses me off. The Cree, and the Five Nations, etc, have as much or more claim to be real nations than Quebec does. If this national identity is grounds for Quebec to be independent from Canada, then it’s damn well grounds for the First Nations to be independent from Quebec (and to then re-join Canada if that’s their desire).
I just don’t see how one can arrive at any other position without either rank hypocracy or a racist view of the First Nations.
To address your specific points:
-
What the Supreme Court has said isn’t very relevant. That there is no legal structure to enable the Cree or whoever to declare independence from Quebec doesn’t mean a damn thing. If the Constitution Act explicitly made Quebec independence illegal, would that be a point against the moral case for sovereignty? Of course not.
-
What a majority of Quebeckers have to say about the independence of the Cree has no more significance than what a majority of Canadians have to say about the independence of Quebec. A vast majority of Canadians are opposed to Quebec sovereignty, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is whether Quebeckers are for against sovereignty. The same goes for the native communities.
-
It probably isn’t in Quebec’s interests to assume that Canada will play nice in negotiations over terms of seperation. Maybe the federal government will, but it may well take a hard line on some issues too. Quebec isn’t going to be in the dominant position in such negotiations, any more than Canada is in the dominant position in negotiations with the US. It’s very unlikely you’ll get everything you want if the Canadian government decides not to give it to you.
Does anyone care about armies?
The real question is what would happen to the Olympic hockey team! 
Frankly, I’d be happy if Vincent Lecavalier and Martin St. Louis were removed from consideration from Team Canada. We’re keeping Luongo, though.
What this sentence says to me about the reaction to the failure of the Accord, taken in context with how it actually went down is, “Don’t bother me with the facts, this is how I feel.”
What do you mean? Do you or do you not agree with Valteron’s assertion that most English Canadians who cared about the Meech Lake Accord were against it since in their mind it gave “special powers” to Quebec? And do you or do you not agree that to Quebecers, the Meech Lake Accord was pretty much a minimum? Sure, maybe it failed because of something else, due to the fact that it wasn’t put before the people, but it doesn’t change the fact that many English Canadians are uncomfortable with the idea of giving any recognition of Quebec that goes over recognizing it as a province of Canada, same as any other.
I’ll try to answer the other posts later, I’m going away for the evening.
No, I do not agree with this statement. Certainly some English Canadians shared this viewpoint, but I reject the assertion that it was most.
No, this is not why it failed.
I think there’s three things that must be noted here:
1. Opposition to “distinct society” was not based just on hating French people, as Valteron would suggest.
It has to be noted that the Meech Lake accord was in the regard very badly timed, being worked on as it was at precisely the same time the Supreme Court struck down the French-only provisions of Bill 101. Given that it was the perception - rightly or wrongly - of many Canadians that Quebec’s approach to language law was to infringe upon free speech, the concern was not just that Quebec would have “special powers” but that Quebec might, specifically, take away people’s rights.
Now, whether that’s true or not we’ll never know; however, it was unnerving to some, given the timing and the normal trepidation people have about the government (look at how freaky people across Canada got over the Conservative stance on abortion during the last election campaign - even though they didn’t have a stance on abortion!)
One could certainly argue either way as to what “Distinct society” meant or didn’t mean; it certainly would have given the Quebec government SOME powers it did not previously possess. Valteron’s implication that it was merely symbolic is simply wrong; it wasn’t written symbolically and if it didn’t mean anything practical they wouldn’t have put it in there. I’ve never really heard a defender of Meech explain what it was for, if not to help override aspects of the Charter.
Now, having said all that, would Meech Lake have resulted in some massive loss of freedoms? Well, of course not. It was sure as hell a better deal than the bizarre Charlottetown Accord. However, the fact is that it made people nervous.
2. Opposition to Meech was not just based on "distinct society."
Much of the opposition to Meech Lake was coalesced around Pierre Trudeau’s opposition, since Trudeau (a) made some good points and (b) is the most popular statesman in modern Canadian history.
Meech didn’t just hand out the “Distinct society” goodie; it also substantially, perhaps even radically, reduced the relative power of the federal government in the face of all provinces. It would call for Quebec, and to a lesser extent the other provinces, to be given substantive powers over areas that constitute areas of national sovereignty, like immigration - an area in which, IMHO, no province should have any say at all. Many Canadians of recent immigrant vintage were spooked by these provisions, which they believed constituted the provinces attempting to impose barriers - mainly through placing fiscal demands on the feds - on immigration. It also would have given provinces what amounted to a blank check on extorting money from the feds for social programs they didn’t even want to be a part of. That’s its own thread too, but I think it’s fair to say that there’s a strong argument to be made that fiscal policy should be set in budgets, not permanently enshrined in the Constitution.
The other aspect of opposition, which of course is what technically killed the Accord, was the exclusion of the First Nations. The simple and straightforward fact of the matter is that the way the First Nations have been treated in this country is a national disgrace, continues to be so, and so it’s hardly a surprise a lot of people took their exclusion as being a rather rude slap in the face. That, alone, generated a lot of opposition both from aboriginals and from white folks who felt guilty, or morally superior, or both. Now, we can hold a whole 'nother thread on the issue of how to resolve THAT problem and I assure you my plan would not go over real well with the band leaders, but to a lot of people it seemed preposterous to bandy about a “distinct society” clause, which not one single person could explain the practical, positive value of, while 300,000 Canadians lived in filth and poverty as second-class citizens.
3. There wasn’t any positive benefit to it to anyone.
As has been pointed out, and it’s a fair point, much of the pro-Meech, pro-distinct-society-clause arguments are, well, purely emotional in nature; “well, we are a distinct society, so there.” Canada’s got great hockey players too, but there’s no point adding a Gretzky Clause to the Constitution; a Constitution is a rulebook, and if you’re going to add more rules you need to explain to people why the game has to be different. **No politician sold the Meech Lake accord to Canadians in a way that clearly explained why it was a good thing. ** The arguments basically came down to:
“Well, Quebec should sign the Constitution.”
“Quebec will be upset if we don’t.”
“It’s good for our province in some hard-to-define way.”
It was impossible to determine, precisely, why it should happen or had to happen. It wasn’t actually going to cause the Constitution to apply to Quebec; the Constitution already applied to Quebec. It wasn’t going to lower anyone’s taxes or provide anyone with better health care or result in any sort of needed changes or legislation.
It appeared to almost everyone that the entire thing was designed just to get a symbolic signature - but in so doing, promised the possibility of negative repercussions. What if it meant more Jewish shopkeepers would be fined for having Yiddish signs in their shops in West Montreal? What if Akshat’s parents would not be allowed to immigrate because British Columbia started restricting immigration into their province?
Sure, this is all scare tactics, and scare tactics are usually bullshit, but nobody was presenting an understandable counterargument except “Uhhh, well, it’s important we get that signature.” Given a complete lack of a convincing argument FOR the Accord, most people figured it was best not to fuck with the Constitution - which to most Canadians means the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and which has a sort of holy ring to it even if a lot of people don’t know half of what it says.
So,
Was there anti-French sentiment? Sure. Was that the reason the Accord died? Fuck no - that’s absolutely the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard, and if you don’t believe me, ask yourself this simple question:
How would Canadians outside Ontario feel about the exact same Constitutional accord, except granting Ontario, instead of Quebec, “distinct society” status?
Very simply put, they’d hate it - they’d hate it more than they hated Meech Lake.
So, sort of like the ERA in America? It sounded good, but with the potential of a severe downside for what could have been a good idea, it wasn’t worth it, especially as most of it could be handled by decent legislation anyhow?
Re: Sovereignty Association and the Military
Although I recall hearing of this during the last referendum I can not find any article backing this up, so I withdraw that statement until I can find evidence that there was to be a shared military between canada and a seperated Quebec.
RickJay has written a very interesting and thoughtful post, which I will now answer. I also had answers to Raygun99 and Gorsnak’s posts, which I accidentally deleted, and I don’t feel like writing them again right now, so I’ll do it later.
I didn’t read Valteron’s comments as saying that it was based on French hatred, rather that it was based on a knee-jerk reaction that we must be hard on Quebec and show them that they won’t get what they want. Which I’m quite certain exists, especially in Western Canada. I can certainly find examples, and there’s one that I seem to remember that would be especially compelling if true, but I’ll wait until I find cites about it to mention it.
Actually, while I agree that the original bill 101 went too far (the revised provisions are fine with me), to me it has always been an internal affair, and I find it unnerving to see that English Canada takes so much interest in it. It bothers me to see English Canadians comment on our policies, say what they think we’re doing wrong and what we should do, especially when very often they don’t know about the issues well. It’s none of my business what, for example, the government of Alberta does. I may agree or disagree with it, but I don’t have anything to say about it. Why should English Canada have a say in what Quebec does? Plus, this goes back to what I said earlier in this thread, that some English Canadians seem to think that Quebecers shouldn’t be trusted to govern themselves. I know that this idea certainly isn’t common, but you can agree with my that language policy is a complex matter and that we can’t really trust English-speaking people in Ontario or British Columbia who haven’t studied the matter to know what Quebec should do.
Now, I haven’t really studied the Meech Lake Accord in detail, so I’ll have to believe you here. But keep in mind that the reason why it wasn’t clear what “distinct society” means might very well be that if it had been clearer, either Quebec would have seen that it means nothing, or English Canada would have screamed over the powers it handed over to Quebec. This is what infuriates people in Quebec, the fact that English Canadians absolutely refuse to accept that maybe it wouldn’t be so bad to give the Quebec government some of the powers it wants, and instead want to lock Quebecers in a “province-just-like-all-nine-others” that isn’t sufficient due to the fact that Quebecers do consider that they are a nation.
Yes, this is what Quebec wants. Some recognition that as a nation, it should have some powers that the federal government currently has, but that the Quebec government should be more trusted to do correctly in the interest of Quebecers. I disagree that immigration should be solely a federal responsibility. The provinces know better than Ottawa what their needs are in terms of immigrants (for example, health is a provincial responsibility, so the provinces know if they need doctors and nurses better than Ottawa ever could), and frankly, I think it makes sense to have the provinces decide what they want in terms of immigrants. Quebec, for example, would like to have immigrants that already speak French, since it will cost less to integrate them. Why shouldn’t it be allowed to have its own bureaus of immigration in French-speaking countries?
Yes, I realise there could also be an argument for immigration to be solely a federal responsibility. But people can in good faith go either way on this question, and for some reason, it appears that English Canadians tend to go one way and Quebecers the other way.
I’m not sure why this would happen, but I do agree it might have scared people.
Fiscal policy should indeed be set in budgets. On the other hand, the right for provinces to opt out of programs makes sense to me, especially with the tendency of the federal government to intrude into provincial responsibility. Maybe the province wants to administer this program itself.
You’re correct that this was also an important oversight.
It might very well be emotional, but Quebecers do want some recognition that they are a nation inside of Canada, and that they should have the means to grow as a nation, not have these means kept in Ottawa because English Canadians want it there to help make the “Canadian” nation grow, especially since the Canadian nation is based on a myth, as I’ve described earlier. Maybe we just care more about this kind of cloud-shovelling than English Canadians, but I think we have a reason to.
Okay, that makes sense. But I’m sure you can see how Quebec might have seen in this a rejection of any kind of distinct status by Canada.
Yes, but of course Ontario isn’t a distinct society from the rest of Canada. Ontarians see themselves as Canadians first and foremost, and in fact they pretty much define Canada. But even if you’d mentioned a province (other than Quebec) that does have a distinct colour, such as Newfoundland, you’d find that these people are also Canadians first and foremost, and are ready to build the nation of Canada. Quebec really is different, and I think that’s what English Canadians don’t realise or don’t want to see.
I agree that the First Nations should be given some kind of self-determination. They can be considered a nation in Canada, and furthermore, given their historical treatment and the conditions in which they live today, we can even say that they are an oppressed nation. On the other hand, there are very few of them, I’m not sure if they have a defined territory or not, and there can be disagreements about who is part of a first nation and who isn’t. I’d like to see what international law says about this. Quebec, on the other hand, is a political entity that even has international recognition. There isn’t any disagreement on who is a Quebecer and who isn’t.
Also, while I see your point, I’m sure you’ll agree that if, for example, the Cree decided today to ask for independence from Quebec, the Quebec and federal governments would laugh in their faces. Okay, maybe not laugh, but there’s no way it would be done. The reason why we’re having this discussion hasn’t anything to do with the natives. They are played as pawns in a political chess game. This really has to do with scaring Quebec into not trying anything.
I am not a racist, I hope you’re not calling me one. I also don’t think I’m an hypocrite. I can see your points, but I hope you’ll consider mine.
Maybe not, but do you think that in the event of independence, the Canadian government should make unreasonable demands on Quebec? If so, why, and if not, why not? We have to be pragmatic about the whole thing. And furthermore, if there is a compelling reason for Quebec to become independent, it shouldn’t allow the fact that it will be difficult to do so to stop it.