🚀 go-pugleaf

Gamin <Gamin,gamin@gol1.gol.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 6 Nov 1995, T.Downing wrote:
>> In article <479q8f$t52@sunserver.Generation.NET>,
>> francis@generation.netb 
>>>says...
>>>I'm separatist, I'm QUEBECOIS, and I'm sure that I'm more federalist then
you 
>>>can be. At the origin, the confederation gave the provinces the right that

>>>they needs to controls theirs priority. Now, the federal government
controls 
>>>everything they want. We just want to replace thing were they're suppose
to 
>>>be, and pay less income tax from both side. I don't want to separate, but
if 
>>>the federal government can't see that the Cadillac they're driving is too 
>>>expensive to run, we'll make it ourself. If you can't understand that, YOU

>>>need a history lesson. 
>> 
>> I have been trying come to a greater understanding of the different
>> positions but this one really baffles me.
>> 
>> You are a separatist and a federalist, and don't want to separate.
>
>Now, what is so hard to understand?  He is simply saying that he wants to 
>get out of Canada *as it is preseently structured* and return to what he 
>sees as the original deal, where the provinces had the power and the 
>centre was a gatekeeper, with minimal power.  At least as far as that 
>goes, he shows a better understanding of what the word "federal" 
>actually means than the two generations of politicians that have 
>gradually turned Canada into a centralist state.

First of all, the word "federal" can mean just about anything one wants it to
mean as, apparently, can the word "sovereign" (especially to Quebec
separatists).  From what I've read and heard, Canada is already one of the
loosest, if not THE loosest federation in the world.  Canada will not survive
as a political unit with a significantly weaker central government ... the
geography is just too vast, the North-South forces too strong, and the
regional economic disparity too great.  Also, once the federal government's
power has been significantly diminished, it will be perceived as more of a
burden than ever before (low cost-benefit), and it certainly won't be worth
anybody's while to keep around.

Secondly, regardless of what the original "separatist" poster wrote (the word
"smokescreen" comes to mind), what he and his little friends really want is
NOT a devolution of power from the centre to the 10 provinces, but rather a
new constitutional deal forged between 2 "peoples" : Quebec and "English
Canada" (as they like to refer to the rest of Canada).  They couldn't care
less how many provinces, states, or regions make up "English Canada", or even
what languages are spoken there.  All they want is an EQUAL economic
partnership between 2 sovereign nations.  They see themselves as constituting
NOT a "province", but a "nation"!  This is a fundamental distinction.

Furthermore, the trend of the last 25 years or so has been towards greater
DEcentralization and DEvolution of powers ... not the opposite!  The failure
to reach constitutional agreement other than in 1982 is certainly NOT due to
the federal government's unwillingness to accommodate the provinces!  Even
Pierre Trudeau had, in 1971, made many constitutional concessions to Quebec
(including a veto), only to see the deal scuttled at the last minute by
Robert Bourassa.  And Brian Mulroney, you will remember, almost succeeded in
"giving away the store", so to speak.  Of course, administrative deals have
been (and continue to be) developed between federal and provincial
governments to give the provinces more autonomy and room to maneuver, and to
eliminate duplication of effort.  Moreover, the last federal budget and other
more recent developments (ie: Jean Chretien's reaction to the Quebec
referendum) make it clear that a massive devolution of powers and
responsibilities to the provinces is taking place right now!

Why don't you just admit that you want 10  (or 12, with the territories)
separate countries and have done with it!  I may not agree with you, but it's
a perfectly valid position to take, after all.  Don't be ashamed of it!  In
any event, this argument may well be purely academic since, IMO, if current
trends continue Canada will soon be a country in name only.  This is indeed a
sad prospect!

>If, in fact, all 
>porvinces could equally participate in the kind of deal that Quebec is 
>demanding, it would turn Canada into a real federation.  IMHO, this 
>would be a benefit to BC, Alberta, Quebec, and posssibly Saskatchewan, 
>but a severe disadvantage to Ontario, the Maritime provinces, and 
>probably the territories. 
>
>> As for paying less taxes, who doesn't want to pay less 
>taxes? > 
>
>It is possible that cutting out the duplication of services and 
>jurisdictions *would* lower taxes.  But, then, I bet the politicos would 
>find some other vital necessity, no matter what level they were on, to 
>keep that from happening.

IMHO, any hypothetical decrease in taxes under such a scenario would be
GREATLY outweighed by the negative economic impact of having Canada try to
move in 10 different directions at once with all it implies, including large
population shifts, much greater economic disparity between regions, massive
unemployment, a high level of instability creating a reluctance by the market
to invest, the collapse of the dollar, skyrocketing interest rates, poor bond
ratings, the very rapid erosion of educational and health standards
(including the possible collapse of Medicare), a significant loss of prestige
on the world stage, and an almost certain decline in self-confidence.

We live in what may well be the most fortunate country in the world!  Sure,
we can fiddle with it here and there and try to improve some of the defective
peripheral elements.  But is it really worth essentially trying to redefine
the whole foundation of the country?  I submit that if we do this, we are in
fact jeopardizing our place of honour in the world and inevitably throwing
our good fortune away.  Hardly a wise decision!  So let's leave well enough
alone, okay?  Especially when "well enough" happens to be "the best
anywhere"!

>> T.Downing
>> Montreal, The Greatest City in the World....
>
>......if you have never been to Vancouver......

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... they're BOTH great!  Agreed?

Marco