Talk:Politics of Canada/Archive 1

I was shocked when I read this page and made a hurried edit. However, shortly I shall do a proper rewrite that will be absolutely from a NPOV....DW


 * Your anti-Quebec rants hardly seem NPOV. -- Zoe


 * A brief but specific description of what you thought was so un-NPOV about the description as it was would certainly be appreciated. - Montr&eacute;alais


 * (The below is not from Zoe, it is from Tokerboy)

I think I agree with Zoe (though I'm not sure if "rants" is a good word)


 * "Rene Levesque, won the provincial election and began to explore a course for Quebec sovereignty."
 * changed "greater independence from the rest of Canda" to "sovereignty" (sp?) -- is independence the only desire of the Parti Québécois?
 * "Many in Quebec and Canada recognize that the province is distinct and unique within Canada but that does not merit a position of autonomy with most all Federal powers granted to the provinces."
 * This is clearly a POV, yours or someone else's. Perhaps I believe it does merit such a position.
 * "In essence, only a shell of a country would remain, leaving 10 individuial nations."
 * Perhaps true, but this is almost certainly debatable. Would it be more like the United States or the European Union?
 * "Granting special powers to Quebec alone provides for a second autonomous nation"
 * Once again, "autonomous" is debatable. Maybe "more autonomous"
 * "A few very small examples of what Quebec wants are..."
 * These seem like big demands, and why not list them all so there can be no one taking issue with which ones are presented?
 * The whole paragraph after the above quote
 * Just because the United States does it that way does not mean that it is a priori correct for Canada to do so, yet that is the impression I walk away from the article with. There is also a substantial difference between adding an amendment and rewriting the constitution.
 * "Two later initiatives reflect the goodwill of Canadians"
 * Sounds like a POV. Perhaps I believe it does it reflects the imperialist tendency of Canadians.  At the very least, surely some Canadians do not feel such goodwill towards Quebecers.
 * "Despite near-unanimous support from the country's political leaders, this second effort at constitutional reform was defeated in Quebec and the rest of Canada in an October 1992 nationwide referendum."
 * I'm not saying this isn't NPOV, but it sounds interesting and I'd like more details on why so many elected politicians disagreed with their constituencies. How close was the referendum?
 * "the sole purpose of this sovereigntist party is to break up the country"
 * Is that their words, yours, or someone elses?

These are coming from a non-Canadian that knows very little about Canada, and even less about Quebec. In spite of my ignorance, they seem like they need rewording, or at least specify some points where details can be added. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can add to the disagreeable statements list. Tokerboy 01:36 Oct 18, 2002 (UTC)

Note that DW once again fails to comment on what others have had to say about his changes, but is more than willing to attack others. Elliot, what's your feeling about his changes? -- Zoe

I'm finding the repeated references to "the separatist government" of Québec to be too much. Once something like that is said, repeating it ad nauseum begins to seem more like expressing some POV. Eclecticology

Tokerboy changes a lot. Some of the questions I ask may seem retarded to DW or others who know something about Canada (I don't). I don't mean to be a problem, or to cause ill will. As someone who does not know about the Quebecois separatist movement, the reasons below are why I would assume this article can be safely ignored as biased, confusing and badly written. It may be perfectly fair and clear to someone with a basic understanding of Canadian and Quebecois history, but such is not the audience of the article.


 * Some believe the elected leaders of Quebec have used the Separatist government's refusal to sign the 1982 Constitution as a negotiating tool for power while others see it as an amendment to the constitution of Canada that was a betrayal, and has been dubbed by some "The Night of the Long Knives". Nonetheless, even though Quebec did not sign the new Canadian Constitution, all its benefits and rights apply equally to all Provinces, including Quebec.


 * What amendment is this referring to? The first sentence doesn't make much sense.  Can someone clarify?  It's gotta be missing a word somewhere, but I can't even figure out where.  Aren't the "elected leaders of Quebec" the same thing as the "Separatist government"?  If, as the last sentence in this paragraphs seems to prove, Quebec's refusal to sign the 1982 Constitution is not necessary for the Constitution to be activated, then how could it be a negotiating tool?  What "Night" is referred to in the idiom?  Doesn't "all provinces" automatically include Quebec?  If there is any question, I wonder about the Yukon, Northwest and Nunavat territories, not Quebec.  In conclusion, this paragraph really makes no sense and must be rewritten.
 * The charscterization of "The Night of the Long Knives" was a separatist term applied to the events of November 5, 1981, obviously by innuendo connecting it with the other event of that name on June 30, 1934. It was a way of expressing the feeling that the other provinces were ganging up on Quebec.  The word "amendment" can be misleading, but can be viewed as an attempt to amend the British North America Act. Eclecticology


 * I changed it to:


 * Some believe that the leaders of Quebec used the province's refusal to sign the 1982 Constitution as a bargaining tool to gain leverage in future negotiations, because the federal Canadian government desired (though it is not legally necessary) to include all the provinces and territories willingly into the new Constitution. In spite of Quebec's lack of assent, the Constitution still applies to all Quebecois citizens.  Many Quebecois felt that the other provinces' adoption of the Constitution without Quebec's assent was a betrayal of the central tenets of democracy.  They referred to the decision as the "Night of the Long Knives." 128.172.143.135 00:40 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)


 * "The metaphor of the mosaic is one of the key features that distinguishes Canada from the United States with its metaphor of the melting pot."


 * What is the point of this sentence? Why is it in this article?  What does it have to do with Quebecois independence?  Deleting for irrelevancy (and awkward wording besides).
 * The wording is perfectly grammatical. IIRC the sentence followed upon a reference to bringing Quebec into the Canadian "mosaic". I agree that the subtlety of this distinction may be lost on Americans. Eclecticology


 * "Quebec sought several new powers, including greater control over culture, language and immigration"
 * What powers does any province, country or government have over "culture"? Did they seek to require people to prefer Camus instead of Shakespeare?  Deleting "culture" unless someone has a more clear method of wording the idea.  Is culture in this context the same as language?  Or is the reference to what is taught in schools?  If so, "education" would be more clear.
 * The people who sought these powers weren't too quick to define "culture" either, but they used the term anyway. In the United States culture, with the help of Jack Valenti, becomes "cultural industry", and as such just another means of deriving profit. Eclecticology
 * I can't tell if you agree with my change or not. Perhaps it should be left as is and a detailed accounting of the new powers placed into a separate article on the subject. 128.172.143.135 00:40 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)
 * "Culture" is necessarily a vague term. It is certainly not used here in the restrictive sence of what do we mean by a "cultured person".  Education is certainly a way to help in understanding culture, but education has always been a provincial responsibility anyway so the Quebecois had no need to ask for that again.  My dictionary defines culture as "the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively."  Powers over culture would include (among other things) the right to pass certain laws affecting the publishing and movie industries to protect them from outside forces.  Legislation about culture is a concern of many Canadians, and not just in relation to Quebec.  It is even more important in Canada's relationship with the United States.  In these areas the United States with 10 times the population as Canada can more easily benefit from economies of scale.  (When was the last time you saw a Canadian movie in Virginia? ...and if you do remember one chances are it was on PBS.)  In its relationship to Quebec, Canada is on the opposite side of that issue. In short, I don't agree with your change. Eclecticology 07:17 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)
 * Okay, you've convinced me. Changing it back Tokerboy 16:35 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)
 * "The adoption of the new Constitution without the Quebec government's concurrence is similar to that of all democracies like the United States where unanimous support for constitutional amendments is not required from all States, but is amended by a percentage of States or population, usually a two-thirds majority."
 * The sentence is particularly bad, because it implies without saying it that Canada's actions are correct because the United States does the same thing. The adoption of a constitution and the amending of a constitution are too different for this to be relevant.  Also, the fact that the United States does it does not make it morally acceptable for Canada to do it (necessarily).  By that standard it would be morally acceptable for Canada to train Latin American death squads.  The United States (nor any other country) is not the paragon of morality, and I don't think anyone could argue otherwise.  Does Scotland have to agree to a UK constitutional change?  What about Cornwall?  French Guyana and France?  Tasmania and Australia?  Does the answer to any of these questions have any bearing on whether or not Quebec should have to agree to a change in the Canadian constitution?  No.
 * This wasn't my sentence, so that I have to agree, but death squads and morality are not relevant here, only constitutional amending formulas. Eclecticology
 * I agree the issue is legality and not morality. The sentence's presence implied that the US formula proved that Canada's decision was correct.  Since any reasonable person would realize that American rules don't apply to Canada, the assumption (IMHO) is that America's actions make Canada's moral.  In reality, America's actions don't have any bearing on Canada's, so the sentence is irrelevant because Canada was not discussing amending the Constitution, but writing a whole new one. 128.172.143.135 00:40 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)
 * It wasn't completely a whole new one, but at least adding an amending fromula (mostly 70% of the provinces with at least 50% of the population) was new and replaced amendment by a simple act of the United Kingdom Parliament.  Passing this bill which would divest the UK Parliament of such rights created a minor constitutional problem for the UK.  Canadian federal laws are always official in both languages; the UK parliament had never before had to pass a law in a language other than English.  This was a first for them. The comparison with the amending formula of the United States Constitution may not be that important in this context.
 * "Two later initiatives reflect the goodwill of Canadians to address"
 * Changing "reflect the goodwill of Canadians to address" to "sought to address" My stupid-dumb-evil friend, John Doe, believes these initiatives reflect the Canadian imperialist desire to retain control over Quebec.
 * "then controlled by a party who advocated remaining in Canada on certain conditions"
 * Can somebody name the party please?


 * "his action was seen by some outside Québec as initiatives coming from a French-Canadian Prime Minister intent upon "shoving French down their throats""
 * There are Anglophones and Native Americans in Quebec. I'm sure some felt the same way.  Change "outside Quebec" to "Canadians".
 * OK. Eclecticology
 * "Tired of the country's constitutional deadlock, many Canadians preferred to focus on economic issues. "
 * When? During an election?  How could we know why Canadians focused on economic issues, or even that they did so?  Knowing nothing about Canada, I would ignore this sentence as meaningless because of the high amount of assumed ideas that could not be proven.  Maybe the reason they focused on economic issues (if they did) was because of unemployment or inflation, and they saw that as more important than distant and abstract political issues.
 * This can reflect a gradual shift in focus. It doesn't need to be tied to some new crisis. Eclecticology
 * "Canadians accepted the election of the Bloc Quebecois as Canada's official opposition in 1993 even though the sole purpose of this sovereigntist party is to break up the country."
 * Not NPOV. Did they have a choice in accepting the election after the results were finalized?  They could have revolted, certainly, but as written, this seems to characterize the Canadians as a wonderfully gracious people.  I believe that's true, but my friend John Doe (a card-carrying racist member of a very extreme sect of the KKK that hates Canadians and whose point-of-view should be accomodated) does not.  I also (once again, knowing little about Canada) have great difficulty in believing that a political party can be elected as the national official opposition with only one item on the platform, ignoring economic and other social and political issues.  Also, do they really seek the dissolution of Canada or just the independence of Quebec?  If I am wrong, and that is the only belief they espouse (in their own words), then feel free to restore it.  Changing to a "primary tenet."
 * The verb "accept" was not the best choice of words. But I see that sentence in general as appropriately addressing the ironic results from our "first past the post" system of elections. Eclecticology
 * The election system of Canada would be a great subject for a different article, but I don't think it's relevant here. My primary issue with the sentence was the characterization of the Bloc Quebecois as being a national party with only one item (which applies to less 23% of the nation) on the platform.  Certainly could be true, in theory, but it needs to be made explicit.  I would assume it was not true and see bias in that sentence, even if there is none, and we must avoid the appearance of bias. 128.172.143.135 00:40 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)
 * This article is "Politics of Canada"; that should be enough to make the electoral system relevant perhaps even more than the national unity question. That a party with significantly less than half of the popular vote should have significantly more than half of the power is an issue that is only starting to gain steam in Canadian politics.  The Bloc's rise to the status of official opposition reflected an anomaly in the system.  The Liberals had a clear majority of seats; that translates into all of the power.  The official opposition is the party in the House of Commons with the second largest number os seats; this does carry a few perks but no meaningful power.  The opposition vote outside Quebec was divided among three parties, but in Quebec it was mostly concentrated in a single party, the Bloc Québécois.  The net effect was that the Bloc had more seats than any other opposition party.  Being a national party Canada Election Act requires only that a party have a minimum of (I think) 25 candidates nominated in a federal election.  This condition can easily be fulfilled within Quebec alone. Eclecticology 07:17 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)
 * A section on the electoral process in Canada would be fine, but it should be a separate section. Getting back to the original question, does the Bloc Quebecois only have one tenet on its platform?  If so, feel free to change the sentence back to the original wording.  Otherwise, the current wording is better, even if it is theoretically (or even practically) possible for a single-issue party to become the national opposition. Tokerboy 16:35 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)


 * "Quebec's status thus remains a serious political issue."
 * Duh. With the preceeding and following sentences, this is obvious and need not be restated.  Deleting.
 * OK. Eclecticology


 * "The Court ruled that Quebec, with less than 23 percent of Canada's population, cannot alone vote to break up the entire country unless the referendum has a clear and absolute majority in favor of a clearly worded question."
 * This begs the question of a "clear and absolute majority" of what? Quebec or Canada?  The answer changes how I would feel about the decision and the sentence can not stand without it.  I'll leave it in because the narrative would make no sense with that gap, but the question must be answered.
 * There's no need to answer this when the Supreme Court itself left it unanswered. Eclecticology
 * Well, that certainly was silly. I still don't like ignoring the issue, so I'm specifying in the article that the Court did not explain.  I reworded it. 128.172.143.135 00:40 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)


 * "With a Liberal Party majority, both houses of the Federal Parliament of Canada subsequently approved the legislation."
 * Another necessary detail: is the Liberal Party separatist or federalist? Are they the majority in both houses?
 * Duh! Eclecticology
 * I see that the sentence definitely explains they are the majority in both houses, but I still don't know whether the party is separatist or federalist. 128.172.143.135 00:40 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)
 * Since it's members were from across the country it was clearly federalist. Eclecticology 07:17 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)
 * I suppose that makes sense, but I put a note to that effect in the article. Maybe I'm blinded and prejudiced by thinking of the American system, but I didn't automatically assume they were federalist.  Especially with your explanation of the Bloc Quebecois as the national opposition with supporters in only one province.
 * "began to explore ways for Quebec to break away from Canada and become an independent nation."
 * Is there any way a reasonable person would disagree with this? It feels like an assumption, but may not be.  I am leaving it.
 * "the Parti Québécois sought a mandate from the people of Quebec to support "sovereignty association".
 * If you introduce a presumably official term in quotation marks, like "sovereignty association," you must define it. I assume I know what it means, but the quotation marks imply a very specific meaning and since there is no logical definition, a priori, in the paragraph in question, I don't want to have to assume I know what it means.
 * The words were used but weren't defined in the referendum question! This very democratically allowed everybody to assume they knew what it meant. Eclecticology
 * I have included something to that effect in the article. 128.172.143.135 00:40 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)


 * "Any possible economic association with the rest of Canada would be negotiated after independence was achieved."
 * I have deleted this sentence because (to me, as someone with no knowledge of the situation) it screams out "the whole idea was half-baked and rushed" and I wonder exactly what the other terms of association were. Immigration?  Education?  Citizenship?  Why is the economic connection singled out?
 * Your lack of knowledge of the situation is not a sound basis for deleting anything. You admit to already understanding that it was "half-baked and rushed".  If sovereignty is a chicken and association is an egg, which comes first, sovereignty or association? Eclecticology
 * My point was that, if I were interested in forming an opinion on the subject of Quebecois independence, I would ignore the entire article because this sentence explains one aspect of the plan. The explained aspect clearly leads me to a certain belief, but if the other aspects are ignored... I don't know why and I assume it is because they did not support the author's POV that the plan was half-baked and rushed.  That interpretation may not be correct, but the entire situation needs to be explained, or none of it, or else the entire article is suspect. 128.172.143.135 00:40 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)
 * The "association" was intentionally left vague. It covered a wide range of views; the separatists themselves were divided on just how much association they would have.  In any event independance was not achieved so the nature of such association is now moot. Eclecticology 07:17 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)
 * Have included "The proposal advocated independence for Quebec with the exact terms of association with Canada to be decided after independence."
 * "This action was seen by some Canadians as coming from a French-Canadian Prime Minister intent upon "shoving French down their throats", while his vision of creating a "unified" Canada was seen as a sell-out by many Québécois."
 * This is kind of ridiculous. Who said these things in quotations?  I am rewording to "Some Canadians saw Trudeau's actions as an attempt to force the Quebecois language and culture upon the rest of Canada.  Many Quebecois viewed his compromise as a sell-out." (related question: can "Quebecois" be used as both a noun and adjective?  It doesn't feel right as a noun)
 * The phrase was a commonly used one at the time, and to a lesser extent is still used today. I don't know if it can be attributed to any single person.  Without the quotation it would not express NPOV.  Quebecois does exist as both noun and adjective, and in my experience it is more common as a noun. Eclecticology
 * The "unified" is simply an adjective, and that just seems silly in quotes because nobody would argue that Trudeau's vision was not of a unified Canada (AFAIK). "shoving French down their throats" isback andattributed. 128.172.143.135 00:40 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)
 * No problem with "unified" where I simply had not paid attention to the quotes before. Eclecticology 07:17 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)


 * "Many in Canada recognize that the province of Quebec is distinct, unique, and an integral part of the Canadian mosaic of cultures"
 * I don't think this is necessary. My evil-bad friend, John Doe, believes there is only one proper Canadian culture.  Rewording.
 * See above (mosaic vs. melting pot). In a mosaic many cultures live side-by-side; in a melting pot they are blanded (sic!) together like a lot of leftover paint. Eclecticology


 * "In 1987, the administration of Quebecois Prime Minister Brian Mulroney attempted to address the concerns of the political leaders of Quebec and bring the province into an amended constitution."
 * I am rewording this because it took five minutes to realize that Mulroney is ethnically Quebecois but the Prime Minister of all of Canada. Right?  Why was federal and provincial capitalized occasionally in this article?  Even more importantly than that, the entire paragraph refers to the accord which Mulroney introduced.  What the hell was the accord?  I know who made it, who agreed to it and why and who did not agree to it and why, but I don't know what the freaking accord itself is.  This is a serious omission.  Is it the same thing as the Charlottetown Accord?  If so, the name (and the currently-nonexistent description) needs to be higher up in the paragraph.  If not, that needs to be made clear, probably by making two paragraphs for the two accords.
 * Some might dispute whether Mulroney was "ethnically Quebecois" or even suggest that he was ethnically canine, but I'd prefer not to go there. You're probably referring to the Meech Lake Accord; the Charlottetown Accord came later.  ...plus a lot happened in between.  I'll easily admit that some serious rewriting is needed. Eclecticology
 * Have gone ahead and split them into two paragraphs. 128.172.143.135 00:40 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)


 * The repeated references to two attempts at constitutional reform are confusing. What counts as an attempt?
 * I count 1: the 1980 referendum; 2: the 1982 change in the method of constitutional reform; 3: Mulroney's accord; 4: the 1992 accord; 5: the 1995 referendum; 6: the 1999 Supreme Court decision
 * Only 6! -- That proves you're not familiar with the subject. Eclecticology
 * Changed "two" to "several" 128.172.143.135 00:40 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)


 * All six of these seem (to me) to be concerning a change in the Canadian constitution. If they are not included in the "two," something, somewhere needs to be made more clear.
 * OK Eclecticology

A couple sentences have a mile or two between the subject and the verb. I am changing these. Some other rewording for clarity under the principle that the lowest number of words is always preferable, all other things being equal. I don't know if that was DW or someone else, but a lot of that section was substantially more wordy than necessary. That makes it more confusing and difficult to read. If I changed the meaning of anything not mentioned here, I didn't mean to.
 * At some time past someone said that I had a Victorian style of writing, and will readily accept the credit for my part. This article is a composite, and I am as critical of some of the phrasing as you. Eclecticology

Is Lionel Groulx a typo? It certainly doesn't look English or French.
 * It's perfectly real - You can look him up in Google if you want, but the most useful sites all seem to be in French. Eclecticology

I think we must answer a question that popped into my mind. Do "autonomy," "independence" and "sovereignty" mean the exact same thing? I believe independence and sovereignty (is that really the correct spelling?) are identical, interchangeable synonyms, but autonomy can be achieved within Canada.
 * "Sovereignty is spelled correctly. (I just double checked to make sure.) There are subtle differences between these terms which politicians are all too ready to exploit. Eclecticology
 * I will check it to see how I like the word's current usage in the article 128.172.143.135 00:40 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)

Hmmm... now that I think about it more, I really view the three as a continuum, from autonomous to sovereign to independent (the most extreme). Is this how the writers/readers of this article view it? Are all three words used clearly and correctly in this section? 128.172.211.98 03:24 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)

I didn't mean to do the above anonymously. Wikipedia keeps logging me out and I didn't notice. Tokerboy 03:31 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)


 * I can appreciate Tokerboy's efforts in the can of worms of the Canadian national unity issue, but he risks falling into a simplistic view of the situation. Some one has suggested that this topic should be in a different article, and there is much merit to that.  The twists and turns of the debate over the years could overwhelm this article. Eclecticology
 * I'm sure my view is simplistic, but I think that's a good thing (in this case) because I don't have any particularly strong feelings on the subject. I'm a libertarian socialist and support the smallest governmental bodies possible, so I'm vaguely in favorof Quebecois independence but I don't have any real strong feelings on the subject.  The reason I made the above changes is because I really am interested in the subject, but upon reading the article I had to dismiss it because of missing details and and what I percieved to be bias.  My perception could have been wrong, but I think NPOV includes the appearance of bias, as well as actual bias.128.172.143.135 00:40 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)
 * There are two threads to be taken into account when looking at what sometimes really does seem like very ambiguous language in this discussion. First, politicians just love weasel words. In election campaigns (including referenda) they like to use the term that will best promote their cause.  The meaning of "independance" is perhaps the clearest of the three terms mentioned, and would have been favoured by anyone seeking a clear resolution; then, whether they voted yes or no, they knew what they were voting on.  By using a more weasely word like "sovereignty" (and to a lesser extent "autonomy"), and and making it even more weasely by attaching "association" the proponents had hoped to gain more votes. Second, evasive language by Supreme Courts reflects the operation of checks and balances between the judicial and legislative arms of government.  The Court rightly does not want to be seen as making laws, but unfortunately politicians are often loath to accept their own responsibilities.  So when the Supreme Court said there had to be a clear majority on a clear question it was telling the politicians that it was their job to define just what that meant. Eclecticology 07:17 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)

Damn it! 128.172.143.135 was Tokerboy again. Tokerboy 00:41 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)
 * Go to your preferences to make sure that "Remember password across sessions" is still checked." I've had this problem before. You can probably go back and use a copy and paste if you want to get rid of those ugly numbers that you unintentionally signed with. Eclecticology 07:17 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)
 * I swear I checked it two days ago and it was checked, but now it wasn't. Hopefully I will stay signed in now.  Thanks. Tokerboy 16:35 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)