Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

[QUOTE]Michou that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Canada isn't a nation because it is not composed of a majority of natives? Then the united states isn't a country. [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />You started the ball. You said Quebec isn't a nation. We say Canada is no more entitled to "nation" status than Quebec. <br /> <br />[QUOTE]My point is Quebec can not claim they are "oppressed" because they want there own land base to keep there language and cultural. If living in Canada has been so awful for french canadians then they could have always moved back to france but they didn't. [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Quebec wants to be a country to preserve its identity and make its own investment decisions, after having rapatriated its taxes from Ottawa. Now, if Canadians don't like it, they can move back to wherever they came from. See how ridiculous that is? <br /> <br />[QUOTE]Can the chechens move, or palestians or taiwan or tibetans no because they are actually ancestors of the land. French Canadians are not.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Quebeckers are as much, maybe more, ancerstors of the land as English Canadians. <br /> <br /> <br />

   

yeah that's right Quebec isn't a nation. If so many people believed it was wouldn't you have been a country along time ago? <br /> <br />Delenda will you admit that the version of history that I've said that in 1982 the majority of quebeckers supported Trudeau's constitution and that 70 MP's from Quebec also supported it. <br /> <br />You make it sound as though my version of history is false when you know that it actually true but won't admit it.

   

[QUOTE BY= dino] yeah that's right Quebec isn't a nation. If so many people believed it was wouldn't you have been a country along time ago? <br /> <br />Delenda will you admit that the version of history that I've said that in 1982 the majority of quebeckers supported Trudeau's constitution and that 70 MP's from Quebec also supported it. <br /> <br />You make it sound as though my version of history is false when you know that it actually true but won't admit it.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Dino, as Michou said, go consult Google. In 1982, Trudeau rapatriated the Constitution without Quebec's consent. That Trudeau's MPs supported it or not is irrelevent, since they were thrown out on the following election! CASE CLOSED. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />

   

Does it surprise anyone that most of the bigotry and idiocy in this thread comes from someone who claims to want to "get into politics"! This person will no doubt fit right in.

   

Who wants to get into politics? <br /> <br />Delenda the majority of people in Quebec wanted to be in the constitution. That's a fact.

   

<u>FEDERALISM DOESN'T WORK AND CANADA WILL NOT MOVE AN INCH TO ACCOMMODATE QUEBEC, dixit Josée Legault, a sovereigntist columnist.</u> <br /> <br />Fiscal imbalance is slippery slope for federalism <br />JOSEE LEGAULT <br />The Montréal Gazette 12 novembre 2004 <br /> <br />Those who hope the ugly infighting within the Parti Quebecois and the election of a federalist government in Quebec have put the national-unity issue to rest better think again. <br /> <br />If anything, the constitutional issue is making a fierce comeback. Only this time, it comes under a different brand name. Given that the renewal of the constitution remains out of the question since the failure of the Meech and Charlottetown accords, the dreaded C-word has been replaced with the more palatable F-word: federalism. <br /> <br />Conservative leader Stephen Harper wants Belgium-style federalism. Prime Minister Paul Martin says he prefers his co-operative and flexible. Action Democratique leader Mario Dumont dreams of the autonomist kind. All the while French-language newspapers are filled with editorials and op-ed pieces on federalism. <br /> <br />Even Gilles Duceppe wants in - kind of. In what looks like another move to increase his visibility for a future shot at Bernard Landry's job, Duceppe is touring the ROC to "explain" sovereignty to Canadians. He does this with an interesting new twist where he also professes his "respect" for what he calls the great Canadian nation. <br /> <br />Jean Charest wants something called asymmetrical federalism, which, in essence, differs from Robert Bourassa's vision. Charest talks of building a "Canadian agenda" based on a form of asymmetry that could apply to all provinces, whereas Bourassa always preferred a special status for Quebec. <br /> <br />After the federal-provincial meeting on health-care funding in September, Charest boasted he had wrestled such asymmetry from Ottawa. But since then, Paul Martin has been facing a major backlash from his caucus and various English-Canadian media against any form of asymmetry. <br /> <br />Then came more bad news for Charest. First, his finance minister, Yves Seguin, accused Ottawa of bleeding Quebec dry with insufficient equalization payments. <br /><i><u>Second, a poll for the Council for Canadian Unity had support for sovereignty way up at 49 per cent. Even more devastating, it showed 93 per cent of Canadians outside Quebec were not willing to give this province some kind of special recognition even if it would strengthen national unity. </u></i> <br /> <br />So, on Monday, Charest came out swinging in Charlottetown. He delivered his most critical speech about the federal government in years - a speech even Bourassa would have endorsed. Its title - "Rediscovering the Spirit of Federalism" - showed how much Charest is convinced such a spirit is lost on the federal government. <br /> <br />With that speech, Charest got his constitutional groove back. The talk was straight and unforgiving, just like it was when he was leader of the federal Conservative Party confronting Jean Chretien's Trudeau-style federalism. <br /> <br />Like all Quebec premiers, Charest issued the demand that Ottawa "resist the temptation of centralization." But more important, he condemned Canada's "slide toward a unitary state." Those are mighty strong words from a federalist and they should have been music to the PQ's ears. <br /> <br />But in a display of the absentee opposition it has become as it wallows in its leadership crisis, not a word came from Landry on Charest's statement. <br /> <br />In Canada, nowhere is this slippery slope toward a unitary state more apparent than in the growing fiscal imbalance. Charest observed this is also creating a political imbalance. Whereas have-not provinces like Quebec remain cash-strapped, Ottawa uses its huge surpluses to invade provincial jurisdictions such as health care, day care, municipalities, education and so on. <br /> <br />Charest figured Paul Martin as the ultimate villain of this fiscal imbalance, referring to the drastic cuts he started making to transfer payments in 1995 when he was finance minister. Martin might now speak of co-operative federalism, but Charest knows his actions show otherwise. <br /> <br />Charest mentioned the estimated $166-billion surplus Martin could rack up in the next 10 years. Yesterday, La Presse also reported another $7 billion has been put away in various foundations set up by the federal government in the past few years. <br /> <br />This is more money Ottawa has to spend in provincial jurisdictions. Shockingly enough, this $7 billion escapes scrutiny by the House of Commons. On the same day, Le Devoir also revealed the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation now has an impressive $2.5-billion surplus. <br /> <br />In face of the sheer power that comes with all of these billions of tax dollars Martin keeps piling up, Charest better forget about his "spirit of federalism," Harper about his Belgium model, and Dumont about his "autonomy." <br /> <br />With such surpluses at his disposal, Martin is slowly turning the fiscal imbalance into high-way robbery. <br /> <br />If there's anything asymmetrical about Martin's brand of federalism, it lies in Ottawa's riches and Quebec's unanswered needs. <br /> <br /> <br />

   

Maybe instead of Quebecers thinking fiscal imbalance is because of federalism maybe they should start looking at other federalist parties not just the liberals. Fiscal imbalance was never a problem until the liberals made there way into office. <br /> <br />Proves my point the Bloc Quebecois is useless they can make alot of noise, they can stop legislation from being passed but they cannot shape events in this country because there not a federalist party.

   

self censored

   

[QUOTE]Maybe instead of Quebecers thinking fiscal imbalance is because of federalism maybe they should start looking at other federalist parties not just the liberals. Fiscal imbalance was never a problem until the liberals made there way into office.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Hey, Canada elected the liberals, not Quebec. <br />

   

What has the Bloc done to make sure each province gets their fair share of money? <br /> <br />Did the Bloc Quebecois stop the clarity act from being put through? <br />What has the Bloc done to improve the environment? <br />What have they done to improve health care? <br />What have they done to improve the gap between the rich and poor? <br />What have they done to lower tuition fees or better yet have them scrapped? <br /> <br />What have the Bloc done to make the lives of Quebecers better? <br /> <br />You say Canada elected the liberals not Quebec. The last time I looked at the map of Canada, Quebec was a part of it.

   

I'll reply more to the MANY other comments that have popped up on this thread when I have some more time, but I'd like to say I think that Jean Charest at the moment anyway is the only Premier who realizes that it is time for a new constitutional arrangement. If we grant Quebec (and the Aboriginal communities) distinct status, adopt an elected Senate, hopefully add private property rights into the Charter and constitutionally committ the federal government to a mandatory amount of healthcare funding per year, we will not weaken national unity, we will save it. <br /> <br />I am a card carrying Liberal, but I realize the only way to save Canada right now is to fix the constitution again. Though Delenda that poll taken might have said that only 7% of Canadians favoured giving Quebec distinct status to save national unity, I wouldn't exactly go believing that. I have personally found STRONG support for giving Quebec distinct status and it is also important to remember that the Charlottetown Accord (which id have some faults I'll admit, would have granted Quebec distinct status) was approved by 48% of Canadians, 49% here in Ontario. It certainly wasn't flatly rejected by Canada!

   

[QUOTE BY= Macdonald/Borden] I'll reply more to the MANY other comments that have popped up on this thread when I have some more time, but I'd like to say I think that Jean Charest at the moment anyway is the only Premier who realizes that it is time for a new constitutional arrangement. If we grant Quebec (and the Aboriginal communities) distinct status, adopt an elected Senate, hopefully add private property rights into the Charter and constitutionally committ the federal government to a mandatory amount of healthcare funding per year, we will not weaken national unity, we will save it. <br /> <br />I am a card carrying Liberal, but I realize the only way to save Canada right now is to fix the constitution again. Though Delenda that poll taken might have said that only 7% of Canadians favoured giving Quebec distinct status to save national unity, I wouldn't exactly go believing that. I have personally found STRONG support for giving Quebec distinct status and it is also important to remember that the Charlottetown Accord (which id have some faults I'll admit, would have granted Quebec distinct status) was approved by 48% of Canadians, 49% here in Ontario. It certainly wasn't flatly rejected by Canada! [/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />You're wrong. Canadians don't want it to happen because Quebec is not a distinct or "separate" entity. It is a province. <br /> <br />Luckily suppor tofr separatism is down from years ago, no matter what the fools in the corporate media say.

   

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed] [QUOTE BY= Macdonald/Borden] I'll reply more to the MANY other comments that have popped up on this thread when I have some more time, but I'd like to say I think that Jean Charest at the moment anyway is the only Premier who realizes that it is time for a new constitutional arrangement. If we grant Quebec (and the Aboriginal communities) distinct status, adopt an elected Senate, hopefully add private property rights into the Charter and constitutionally committ the federal government to a mandatory amount of healthcare funding per year, we will not weaken national unity, we will save it. <br /> <br />I am a card carrying Liberal, but I realize the only way to save Canada right now is to fix the constitution again. Though Delenda that poll taken might have said that only 7% of Canadians favoured giving Quebec distinct status to save national unity, I wouldn't exactly go believing that. I have personally found STRONG support for giving Quebec distinct status and it is also important to remember that the Charlottetown Accord (which id have some faults I'll admit, would have granted Quebec distinct status) was approved by 48% of Canadians, 49% here in Ontario. It certainly wasn't flatly rejected by Canada! [/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />You're wrong. Canadians don't want it to happen because Quebec is not a distinct or "separate" entity. It is a province. <br /> <br />Luckily suppor tofr separatism is down from years ago, no matter what the fools in the corporate media say.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Perturbed, if there were no people like you, there wouldn't be any separatists. But Canada is full of people like you.

   

[QUOTE BY= Macdonald/Borden] ...and it is also important to remember that the Charlottetown Accord (which id have some faults I'll admit, would have granted Quebec distinct status) was approved by 48% of Canadians, 49% here in Ontario. It certainly wasn't flatly rejected by Canada! [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />The Charlottetown accord (Meech minus) was not acceptable to Quebec and was rejected by 57% in Quebec. It was rejected by 75% in the West. <br /> <br />So 49% approval in Ontario doesn't mean, really, anything. Just to give you a taste of your own medicine : the last referendum was voted yes by 49.6% of the population. <br />

   

[QUOTE BY= dino] What has the Bloc done to make sure each province gets their fair share of money? <br /> <br />Did the Bloc Quebecois stop the clarity act from being put through? <br />What has the Bloc done to improve the environment? <br />What have they done to improve health care? <br />What have they done to improve the gap between the rich and poor? <br />What have they done to lower tuition fees or better yet have them scrapped? <br /> <br />What have the Bloc done to make the lives of Quebecers better? <br /> <br />You say Canada elected the liberals not Quebec. The last time I looked at the map of Canada, Quebec was a part of it.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Dino is mixed up again. We were talking about the Liberals. Ontario elected the liberals. So don't blame it on the Bloc. <br /> <br />Go to the Bloc website and you'll find answers to your questions. <br /> <br />http://www.bloc.org/

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next