Quebec... A nation *in* Canada. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Charlatan · 11-23-2006, 06:10 AM

So I have been following the news about Harper's speech to Parliament regarding the status of Quebec in Canada. I must say that I was astounded. Harper said what needed to be said. He gave the smackdown to the Bloc and he did it in a way that made him seem almost Priministerial.

For some time I have agreed that Quebec is a distinct society. I really don't see that there is a question of this. But I have always felt that they were still a part of Canada. The separatists are inherently wrong-headed.

Harper aside, this is an important step in putting the separatists in their place. I have felt that the support for true separation was much lower than the 49% shown during the last referendum for separation. I believe that the "true believers" are more around the 10% number (maybe less). The average supporter of the separatists are actually just those who are looking for some sort of separate status. A recognition of Quebec's distinct society within Canada.

Perhaps I am naive in this but I am not so sure.

What do you think about this motion? What do you think about the fact that it is Harper who is saying it?

I haven't even touched on the slippery slope of the erosion of Federal powers that this could lead to... what are your thoughts on that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Harper

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Bloc Québécois will present the House with an unusual request that we here at the federal Parliament define the Québécois nation.

As a consequence, with the support of the government and with the support of our party, I will be putting on the Notice Paper later today the following motion. ... That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada. ...

Once again, the leader of the Bloc and his separatist friends are not concerned with defining who Quebecers are but rather what they want them to become, a separate country.

The separatists do not need the Parliament of Canada to define what is meant by the sociological termination.

My preference has been well known. I believe that this is not the job of the federal Parliament. It is the job of the legislature of Quebec, but the Bloc Québécois has asked us to define this and perhaps that is a good thing, because it reminds us that all Canadians have a say in the future of this country.

Having been asked by the Bloc to define the Québécois, we must take a position.

Our position is clear. Do the Québécois form a nation within Canada? The answer is yes.

Do the Québécois form an independent nation? The answer is no, and the answer will always be no, because Quebecers of all political persuasions, from Cartier and Laurier to Mulroney and Trudeau, have led this country, and millions like them of all political persuasions have helped to build it.

With their English- and French-speaking fellow citizens, and people drawn from all nationalities of this earth, they have been part of making this country what it is, the greatest country in the world.

To millions more who live in a dangerous and dividing world, this country is a shining example of the harmony and unity to which all peoples are capable and to which all humanity should aspire.

I say to my federalist colleagues and I also say to the separatist side that we here will do what we must, what our forefathers have always done to preserve this country, Canada, strong, united, independent and free.

aberkok · 11-23-2006, 07:13 AM

I really don't know too much about the history of the separatist movement, but it seems like Harper is getting closer to the truth of the matter: that there is a widespread respect for Quebec culture and independence, but no compelling argument for a new separate nation. This casts the issue in a more realistic light.

Maybe Quebec should be more autonomous. My own experience of the issue happened mostly when I was going into 6th grade. We lived in Pointe-Claire. I was an immigrant and had to attend a French school, leaving all my friends for a year. That's about the extent of it.

What other examples of nations within nations are there? How are these working? How does the Bloc find provincial law to be limiting?

fresnelly · 11-23-2006, 10:49 AM

To be honest, I'm a bit confused where this is all going. Is this just political grandstanding (deftly done) or are the Tories planning on openining constitutional negotiations?

Note that Harper said "the Quebecois" are a nation, and not "Quebec". That's an important distinction becuase it's essentially symbolic and only targets a people within a province and not its political stathood.

Furthermore, I understand his statement was a preemptive response to a forthcoming Bloc motion of similar but stronger content. I have no idea what happens now besides a national handwringing festival.

He gets points from me for making this actual federal issue his focus, rather than any issues of "morality"

As for examples of Nations within Nations, I believe the United Kingdom - (England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Coronation Street) fits the bill.

Another seperatist Hotzone is the Basque region of Spain. What about Algiers and France?

shakran · 11-23-2006, 11:20 AM

Seems to me a similar separatist argument could be made about various states here in the USA too. Texas is sure as hell different from the rest of us

In fact, some folks tried that once but Lincoln wouldn't hear of it.

Having travelled through the country, yes Quebec is definitely different from the rest of Canada, but IMO that's a good thing. Quebec should be proud of its differences while still being proud to be Canadian. It adds a decidedly not-boring aspect to the country.

By the same token, while Texas is definitely different - - practically another planet really

- - it'd be pretty boring if the whole USA were like Iowa

feelgood · 11-23-2006, 01:56 PM

Found this from Fark.com and it pretty much describes Quebec from Western Canada point of view

Quote:

It's kind of like declaring your basement `an apartment' within Mom's house, eh - Quebec?

Don't forget the free food, free electricity, free phone and cable, free laundry, free parking, free heat....oh, but wait that's not good enough, food should be served by a super model on a silver tray, preferably the supermodel would be wearing a bikini and telling me how great I am for mooching off of my parents being such an independent and unique person for "striking out on my own" by living in the basement...

Nuf said....

Charlatan · 11-23-2006, 02:38 PM

The more I think on this it really is tied to Harper's desire to decentralize power. More power for the provinces and less for the federation.

He is doing the right thing vis a vis Quebec but will this lead to similar arrangements across the board and is this something we want to pursue?

This also opens the door to recognizing, in an increasingly formal manner, the concept that Canada was founded by three nations -- English, French and Native. This could result in a step towards stronger native self-government as well. This would be a very interesting move if we could pull it off.

Fresnelly, I was thinking the same thing about Great Britain. There is precedent.

As for your quote feelgood, I think that completely misrepresents the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada. They pay a heck of a lot of taxes into the Federal coffers. To suggest they are getting a free ride is nonsense.

aKula · 11-23-2006, 03:35 PM

A leader of the central government working to decentralise power? Though it may well be the case, the possibility of it occurring caught my attention. Historically they've been all for centralising power.

As for states that encompass more than one nation, usually this has been coupled with independence movements from within the minority. Spain definitely comes to mind. Though I do think it is possible for Canada to encompass both nations and remain that way. Seems like from what you're writing, Charlatan, together with Harper's speech, that he has managed to tap into the broader feeling for unity in an attempt guide the nations towards a greater understanding of their roles and relationship.

feelgood · 11-23-2006, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

As for your quote feelgood, I think that completely misrepresents the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada. They pay a heck of a lot of taxes into the Federal coffers. To suggest they are getting a free ride is nonsense.

That's not the point I'm making, the point is that the separatist in Quebec has and will always claim that they're not getting enough from Canada, or will try to claim that Canada doesn't work.

Anybody remember that the federal deficit back in the 90s? What did Quebec say about it? "Canada does not work"

Now we have a surplus, and what do they say? "Canada does not work"

My point, nothing we can provide, take away, or whatever the hell we do for them, will ever satisfy them until the day we either kick them out of our country or sell it to another country.

james t kirk · 11-23-2006, 04:15 PM

I think the entire notion is crazy, however, Harper has method to his madness.

I think that the only reason that Harper is doing this is that he is pandering to Quebec voters.

Simple as that.

He feels that if he takes Quebec, the west, etc. then Ontario can go to hell. He's counting on the western vote to stay with him.

You can bet your sweet ass that if Harper had a majority, there'd be none of this BS. This is simply pandering to the so called "soft-separatists" Those separatists who think that Quebec should be its own country but don't want to hold another referendum for fear of the instability and divisiveness it will create within the province.

If you saw the cover of the Globe and Mail today, the body language of Harper and those around him was clearly uncomfortable. This is not something they feel good about doing.

feelgood · 11-23-2006, 04:28 PM

If Harper gets a majority government next time and puts a freaking lid on the whiny bitches in Quebec, then by gods, I would vote for him and help with the voting fraud...

I voted Liberal btw, who the hell votes for Liberals in Alberta?

Charlatan · 11-24-2006, 06:50 AM

Feelgood, you are right. There are hard-core separatists that want nothing short of separation -- they want the country of Quebec outside Canada.

In the separatist movement, I believe they are in the minority (even if they are half of the movement it isn't enough to carry the vote). The rest are those who want special status but don't necessarily want to separate. It's one of the reasons why the last referendum question was so convoluted. If the question has simply asked, "Do you want Quebec to separate from Canada to form its own country?" the numbers wouldn't have been near the 49% they had last time.

So what I am saying is that close to 66% (at least) of Quebecers do not fall into the hardcore separatist camp. The rest whine no more or less than say Albertans about not getting what they want from the Feds.

Sticky · 11-24-2006, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Feelgood, you are right. There are hard-core separatists that want nothing short of separation -- they want the country of Quebec outside Canada.

In the separatist movement, I believe they are in the minority (even if they are half of the movement it isn't enough to carry the vote). The rest are those who want special status but don't necessarily want to separate. It's one of the reasons why the last referendum question was so convoluted. If the question has simply asked, "Do you want Quebec to separate from Canada to form its own country?" the numbers wouldn't have been near the 49% they had last time.

So what I am saying is that close to 66% (at least) of Quebecers do not fall into the hardcore separatist camp. The rest whine no more or less than say Albertans about not getting what they want from the Feds.

Charlatan you are most likely correct.
Also, another reason it was so close last time was because people were upset/unhappy. Do not forget we had a Quebecois PM who did thinigs his own way and felt that he knew what was best for the people of Quebec.
(maybe it is better Quebec to not have a Canadian PM from Quebec. The last time this reall was the case was Lester B Pearson in the 60's. I am purposly omitting JC's 9 months and KC's 4 months. Harper's 10 and counting may be forgotten as well we will have to wait and see. Imagine Stephane Dion becomes PM next, it has already been a crazy run of PMs from Quebec.)

So you have a percentage of quebec that are called Nationalists and then you have those that are labelled Soft Nationalists.
The Soft Nationalists don't necessarily want out of Canada but they are of the opinion that they are no being recognized properly. It some cases, like back in 1995 it led to the thought that - well if Canada can't give Quebecers waht they need then maybe we should try to get more power and do it ourselves.

I believe that some of these Soft Nationalists just want to be recognized and have the government decentralize certain powers so that Quebec (and other provinces of course) can take more control of certain issues on its own.
What Harper is doing may appease these people. It may also take away alot of the effectiveness of the Nationalists arguments that Qyuebec is better without Canada. The answer to them from the Soft Nationalists may now be - hey, but we have everything (or most) we want and we can still benefit from being part of Canada.

I think that this is not such a bad idea. Even if it is just semantics, it took us a long time to figure out the rigth set and order of words. Let's see how it all plays out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by feelgood

Anybody remember that the federal deficit back in the 90s? What did Quebec say about it? "Canada does not work"

Now we have a surplus, and what do they say? "Canada does not work"

As an aside - A surplus is just as much a sign of governtment mismanagement as a deficit it is just the consequences that are better.

feelgood · 11-24-2006, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticky

As an aside - A surplus is just as much a sign of governtment mismanagement as a deficit it is just the consequences that are better.

Well, how much are you willing to be if the Government's budget is on target, the separatist will still say "Canada does not work"

Sticky · 11-24-2006, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by feelgood

Well, how much are you willing to be if the Government's budget is on target, the separatist will still say "Canada does not work"

You are likely correct on that one.

I just wanted to point out a misconceptions that I often see (and I am not saying that you have this misconception onyl that you comment made me thing of it.

The misconception is that many people think that a surplus means that the government is running the country well or better than if it had a deficit.

Yakk · 11-27-2006, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticky

As an aside - A surplus is just as much a sign of governtment mismanagement as a deficit it is just the consequences that are better.

Huh? If the government planned on having a surplus, why is having a surplus a sign of government mismanagement?

The claim was that the Canadian Federal Government had too large of a debt load. So the plan was made to reduce it to next-to-nothing. (Harper's position, that the goal should be no net debt, is a good one actually -- Canada should borrow Canadian dollars to hold non-Canadian debt. This gives Canada a currency reserve, and provides capital in Canada a source of "risk-free" debt.)

I'm all for Quebecious being a nation in Canada if I can be one too!

Sticky · 11-28-2006, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

Huh? If the government planned on having a surplus, why is having a surplus a sign of government mismanagement?

Maybe it is just semantics, but a surplus means that they have more then they planned for.
When budgeting, paying down the debt should be part of the plan (if they believe it could be done).

Anything left over after you did everything you said you were going to do is surplus. That does not necessarily mean that you did something good. It does mecessarily not mean that you saved the country some money. It often means that you over budgeted (maybe even padded estimates) on some items. It also means that you taxed too much.

There will of course be variances but basically a fiscally sound government has no defecit or surplus

Yakk · 11-28-2006, 01:00 PM

That would make sense, if having a deficit was an unplanned shortfall.

In the lingo of government accounting, deficits are increases to the debt.

Surpluses are decreases to the debt.

Sticky · 11-29-2006, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

That would make sense, if having a deficit was an unplanned shortfall.

In the lingo of government accounting, deficits are increases to the debt.

This is definately true, not doubt about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

Surpluses are decreases to the debt.

This is not always true. There is always discussion about what to do with the surplus. It is not, unfortunately applied against the debt.

Also, couldn't the government just over budget so that they always come under and have a surplus?
No, that would be wrong. Why tax us more then they need to tax us.
A surplus means they taxed us too much.
It is incorrect to think that a surplus is good.
Any government who has a surplus wants you to think it is good.

They should plan to pay down the debt and it should be part of the governments platform (or policy). Paying down the debt should be worked into the budget so that they know how much revenues to collect.

Yakk · 11-29-2006, 11:08 AM

They "need" to tax us enough to pay off the debt accrued in order to build the current society.

Currently, the government has a few billion dollars of extra tax "needed" above and beyond the annual requirements.

Leto · 11-29-2006, 11:33 AM

dammit, i just want income splitting. Now.

Oh yes, and good luck to the Quebecois, how ever they are defined. Could just be the pure-lain...

Amaras · 11-29-2006, 12:56 PM

As a Quebecer born and bred I have lived here for 29 of my 34 years.
Fresnelly, do you know any Separatists or are you just blowin' smoke?
Don't get me wrong, there IS a whiny, impossible to satisy element
to the movement.
There are/were others, however. Folks of incredible intellect and extremely
high standards. Claude Laurin, Rene Levesque are well known.
At it's heart, it started out as not a "Canada doesn't work" as much as
"Canada doesn't work the way WE want."
Democracy allows for this, right?
There was also an extremely strong reaction of "screw Anglos" to many decades of being treated as second class citizens by the rest of Canada.
Although the scale is wrong, the rest of Canada's reaction to separatists seems to me to be similar to the majority of white America's reaction to Malcolm X.
That was 25 years ago.
All that being said. I think Harper did a VERY good thing.
So far, I like this guy.
Being in Montreal, I have no choice but to vote liberal.
Harper gets my support far for his policies.

feelgood · 11-29-2006, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grolsch

Being in Montreal, I have no choice but to vote liberal.
Harper gets my support far for his policies.

Wow, that statement is just...odd.

How can you have no choice?

Sticky · 11-29-2006, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

They "need" to tax us enough to pay off the debt accrued in order to build the current society.

Currently, the government has a few billion dollars of extra tax "needed" above and beyond the annual requirements.

I will try this one more time becuase I may not be explining it correctly.

Yes, they do need to pay down the debt.
The amount that they want to pay should be part of the annual budget.
They should have a planned amount that they want to pay and it should not be whatever we accidentally have left over at the end of the year.

Aside from emergencies and unforseen events they should not be sepnding on anything that is not in the budget. Remember, the budget was approved by parliament as a blueprint for what the government is going to collect and what they are going to spend.

A surplus arises from a few possibilities:
- Poor budgeting
- Poor use of allocated funds (not using what was allotted)
- cutting costs
- unforseen revenues

A defecit arises from a few possibilities
- Poor budgeting
- mismanagement of allocated funds
- unforseen costs
- lower than expected revenues

Most of the reasons for being off budget, by large amounts not by small amounts, are due to mismanagement whether there is a defecit or surplus.

The reason a surplus sounds better is becuase:
- The government will spin it as if they did something good
- The consequences are favorable to being off budget in the other direction (defecit)

We should not be happy with a goverment that consistently has a surplus.
It means they did not budget correctly and that money that they collected should have been alloted to something in the budget (e.g. like paying down the debt).

Quote:

Originally Posted by grolsch

Being in Montreal, I have no choice but to vote liberal.

I did not vote liberal last election. I could not do it anymore. I would have lived with the consequences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by feelgood

Wow, that statement is just...odd.

How can you have no choice?

I think the idea is that if the non-Bloc voters split their votes between other candidates then the Bloc will win.
I don't think this is a crucial as in the provincial elections. I can live with the Bloc but I don't want to live with the PQ. The PQ are going to try for another referendum.

fresnelly · 11-29-2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grolsch

Fresnelly, do you know any Separatists or are you just blowin' smoke?
Don't get me wrong, there IS a whiny, impossible to satisy element
to the movement.

I think you mean Feelgood

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feelgood

If Harper gets a majority government next time and puts a freaking lid on the whiny bitches in Quebec, then by gods, I would vote for him and help with the voting fraud...

I voted Liberal btw, who the hell votes for Liberals in Alberta?

Amaras · 12-06-2006, 04:46 PM

Sorry Fres'!
Many Quebecers who do not speak French at home are
taught from birth (or the 70's) that YOU MUST vote liberal to
counterbalance the separatist vote. In a very real sense, vote as
a block to counter the Bloc.
Speaking of whiny, I hear a lot of Albertans bitching about transfer
payments, when their present riches are due mostly to an
accident of geography. It's like stumbling onto a million dollars in
an alley somewhere, and then not helping out your brother with
his dental problems.
Now, I normally wouldn't say that, but I can't stand being called
a bitch.
You may consider my tongue is stuck out towards YOU, Feelgood!

feelgood · 12-06-2006, 10:09 PM

I'm not calling you a bitch, I'm saying Quebec bitches alot, doesn't mean Quebec IS a bitch.

We may bitch about the payment transfer but at least us Albertans aren't trying to separate from Canada just because the federalist wants to steal our money. While on the other hand, the separatist worry about every tiny details (government surplus, government deficit, etc) and figures that every one of them is reason enough to separate from Canada.

Let's look at it this way:

For Alberta
Scenario 1: The national energy program was put into effect, Alberta bitches and threatens to separate from Canada.

Scenario 2: The national energy program was abolished, Alberta is happy again and goes back to sucking on our nice cigars from our well earned oil money.

For Quebec
Scenario 1: The national energy program was put into effect, Quebec bitches and threatens to separate from Canada.

Scenario 2: The national energy program was abolished, Quebec bitches and threatens to separate from Canada.

See where I'm going? Either way, Quebec is still gonna bitch about something that has either positive or negative outcome.

Amaras · 12-07-2006, 03:28 PM

The tongue is now withdrawn.
There is a portion of the population here that will bitch regardless
of what Canada does.
You know why?
Fear, ignorance; RACISM (Linguism?).
But then again, the West knows nothing about racism, right?
There is also a portion that is simply using separation as a sword
of Damocles in order to wring any possible concession out of
Canada.
Both of these portions suck, in my opinion.
There is a third, who genuinely believe their local leaders who
tell them that english Canada hates them. And having never
met any English Canadians, they figure it must be true, because
their leaders wouldn't lie, right? These I pity.
It's the fucking leaders who want to limit bilingualism, but send
their own children to English boarding schools (I know, I went to
one) who really piss me off.
In essence they are attempting to create a ghetto where there
are the only ones who can relate to the rest of the world, and
their children, etcetera
Fuckers.

11-23-2006, 07:13 AM	#2 (permalink)
aberkok “Wrong is right.” Location: toronto	I really don't know too much about the history of the separatist movement, but it seems like Harper is getting closer to the truth of the matter: that there is a widespread respect for Quebec culture and independence, but no compelling argument for a new separate nation. This casts the issue in a more realistic light. Maybe Quebec should be more autonomous. My own experience of the issue happened mostly when I was going into 6th grade. We lived in Pointe-Claire. I was an immigrant and had to attend a French school, leaving all my friends for a year. That's about the extent of it. What other examples of nations within nations are there? How are these working? How does the Bloc find provincial law to be limiting? __________________ !check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

11-23-2006, 10:49 AM	#3 (permalink)
fresnelly Functionally Appropriate Location: Toronto	To be honest, I'm a bit confused where this is all going. Is this just political grandstanding (deftly done) or are the Tories planning on openining constitutional negotiations? Note that Harper said "the Quebecois" are a nation, and not "Quebec". That's an important distinction becuase it's essentially symbolic and only targets a people within a province and not its political stathood. Furthermore, I understand his statement was a preemptive response to a forthcoming Bloc motion of similar but stronger content. I have no idea what happens now besides a national handwringing festival. He gets points from me for making this actual federal issue his focus, rather than any issues of "morality" As for examples of Nations within Nations, I believe the United Kingdom - (England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Coronation Street) fits the bill. Another seperatist Hotzone is the Basque region of Spain. What about Algiers and France? __________________ Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life Last edited by fresnelly; 11-23-2006 at 10:52 AM..

11-23-2006, 02:38 PM	#6 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	The more I think on this it really is tied to Harper's desire to decentralize power. More power for the provinces and less for the federation. He is doing the right thing vis a vis Quebec but will this lead to similar arrangements across the board and is this something we want to pursue? This also opens the door to recognizing, in an increasingly formal manner, the concept that Canada was founded by three nations -- English, French and Native. This could result in a step towards stronger native self-government as well. This would be a very interesting move if we could pull it off. Fresnelly, I was thinking the same thing about Great Britain. There is precedent. As for your quote feelgood, I think that completely misrepresents the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada. They pay a heck of a lot of taxes into the Federal coffers. To suggest they are getting a free ride is nonsense. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

11-23-2006, 03:35 PM	#7 (permalink)
aKula Psycho	A leader of the central government working to decentralise power? Though it may well be the case, the possibility of it occurring caught my attention. Historically they've been all for centralising power. As for states that encompass more than one nation, usually this has been coupled with independence movements from within the minority. Spain definitely comes to mind. Though I do think it is possible for Canada to encompass both nations and remain that way. Seems like from what you're writing, Charlatan, together with Harper's speech, that he has managed to tap into the broader feeling for unity in an attempt guide the nations towards a greater understanding of their roles and relationship. __________________ "I am the wrath of God. The earth I pass will see me and tremble." -Klaus Kinski as Don Lope de Aguirre Last edited by aKula; 11-23-2006 at 03:38 PM..

11-23-2006, 04:15 PM	#9 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	I think the entire notion is crazy, however, Harper has method to his madness. I think that the only reason that Harper is doing this is that he is pandering to Quebec voters. Simple as that. He feels that if he takes Quebec, the west, etc. then Ontario can go to hell. He's counting on the western vote to stay with him. You can bet your sweet ass that if Harper had a majority, there'd be none of this BS. This is simply pandering to the so called "soft-separatists" Those separatists who think that Quebec should be its own country but don't want to hold another referendum for fear of the instability and divisiveness it will create within the province. If you saw the cover of the Globe and Mail today, the body language of Harper and those around him was clearly uncomfortable. This is not something they feel good about doing. Last edited by james t kirk; 11-23-2006 at 04:19 PM..

11-23-2006, 11:20 AM	#4 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Seems to me a similar separatist argument could be made about various states here in the USA too. Texas is sure as hell different from the rest of us In fact, some folks tried that once but Lincoln wouldn't hear of it. Having travelled through the country, yes Quebec is definitely different from the rest of Canada, but IMO that's a good thing. Quebec should be proud of its differences while still being proud to be Canadian. It adds a decidedly not-boring aspect to the country. By the same token, while Texas is definitely different - - practically another planet really - - it'd be pretty boring if the whole USA were like Iowa

11-23-2006, 04:28 PM	#10 (permalink)
feelgood Free Mars! Location: I dunno, there's white people around me saying "eh" all the time	If Harper gets a majority government next time and puts a freaking lid on the whiny bitches in Quebec, then by gods, I would vote for him and help with the voting fraud... I voted Liberal btw, who the hell votes for Liberals in Alberta? __________________ Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war Last edited by feelgood; 11-23-2006 at 04:30 PM..

11-24-2006, 06:50 AM	#11 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Feelgood, you are right. There are hard-core separatists that want nothing short of separation -- they want the country of Quebec outside Canada. In the separatist movement, I believe they are in the minority (even if they are half of the movement it isn't enough to carry the vote). The rest are those who want special status but don't necessarily want to separate. It's one of the reasons why the last referendum question was so convoluted. If the question has simply asked, "Do you want Quebec to separate from Canada to form its own country?" the numbers wouldn't have been near the 49% they had last time. So what I am saying is that close to 66% (at least) of Quebecers do not fall into the hardcore separatist camp. The rest whine no more or less than say Albertans about not getting what they want from the Feds. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

11-28-2006, 01:00 PM	#17 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	That would make sense, if having a deficit was an unplanned shortfall. In the lingo of government accounting, deficits are increases to the debt. Surpluses are decreases to the debt. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

11-29-2006, 11:08 AM	#19 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	They "need" to tax us enough to pay off the debt accrued in order to build the current society. Currently, the government has a few billion dollars of extra tax "needed" above and beyond the annual requirements. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

11-29-2006, 11:33 AM	#20 (permalink)
Leto Junkie Location: The Danforth	dammit, i just want income splitting. Now. Oh yes, and good luck to the Quebecois, how ever they are defined. Could just be the pure-lain...

11-29-2006, 12:56 PM	#21 (permalink)
Amaras Junkie Location: At my daughter's beck and call.	As a Quebecer born and bred I have lived here for 29 of my 34 years. Fresnelly, do you know any Separatists or are you just blowin' smoke? Don't get me wrong, there IS a whiny, impossible to satisy element to the movement. There are/were others, however. Folks of incredible intellect and extremely high standards. Claude Laurin, Rene Levesque are well known. At it's heart, it started out as not a "Canada doesn't work" as much as "Canada doesn't work the way WE want." Democracy allows for this, right? There was also an extremely strong reaction of "screw Anglos" to many decades of being treated as second class citizens by the rest of Canada. Although the scale is wrong, the rest of Canada's reaction to separatists seems to me to be similar to the majority of white America's reaction to Malcolm X. That was 25 years ago. All that being said. I think Harper did a VERY good thing. So far, I like this guy. Being in Montreal, I have no choice but to vote liberal. Harper gets my support far for his policies. __________________ Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. -Noam Chomsky Love is a verb, not a noun. -My Mom The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later. -Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928

12-06-2006, 04:46 PM	#25 (permalink)
Amaras Junkie Location: At my daughter's beck and call.	Sorry Fres'! Many Quebecers who do not speak French at home are taught from birth (or the 70's) that YOU MUST vote liberal to counterbalance the separatist vote. In a very real sense, vote as a block to counter the Bloc. Speaking of whiny, I hear a lot of Albertans bitching about transfer payments, when their present riches are due mostly to an accident of geography. It's like stumbling onto a million dollars in an alley somewhere, and then not helping out your brother with his dental problems. Now, I normally wouldn't say that, but I can't stand being called a bitch. You may consider my tongue is stuck out towards YOU, Feelgood! __________________ Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. -Noam Chomsky Love is a verb, not a noun. -My Mom The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later. -Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928

12-06-2006, 10:09 PM	#26 (permalink)
feelgood Free Mars! Location: I dunno, there's white people around me saying "eh" all the time	I'm not calling you a bitch, I'm saying Quebec bitches alot, doesn't mean Quebec IS a bitch. We may bitch about the payment transfer but at least us Albertans aren't trying to separate from Canada just because the federalist wants to steal our money. While on the other hand, the separatist worry about every tiny details (government surplus, government deficit, etc) and figures that every one of them is reason enough to separate from Canada. Let's look at it this way: For Alberta Scenario 1: The national energy program was put into effect, Alberta bitches and threatens to separate from Canada. Scenario 2: The national energy program was abolished, Alberta is happy again and goes back to sucking on our nice cigars from our well earned oil money. For Quebec Scenario 1: The national energy program was put into effect, Quebec bitches and threatens to separate from Canada. Scenario 2: The national energy program was abolished, Quebec bitches and threatens to separate from Canada. See where I'm going? Either way, Quebec is still gonna bitch about something that has either positive or negative outcome. __________________ Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war

12-07-2006, 03:28 PM	#27 (permalink)
Amaras Junkie Location: At my daughter's beck and call.	The tongue is now withdrawn. There is a portion of the population here that will bitch regardless of what Canada does. You know why? Fear, ignorance; RACISM (Linguism?). But then again, the West knows nothing about racism, right? There is also a portion that is simply using separation as a sword of Damocles in order to wring any possible concession out of Canada. Both of these portions suck, in my opinion. There is a third, who genuinely believe their local leaders who tell them that english Canada hates them. And having never met any English Canadians, they figure it must be true, because their leaders wouldn't lie, right? These I pity. It's the fucking leaders who want to limit bilingualism, but send their own children to English boarding schools (I know, I went to one) who really piss me off. In essence they are attempting to create a ghetto where there are the only ones who can relate to the rest of the world, and their children, etcetera Fuckers. __________________ Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. -Noam Chomsky Love is a verb, not a noun. -My Mom The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later. -Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928