| View Poll Results: Do you recognized Québec as being a nation ? | |||
| Yes |    | 12 | 29.27% |
| No |    | 29 | 70.73% |
| Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 41. You may not vote on this poll | |||
Running out of ranks
Posts: 8,366 
November 27th, 2006, 08:38 PM
This simple wording of recognition won't and can't hold a candle to interference of the federal government into provincial jurisdiction and what the sponsorship scandal did to promoting sovereignty in Quebec.
Besides were supposed to be "multicultural" I thought liberals loved this sort of thing. This wouldn't be happening if yall hadn't been shoving that little stupid idea down our throats for the last 30 years.
This simple wording of recognition won't and can't hold a candle to interference of the federal government into provincial jurisdiction and what the sponsorship scandal did to promoting sovereignty in Quebec.
Besides were supposed to be "multicultural" I thought liberals loved this sort of thing. This wouldn't be happening if yall hadn't been shoving that little stupid idea down our throats for the last 30 years.
the clan of the claw
Posts: 1,976
November 27th, 2006, 09:17 PM
I am just laughing at the entire issue. We knew what harper was long before the election. We knew what type of actions he would take long before the election. People still voted for him (poor memory or just the lust for a GST cut?). Whatever!
You reap what you sow?
Harps is doing things I see as long ago predicted and NECESSARY in the long term, but he is not doing them from long term vision. It is a dangerous game allowing a blind opportunist have so much power and gambling he will stumble along as predicted, taking actions that pave the way for the desired long term effects that he can not see (or comprehend).
I am just laughing at the entire issue. We knew what harper was long before the election. We knew what type of actions he would take long before the election. People still voted for him (poor memory or just the lust for a GST cut?). Whatever!
You reap what you sow?
Harps is doing things I see as long ago predicted and NECESSARY in the long term, but he is not doing them from long term vision. It is a dangerous game allowing a blind opportunist have so much power and gambling he will stumble along as predicted, taking actions that pave the way for the desired long term effects that he can not see (or comprehend).
Running out of ranks
Posts: 8,366
November 27th, 2006, 09:30 PM
What I think people fail to see is motions like this and the Cons saying the feds are going to back away from provincial jurisdiction will take the wind out of the sails of the separatist movement. To me it is completely obvious and one of the major reasons I fully support Harper.
What I think people fail to see is motions like this and the Cons saying the feds are going to back away from provincial jurisdiction will take the wind out of the sails of the separatist movement. To me it is completely obvious and one of the major reasons I fully support Harper.
Bright Spark
Posts: 482
Location: Edmonton
Location: Edmonton
November 27th, 2006, 10:06 PM
Yes, I do. Because as of right now, our Canadian Goverment has formally recognized the "quebecois" as a nation. By a majority. Without proper consultation of their constiuants. So I have no choice but to.
I have always advocated Quebec as being a distinct society..but to extend that to nationhood, even if symbolic? I await the day when Quebec uses this a platform for soveriengty, and in which we can look back at the haste in which this vote was proposed and cast with regret.
Yes, I do. Because as of right now, our Canadian Goverment has formally recognized the "quebecois" as a nation. By a majority. Without proper consultation of their constiuants. So I have no choice but to.
I have always advocated Quebec as being a distinct society..but to extend that to nationhood, even if symbolic? I await the day when Quebec uses this a platform for soveriengty, and in which we can look back at the haste in which this vote was proposed and cast with regret.
Electoral Member
Posts: 684
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
November 27th, 2006, 10:39 PM
From day one I've stood behind the position that Harper was a risk to this country. For a minority government he sure places the country in far reaching precarious circumstances.
From his foreign policy positions, to military positions, to national unity positions, etc. This is suppose to be a minority government and yet we find our country thrown into varying nation defining situations. Not simply domestic shifts in policy but larger shifts that potentially will change our nation's fabric both at home and abroad. I didn't realize in the last Federal Election Canadians were so unhappy with the Canada they had.
During the Federal Election when you line up the votes between all the parties, it would have shown a vote that the country ideologically swung in the opposite direction to right-wing politics despite Harper assuming leadership. Moreover this vote on his behalf was basically voter anger over a scandal. Not a vote of anger to the state of the country, or other policies in general.
The election gift to his party was the issue of accountability and he has made for a terrible government at that. I don’t know what makes the lack of accountability worst. Muzzled MPs, muzzled media, an even more secretive government, or even the nerve to put forth a bogus proposed accountability act or amend it to rewrite law they're accused of breaking.
I did gave a rant some time ago as to why they needed to get their leadership issues in order as soon as possible. Will the wait have been worth it? I dunno, it’s been so long I’ve kind of lost interest in the Liberals right now. In having to wade through issues of national unity again the Greens now have become the least offensive for me at this time. Say what you will about a wasted vote. I will vote on my principles.
The new Liberal leader will have to give a good hard sell when the time comes. If it's Ignatieff, then just forget about my vote there.
Well, at least Harper wasn’t leader when the decision to go into Iraq was up. Harper made it clear enough that we would have been in that mess. How short Canadians memories are and then suddenly they wake up one day to find the country isn’t what it was anymore. That day is looking more and more unsettlingly plausible.
From day one I've stood behind the position that Harper was a risk to this country. For a minority government he sure places the country in far reaching precarious circumstances.
From his foreign policy positions, to military positions, to national unity positions, etc. This is suppose to be a minority government and yet we find our country thrown into varying nation defining situations. Not simply domestic shifts in policy but larger shifts that potentially will change our nation's fabric both at home and abroad. I didn't realize in the last Federal Election Canadians were so unhappy with the Canada they had.
During the Federal Election when you line up the votes between all the parties, it would have shown a vote that the country ideologically swung in the opposite direction to right-wing politics despite Harper assuming leadership. Moreover this vote on his behalf was basically voter anger over a scandal. Not a vote of anger to the state of the country, or other policies in general.
The election gift to his party was the issue of accountability and he has made for a terrible government at that. I don’t know what makes the lack of accountability worst. Muzzled MPs, muzzled media, an even more secretive government, or even the nerve to put forth a bogus proposed accountability act or amend it to rewrite law they're accused of breaking.
Quote:
And for me this also points to how the Liberals have sucked as opposition. I am terribly disappointed with their inability to really stand up to everything I've so basically pointed out. The media gives them air time. They simply have to make Canadians understand what really is at stake. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...0cbca59&k=1213
Tories amend accountability act to rewrite law they're accused of breaking
Bruce Cheadle, Canadian Press
Published: Saturday, November 18, 2006
OTTAWA (CP) - The Conservative government is proposing to open a loophole in its vaunted accountability act by declaring that party convention fees not be counted as political contributions under the law.
The issue is a sensitive one for the Conservative party, which is under investigation by Elections Canada for failing to declare almost $2 million in fees paid by delegates to the party's 2005 convention.
In a government order paper posted Friday without fanfare, the Conservatives appear to tacitly concede they were wrong when they claimed there was no need to declare the fees more than a year ago.
They now want to change the accountability act to add that "payment . . . of a fee to participate in a registered party's convention is not a contribution" as long as the fees don't exceed the cost of running the convention.
That's the same argument the party made in June when it vehemently claimed it was following existing campaign financing laws when it failed to declare as much as $1.7 million in fees from its March 2005 convention.
Tories amend accountability act to rewrite law they're accused of breaking
Bruce Cheadle, Canadian Press
Published: Saturday, November 18, 2006
OTTAWA (CP) - The Conservative government is proposing to open a loophole in its vaunted accountability act by declaring that party convention fees not be counted as political contributions under the law.
The issue is a sensitive one for the Conservative party, which is under investigation by Elections Canada for failing to declare almost $2 million in fees paid by delegates to the party's 2005 convention.
In a government order paper posted Friday without fanfare, the Conservatives appear to tacitly concede they were wrong when they claimed there was no need to declare the fees more than a year ago.
They now want to change the accountability act to add that "payment . . . of a fee to participate in a registered party's convention is not a contribution" as long as the fees don't exceed the cost of running the convention.
That's the same argument the party made in June when it vehemently claimed it was following existing campaign financing laws when it failed to declare as much as $1.7 million in fees from its March 2005 convention.
I did gave a rant some time ago as to why they needed to get their leadership issues in order as soon as possible. Will the wait have been worth it? I dunno, it’s been so long I’ve kind of lost interest in the Liberals right now. In having to wade through issues of national unity again the Greens now have become the least offensive for me at this time. Say what you will about a wasted vote. I will vote on my principles.
The new Liberal leader will have to give a good hard sell when the time comes. If it's Ignatieff, then just forget about my vote there.
Well, at least Harper wasn’t leader when the decision to go into Iraq was up. Harper made it clear enough that we would have been in that mess. How short Canadians memories are and then suddenly they wake up one day to find the country isn’t what it was anymore. That day is looking more and more unsettlingly plausible.
November 27th, 2006, 11:03 PM
If Duceppe's motion, unamended, was vote on everyone would vote no. Then the Quebecers would've feasted on the bad conservatives and liberals and taken stronger hold of federal power in Quebec. Then we would spend a gazillion dollars on Meech Lake Accords, ad campaign etc and still end up nowhere. The amended motion, as I see it, was somewhat political self defense. It was expedient and not a drawn out expensive game of political chicken, which is the way we usually deal with these issues. Duceppe's goal was to back everyone into a corner, and unless you gave his answer he would have you politically skinned in Quebec.
Who knows where this is going but the last few decades have achieved nothing. Maybe it's time Ottawa was seriously decentralized anyway.
A toast to the nation of BC
. Did we have our BC nation vote yet?
If Duceppe's motion, unamended, was vote on everyone would vote no. Then the Quebecers would've feasted on the bad conservatives and liberals and taken stronger hold of federal power in Quebec. Then we would spend a gazillion dollars on Meech Lake Accords, ad campaign etc and still end up nowhere. The amended motion, as I see it, was somewhat political self defense. It was expedient and not a drawn out expensive game of political chicken, which is the way we usually deal with these issues. Duceppe's goal was to back everyone into a corner, and unless you gave his answer he would have you politically skinned in Quebec.
Who knows where this is going but the last few decades have achieved nothing. Maybe it's time Ottawa was seriously decentralized anyway.
A toast to the nation of BC
. Did we have our BC nation vote yet?
Executive Member
Posts: 9,226
November 28th, 2006, 07:06 AM
Every Canadian native tribe, and there are hundreds, calls it's self a "nation". In that sense, Quebec is a nation. Quebec is a province of Canada and for the last forty years, it has been considered one of the "have not" provinces. This meant that Quebec has been subsidised by the rest of Canada. Now we want to call them a nation? Canada is the "nation", that has been protecting, and supporting, Quebec's language, and way of life for decades. Canada is the only nation here.
Every Canadian native tribe, and there are hundreds, calls it's self a "nation". In that sense, Quebec is a nation. Quebec is a province of Canada and for the last forty years, it has been considered one of the "have not" provinces. This meant that Quebec has been subsidised by the rest of Canada. Now we want to call them a nation? Canada is the "nation", that has been protecting, and supporting, Quebec's language, and way of life for decades. Canada is the only nation here.
Senate Member
Posts: 6,500
November 28th, 2006, 07:09 AM
Questions
If Quebec is declaring "nationhood" - don't they have to present a bona fide Constitution regarding their legal status as an independent entity?
Can Canada withdraw its federal people - as Quebec has all the accounting for Passports for example - what about the RCMP - can Ottawa remove their services - what about federal legal courts - can they be
withdrawn?
How can they address Immigration and border security as an independent nation when they haven't become one yet? Who maintains the thoroughfares belonging to the federal government such as the highways through Canada from east coast to west coast through Quebec?
Who will deliver their mail? Post Canada?
Who will pay welfare and social insurance and retirement benefits and medical costs?
Finally what about all the funding I read that Canada puts into Quebec - what will they do without the benefits Canada affords them ?
They can't exist on manufactured trade alone or do they even know what they are doing?
Kreskin - thanks for putting everything in one place and making it easier to go through all of the commentary....this is an extremely interesting topic and I hope we can keep adding new information as the days progress.
Questions
If Quebec is declaring "nationhood" - don't they have to present a bona fide Constitution regarding their legal status as an independent entity?
Can Canada withdraw its federal people - as Quebec has all the accounting for Passports for example - what about the RCMP - can Ottawa remove their services - what about federal legal courts - can they be
withdrawn?
How can they address Immigration and border security as an independent nation when they haven't become one yet? Who maintains the thoroughfares belonging to the federal government such as the highways through Canada from east coast to west coast through Quebec?
Who will deliver their mail? Post Canada?
Who will pay welfare and social insurance and retirement benefits and medical costs?
Finally what about all the funding I read that Canada puts into Quebec - what will they do without the benefits Canada affords them ?
They can't exist on manufactured trade alone or do they even know what they are doing?
Kreskin - thanks for putting everything in one place and making it easier to go through all of the commentary....this is an extremely interesting topic and I hope we can keep adding new information as the days progress.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612
November 28th, 2006, 08:44 AM
Curiosity asks all the right questions.
If you want to be a "nation" then pay for services from your "national" budget and don't expect the rest of Canada to foot the bill!
You want exclusivity so have exclusivity but do it on your own dollar and by the way, since they have their own "nation" now perhaps we can dispense with this two-language bulschlit and the rest of us can save a fortune in print and media costs. You want to speak Quebecquois fine but if you're crying about the demise of your language...go live in the new nation of Quebec I'm sure eventually they'll have libraries once all the crooked politicians have their bank accounts padded by these now "free" Quebecquois....
Curiosity asks all the right questions.
If you want to be a "nation" then pay for services from your "national" budget and don't expect the rest of Canada to foot the bill!
You want exclusivity so have exclusivity but do it on your own dollar and by the way, since they have their own "nation" now perhaps we can dispense with this two-language bulschlit and the rest of us can save a fortune in print and media costs. You want to speak Quebecquois fine but if you're crying about the demise of your language...go live in the new nation of Quebec I'm sure eventually they'll have libraries once all the crooked politicians have their bank accounts padded by these now "free" Quebecquois....
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612
November 28th, 2006, 10:17 AM
The Quebecois should follow th example of Israel don't you think? Put up a nice big wall between the "nation" of Quebec and only permit the people of Quebec to vote....say if they're a nation now does this mean that they won't be participating in the Canadian electoral process? What about passports? With the justifiably anxious United States of Paranoia requiring passports from Canadians, will the Quebecquois have to produce their own passports and negotiate with the United States in fashioning a new improved and fully uni-lingual QTA...Quebecquois Trade Agreement?
How excited do you suppose the fine folk south of the 49th will feel about training their diplomats and embassy folk in the language of the "surrender monkeys"?
It's difficult to imagine a politician in Canada especially from the "west" doing his very best to legitimize separation.... we can only hope that once Quebec is gone...BC Alberta and Saskatchewan will follow suit to give the Hapless Vision the expression it truly deserves....
The Quebecois should follow th example of Israel don't you think? Put up a nice big wall between the "nation" of Quebec and only permit the people of Quebec to vote....say if they're a nation now does this mean that they won't be participating in the Canadian electoral process? What about passports? With the justifiably anxious United States of Paranoia requiring passports from Canadians, will the Quebecquois have to produce their own passports and negotiate with the United States in fashioning a new improved and fully uni-lingual QTA...Quebecquois Trade Agreement?
How excited do you suppose the fine folk south of the 49th will feel about training their diplomats and embassy folk in the language of the "surrender monkeys"?
It's difficult to imagine a politician in Canada especially from the "west" doing his very best to legitimize separation.... we can only hope that once Quebec is gone...BC Alberta and Saskatchewan will follow suit to give the Hapless Vision the expression it truly deserves....
Member
Posts: 82
November 28th, 2006, 10:37 AM
Stephan Harper like all democratic politicans is a traitor who is willing to sell out his country for votes and money. Stephen Harper betrayed Canada and more specially Anglophone Canada by declaring Quebec a nation in Canada.
Its time for Canadian Royalist to take over Canada and declare Martial Law in Canada and especially in Quebec to stop the nation from dissentergrating. The Canadian Royalist-Nationalist Regime should start by declaring the Canada can not be divided and withdraw French as an offical language of Canada and remove the policy of Billengualism.
Canada is not a billengual nation but an English speaking nation and that incluedes the province of Quebec.
Stephen Harper and his gang of traitors spit on the graves of General James Wolfe and his brave men who captured Quebec from France for the British Empire and for Canada.
The only punnishments for traitors is death.
Anglophone Canadains hold firm and be tough on Quebec and its Nationalist Francophones. If you have to expell these Francophones to
France
Saint Domingue (Hati and Domincan Republic)
Guiana (French Guiana and Suriname)
Quebec belongs to the Anglophones of Canada.
QUEBEC BELONGS TO CANADA TODAY
QUEBEC BELONGS TO CANADA TOMORROW
QUEBEC BELONGS TO CANADA FOREVER
If Canada needs a civil war in order to keep Quebec then so be it. British Nationalist like me will come to Canada and fight for the Royal Canadian Army to crush the Quebec Nationalist and expell them.
Stephan Harper like all democratic politicans is a traitor who is willing to sell out his country for votes and money. Stephen Harper betrayed Canada and more specially Anglophone Canada by declaring Quebec a nation in Canada.
Its time for Canadian Royalist to take over Canada and declare Martial Law in Canada and especially in Quebec to stop the nation from dissentergrating. The Canadian Royalist-Nationalist Regime should start by declaring the Canada can not be divided and withdraw French as an offical language of Canada and remove the policy of Billengualism.
Canada is not a billengual nation but an English speaking nation and that incluedes the province of Quebec.
Stephen Harper and his gang of traitors spit on the graves of General James Wolfe and his brave men who captured Quebec from France for the British Empire and for Canada.
The only punnishments for traitors is death.
Anglophone Canadains hold firm and be tough on Quebec and its Nationalist Francophones. If you have to expell these Francophones to
France
Saint Domingue (Hati and Domincan Republic)
Guiana (French Guiana and Suriname)
Quebec belongs to the Anglophones of Canada.
QUEBEC BELONGS TO CANADA TODAY
QUEBEC BELONGS TO CANADA TOMORROW
QUEBEC BELONGS TO CANADA FOREVER
If Canada needs a civil war in order to keep Quebec then so be it. British Nationalist like me will come to Canada and fight for the Royal Canadian Army to crush the Quebec Nationalist and expell them.
Electoral Member
Posts: 684
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
November 28th, 2006, 10:47 AM
The Liberals, had they a leader by now could have taken a stand on where they really are in all of this, but instead are a bunch of fractured voices too weak and vote driven at this point to speak as a real unified party position.
I knew having left the party leaderless this long would bite them in the arse. The Liberals up until now did a much better job before at holding the Federal position regarding Canada. Not so easy when you are so busy trying to compete with one another within the party itself. Typically, leaders in a party are a result of a person’s standing and accomplishments in a party causing them to eventually float to the top, but I guess that couldn’t work after the sponsorship scandal.
And then there is the Conservatives. Who would have thought it would have been ‘them’ who were to sell out first in what now has been offered up to Quebec? That was one area I felt I was safe to not worry about with the Conservatives taking power, but of course we are talking about someone like Stephen Harper.
I’ll stand by a view of ethnic equality for what is suppose to be a multicultural nation. If it seems to me that these things set forth by our politicians begin to make Canadians less equal to one another, then I can’t support that.
‘Distinct Society’ was at least satisfactory for what can be seen on the surface when going to Quebec, and really isn’t it up to us for the most part to preserve our individual cultural identity when living in respect of multicultural diversity?
Quebecers as a ‘nation’ goes into a myriad of concepts all interpretable on so many different levels. ‘Distinct Society’ was recognition. ‘Nation’ is a recognition that starts to go beyond a cultural respect and one with concepts that can invite a new language of ‘other rights’.
When we line up Canadians along side one another, are we now going beyond basic cultural distinction? If so then ‘equality’, when viewing Canadians, has just been dealt a real blow and this country has now taken a step backwards on itself. In the end we’ll either live as equals to one another or end up living apart from one another. It’s unfair to begin to create two tiers of society. That just starts to become bigotry.
The Liberals, had they a leader by now could have taken a stand on where they really are in all of this, but instead are a bunch of fractured voices too weak and vote driven at this point to speak as a real unified party position.
I knew having left the party leaderless this long would bite them in the arse. The Liberals up until now did a much better job before at holding the Federal position regarding Canada. Not so easy when you are so busy trying to compete with one another within the party itself. Typically, leaders in a party are a result of a person’s standing and accomplishments in a party causing them to eventually float to the top, but I guess that couldn’t work after the sponsorship scandal.
And then there is the Conservatives. Who would have thought it would have been ‘them’ who were to sell out first in what now has been offered up to Quebec? That was one area I felt I was safe to not worry about with the Conservatives taking power, but of course we are talking about someone like Stephen Harper.
I’ll stand by a view of ethnic equality for what is suppose to be a multicultural nation. If it seems to me that these things set forth by our politicians begin to make Canadians less equal to one another, then I can’t support that.
‘Distinct Society’ was at least satisfactory for what can be seen on the surface when going to Quebec, and really isn’t it up to us for the most part to preserve our individual cultural identity when living in respect of multicultural diversity?
Quebecers as a ‘nation’ goes into a myriad of concepts all interpretable on so many different levels. ‘Distinct Society’ was recognition. ‘Nation’ is a recognition that starts to go beyond a cultural respect and one with concepts that can invite a new language of ‘other rights’.
When we line up Canadians along side one another, are we now going beyond basic cultural distinction? If so then ‘equality’, when viewing Canadians, has just been dealt a real blow and this country has now taken a step backwards on itself. In the end we’ll either live as equals to one another or end up living apart from one another. It’s unfair to begin to create two tiers of society. That just starts to become bigotry.
Quote:
Sure, and this is another thing this invites when people are so special they are a nation unto itself within a nation. Reminds me of language with the concept of being Aryan.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home
Mr. Cannon then said the wording, first used by the Bloc and repeated in the government motion, refers to “ pure laine” Quebeckers, a controversial term avoided by sovereigntists for its racial connotations, given that it literally translates to “pure wool.”
Mr. Cannon then said the wording, first used by the Bloc and repeated in the government motion, refers to “ pure laine” Quebeckers, a controversial term avoided by sovereigntists for its racial connotations, given that it literally translates to “pure wool.”
