Newest Polls

[Jersay]

SES Research January 06

Liberal:32

Conservative: 35

NDP: 17

BLOC: 10

Green: 6

The Liberals and the Conservatives seem to fluxuate a point here and there every poll remaining around 32-33 for the Libs, and around about 36 for the CONs. The NDP is still strong at 17%

Ekos January 05

Lib: 30.8

Con: 36.0

NDP: 17.5

BLOC: 10.6

Green: 4.7

So the Bloc keeps slidding. Excellent!

 

[FiveParadox]

Liberal / Conservative "Truce"

I am happy to see that the support for the Bloc Québecois appears to be dropping in Québec. While I support the Liberal Party of Canada, and oppose, by and large, a majority of the ideas out of the Conservative Party of Canada, I am happy to see that notwithstanding whichever party is elected, the support for the sovereigntist movement in Québec may be thinning.

I would be quite willing, any day, to put partisan differences aside for the purpose of securing the unity of the nation. That may be slightly aside the topic, though; I hope that with the upcoming announcements from the standing Government, some support may again swing from the Opposition to the Liberals.

:!: Edit Corrected a typo.

 

[Jersay]

Well, hopefully the Bloc keeps losing support but to me, I always thought that the Bloc was disgruntled conservatives who hadn't like the failure of Meech Lake. So even if they lose support it doesn't effect the PQ.

However, what would be neat is that if a large group of people vote for the Bloc,raises the hopes of the PQ, and when it comes time for election no one votes for the PQ. That would be a great day.

 

[FiveParadox]

Election Results

I am sure that Gilles Duceppe would be thrilled.

He gets elected to the House of Commons again; and as soon as the Québec Legislature reforms, he finds out that he has nothing to do again. No Parti québecois? I guess he'd have to continue arguing for the sake of argument, as I would submit that he does, by and large, now.

 

[Jersay]

Well, that is why my mom said he didn't accept the PQ leadership.

And he would have to forfeit his pension plan in Ottawa if he did.

 

[Toro]

I think that Parliament should revoke the pension of any MP openly promoting the break-up of Canada if Quebec goes. They should receive their contributions plus interest but not the ridiculous pay-off the MPs have awarded themselves. Its outlandish that the taxpayers of Canada should pay those who destroyed their country.

Maybe we can get a grassroots campaign going to get Parliament to consider this option. It would be interesting to see what the Bloc would say.

 

[FiveParadox]

Discrimination in Parliament

With all due respect, Toro, I could never support such a measure, if introduced in either the Senate or the House of Commons. While I do not support the position that the Bloc Québecois chooses to take, I recognize the fact that they have every right to make such a choice.

In my opinion, to threaten the sovereigntist cause with pay cuts and compromised benefits would serve only to strengthen their position, and advocate evermore fiercely for Québecois independence, and the fracturing of our great Confederation.

 

[yballa09]

Agreed fiveparadox, it would simply put more fuel to the fire. And I agree with what you said earlier, if I had a choice of having my preferred party gain power, or have the separatist sentiment die down (which would consequently lead to better national unity), I would chose the latter.

 

[the caracal kid]

This country is very poor at addressing needed change.

We need this country to break-up, or at least the resolution to break-up, to initiate the changes necessary.

I would not consider this a great confederation, but an acceptance of a woofully inadequate system out of an over-attachment to the familiar.

 

[Finder]

Re: Discrimination in Parliament

With all due respect, Toro, I could never support such a measure, if introduced in either the Senate or the House of Commons. While I do not support the position that the Bloc Québecois chooses to take, I recognize the fact that they have every right to make such a choice.

In my opinion, to threaten the sovereigntist cause with pay cuts and compromised benefits would serve only to strengthen their position, and advocate evermore fiercely for Québecois independence, and the fracturing of our great Confederation.

Totally agree.

We can not disenfranchise the minority, just because the magority doesn't agree with them. We are supposed to live in a system of inclussion not exclussion. To exclude them would only add oil to the fire.

 

[Toro]

Wait a sec.

The government of Canada matches the pension contributions by a factor of 6, compared to 1-2x for a private or even government pension. After 6 years, the MP can start receiving a pension if they are out of Parliament for the rest of their lives. This is ridiculous unto itself, but to pay it to people who have contributed to the destruction of Canada is unfathomable!

You don't cut them off if Quebec stays in Canada. You cut them off after they've separated. And you give them back whatever they've contributed plus interest. Why should taxpayers - because its taxpayers who pay the pension, not the investment earnings of the pension plan - of not only individuals who are no longer Canadian but openly destroyed the country?

Quebecers have every right to make the decision about whether or not they want to stay in the country, and Canada has every right to determine how Canadians are going to pay for the people who broke up Canada.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Newest Polls

Wait a sec.

The government of Canada matches the pension contributions by a factor of 6, compared to 1-2x for a private or even government pension. After 6 years, the MP can start receiving a pension if they are out of Parliament for the rest of their lives. This is ridiculous unto itself, but to pay it to people who have contributed to the destruction of Canada is unfathomable!

You don't cut them off if Quebec stays in Canada. You cut them off after they've separated. And you give them back whatever they've contributed plus interest. Why should taxpayers - because its taxpayers who pay the pension, not the investment earnings of the pension plan - of not only individuals who are no longer Canadian but openly destroyed the country?

Quebecers have every right to make the decision about whether or not they want to stay in the country, and Canada has every right to determine how Canadians are going to pay for the people who broke up Canada.

Don't get me wrong, I see where you are coming from on this. But they are getting the pension for work done in the Canadian parliment, destructive or not they were elected officials, by then Canadian citizens who paid taxes to Canada.

Plus no matter how much we feel they are damaging Canada it is really only an opinion and to remove peoples pensions over opinion....

 

[FiveParadox]

Breach of Contract

The Government of Canada would be in breach of hundreds of thousands of contracts if it were to "refuse" to pay pensions as planned; the Government pays pensions to people whether or not they are residents in Canada (for example, a former employee of the Government living in the United States), so why should the Québecois be excluded, even if they separate?

Again, I must re-iterate that I do not think that we should set a double standard for ourselves. We need to fight separatism within the framework of the law — if they separate, then so be it, but we should think no less of them, and we should not abuse secondary institutions, such as that of pension, to get our point across.

 

[Finder]

Re: Breach of Contract

The Government of Canada would be in breach of hundreds of thousands of contracts if it were to "refuse" to pay pensions as planned; the Government pays pensions to people whether or not they are residents in Canada (for example, a former employee of the Government living in the United States), so why should the Québecois be excluded, even if they separate?

Again, I must re-iterate that I do not think that we should set a double standard for ourselves. We need to fight separatism within the framework of the law — if they separate, then so be it, but we should think no less of them, and we should not abuse secondary institutions, such as that of pension, to get our point across.

Again the patrician, Paradox has said more elegantly then this plebian, bringing in the workings fairness and the law.

 

[Toro]

Only in Canada would you get paid for treason.

 

[the caracal kid]

It is not treason to seek separation.

 

[FiveParadox]

Actually, Toro, the only treason charge in relation to the Government of Canada and the Confederation as one unit is this provision of the Criminal Code:

Treason
46. (2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

The application of even this subsection is in question; but even if it were, then if the Bloc Québecois were to use neither force nor violence in their endeavour to become independent of Canada, then doing so would not constitute treason.

Since high treason pertains exclusively to crimes against the Queen (it is a separate charge altogether from treason), and treason requires that some sort of covert operation take place, or violence or force, then I would assert that the acquisition of independence from Canada cannot be deemed to be "treason" of any sort — if Québec gains independence through an Act of Parliament, and that is treason, then wouldn't the foundation of Canada be entirely treasonous, as being the result of an Act of the United Kingdom?

:!: Edit Edited for clarity.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: Newest Polls

The way I like to describe Canadians to Americans down here is that if you kicked a Canadian in the forehead, he'd thank you for not kicking him in the teeth (unless he's wearing hockey equipment!)

I find it stunning that you would have no problems continuing to pay people who've destroyed your country. Its not a technical issue about what is treason and what is not. Remember, the separatists say its their decision, and that English Canada has no say. However, even though English Canadians have no say, you still would willingly fork over your tax dollars to the people who say you have no say over how your tax dollars are used!

I've always argued with the separatists that if they do opt for independence that they'd be sitting across the table of a hard-ass Canadian negotiator who, first and foremost, would look out for the interests of Canada. Maybe I'm wrong. If you two are any indication, it appears that many are willing to roll over and be patsies to the separatists. I mean, I can't think of a bigger slap in the face than continuing to pay the people who've destroyed your country. That's like paying the guy who's sleeping with your wife. Don't you think you'd be the laughingstock of the world?

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Newest Polls

Only in Canada would you get paid for treason.

hmmmm, again an opinion. you don't understand that what you are bringing forth are opinions. In your definition, American's are criminal for treason for breaking away from the British. Perhaps all of the former soviet republics are for leaving the soviet union. All the war saw pact nations. All the republics which formed Yugoslavia. Mexico for leaving spain, most of Africa for rebelling against there colonial powers. Hell most countries in one point of time you could consider treasones.

At least Quebec is doing it democraticly and lawfully. If you take away there enfracisment then you are only leaving them the gun and violance to voice there opinion. Thats worse then having to just talk to them and share government with them. Study the princibals of a republic and democracy, and minority rights in these systems. It's when you ignore the minority you have violent conflics

 

[Citizen]

Re: RE: Newest Polls

The way I like to describe Canadians to Americans down here is that if you kicked a Canadian in the forehead, he'd thank you for not kicking him in the teeth (unless he's wearing hockey equipment!)

I find it stunning that you would have no problems continuing to pay people who've destroyed your country. Its not a technical issue about what is treason and what is not. Remember, the separatists say its their decision, and that English Canada has no say. However, even though English Canadians have no say, you still would willingly fork over your tax dollars to the people who say you have no say over how your tax dollars are used!

I've always argued with the separatists that if they do opt for independence that they'd be sitting across the table of a hard-ass Canadian negotiator who, first and foremost, would look out for the interests of Canada. Maybe I'm wrong. If you two are any indication, it appears that many are willing to roll over and be patsies to the separatists. I mean, I can't think of a bigger slap in the face than continuing to pay the people who've destroyed your country. That's like paying the guy who's sleeping with your wife. Don't you think you'd be the laughingstock of the world?

Toro, I totally agree with what you've said above.

This nicey nice attitude is a Canadian thing.