Pretty much what i was trying to tell her.
One can not go into the subject with a chip on their shoulder and think they will resolve the situation.
Quebec shouldn't separate from Canada
- Thread starter data-unlimited
- Start date
One can not go into the subject with a chip on their shoulder and think they will resolve the situation.
It's not about forcing the Bloc out of Parliament, it's about making them follow federalist rules. Federalist rules means federal parties must have riding asscociations in more than one province. They need not support federalism.
Most Canadians are confused, the opposite of a federal state is not separatism, it is a unitary state. A unitary state like France, Italy, Japan, Korea, Poland do not have provinces that administer budgets of billions of dollars for health care and education. Most of the world's political systems are unitary.
The Bloc acts in Ottawa as if they exist in a unitary state, which is what Quebec would become if it became independent. We let them off easy because the corporate mindset these days avoids conflict to an absurd degree.
Perhaps the senate should be set terms (four years) and timed so that it
refreshes with new members two years out than Parliament does....and it
could be done like so. Totally random like a lottery, via Revenue Canada,
and anyone whole files a Tax Return is entered into the pool....and if you're
chosen it's mandatory that you fulfill your obligation (like Jury Duty) unless
you have a valid & acceptable reason not to do your stint. That would remove
the partisanship aspect....and you could still have "x" number of Senators
per province, etc...without them being ex-CBC Reporters or Politician's
Bum-Buddies or whatever.
As far as the voting blocks (like the Bloc) being democratic or not....why not
have other volentary Blocks that aren't federal (as in looking out for the entire
nation as opposed to just a portion of it). Why only the Bloc? I think that the
West (BC, AB, SK, & MB) should also have a Block....with the potential of
having 36+28+14+14=92 MP's similiar to the Bloc's potential 75 MP's in a
Federal situation but only interested in advancing one Province. What I'm
picturing isn't a Separist movement, but a voting Block with a voice. That too
would still be just as Democratic as the Bloc, and what's good for l'oie would
also be good for le coup d'oeil, wouldn't it?
P.S. I'm a 10 minute drive away from being on the Louis Riel (#11) Highway.
P.S.S. I propose the Party (voting block) above be called the "Voice of the West Party." :canada:
Sure, the Bloc says now they won't take federal pensions, but years later, living quietly in Quebec, those Bloc MPs will happily take the monthly cash.
No, an appointed one; but appointed by you, me, and every other Canadian of majority age. Sort of like the candidates would have to be screened like trial juries.
Interesting approach. OK, that sounds like something worth thinking about...it would remove all the hoopla and BS surrounding conventional electioneering, that's for sure. Good thought!
News flash: Bloc MPs pay income tax too.
As long as Quebec is part of Canada. Bloc MPs are doing the exact same work as the rest of the MPs and deserve the same pension as them.
Members of the Bloc Québécois who were members of the House of Commons for five or more years of continuous service certainly are deserving of the pensions and benefits that are afforded to all other eligible members of the Commons. During most of these members’ statements and deliberations in the House, they are looking out for the interests of Québec — discussions of Québec sovereignty actually very rarely cross the floor of the House, despite the Bloc’s considerable numbers. Now, if there were a member of the Bloc advocating for a violent rebellion or other such unacceptable tactics to progress the sovereigntist movement, then I would agree that aggressive steps be taken to revoke benefits or pensions (in addition to whatever other consequences would accompany treason).
Let us not forget — when the Bloc isn’t advocating sovereignty on the floor of the House of Commons, how is what they’re doing there any different from what the former conservative parties hailing out of Western Canada did before the merger into the Conservative Party of Canada? Not a Hell of a lot, I’m afraid.
Let us not forget — when the Bloc isn’t advocating sovereignty on the floor of the House of Commons, how is what they’re doing there any different from what the former conservative parties hailing out of Western Canada did before the merger into the Conservative Party of Canada? Not a Hell of a lot, I’m afraid.
The Reform Party started to get “the West in” — they wanted the Western provinces to be given greater independence, greater rights and privileges than the other Provinces, to be given precedence in the decision-making process. They were doing, at the time, exactly what the Bloc Québécois is doing for Québec now, the only difference is they stopped short of advocating complete sovereignty.
But the Reform party operated in more than one province. This is not an insigniicant difference. How would the Bloc fair if they had MPs from New Brunswick or Nova Scotia? Their message would be diluted, just like the Reform party message was diluted into the Alliance party and the Conservatives.
I really can't understand all these apologists for the Bloc.
I can certainly understand your frustration at seeing a separatist party in Ottawa. Can you understand the frustration of Quebecers who'd rather have Quebec as their country?
I can. There are similar thoughts pretty much everywhere in the country. In every case, these folks do not appear to be in the majority, and that includes the ones in Quebec.
So, as much as I understand the frustrations of separatists everywhere, I don't agree with them.
I think the Bloc stands for separation of Quebec from Canada (correct me if I'm wrong, but is that not the reason the party came into existence?) and I still have a problem with that 'mission' existing in the House of Commons.
Does anybody even remember that the creation of Canada required certain things be done. One such thing is that any amendment to the Constitution (BNA Act 1867) had to be voted on by the 'voters'. In this case it was the citizens of the Provinces, they had to vote to approve what Ottawa was suggesting, that the Sovereign Provinces join together to form one Country called Canada. Does anybody know where the results of that vote by the common people is? As it stands Quebec cannot separate from something she does not belong to.
I was only a kid when the Bloc came into existence but from what I understand, the Bloc was started out of anger at the failure of the Meech Lake Accord.
This is an irreconcilable difference. They want a country and I am totally against it because it would wreck my country. There is no mutually agreeable solution here. So I think separatism should be squeezed as much as democratically possible in our federal system. I don't understand why we water down our federal system of governance, because you can have a federal system of governance and not be a democracy.
These armchair separatists want their own country with as little trouble as possible, and we accomodate them. We do all we can to let them keep their destructive dream alive. Go figure.