NationStates Jolt Archive

The Liberals win to fight another day. I believe that this is good for Canadians and the next election will result in a majority government for the Liberal party. Harper I believe slit his own throat when he jumped into bed with the Bloc.

A good day for Canada! :)

The Liberals win to fight another day. I believe that this is good for Canadians and the next election will result in a majority government for the Liberal party. Harper I believe slit his own throat when he jumped into bed with the Bloc.

A good day for Canada! :)

good grief did the NDP budget pass?

wow, i just dont get people in ontario...

The liberals are corrupt .... wtf....

To all the liberal supporters, do all peops in ontario just wipe over the corruption?

Would you support the cons if they dumped harper and brought in MCkay?
Would you support the NDPs or greens maybe? Or is it because the liberals are a ontario party?

You know what else kind of bothers me about all this?

Why is Martin being blamed for any of this? I'd like to see Martin get an honest chance on his own rather than being pilloried for Chretien's pals abuses.


Incidentally - why do you think Martin should have known? The sponsorship scandal started at the end of Martin's tenure and extended beyond it. Martin was definitely out of favor with Cretien at the time, and it is not the business of the Finance Minister to do line-item audits on the other departments anyway. His job is far more high-level than that - invloving more of overal economic policy than just departmental accounting.

That's why you have an Auditer General after all.

The total Federal Budget runs to about $150 Billion Dollars. The sponsorship scandal amounted to program with a budget of $100 million. In other words, .6 of 1% of the Federal Budget. To you and me, that is big bucks. To the Finance Minister, this is like expecting the CEO of a major corporation to have audited the line-item spending of the petty cash account.

The minister for the department which ran that program would be expected to audit it for details. The Finance Minister is not expected to have to audit that level of detail. And the check in the system is the Auditor General who DID raise the concerns about the spending - AFTER Martin had already left the post of Finance Minister.

And as a final note, let's remember who called the inquiry once he was back in a position to do so. That would be Paul Martin again wouldn't it?

But it sure suits Harper's agenda to try and put it all on Martin, and to be honest - Let's not forget that it was largely Martin's fiscal policies that balanced the budget and paid down a good chunk of National Debt that Canada got shafted with thanks to Lyin' Brian....

Yay, Canada!

This means that the gay marriage bill won't die and is closer to a final vote.

Martin was our finance minister, so:

A) He know about the money used to found the party, and he is corrupt
B) He did'nt know, and therefore did'nt do is job.

Finally,the base of the scandal, is about the liberal party using the country money to found is own political campaign. Witch destroy all what democraty is!!!

Dont wounder why all the country is placard with liberals face when you know they stoll all that money to finance theire campagn...

Martin was our finance minister, so:

A) He know about the money used to found the party, and he is corrupt
B) He did'nt know, and therefore did'nt do is job.

You're blaming Martin's government for what the Chretien government did. If you knew how it worked, you'd know that Martin would not be in a position to have known. Read my post above yours. Why should he have known? He had left before the scandal even took place. What is the problem with people not getting that point? Or is it that the facts don't really matter, you just want to bring down a stable government for a bunch of Albertan bible thumpers?

I don't think Canadians want Harper's Theocracy Now!!! party!

I like this Budget, and what's more, I like Paul Martin. Like Fass, I'm pleased about the agenda items that won't be postponed and/or foiled now that there's no election to worry about (for a few months anyway)

This is a good day for Canada.

And like Martin said today, "tommorow we get back to work!"

I think there should be a reminder as well, that accusations have been made towards both the Conservatives(under the old P.C. gov't of Mulroney) and the P.Q. I think Martin's offer of having an election after Gomery gives his report makes plenty of sense.

As a side note, with Stronach gone now, Harper can blame this defeat on himself. Stronach and Cadman were both forced out of the party by Harper himself. Stronach after Harper apparently lost it with her in a private convo(depending on who you believe mind you) and Cadman couldn't get the nomination in his constituency because Haper wanted somebody else. Personally, I'm not a conservative, but I think Haper should be gone. His leadership has been poor at best in my opinion and he's driven out most of the "red" tories out of the party. He continues to push the party further and further to the right and as such, more and more out of line with the majority of Centrist Canadians.

As a side note, with Stronach gone now, Harper can blame this defeat on himself. Stronach and Cadman were both forced out of the party by Harper himself. Not to mention Scott Brysen a few months back.

The party that is "Red Tory" now is the Liberals. Don't let their name fool you. Who has been more fiscally responsible than them? Not any government I can recall in a long time. This new brand of conservatives want to hand out corporate welfare, and they're not fiscal conservatives, they're social conservatives. That won't work in Canada.

You're blaming Martin's government for what the Chretien government did. If you knew how it worked, you'd know that Martin would not be in a position to have known. Read my post above yours. Why should he have known? He had left before the scandal even took place. What is the problem with people not getting that point? Or is it that the facts don't really matter, you just want to bring down a stable government for a bunch of Albertan bible thumpers?

I don't think Canadians want Harper's Theocracy Now!!! party!

I did read your post, you did'nt read mine...

Martin has been responsable of finance for like the last 10 years. How can you say he was'nt there? where did he leave? he was number 2 in the liberal party.

Dont know how it work? He was charge of finance. He had to decided where to allocate the money, and to check how the money was used. He had to know. On a side note, he also picked the employement assurance surplus few years before, and he let the firearms registery become a 2 billion hole.

About your last comment, look under my name. I'm a freaking separatist and probably way more liberal (political wise) than you...

look under my name. I'm a freaking separatist...

Well then, that should say all I need to know about your opinion. You don't give a rats ass about Canada. So noted.

P.S. Not everyone who lives in Quebec is a separatist, in fact, right now you're the minority.

I'm satisfied with today's results. I was very glad to see both the budget and the NDP amendment pass -- IMHO, they both contain elements that are important to get moving on.

I'm not a Liberal supporter and never have been, but I support the Conservatives even less -- especially with a socially conservative leader at their head. And to me Peter McKay is a corrupt sellout too, since he gave his word to Orchard that he wouldn't combine the PCs with the Alliance. So having McKay at the head wouldn't help garner my vote. Mind you, I'm from BC, not Ontario, so I my opinion may not matter anyway.

Anyway, I digress. I am content waiting for the results of the Gomery inquiry before holding an election. Canada has a justice system that declares people innocent until they are proven guilty. Politicians have the same rights as anyone else -- innocent members of the Liberal party should not be tarred with the same brush as the guilty ones. I am trying to reserve judgement until then.

The Budget may have passed second reading, but the opposition controlled committees are likely to either boot it right back at the House or stonewall it to death. The fight is not yet over. I hope the Conservatives realize how bad they made themselves look in the eyes of all sensible Canadians (not just those in Ontario) with all of what had happened, especially with Belinda Stronach's defection. The government could still fall in the next few weeks.

Chuck Cadman came through, as I figured that he would. David Kilgore was just a lost cause. It came down to the Speaker to cast the deciding vote. That I had never seen before, and I understand, it was a first as far as I know in Canadian History.

The fun and games are far from over, and we still have the third reading of the budget to go through before it becomes law.

I had always considered myself Liberal, even tho I live in Stockwell Day's riding. I was looking forward to an election, just to hurt the Conservatives some more. :)

Anyway, I digress. I am content waiting for the results of the Gomery inquiry before holding an election. Canada has a justice system that declares people innocent until they are proven guilty. Politicians have the same rights as anyone else -- innocent members of the Liberal party should not be tarred with the same brush as the guilty ones. I am trying to reserve judgement until then.

That is a fair stance. If everyone can recall, when Martin came to power as leader of the party he pretty much cleaned house of all the people suspected of being part of the scandal and then called the inquiry. So, the "corrupt" Liberals are no longer even part of the party, yet the party is getting blamed for the sins of the government that was before it. It's a straw-man argument to blame Martin's government for what the last government did. The people who did have anything to do with it are gone.

P.S. Not everyone who lives in Quebec is a separatist, in fact, right now you're the minority.

I'll agree with the first part of your post script, but at the moment I'm not so sure of the second half. It's understandable that the Québécois are infuriated by the sponsorship scandal -- all taxpayers are victims of it, but people from Quebec most of all. It’s not surprising that the separatist party -- and all it stands for -- has become extemely popular. It is the best way the Québécois have of showing their anger. Doesn’t mean the rest of us have to like it though. I wish there was another Quebec protest party that wasn’t about separatism.

My Canada includes Quebec!

It came down to the Speaker to cast the deciding vote. That I had never seen before, and I understand, it was a first as far as I know in Canadian History.


I was listening to the CBC streaming feed of the vote, and the Speaker of the House was very careful to make it clear that traditionally, the Speaker always votes for the status quo whenever he is called upon to break a tie. Speakers have voted before, for example on committee bills, but not on anything of this magnitude.

In his opening remarks, the Speaker reminded everyone that the last time he had been called upon to vote, he voted to keep a Conservative bill alive.

I'll agree with the first part of your post script, but at the moment I'm not so sure of the second half. It's understandable that the Québécois are infuriated by the sponsorship scandal -- all taxpayers are victims of it, but people from Quebec most of all. It’s not surprising that the separatist party -- and all it stands for -- has become extemely popular. It is the best way the Québécois have of showing their anger. Doesn’t mean the rest of us have to like it though. I wish there was another Quebec protest party that wasn’t about separatism.

My Canada includes Quebec!

Yeah, actually as of late the polls have been close. However again, lets look back to what the Canadian Supreme court ruled on Quebec separation when Jean Chrétien came to office after Brian Mulroney almost destroyed Canada. They ruled it would not be acceptable for Quebec to just vote to separate even if the majority won. They ruled it would be much more difficult for them to separate than a simple yes or no referendum. So people thinking back to the last referendum, if they think the same rules apply, they're in for one hell of a surprise! ;)

good grief did the NDP budget pass?

wow, i just dont get people in ontario...
What does ontario have to do with this?

The liberals are corrupt .... wtf....
I've said it before and I'll say it again, corruption is better than bigotry.

To all the liberal supporters, do all peops in ontario just wipe over the corruption?
I'm not a liberal supporter, but what the hell does Ontario have to do with anything at this point?

Would you support the cons if they dumped harper and brought in MCkay?
Would you support the NDPs or greens maybe? Or is it because the liberals are a ontario party?
I already voted NDP, not because of corruption, I like their platform and the NDP candidate for my riding was the only one to show up for a health care debate. If I'm giving someone my vote, I expect them to give a damn.

And the liberals aren't any more of an Ontario party than the progressive conservatives were an ontario party. You really don't make much sense...

Personally, I'm not a conservative, but I think Haper should be gone. His leadership has been poor at best in my opinion and he's driven out most of the "red" tories out of the party. He continues to push the party further and further to the right and as such, more and more out of line with the majority of Centrist Canadians.
I agree wholeheartedly.

Since the NDP is unlikely to ever win, there should at least be some threat to the liberals or else we're going to have the same party in power forever. The conservatives are the party next most likely to get into power, if they stop kicking themselves in the ass all the time and get someone who doesn't scare away all the moderate conservatives, then the liberals might actually have to do a good job to stay in power.

Also, I'm mildly dissappointed, I was hoping to get to work for elections canada again this summer. But this is probably better for the country anyways.

Since the NDP is unlikely to ever win, there should at least be some threat to the liberals or else we're going to have the same party in power forever. The conservatives are the party next most likely to get into power, if they stop kicking themselves in the ass all the time and get someone who doesn't scare away all the moderate conservatives, then the liberals might actually have to do a good job to stay in power.


I agree completely. Although I don't mind minority governments where the NDP can actually be the balance of power. :)

Yeah, actually as of late the polls have been close. However again, lets look back to what the Canadian Supreme court ruled on Quebec separation when Jean Chrétien came to office after Brian Mulroney almost destroyed Canada. They ruled it would not be acceptable for Quebec to just vote to separate even if the majority won. They ruled it would be much more difficult for them to separate than a simple yes or no referendum. So people thinking back to the last referendum, if they think the same rules apply, they're in for one hell of a surprise! ;)i dont see why Quebec would ever accept that kind of ruling...

Les Quebecois see this as a political Issue, only the people can decide this one...not the courts...

Furthermore Quebec has not signed the Constitution...and will not recognize the authority of an Ottawa appointed judge over the the democratic voice ot the people of Quebec...

Other than the AdScam scandal, you have to admit the Liberals have done a very good job in running Canada. They have been extremely fiscally responsible. Yes, they reneged on the GST and a few other things. All governments do. You will never find a party that can keep all of the promises made. However, Canada economically is in very healthy shape. While I agree perhaps it's time for the government to give some of that money to healthcare and education. Other than that, think long term, Canada has been paying huge amounts of the debt down for the last 10 years. They have balanced the budget for 8 straight years in a row. People never seem to care about the deficit. Look at the United States, we're in such a mess over here for deficit spending we may never see the light of day. Really, you don't know how lucky you're to have a government that is paying the bills.

Think of it in terms of how you would run your household. Would you pay your bills and save your money for a rainy day or would you spend, spend, spend and max out all your credit cards until you were so in debt, that you'd be screwed if you lost your job or that rainy day ever did happen. Just think of it in those terms and it becomes obvious that the Liberals have made a few mistakes, but not many.

Not to mention, they kept you out of the Iraq war. The Conservatives have already said they would of become part of the "willing" and your young Canadian troops would be dying for a lie too. I think sometimes people don't know how good they have it. This is one of those cases.

i dont see why Quebec will accept that kind of ruling...

Les Quebecois see this as a political Issue, only the people can decide this one...not the courts...

Furthermore Quebec has not signed the Constitution...and will not recognize the authority of an Ottawa appointed judge over the the democratic voice ot the people of Quebec...

In Canada your Constitution is not worth the paper it's written on, I don't mean to offend but it's true because of sec. 33 of the notwithstanding clause. However, if the Supreme court rules it not legal or constitutional, then don't think the rest of your country is going to sit by and say "bye, good luck" to Quebec. Quebec will never be able to separate unless Canada lets them. Quebec can't beat Canada in a civil war and we all know the US won't help the french, we hate them as a general rule. The US would back Canada. Simple as that. I hope it never gets that far. I hope you know a good thing when you have it and keep your country together. That would be the smart thing for both Canada & Quebec.

Quebec can't beat Canada in a civil war ...I really hope it does not come to that...

but if Canada tries to hold Quebec "inprisoned" after Quebec wins a democratic poll ... we cant count out warfare... urban warfare and guerrilla warfare...

its the most efficient kind of armed resistance... Dont you think?

I really hope it does not come to that...

but if Canada tries to hold Quebec "inprisoned" after Quebec wins a democratic poll ... we cant count out warfare... urban warfare and guerrilla warfare...

its the most efficient kind of armed resistance... Dont you think?

Yes, I would agree. However, if you have an effective federal government at the time, I imagine it would be nipped in the bud the same way Trudeau did it back in 1970 when he enacted the war measures act and put an end to the FLQ. It would be seen as terrorism and given the climate in the world right now the political spin to call them terrorists wouldn't be hard.

I hope your country stays together. I really love Canada. I think you're very lucky people. You know what they say, you don't know what you have till it's gone. I hope that never happens.

I really hope it does not come to that...

but if Canada tries to hold Quebec "inprisoned" after Quebec wins a democratic poll ... we cant count out warfare... urban warfare and guerrilla warfare...

its the most efficient kind of armed resistance... Dont you think?

Thats pretty funny. For some reason I can't picture an army of Quebeckers starting a war of seccesion mainly because a large percentage of "separatists" really don't care about independance, they just use the threat of breaking up the country as a way to blackmail the rest of us.

I'm not saying there is no cause for separation (as long as they pay off their part of the national debt before they leave) but 50% plus one in a vote doesn't show enough commitment.

As for the people hailing the Liberal victory on the budget as a step towards a win in the Gay Marriage vote, do you really think that an issue that has split the Liberal party so much would pass when a simple budget needed the speaker to cast his vote? I think we'll be free from this perversion for awhile longer at least.

As for the people hailing the Liberal victory on the budget as a step towards a win in the Gay Marriage vote, do you really think that an issue that has split the Liberal party so much would pass when a simple budget needed the speaker to cast his vote? I think we'll be free from this perversion for awhile longer at least.

They could easily table the same sex marriage bill. In Canada non-confidence votes can only be used on matters of finance. So they could very well still do it. The last polls I seen say odds are it would pass! Sorry to burst your bubble.

I imagine it would be nipped in the bud the same way Trudeau did it back in 1970If I was in charge... I probably would have reacted just like trudeau ...i m that kind of guy :mp5:

but...In a way...bringing the Canadian Army into the streets of Quebec changed the political destiny of quebec...before that the "souveranists" used to be a marginal group...Not anymore.

... the political spin to call them terrorists wouldn't be hard.They would be called terrorist...just like the chechens, Irakis, tanouls, Bosniacs, Croats, etc...

but screaming "terrorists" at them will not stop them...

good grief did the NDP budget pass?

wow, i just dont get people in ontario...

The liberals are corrupt .... wtf....
How are the Liberals corrupt? Please explain.

To all the liberal supporters, do all peops in ontario just wipe over the corruption?
What corruption?

Would you support the cons if they dumped harper and brought in MCkay?
You mean the guy that lied to David Orchard about never joining up with the Alliance? Not a chance. Although it would be good if the Cons ditched Harper because he is out of touch with most Canadians.

Would you support the NDPs or greens maybe? Or is it because the liberals are a ontario party?
I have voted NDP in the past, usually on a Provincial level, but traditionally support the Liberals federally.

They would be called terrorist...just like the chechens, Irakis, tanouls, Bosniacs, Croats, etc...

but screaming "terrorists" at them will not stop them...

I don't believe a lot of Quebec residents would be willing to pull off suicide bombings. I also don't believe the residents of Quebec to be as fundamentalist as the other groups you've named. Breaking the back of the separatist would not be that hard. At least I believe. Who knows for sure. As said, lets hope it never comes to that.

They could easily table the same sex marriage bill. In Canada non-confidence votes can only be used on matters of finance. So they could very well still do it. The last polls I seen say odds are it would pass! Sorry to burst your bubble.
I think they can and will pass the same sex marriage law and I do believe that most Bloc members will also support this bill.

Thats pretty funny. For some reason I can't picture an army of Quebeckers starting a war of seccesion mainly because a large percentage of "separatists" really don't care about independance, they just use the threat of breaking up the country as a way to blackmail the rest of us.

I'm not saying there is no cause for separation (as long as they pay off their part of the national debt before they leave) but 50% plus one in a vote doesn't show enough commitment.i you are so confident that les quebecois do not really want to gain independence(its just blackmail, etc)...

Then why on earth are you so scared of the traditional referendum majority rule (51%)...I mean those profiting quebequers have it so good...why would they ever win a referendum rite? :rolleyes:

They could easily table the same sex marriage bill. In Canada non-confidence votes can only be used on matters of finance. So they could very well still do it. The last polls I seen say odds are it would pass! Sorry to burst your bubble.

I'm not talking about it being a non-confidence matter, I was saying it probably will not pass because it would basically be the NDP and Liberals vs. the Tories and a good chunk of the Bloc with quite a few Liberals tipping the scales for the no side. Still it would have been nice to get a few more Conservative seats before the vote. I honestly have no idea where you got the non-confidence thing from...

I don't want to double post so as for Quebec the idea of them leaving really doesn't bother me. If they want to be their own country they should go for it.

I'm not talking about it being a non-confidence matter, I was saying it probably will not pass because it would basically be the NDP and Liberals vs. the Tories and the Bloc with quite a few Liberals tipping the scales for the no side. Still it would have been nice to get a few more Conservative seats before the vote. I honestly have no idea where you got the non-confidence thing from...

I get it from this, the Bloc voted against the budget because they could bring the government down with a non-confidence vote. Where as with the same sex marriage bill that would not be an issue and most of the Bloc support same sex marriage. Quebec is known for being quite liberal. From the polls I've seen, it would pass.

I really hope it does not come to that...

but if Canada tries to hold Quebec "inprisoned" after Quebec wins a democratic poll ... we cant count out warfare... urban warfare and guerrilla warfare...

its the most efficient kind of armed resistance... Dont you think?
Truly, what does Quebec have to gain by separation, and what are they prepared to give up?

Well then, that should say all I need to know about your opinion. You don't give a rats ass about Canada. So noted.

P.S. Not everyone who lives in Quebec is a separatist, in fact, right now you're the minority.

I will bother about Canada as long it will exist, whatever im part of it or i'm only is neighbor. That why i would like too point out few thing to you, I handerstand you dont see many other option for liberal, but still, best of the worst, is still a worst.

A) The money of the commandit was used to found the liberals campaign. Martin profited of it like any other liberal. The outcome of an election greatly depend on the marketing campaign and the money you put in it. Using public money to found your one compaign destroy all the basic of democraty.
B) Yes, Martin did a fantastic by clearing the deficit, but he took money from the employement assurance surplus and mainly cut the transfert to province. So the hardest job (where to cut, and raise efficiency) was done by all provincial gov.
C) While in charge of finance, he arranged is way so is buisness, the Steamship transport compagny never paid a penny in tax
D) Liberal have sunk 2 billion dollars in a firearm controle project while cutting in healt and education...
E) Keep in mind that all the promise Liberal have made to keep themself in power in the last week are not possible, and that include the NPD ammendement. Martin just made 4 billions magically appear to please Layton. Hell, they spent 18,3 billions in promise just in the last 3 weeks.

Also, you can grossly devise Quebec like this; 30% separatist, 30% federalist and 40% of really volatile elector who will change there opinion for nothing. Few weeks ago the yes had 54% in survey. But dont worry, it will go down 15%-20% before the next election in 2 years.

Side note, I care enougth about Canada to reconise Bloc should'nt exist anymore. It was fun so see if it would srew up Canada, but it did'nt. We are just stuck with a liberal gov.

Concerning Harper, media are making him look much more bad than he is. I dont remember him being pro-war, and he clairly state he would impose is bigoted view on abortion and other thing without the support of the population wich he will never have. That being said, like you, I'm still suspicious.

VOTE LAYTON'S

Yeah, actually as of late the polls have been close. However again, lets look back to what the Canadian Supreme court ruled on Quebec separation when Jean Chrétien came to office after Brian Mulroney almost destroyed Canada. They ruled it would not be acceptable for Quebec to just vote to separate even if the majority won. They ruled it would be much more difficult for them to separate than a simple yes or no referendum. So people thinking back to the last referendum, if they think the same rules apply, they're in for one hell of a surprise!

Actually, no...
Rigth now, Canada is trying to look like the champion of people and political right and freedom on international stage. Using our troops mainly for peace and observation purpose. In dont see it stand against a population trying to separate when they give lesson to China about is Tibet policy. Also, note that the suprem court did'nt take any clear stance on what should be a majorty, and what should be a good question. This, because they can't.

They will never have any civil war because we are not a banana republic... final word...

Furthermore Quebec has not signed the Constitution...and will not recognize the authority of an Ottawa appointed judge over the the democratic voice ot the people of Quebec...

very true, where not officialy part of Canada right now...

Yeah, actually as of late the polls have been close. However again, lets look back to what the Canadian Supreme court ruled on Quebec separation when Jean Chrétien came to office after Brian Mulroney almost destroyed Canada. They ruled it would not be acceptable for Quebec to just vote to separate even if the majority won. They ruled it would be much more difficult for them to separate than a simple yes or no referendum. So people thinking back to the last referendum, if they think the same rules apply, they're in for one hell of a surprise! ;)

Let's also remember that they ruled that if they wanted to try another referendum they had to ask a straight, clear question this time. Along the lines of "Do you want to secede from Canada? Yes or No?". I still remember the last referendum... a good percentage of the people who voted "yes" indicated in polling that they didn't think they were voting for a secession (If memory serves I think some surveys put it at 30% of "yes" voters who thought this). They just thought they were voting for discussing the idea and maybe seceeding or maybe just renegotiating Quebec's place within Canada... because of the way they twisted the wording of the question around. And the whole time the Bloc was running around telling people they would still be able to use Canadian currency and keep Canadian passports...

It was absurd.

GrandBill - I disagree with you.

I would actually like to see you answer CanuckHeaven's question more than this spin on your take of how corrupt the Liberals are. Because quite frankly this whole "Liberals are corrupt" argument is not true , here in the states we have a name for it, it's called "pork" and we do it daily. I also believe that the Liberals have set up a fund that if the inquiry concludes that public money was spent wrongly by them, they're going to completely pay it back and you will have not lost a dime.

Harper is as bad as they say he is in my opinion so I will have to agree to disagree.

Also, I think you might want to google, or look up in whatever way you wish what the Supreme Court of Canada ruled about Quebec separation from Canada. Just because you didn't sign the Constitution that doesn't mean you're not part of Canada either. That's actually pretty funny that you even believe that. Yes, you're officially part of Canada. :rolleyes:

You can't compare the Quebecians to the religious jihadis of the middle east. Religion can cause a man to do things he wouldn't normally do, if you've ever read Dune it shows how a group of religious fanatics can be incredibly dangerous. Quebec would not be fighting for religion and it seems that at best it would be fighting for a vague idea of independence from a larger nation. Sure, the U.S. did it, but there were enough people who believed strongly in the idea to make it work. It doesn't seem to be that way in Quebec. I believe any rebellion there is doomed to fail.

But, who knows. Maybe Quebec will be our new super-power.

ALL HAIL QUEBEC!!!!!11!11!!!!1one!

Let's also remember that they ruled that if they wanted to try another referendum they had to ask a straight, clear question this time. Along the lines of "Do you want to secede from Canada? Yes or No?". I still remember the last referendum... a good percentage of the people who voted "yes" indicated in polling that they didn't think they were voting for a secession (If memory serves I think some surveys put it at 30% of "yes" voters who thought this). They just thought they were voting for discussing the idea and maybe seceeding or maybe just renegotiating Quebec's place within Canada... because of the way they twisted the wording of the question around. And the whole time the Bloc was running around telling people they would still be able to use Canadian currency and keep Canadian passports...

It was absurd.

Yes, I do remember quite well. Absurd is an understatement. If and that is a big "if" Quebec were to by some miracle leave Canada, it would be like any divorce, messy! Quebec separatists I believe on the most part have no idea what it would mean for them. They would become the fastest third world nation in the region.

FLQ was a joke. Few people (4-8?) went to far by kidnaping the MP Laporte (killing him) and the Bristish ambassador Lacross, but the rest of them where mainly amateur posing small bomb in mailbox, and many of these FLQ cell where driven by the GRC to discreditate Quebec.

About the % needed, 50%+1 would do in theory, but nobody want a close vote like this, espacially separatist.

About the question, because of it's legal nature, it need to be complicated like most law stuff so theire not to much place for interpretation. I dont think nobody in Quebec could have be fooled about the true nature of it... And actually, if people would have take time to read it, the yes would have win. The question asked to allow the government to renegociate constitution with Ottawa, and in thecase of no agreement, the question said we would have need an other referendum to acheive separation.

We could'nt have made separation with a yes to the 1995 question, because it wasn'nt what was asked. The PQ tryed it as part of an etapist plan in order to progressivelly gain it. The only thing you should fear would be a referendum/election where an elected PQ would automaticaly make separation. Because they could win only because people are pissed of at Charest.

The gay marriage bill could pass because all bloc would vote for it

very true, where not officialy part of Canada right now...

So the billions and billions of dollars in transfer payments should be refunded to Canada then?

As for the people hailing the Liberal victory on the budget as a step towards a win in the Gay Marriage vote, do you really think that an issue that has split the Liberal party so much would pass when a simple budget needed the speaker to cast his vote? I think we'll be free from this perversion for awhile longer at least.
Except that you've got about half the liberals supporting gay marriage, the entire NDP, the Bloc all supporting it. It would win.

This thing had the liberals and NDP supporting it and I guess one of the independants, and the conservatives and Bloc against it. That's why the tie breaker was needed.

I really hope it does not come to that...

but if Canada tries to hold Quebec "inprisoned" after Quebec wins a democratic poll ... we cant count out warfare... urban warfare and guerrilla warfare...

its the most efficient kind of armed resistance... Dont you think?
I'm sorry, I really can't respect this coming from the guy who called our parliment "congress"...
Have you ever been to quebec? $10 says that most of the people don't give a shit and wouldn't start up with guerilla warfare if forced to stay part of Canada. Especially since the federal government would consider it a close call and then throw some extra cash their way to prevent it from happening.

I would actually like to see you answer CanuckHeaven's

Also, I think you might want to google, or look up in whatever way you wish what the Supreme Court of Canada ruled about Quebec separation from Canada. Just because you didn't sign the Constitution that doesn't mean you're not part of Canada either. That's actually pretty funny that you even believe that. Yes, you're officially part of Canada. :rolleyes:

Lets me give a copy&paste of the same question he asked me before, but thet falled to the limb without anybody reading it(some part has directed to someone else reply) :(

For being part of Canada, I was kind of joking, but it's still disturbing to know we did'nt sign it and that it still like this.

I'm for separation mostly because having to deal with 2 stages of government is way to complicated. The way powers have been devised is just plain wrong IMO. Province are giving the autonomy to run by themself like a country, but they cant because there is always something they need to refer to Ottawa. Province drive there education and healt system, they can give orientation to there economy, but always have to refer for international trading, for anything touching communication. Buisness have to deal with 2 complex tax systems...

I would'nt be against the "abolition" of province for a more powerfull government in Ottawa. But I think the canadian population is too much diversified to be controled by a central governement. That's why I think it would be better if all province would go appart and we (all province) would just work our way trougth economical and political treaty like a normal federation.

I'm not one of these separatist freak who think Quebec could survive without any form of trading with Canada, we are way to small. But i also laugth at Canadian who think they could also survive without Quebec, there is a lot of trading going for both side (est-west) and we both need it.

For losing/gaining, yes we would have to paid for 25% of the debt, but we also own 25% of canadian possesion. In reallity we wont start to take 25% of canadian real estate and paid 25% of the debt. A division would need to be done, and yes it would be a pain in the ass.

Concerning the territory, modern day border is the only way to go... we could argue for years on history border (1927 before we lost a chunk to newfounland, pre-1867 when quebec included mostly montreal and Quebec city, at this point we could also claim Canada was 100% french before France gave it to UK).

Now partition is the biggest scaring bullshit since 1980 when Brick's (not sure of the name) did a big truck convoys to illustrate how our economy would crash. Quebec is a political entity with some international recognition. Quebec have an historic reason to demand separation. If Ottawa want to give any geographic area the rigth to separate, I shall declare right now my 3 1/2 unilaterally sovereign. You can come anytime you want, all drugs and prostitution are now legal.

Anyway, on practice partition would be unfeasible. Devising Berlin in 2 was one of the biggest joke of history. You are'nt gonna devise Montréal like a suiss cheese putting customs at every street corner and passing a scanner on every one using subway.

...the federal government would consider it a close call and then throw some extra cash their way to prevent it from happening.

Rawr, and thus would Sponsorship Scandal v2.0 be born, in another attempt to prevent the Separatists from doing what they do.

Funny, the whole scandal happened because of the Separatists, the Feds threw a bunch of money at Quebec to appease the Quebecois, and now a decade later the separatists are trying to claim the reason they want to secede is DUE TO THE SPONSORSHIP SCANDAL. What a load of crap.

GrandBill - I'm sorry my dear, but you're living in a dream world. You would get nothing from Canada, nothing, and you would have no business, because they have made it VERY clear they would leave Quebec if Quebec left Canada. I remember in Montreal when I lived there for 2 years, St. Catherines street was so busy, it was super fun nightlife. Then when I returned to Montreal to visit with friends two years after the 1995 vote, St. Catherines street was so sad, half of the shops were boarded up and the place looked like a ghost town street compared to what it had looked like when I lived there.

If Quebec has the right to leave Canada, then your Native people have the right to leave Quebec, how much of that land belongs to them? It's just never going to happen and certainly not the way you are saying. Even the land in Quebec would be disputed. Quebec can't win the fight for separation and that's just the way I see it and most people who take an honest look would see it too.

Listen, let's deal with one national political coronary at a time, shall we?

I am originally from Quebec. I still have many relatives in Quebec. In my neighbourhood, which due to its' location is a splash-down point for new arrivals to Canada/Ontario/Toronto.

The single-largest group of new arrivals three years running? Francophone Quebecois. Single most common reason for coming? Work, followed soon after by being fed up with Quebec political wrangling. I kid you not.

In the unlikely event of separation, or more to the point, the collapse of Confederation, one thing that resonates with me is that the two old Canadas - Upper and Lower, Ontario and Quebec, are too intertwined, in too many ways, for us to not have a strong relationship.

Whatever the future may hold, our two provinces will remain inextricably linked.

I think that Canada will not be very forgiving if Quebec separates, if it's even really possible for them to do. I think you gloss over the realities that Ontario & Quebec would face and just like a divorce, Ontario being the much stronger province and Canadian thru and thru, I don't think would be very forgiving. I don't believe I'm wrong on this.

Rawr, and thus would Sponsorship Scandal v2.0 be born, in another attempt to prevent the Separatists from doing what they do.

Funny, the whole scandal happened because of the Separatists, the Feds threw a bunch of money at Quebec to appease the Quebecois, and now a decade later the separatists are trying to claim the reason they want to secede is DUE TO THE SPONSORSHIP SCANDAL. What a load of crap.

It's mostly Jean Chrétien friends who got the money, for the common Quebecois the sponsorship program only consisted in being drowed by canadian flag.

Whatever the future may hold, our two provinces will remain inextricably linked.

Exacly... Quebec simply could'nt go on is one, create is one money and so. But we cant ignore the fact the constitution debate have been taking sooo much space in our politic for the last 30 years, it make me said we really need to do something about it once and for all, and move on. I could live in a new Canada, just like most separatist.

I think that Canada will not be very forgiving if Quebec separates, if it's even really possible for them to do. I think you gloss over the realities that Ontario & Quebec would face and just like a divorce, Ontario being the much stronger province and Canadian thru and thru, I don't think would be very forgiving. I don't believe I'm wrong on this.

This debate raise a lot of passion from both side, but I dont think we could go back and we wont have other choice that facing the reallity and talk. I admit we have few separatist redneck on our side, but they would never go into a real figth for this. And has I said, i dont see Canada denying this since they preach liberty and freedom all over the world.

On an other note Gagliano (ok, i know is not what we could call a reliable source) said in an interview few weeks ago that libernals knowed Canada was doomed after the result of the last referemdum and that it was only a matter of time. Migth explain why im and is friend acted this way...

I did read your post, you did'nt read mine...

Martin has been responsable of finance for like the last 10 years. How can you say he was'nt there? where did he leave? he was number 2 in the liberal party.

Dont know how it work? He was charge of finance. He had to decided where to allocate the money, and to check how the money was used. He had to know. On a side note, he also picked the employement assurance surplus few years before, and he let the firearms registery become a 2 billion hole.

About your last comment, look under my name. I'm a freaking separatist and probably way more liberal (political wise) than you...


Gee - this post (along with your others) would make soooooo much sense.... if you had a clue what you were talking about.

For starters, Martin left the post of Finance Minister in 2002. The Auditor General's uncovering of problems with the Sponsorship money did not come out until 2004. Prior to that, there WERE investigations into the contract tendering process, all of which came back as not being a problem.

Now you say that Martin "should have known anyway".

Why?

I mean - other than because "he's a Liberal and so I hate him!"


What exactly do you think the Finance Minister does? Audit the line-items of every single program? No - that is the auditor general's job. The finance minster sets broad budgetary policies based on the program spending decided by Parliament. The fact is that there was waste - and in this case illegal activity - in a single program overseen by another minister with a total budget approaching .6 of 1% of the entire federal budget. That is something you go after those responsible for the illegal activities for. You DON'T assume that the Finance Minister should have been aware of it.

That is like assuming that the CEO of General Moters should be aware that a secretary made a few improper personal purchases out of the corporate petty cash account. Newsflash: he will only become aware of that if the person who administers that account becomes aware of the problem and brings it to his attention.

The people who should have known are the minister directly overseeing that program, and/or the auditor general. Neither of whom made such a report to Martin during his tenure.

The Gun Registry? Yeah - it's been a complete cluster-fuck, I'm not about to argue that - just as I would imagine that we could find a similar cluster-fuck with every single party ever to hold power. Of course, most of the budget ballooning came after Martin left Finance (2002 remember) - which you would know if you paid attention. And even if it didn't - WHAT IS YOUR POINT when it comes to trying to attribute this to Martin? The Finance Minister sets program budgets according to parliamentary decisions. He/she is NOT empowered to run the country by default and overrule such decisions.

In other words, if the MPs tomorrow decide to pass a bill to provide every single Canadian with a gilded piece of moose-shit for patriotic purposes, and arrive at a price of $1.2Billion to pay for it - it is the job of the finance minister to find the money and allocate it. It is NOT his/her job to say "no, you can't afford that" after parliament has voted. All he/she might do is render an opinion on the fiscal soundness (and possible odour) of that bill BEFORE the vote.

Did Martin call for the creation of the gun registry? No!

So, once again, your point is worthless.

He took money out of the EI surplus to pay for other things? Yes - he did! Damn smart move too! The EI cash-flow was still operating as if we were still in a recession which had passed. The SMART thing to do is to revisit these programs and adjust on the fly when needed. That way it runs efficiently.

What? He should leave surplus funds gathering dust awaiting unemployment that probably won't happen? Why? To give you the warm fuzzies knowing that there is a chunk of cash sitting somewhere?

Here's a thought - try considering how NORMAL people operate. Assume you have a big-assed credit-card debt. At the end of the month you discover you have extra money left over (a surplus!), you can a) splurge it just because you have it, b) leave it in the bank doing sweet fuck-all for a rainy day, or c) pay it down on the debt in order to lessen your future carrying charges knowing full well that this puts you in a better position to borrow it back later if you need it.


Martin believes in option c). So do I. So do most people who aren't prime candidates for bankruptcy proceedings.

I assume that you must believe in option a) with an emphasis on blowing the cash on cheap drugs what with your obvious disconnect with either facts OR reality.


Otherwise you might just notice that in Martin's time in Finance he took Canada from having the highest deficit to GDP ratio in the G7 to having a surplus, paid down a significant chunk of national debt, and managed to do this while also providing the largest tax cuts in Canadian history - over $100 Billion over 5 years.

That is a record to stand proud on, and he does so with good reason.

Gee - this post (along with your others) would make soooooo much sense.... if you had a clue what you were talking about.

For starters, Martin left the post of Finance Minister in 2002. The Auditor General's uncovering of problems with the Sponsorship money did not come out until 2004. Prior to that, there WERE investigations into the contract tendering process, all of which came back as not being a problem.

Now you say that Martin "should have known anyway".

Why?

I mean - other than because "he's a Liberal and so I hate him!"


What exactly do you think the Finance Minister does? Audit the line-items of every single program? No - that is the auditor general's job. The finance minster sets broad budgetary policies based on the program spending decided by Parliament. The fact is that there was waste - and in this case illegal activity - in a single program overseen by another minister with a total budget approaching .6 of 1% of the entire federal budget. That is something you go after those responsible for the illegal activities for. You DON'T assume that the Finance Minister should have been aware of it.

That is like assuming that the CEO of General Moters should be aware that a secretary made a few improper personal purchases out of the corporate petty cash account. Newsflash: he will only become aware of that if the person who administers that account becomes aware of the problem and brings it to his attention.

The people who should have known are the minister directly overseeing that program, and/or the auditor general. Neither of whom made such a report to Martin during his tenure.

The Gun Registry? Yeah - it's been a complete cluster-fuck, I'm not about to argue that - just as I would imagine that we could find a similar cluster-fuck with every single party ever to hold power. Of course, most of the budget ballooning came after Martin left Finance (2002 remember) - which you would know if you paid attention. And even if it didn't - WHAT IS YOUR POINT when it comes to trying to attribute this to Martin? The Finance Minister sets program budgets according to parliamentary decisions. He/she is NOT empowered to run the country by default and overrule such decisions.

In other words, if the MPs tomorrow decide to pass a bill to provide every single Canadian with a gilded piece of moose-shit for patriotic purposes, and arrive at a price of $1.2Billion to pay for it - it is the job of the finance minister to find the money and allocate it. It is NOT his/her job to say "no, you can't afford that" after parliament has voted. All he/she might do is render an opinion on the fiscal soundness (and possible odour) of that bill BEFORE the vote.

Did Martin call for the creation of the gun registry? No!

So, once again, your point is worthless.

He took money out of the EI surplus to pay for other things? Yes - he did! Damn smart move too! The EI cash-flow was still operating as if we were still in a recession which had passed. The SMART thing to do is to revisit these programs and adjust on the fly when needed. That way it runs efficiently.

What? He should leave surplus funds gathering dust awaiting unemployment that probably won't happen? Why? To give you the warm fuzzies knowing that there is a chunk of cash sitting somewhere?

Here's a thought - try considering how NORMAL people operate. Assume you have a big-assed credit-card debt. At the end of the month you discover you have extra money left over (a surplus!), you can a) splurge it just because you have it, b) leave it in the bank doing sweet fuck-all for a rainy day, or c) pay it down on the debt in order to lessen your future carrying charges knowing full well that this puts you in a better position to borrow it back later if you need it.


Martin believes in option c). So do I. So do most people who aren't prime candidates for bankruptcy proceedings.

I assume that you must believe in option a) with an emphasis on blowing the cash on cheap drugs what with your obvious disconnect with either facts OR reality.


Otherwise you might just notice that in Martin's time in Finance he took Canada from having the highest deficit to GDP ratio in the G7 to having a surplus, paid down a significant chunk of national debt, and managed to do this while also providing the largest tax cuts in Canadian history - over $100 Billion over 5 years.

That is a record to stand proud on, and he does so with good reason.
*CanuckHeaven* applauds this most worthy post. Someone who actually knows how good the Liberals have been in regards to financial matters. Now if only a few more Canadians could understand the dynamics of what has been accomplished over the past 12 years, then there wouldn't be a minority Liberal government.

So the billions and billions of dollars in transfer payments should be refunded to Canada then?
yes.

Harper is a big whiney baby who, for the last several months, has dragged half of parliament hill down to his level.

I hope they can grow up again now.

...

Why?

I mean - other than because "he's a Liberal and so I hate him!"


What exactly do you think the Finance Minister does? Audit the line-items of every single program? I dont...I cant hate the liberals...because in many ways I am a liberal...I could vote for a liberal candidate any given sunday...



what do I hate...I hate CORRUPTION. and the current LPC leadership is corrupted.

and instead of of paying the price...and calling elections...what they do?...they try to buy votes from the conservative reps (too bad that woman was willing to sell herself).

Leprous Monkeyballs, great post.

I was prepared to dismiss it after seeing your name. I am very glad I didn't judge the book by its cover, and instead, read your comments in full.

I am a Conservative, and I don't want an election. But, the Liberals have got to go, they are corrupt to the core. It sickens me that Canadians have let them stay in power for so long, can you say dictatorship? To the person who said Canadian troops would be fighting in Iraq if the Conservative Party had been in power, you are correct. They would be fighting for a good cause, freedom and democracy. I have come to the believe that Liberals do not care about anything other than their own country, just look at this government doing nothing about Sudan and letting the military continue to fall apart. I have heard many people say that Americans are stupid for re-electing Bush, well in that case Canadians must be retarded to continue to elect the Liberals. Hell, Canadians would elect a bunch dogs to Parliament as long as they were running for the Liberal Party of the once great country Canada. In case you liberals haven't noticed, Canada is a joke nation, and you can thank yourselves for letting it become that.

I am a Conservative, and I don't want an election. But, the Liberals have got to go, they are corrupt to the core.
Please explain how they are corrupt?

It sickens me that Canadians have let them stay in power for so long, can you say dictatorship?
They were duly elected, so how can you claim dictatorship?

To the person who said Canadian troops would be fighting in Iraq if the Conservative Party had been in power, you are correct. They would be fighting for a good cause, freedom and democracy.
If you believe that US involvement in Iraq was/is about "freedom and democracy", then you are out of touch. Besides, the vast majority of Canadians did not want to send troops to Iraq (it was over 70% in one poll that I saw), therefore democracy was served?

I have come to the believe that Liberals do not care about anything other than their own country, just look at this government doing nothing about Sudan and letting the military continue to fall apart.
I totally disagree. Canadian troops went to Afghanistan, Kosovo, and have served in many peace keeping operations. BTW, from what I understand, the Sudanese government does not want our troops over there.

I have heard many people say that Americans are stupid for re-electing Bush,
Well you won't get much disagreement from me, most other countries and about 49% of Americans!!

well in that case Canadians must be retarded to continue to elect the Liberals.
Why? Please explain?

Hell, Canadians would elect a bunch dogs to Parliament as long as they were running for the Liberal Party of the once great country Canada.
I don't intend on voting for dogs in the near future, and this country is one of the best in the world. For 7 straight years, Canada was the UN's choice as the best country to live in. Last year we were fourth. The US was 8th. So we must be doing something right?

In case you liberals haven't noticed, Canada is a joke nation, and you can thank yourselves for letting it become that.
Why is it a "joke nation"? Your really should explain yourself, instead of making rash generalizations which I don't believe to be true.

While you are at it, perhaps you could explain how your "Conservatives" will make Canada a better country?