Benz

I think they will do another partial election. If they do, I bet the Bloc will get more support this time.

It is the Karma. What did NDP for the Liberals? In exchange for just one program, NDP supported the Liberals like if they were a majority. This is a huge gift. How do the people appreciate it? They voted Liberals since NDP became so irrelevant. That is lesson number one. Now that the Liberals get more powerful and NDP miserable, how do the Liberals thank NDP for such loyalty? By spitting on them and refuse them the official party status. That is lesson number two. Do the NDP learn the lesson this time? We'll see. As soon as the NDP will get its new leader, it should refuse to support ALL motions of confidence toward to Liberals. They have nothing to lose anyway at this point. But if they keep supporting the Liberals, then it means they learn nothing. They get what they deserve.

Of course I do not forget that constitution made without us. There are some points in it that are unacceptable. But as René Lévesque said, Canda is not the goulag either. I talked about very recent events as well. When the french outside Québec want to send their kids to school, they often have to fight up to the supreme court to have them in public schools. Or the federal programs in the provincial competencies that we do not agree on. Both are happening in the 21st century. Of course. At least you can fix the errors of the past by fixing the present. What was unacceptable back is still unacceptable today. Very easy today but, Ottawa is a bad faith. Recognition of Québec nation. Quebec can choose its own senators. Opt out with full compensation. Choose our own judges. Select immigrants ourselves. Those are actual issues. Then why do they still have to fight so hard to have the same rights and services as other canadians? On the contrary, we will have much better influence. How many times the Canada took a position different than we would. Trudeau literally sacrificed Québec in the first Trump mandate when he broke the NAFTA. Don't get me wrong, I would prefer that we stay united but, not at this price. No worries about that. Québec did good despite the actions of Ottawa against us. We will do good without Ottawa. However, some provinces will realise that they can do like Québec as well and they will figure out that Quebec was right. Ottawa has too much power. Québec does not want to leave because of the past. It wants to leave because Canada can't adapt for the future.

It is called FACTS. In PEI, when few acadians came back after the deportation, all the lands they once owned, belong to british owners. So they lived and worked on their former lands and paid an enormous rent to their new owners. Read about those things. Dig and find out. The Thornton Bill in Manitoba. Making public french schools illegal. That province passes from a 50-50 french-english speaking to only 3% of french today. That bill has been judged illegal by the supreme court circa 1989. There are a lot of documentation about that. Here is one: https://ericmessier.net/pdf/genocide_quebec_canada.pdf B.S. Québec has been milked all the time through history. They merge upper canada and lower canada, become uppar had a big debt and lower did not. Out of sudden, we had to share their debt. While Ontario's nuclear and Alberta's oil has been largely subsided by Ottawa for decades, Québec's Hydro never received a penny. There are many federal programs where Quebec does not get its share. So bottom line, the equalization is not that great. It is rather a counter balance of the other programs. I remember when Newfoundland was getting the most per capita from equalization. The other provinces were blaming them for being bad at developping their province. But NF was not getting its royalties from its oil like Alberta. All of it was going directly to the pockets of Ottawa. So NF rejected the canadian flag, they started to talk about seperation and then bang! Ottawa gave them the same conditions of Alberta. As of today, Ontario and Alberta are still receiving funds from Ottawa for Nuclear, Automobile, Oil and so on. What is left for Quebec, equalization. In 1981, Québec and 7 other provinces team up together and they were called, the group of 8. They wanted an opt out with full compensation of a federal program. In the night of november 4th to 5th, they all back stab both Quebec and their own provinces and they give up that condition. I guess Alberta regrets today. Even Palpatine cannot do that. He had to foul everyone and have the senate to vote the change of the constitution. So he did. If the Canadian parliement vote for the same thing, the king will become the dictator. Because it doesn't. At least the president is someone we choose and can get rid of 4 years later. We are stuck with the king and he doesn't look like he appreciates his job. I do not want to waste energy convincing you that the monarchy isn't good. It is your choice and it is ok for you. It will never be for me. Neverthenless, the monarchists in the english Canada is losing supporters every year.

What do they teacgh you in school? What have you learned about the genocides the british did to the french and natives? Acadians deportation, Louis Riel's revolt, process of skrinking native territories down to small reserves... How can you seriously say that? The aristocratic system that makes the royal family getting among the biggest subsides in the world. Less than 40% of the people support the monarchy in Canada. The monarchy missed an incredible opportunity to win the respect of Québec in 1982 when they allowed the federal and the 9 other provinces to kick out Québec from the constitutional team. Have you ever heard the concept of Republic? Like USA or France?

The provinces gave the federal that power. It was as obvious in 1867. Ottawa can play in the provinces' compentencies without their permission. Ottawa is doing it all the time by the way. That is why the provinces wanted modifications in 1981 until they gave up everything on november 5th. So no, it's not equal. However, maybe you misunderstand me. That sovereignty is not absolute. Ottawa can change the constitution only if it gets 7 provinces and 50% of the population. Almost 100% of the countries that got their independence were from countries that had no exit clause. Most of the F.N.'s treaties are signed with the Crown and several of them are priori the creation of Canada. Alberta has a major problem because they have no treaties with the natives (unless I am missing something), so if it seperates, it has a serious problem. However, Québec did anticipated the issue and there treaties signed between Québec and first nations on its territory.

The fededral has the last word because it is the sovereign of all provinces. If one or more provinces get its sovereignty, the federal has no longer the last word. The federal is forced to negociate, otherwise it gives the legitimity to the province to seperate unilaterally. The Clarity Act is a joke. It does not define what is a clear majority, therefore its utility is comparable to a toilet rolled paper. Anyway, Québec is safe because it did not sign the 1981's constitution. It is a little bit more complicated for Alberta. But the UN or international community never refuse the right for autodetermination to the people, unless it has serious reasons to doubt that it reflects the will of the people. Unless Québec or Alberta have a question so complicated that an observe can't understand it, there won't be an issue there. Senators: There are no green party in Quebec. That question should regard the National Assembly of Quebec and it does not have to be the same method as Alberta. Let's say Alberta wants an election of senetors from the citizens, so be it. And if Quebec prefers a vote among the mps, so be it as well. Quebec judges: The PM of Canada decides who are selected among the candidates in Quebec. Hard to get recognitions?: I am older than the indepedence of more than 50 independent countries. To name few, Solvaquia 1993, Bruneï 1984, Belize 1981, South Suddan 2011, Montenegro 2006, Surinam 1975, Papua New Guinea 1975. I am born in 1973. It is the opposite. It is rare that a country is not recognized.

unless I have missed one, Trump is not calling Carney a governor like he did with Trudeau. So far.

A non sovereign province trying to negociate with the federal, is like playing poker but, you are showing your cards to your opponent. So far, all the provinces but Quebec did not mind because it was a cultural acceptation that Ottawa play in your sandbox. It seems that Alberta is starting to think like Quebec. I just wonder at what phase they actually are. Still thinking you can play poker by showing your cards, or ready to assume full sovereignty attitude. Quebec sovereignists are observing with serious interests. In another post, I suggested that we should improve the canadian federalism and make it possible for a province to become an autonomous state within Canada with the following features. -Opt out from federal program with full compensation -Select your own senators the way you want it (election involved if it is what you want) -Select your own judges -Can make treaties to other countries without needing an approval from Ottawa as long as it does not enter into conflict with the federal ones -Ottawa's decisions, even regarding international deals, can't be done without the provincial/state if it regards a competency of the state. Right now, there are no federal parties that offer this and it is pointless to wait for it. So if Alberta and Quebec coordinate a plan for a referendum on sovereignty and then offer this kind of partnership to Ottawa, I think it could become very interesting. Ottawa won't be able to cope a NO and then deal with the consequences of a collapsing system. But if we engage that way, we can't bluff. It's all in by assuming decisions of sovereign nations.

Do you think she is just bluffing like Robert bourrassa was doing back then, or she is totally converted to the concept of Alberta`s sovereignty? In other words, if Carney gives her most ofwhat she wants, do you think she will stop heading toward Alberta's sovereignty, or she stood up Alberta's autonomy until the end?

It is difficult to hold a smile when I see Danielle Smith suggesting that the federal should respect provincial competencies and mind its own busines. She says Québec would like that as well and other provinces too. Oh I agree with her but, I feel the need to say that this is what Québec has been telling you since 1867. The federal government has too many powers and there should no be overlaps. In 1981, the group of 8 was claiming the very same thing until the 7 others choosed to betray their own citizens and Québec. The solution is easy. They just don't want to understand it. Let's repeat it one more million of times. 🤠

No, he just did the math.

Before the election, everybody sticks to their beleif/propaganda/political agenda. Afterwards, people tend to loosen their positions and become open to new perspectives. So just for fun, I would like to see what are your thoughts on a utopic party I imagined. Utopic because right now, none of the 5 parties are near to offering something like that. The Confederacy Party of Canada Objective: Add a new administration type called state. We already have the territories, the provinces, now we would have the states. A Province could choose to become a state after a referendum won by 50%+1. A canadian state would be similar to a province but, it would have a much greater autonomy. More autonomy also means more responsibility and you depend more on your own. The most important part is, the state has a right to opt out of any federal program with full compensation. This idea is now new. That is what the group of 8 wanted in 1981 until the english provinces back stabbed Québec and give Trudeau everything he wanted. Example: Let's say that only Manitoba chooses to become a state. Then the federal creates a program called Z that half of the provinces want. In this current canadian federation, whether you like it or no, you have to follow the federal's will. But with this new status, Manitoba would be able to say no to the Z program and get full compensation by getting its share of the budget for that program. The state would also have other powers, such as choosing their own senators, judges and so on. Prime minister of Canada has no say anymore. The state can also interact with other sovereign countries without the approval of the federal. They can make deals, as long as they do not conflict with the ones set by Canada. A state also has a say on deals Canada can make with other countries, if it concerns a competency that belong to the state. An important rule of the party, no one can push a right wing or left wing agenda. The purpose of the party is to make this happens. If you want to remove a woman right's to abort, or crashing money into the system thinking it sounds like an investment to you, you are not welcome. When you join, you put a pause to those agendas and you focus on that main project. Obviously, once the project is done, the party will dissolve. You can all go back to your annoying right vs left mindsets. Why the actual parties can't/won't propose something like that? Because it is against their nature. LPC and NPD are indefatigably centrists, all the power to Ottawa. The Bloc has no fate in english canada and focus only on Québec. Conservatives never respect its promises. Once they get the power, they like it as is and they abort all their reform projects. If such party would take the power and put that system in place, I predict that Québec and Alberta would be the first ones to become canadian states.

I can understand why some canadian right wingers support Trump. The democrats need to learn a good lesson of this defeat. I also understand them taking the side of Trump for blaming Canada's border policies. I also agree with Trump on that one. It's among the tons of thing we can blame Trudeau for. But this, a threat of 25% tax on canadian imports, that is a total different issue. No, Trump is not attacking Trudeau by doing this, he is giving him an unexpected help. A major one. He is literally saying out loud that Canada is no longer an ally and does not deserve his respect. He is saying that he thinks he can use any means to get what he wants. There is a line he must not cross and he did. Negociation tactics my ***. When you are ready to go so low, it reveals who you really are. This is not an ally. Take a look a what is the import tax rates of countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Israel and many others. How you think he would behave if we would do the same? You think he would gently conclude to a "it's just a negociation tactic"? Or he would just teach us manners of how to behave with an ally? Those still defending him on that one are worst than Trudeau. You have no dignity. Don't ever mention anything about "great again". You do not have neither the balls, nor the shoulders to make it credible in your mouth.

Indeed. I thought every body knew it.

You are confusing evidence with saying. When we observe today's world. It is easy to notice that despite the knowledge and the technology, humans are struggling to communicate with each others. We often have te repeat and confirm to make sure we understand each others. That within one nation of the same language, same culture. Then we translate and adapt our message to other languages if we need to reach the highest number of people. That God is suppose to be so powerful that it can creates the world, all the physic laws, matter, life, etc... but that same God would have waited 13 billions of years before creating humans, and then it would have waited a long time to communicate important messages about the rules the humans are suppose to follow. Instead of telling everyone the same thing at once and make sure we all understand, it would always communicate to just few men at a period of time where communication just can't spread everywhere. Always to the same culture, only to the one that believes in it/him/her. Even if it means that the majority of humans can't have access to its saying. Really? Such a divine entity wouldn't be smarter than that? So lazy that it counts on few limited individuals to do the job of something that is supposed to so important to everyone? I mean come on. Only a simplistic individual could think like that. I think it is interesting to think and debate on the possibility of the existence of a creator like that. However, all the gods imagined by the religions sound way to wacky to be true. That said, I respect your belief and I know it makes you feel good to believe in it.

I am born catholic but, now I am rather atheist, or just agnostic. I am not saying it is impossible that a god can exist. What I think is, if there is a god, I am 100% sure it is not what the believers (whatever the religion) think. So my position is, god is irrelevant to the society we built and upkeep. From the day that Britain won against the French until the 60's, the churches were playing a major role in Quebec's society. Much bigger than when France owned Canada. The British used them to control the french (canadiens). Everything changed drastically in the 60's and after. We called that, the quiet revolution. The Québécois chose to kick the religion out of the politic and set a clear secularism. Now, in Québec, the place of the religion is only for spirituality. No room for politic. Unlike in the rest of Canada where people accept that the religious can play a role in politic. Like telling the people what to wear or not during a public job, even when it is a position of authority. Changing the rules so they do not apply the same way depending on your religion. This is a major difference between Québec and the roc. Neverthanless, English Canada is divided on that and a substantial number of english canadians share our opinion. The religion may not have today the influence it once had in the past but, it is true that the values of many Québécois, even among those who no longer believe in god, are very close to the catholic ones. So yes, you are right about the influences and how it translates to the difference between French and English Canadians. For the catholics, you get a better place in heaven if you are not materialistic. For the protestants, it's the opposite, the bigger is the wealth, the better is the place in heaven. Well, I over simplify it and it is more complex than that, but it explains a little why the French are more open to socialism than the English. I guess it makes me a flat earther as well. The LPC has redefined the word liberal and it is now synonymous to corruption. It's the only party where you can ask any member how much would you sell your mother and you can get a price. I do not see them as the lighthouse of the liberalism at all. They rather flirt with neoliberalism. Since 1982, the LPC never been popular in Quebec among the french. Only the entire english community and the huge majority of the immigrants were voting for them. Among the french, the LPC is rather third. The only exception was the 2015's election. A bunch of young voters were too young to remember the Chretien/Martin's era or had no clue who was father Trudeau. But that was temporary. The french are rather divided between Bloc and Conservatice. The NDP replaced the Bloc 2 elections but, that is also back to normal. So, no. Trudeau IS NOT Quebec. Not at all. Trudeau's vision of what Canada should be, is pretty much the opposite of what we would like. He is harmful to both Quebec and the West. The liberals always been good at using our divisions one against another.

That is what I said. Cowards!

Ahhh those Québécois... they are so strong, they managed to make stop the capital punishment for murder in at least half of the American states as well. So they will rule the entire world.

This is yet another example of Harper having no balls to do what needs to be done. I am not against the principle of cumulative sentences, on the contrary, it makes sense to me. A strategy some prosecutors were sometimes doing, they were not accusing the criminal of all the crimes they did and once one sentence was completed, then they were accusing again with another crime they had in reserve. If there is not prescription for that crime, of course. With that bill, they longer needed to use that strategy. The problem here is not the why, it's the how. Harper is coward and he did not want to do things the way it should. A modification to the constitution was needed but, he did not want to touch the constitution. So it was just a matter of time before the judges return that decision. You can't blame the judges. This is how the constitution is written. In a normal country, it is not difficult to modify a constitution and adapt it, when the modification is favorable for a clear majority needed according to the rules. This one could have pass. But this not a normal country and the constitution is the Pierre Elliot Trudeau's. Notwithstanding Clause? Yes, Justin Trudeau could use it. He could use it either way. If he uses it in the current context, he would be against the judges and the canadian constitution of its own father. That is why he is not using it. Now reverse the scenario. Harper does modify the constitution with the necessary support. It goes to the court and this time, the judges now agree with this new constitution. If Trudeau wants to use the Notwithstanding Clause and rejects the cumulative sentences. Now he would be against the judges and against the constitution. That would be an expensive political price to pay. Because it is a total different context. When you do a bad job, even if it is a legitimated one, you get bad results. Now learn from Harper's mistakes, or mumble alone behind your keyboard.

After you write something like that, do you think you have won something or made your point? Is it how you see yourself? "should be possible". It could be possible IF AND ONLY IF the prime minister of Canada is asking, by its own initiative, the provinces to provide a list of names. Nothing prevents a PM to do that if it what it wants. But you are misreading his "experts". You think it could be translated to, it is possible to force the next PM to proceed that way without changing the rules. When I said nothing, I meant nothing intelligent. I should have been more precise. So I told you, I give you that, he did something... something stupid but, he did. Once he has been told that no, this is not how to do things. He should have did it to proper way. Then he did not even tried. He did not have the balls to reopen the constitution. That's the most important point and my point from the start is, he did not do the necessary to make his promise happens. More pathetic, he did not give the example and he was choosing senators among his "friends". No matter how hard you try, you cannot escape that reality.

lolll experts! Harper has always been selective on who he wants to listen to. He should have listen to our experts instead of his. He tried to force the federal to accept a list of names coming from the provinces, even if the CONSTITUTION gives 100% of the power to the federal on that matter. Where the ---- he found his experts? In a crackerjack box? When the time came for him to name new senators, did he required a list of names coming from the provinces? Who did he chose in Quebec's names list? ? ok, I can give you that one. He did try very hard to fail on purpose. He did not try to do the right thing that needs to be done though. If he really wanted to make it happen, after his ridiculous fail, he would have open the discussion for the constitution and Quebec would have been an ally. But he has been raised to hate Quebec and blame Quebec for everything like so many other small size ones. You wish. How old are you? Facts are facts dude. Don't play the victim with me. You are the one arguing it is a necessary move, while it is only momentary one that can't last forever. Because the next government can reverses everything and even make it worst. Admit it, it was far from enough. At this point, the best word to describe you is pathetic. You failed miserably. You need to learn that it is ok to lose sometimes. I know that you know what Harper did is not what should have been done. You also know that if he really wanted to make it happen, he would have done the right thing afterward. He rather used that as a lame excuse to not do it and only fanatic supporter can swallow that. Harper was more focus on fighting for the power, than fighting for his convictions. Liberals have a total different mindset. They are not capable to differ good from wrong regarding the administration of public funds. It is systematic. They put their hands in the cookie jar and then they try to figure out of way to not being caught. They see that as a game, a game in which they want to be the best.

1. Anyone that has at least one single cell functioning, knew you need to change the constitution for that. Harper tried to change the system without changing the rules of the system. It was a planned fail and you are one super naive to believe that trap. How more stupid this can be. One does not attempt to change the rules and then ask the court to avoid the rules. Harper needed to reopen the constitution but, he was too chicken to attempt to do that. This is the worst lame excuse to defend a coward. 2. Giving a little bit more money to the province IS NOT the same thing as real decentralization. Now you are sounding like an old liberal trying to justify the system. It's always the same thing, over and over. The provinces are whining and sticking up together until the federal is breaking their unity one by one by giving a little bit of money the easiest whores. The only time I saw 2 real province leaders standing up against the federal and make it back down, it is when Mike Harris and Lucien Bouchard teamed up in 2000. This is not what I said. No matter how bad and terrible Trudeau is, it does not excuse Harper's fail. One big bad does not excuse a smaller one.

Liberals have raised lies, hypocrisy and corruption to a level they are the only ones that can reach it, to a point we can label their name on it. But pretending that would give a free pass to the conservatives and Harper, it's a big no. There are two major promesses Harper did so may times and did the exact opposite, he clearly f---ed his own supporters with it. Senate: He was totally against partisan appointment and he wanted a triple E senate (the Preston Manning's dream, it rings you a bell?). One of the E was for Elected. Not only he did not hold that promise, he did not even tried and he end up with the Canada's new record of partisan appointments. He so screwed you on that. Decentralization: Harper did promise that the federal would become more decentralized to the benefit of the provinces. Especially in the area where there are duplications of the roles. He promised that at the golden age of the liberal era when the centralization and the liberal way became a liberal dictatorship. The new CPC was just born out of a painful pilgrim path going through Reform party and Canadian Alliance party. The canadians and mostly the westeners could not stand the federal government anymore. Bottom line, not only he did not do any step toward that direction, he was abusing it himself when it was his turn. So whenever a liberal is getting back the power, it still can abuse of a very centralized système at the expenses of the provinces. No matter how big the liberals could screw things up, it cannot shadow those Harper's betrayals. I suggest a little more humility in your critics.

I did not say Harper win because of Quebec. I do not know what I could have said that make you think that. One thing for sure, it helped a little bit that the LPC was not popular in Quebec. Only the english citizens of Quebec were voting for the LPC. Foreign companies, other provinces or outside were allowed to sell milk products in Quebec. What you mean is, they had to use Quebec milk first and since we were producing enough milk, there were no issues. Now foreign companies can bypass Quebec milk. Consumers won't win anything. Producers will lose for sure. The quality will no longer rely on us but, on foreigners. It's a lose-lose deal for us. Ontario producers are losing as well, not only Quebec. Better now? Quebec DID NOT SCREW THEM. At the time, nobody knew the oil industry would rise that much, nobody knew the nuclear industry would become so expensive, nobody knew the coal and other polluting industries would go down like that. No body knew, neither NFL, nor HQ. No one else than HQ were ready to do the project. So at the time, it was very risky and NFL DID NOT want to take any risk. That is why the deal was setup like that. Of course, when you look back with the context of today, HQ did clearly get the best part of the deal. NFL must regrets to not take at least a little part of the risk. but that was their choice. The federal does fund the entire water cable. Trudeau signed a blank check. I still do not understand why you guys let this one passes. No matter what it does cost, the federal will pay. Perhaps you do not understand that clause Trudeau just gave them. Whatever the deal that has been signed 50 years ago, Muskret falls was a new project. NFL could have easily negotiate with Quebec about how to share the profit with the participation of HQ. But the NFL's leaders were so stupids, they chose incompetent foreigners and they failed badly. It cost them a fortune. I think NFL has better leaders now. Legault was invited to meet them regarding another new project coming. NFL would let HQ participate in, and in exchange, the old deal's sharing profit would be renegotiated. That is more clever and I am all for that. If HQ adds more assets to its repository and the NFL gets more profits, it's a win win. Even the other provinces would win since they would probably not have to pay for that very costly under water cable. Then stop pretending we are sucking up money. Sometimes those companies receive unnecessary subsides and they do not create more jobs. It's just a way to thank the friendly donators to the party. I totally admit this is sometimes happening. Quebec people do not benefit from it. The liberal friends do. I am just asking you to be honest about it and do not blame my people for those suckers mostly supported by the english Quebecers. Quebec people are as honest and proud as any other canadians. We ask for our fair share of the overall federal fundings and nothing more, nothing less. But it is so easier to look at only one side of the road, avoid many sections of the big picture and conclude to Quebec bashing. Sometimes it is like it's the real motto of the country. Instead of Coast to coast, it would be, Blame it on Quebec.