Benz

In 1867, the canadian federalism was a classical one. Over time, the federal government gained more power. It got more taxation powers at the WW1 and got more power at WW2 as well. In 1982, 9 out of the 10 provices have give more powers to the federal making it more centralized. In 1999, (Social Union), the same 9 provinces have also give blessing to more powers to the federal government. So to answer your question, the tendancy is that the federal is centralizing powers with the blessing of most provinces. Most of the conflicts lie where few powers are shared on both level. Which is total non sense because the provinces and the federal are having different issues and reality to considere. In 2000, the federal government was trying to exchange more powers on the health care system and give instructions to provinces, although they did not have the right to do so. This time 2 provinces objected to it and hold on long enough to make Ottawa step down. The population of those 2 provinces represented more than half of Canada so, the federal did not stand a chance. Luttwak's book was written in 1960. The last major change happened in 1982. He was wrong because there was a clear tendancy to centralization but, it can be explained by his political positions. I do not know about him but, for some people, Canada will never be enough centralized. The opinion about the degree of centralization the federal government should have often depend on economical context and interest. Some regions are more conservatives and others are more liberal, or progressives. A conservative Alberta will be annoyed by a liberal federal's instrusion per se. But there is also another data that you won't find in the USA. One province (Québec) is considering itself as a nation, unlike the others considering themselves as part of one nation. It is obvious that Québec would rather have a federal government as decentralized as possible, even among the people having no interest in independence.

I see tons of reasons why not vote for Harper, but I see only one good reason to vote for him that overcome them all. To avoid Trudeau taking the control of the country. That said, I'll still not vote for Harper. I wouldn't help him doing that anyway because he is so unpopular here in Québec, I'd rather vote for the party that is in the best position to beat the liberal candidate in my district. It's either the BQ or NPD depending where you are located. I would probably vote Harper if I was in Beauce or a place like that. The only few districts where the CPC stand a chance. Trudeau... I prefer not think about it for now. I'll have plently of time to hate him if he wins the next election.

Attacking Trudeau's credibility is like killing a fly with dynamite. Trudeau doesn't have any credibility and such negative attacks may turn out against the CPC. Trudeau's skull might be empty, still he has a pretty face and may gain sympathy just because of the negativeness the CPC will abuse of. It's obvious Trudeau will bet everything on the image. What else can he offer anyway.

Because the math to determine the amounts concerns only certain details. They do not calculate the amount earned vs the amount spent. On top of that, the formula is not 100% known. Ottawa can change it to its own discretion and has account to give back to the provinces. Ottawa plays the role of a generous and fair dad and expects the provinces to be nice children saying thanks without questionning the system. Because dad is the only one who knows what is best for its immature children.

That assertion is true only within the limits of the equalization program. So I don't care at all. The equalization is a trap. A propaganda program to create an illusion. So Quebec recieve a big share of it. So what? How much Quebec receives from the 2 billions annual Nuclear program? Nothing, despite it has one nuclear plant. How much Québec receives from the 2 billions annual oil development program? Nothing. How much Québec receives from the R&D investments from the federal? Less than its ratio. Last time I checked, it was 16%. How much Hydro-Québec received to develop its energy industry? Nothing. None of those programs, where Québec is a big have not, are considered into the equalization programs. So if we sum up all federal programs, Quebec isn't receiving that much after all in comparison. But Québec isn't the biggest loser. I think NB is. I know for sure that for several years, NFL was the biggest loser even if the equalization programs was saying otherwise. While the province was receiving the biggest share per capita from the equalization, it could get just a tiny percentage of the costal oil benefits. The province was giving to the federal alot more than it could receive in return from the equalization. One day they woke up and realised they were the victim of a federal gang bang. They asked to get their fair share of their oil benefits. When the fedral refused, they removed the canadian flag from all their institutions. It works and Ottawa allowed them to get the same percentage share as Alberta does. One consequence is, they receive alot less equalization payments. The equalization program is a beautiful thing on the principle and is supposed to help the poor provinces by milking the welthy ones. But when we look closer, it's far from being that obvious. It barely balances other unfair federal programs.

In Québec we call that "positive discrimination". Advantaging visible minorities to get some jobs does not sound right at first sight. No discriminations of what-so-ever should be allowed. Neverthenless, it is a necessary one. Because whether you like it or not, there is racism (even if it's a small level) among police forces or other public jobs. Having more visible minorities to those jobs help to balance at least the perception and the relation between those communities and the workers. Unfortunatly, it is not rare that between two equal qualifications, one employer will choose the white guy rather than the other non-white one. Those rules help to balance the chances. Even the people in the minorities don't like those rules. They want to be recognised for the merit. But those rules are necessary. Let's all hope that one day no positive discriminations will be necessary to offset the negative ones. Unfortunatly, the other way around won't happen. It's not by removing the positive discrimination that you will end the negative one. What is very arbitrary tho, is to determine if those rules are still necessary or not. Because the discrimination against visible minorities is not always obvious.

The only thing we know for sure, the people who did this, were supporting the Conservatives. If I was the conservatives' leader, I would put all the efforts to catch those people and show that I have nothing to do with it. But the behavior of the conservatives regarding this is rather suspicious.

The actual senate is probably the best example of what a senate should not be. Members chosen by the prime minister. It destroys the very legitimity and the purpose of a senate. This is in the top 5 of things the english canadians should be ashamed of. Very easy my friend. Even his lobster's trap is better than status quo. The way Parizeau built the question, two consequences were possible. One is the lobster in the pot. It means that if the english canada refuses to negociate the partnership offer, Parizeau was legitimated to declare independence. It's funny to see english canadians being outraged by this while the very first condition to allow Parizeau doing so, is refusing to negociate with us. The other one is, if the english canada wants to negociate the offer, Parizeau is forced to negociate as well. Parizeau beleived that the english canada would never accept to negociate, as usual. But what would happen if on the contrary, the english canada would want to negociate? Would Parizeau have tried to avoid negociation and go for unilateral independence? The people could stop him throught the Superior court. The way the question was built, he did not have that much power. Neverthenless, it is still a gray area. If there is one point I blame the PQ for, is this one. If they are real sovereignists, they should not be afraid to talk about federalism. They should talk about what kind of partnership we want. They should make the position clears regarding what is acceptable and what is not. Then when the time of a referendum comes, no one will be able to accuse the PQ of hidden intentions. But the PQ is afraid of that. They are afraid that Canada will say no in advance and this would make the people say no because of that. I do not agree with them. I think the people are smarter than that. The people have the last word anyway, whether the PQ like it or not. The people must figure this out by themselve. I admit that my opinion is not very popular among independentists.

Obviously, it's no with the Conservatives, the Libs or the NDPers you'll get that. Nor with you actual provincial leaders... as a matter of fact... every one want it, but as soon as one gets closer to the power, the idea vanishes in the shadow. How do you explain that?

What? Why don't you just answer instead. No. You totally failed. Everyone has the freedom of expression. A chinese can hold a chinese restaurant and speak its language. That is freedom of expression. What the business owner can't do, is not serve me in french. There is no such right allowing someone to not serve french people in the only place of north america that is french. Yeah and only honest people can be multimillionnaire. Since when fallacies are a point? How the hell will you do convince me that what happened, never happened?

I'm not the kind of guy that will shut up just because someone else may whine and insult me. I won't accept to be a second class citizen to please someone angry for no legitimated reason. Although the anti-Quebec expression may be spectacular in the west, don't do the mistake to beleive the Ontario and maritimes are free of such thing. They whine louder, but they are not alone. There was no hope with the liberals either. The actions they took against Quebec hurt even more than the loudmouth words of the torries. The hope was Layton and the NDP. The provinces haven't been very strong so far. They are quick to give up to the federal's will. Federal/provincial... it's not important. When it will come from the people, then and only then it will make the difference. Politicians will follow. You need more white blood cells like you.

Denying it won't make it desapear. Having a business that doesn't speak the language of the people is not a right. Forget it! Not if the impact is insignificant on its business and rather damageable on the society. No. because some big companies are in a strong positions. To them, the market in Québec is small and because the french can't compete the prices, those multinationales just don't care and serve in english. Alot of french can speak english so, they don't lose much. Well, we are talking about what was happening few decades ago because it is now illegal for a while. Pierre MacDonald said the famous phrase: les grosses maudites anglaises de chez Eaton, and it became the key expression to identify the problem. do you also swallow what Barbara Kay is saying?

The english speaking people decided that it is unconstitutional. Here lies the whole problem. We did not fix those rules together. It has nothing to do with freedom of expression. Not single bit. Not providing services in the language of the local (province) people, is not a right. It's not even a expression. It's an insult. If you operate a small business in Saguenay and serve only in english, you are stupid and won't survive long. If you operate a big business in Montreal and have no french competitors and you don't serve in french, then you put the french people in a situation where they must adapt and use english. It's because of those ***** that we have such rules. Someday bambino.... someday you'll develop enough intellectual skills to get a clue about it. Keep on the hard work.

f--- off. There is not even a starter that would look like, not even from a drunk eye, to something like that. This is pure bullshit. Anglos are shooting at french people and that ass hole are saying it's the english that are living at risk. How can you guys swallow such crap! Esxplain... what is going on in your mind to figure that what she is saying can leave the fictional world and become true? Look at the drama. Replace english with french and put it in a english canada context. It happened so many times. She is just trying to flame up the fear and hatred. Give her few more lines and we are Nazi. How conveniant that she said nothing regarding the CJAD radio that interviewed Bain like if nothing happened. If you think Québec is like she describs... it only makes my point. Why don't you just kick Québec out of Canada and help the remaining anglos to relocate in Canada? If we are that dangerous. Get rid of us and save the linguistic virgins. Of course, we will never know what kind of law she is talking about, that would forbid people speaking english in their own home. It doesn't matter, it's like UFOs. You want to beleive. Are you brain dead? Zombies? What is it that doesn't compute in your mind? How can you even considere this as a serious article, it beats me.

When that business has a very powerful weigh, it's another story. It already happened in the past that some major business companies could afford to care less about the french because no competitors could match their prices. Now with our language rules, it doesn't happen anymore. Or if it does, the rules are their to protect our rights. The problem is not that they are saying crapt. The problem is so many people swallow their crapt. Allow me to invite you to rethink about it. What if it is the other way around. What if the status quo is a cancer and you should focus on it before it gets too late? In your part of the country, you don't feel the urgence. Here, I can tell you that even if the sovereignty is not high in the current polls, it doesn't mean the people like the situation as is. On the contrary. Considering that TROC just don't care that Meech didn't pass, that Québec is isolated since 1981, that no solutions of whatsoever are offered... not as many people in Québec are defending the federalism as in 1995. Their hands are empty. No solution on the radar. For instence, Legault, leader of the CAQ which got 27% in the last election, said that although he doesn't which a referendum in the next 10 years, if one referendum occurs, he won't fight along the federalists and won't defend the federalism. So it means only 31% of the people voted for a party that would defend the federalism no matter what. If you wait until the next referendum, it will be too late. They nourish hatred and nothing good can come out of this.

I don't like Harper and it doesn't allow me to to do anything against the westeners. When the people let Meech die, they isolated Québec. The hatred toward Mulroney is a bad excuse to do so. Then why just get rid of Mulroney and offer something else similar? Bouchard and then Landry, were both asked. If a Meech was offered again, what would you do. They said, we would sign it right away. If the TROC was wise, they would have said "really? here you go, I am offering you it again". None of your politicians took that opportunity. I was 17 when Meech died. I was naive. I couldn't imagine what was happening. How come the TROC could spit on that and solve once and for all the constitutional dead regarding Quebec? Then I saw what was the true face of english canada and became sovereignist. If today a Meech 2 would be offered, I would be in favor of it. But I know now, that as long as Québec will be just a province like the others, TROC won't accept anything just because it doesn't have too. No direct consequences to say no.As for the travels I did in Canada. I've been in Ontario once. I do visit the atlantic provinces once every 4 years. I just love to visit those provinces. Some day I'll have the chance to visit the west. I went to California, Texas, NY, Indiana, but it doesn't count. Alot of Québécois don't understand how come the TROC is so opposed to what seems to them minimal conditions to share this country together. You talk about the federalists? I think feelings are traps. 5 persons can have 5 different opinions of an event depending on what was important to those person and from what position they perception was. I think what is the important, is the end result. I do totally beleive you regarding how you felt it. But ask yourself and put yourself into a Québécois' position. How come TROC did not offer anything else to solve this? They know Quebec is isolated, they know Québec is not satisfied of the deal, they know it's not ok for the french to let the english to have exclusivity on the constitution. Yet they do nothing, even 22 years later? I beleive the majority of Canadians would be just fine with a Meech-like agreement. I beleive the silent majority is not heard. I beleive the stupid politicians and vicious medias in english canada are rather jumping into the bash Quebec bandwagon, but the majority of Canadians just want this to be fixed. But eh! what can we do. The only ones we have news from, are your medias, your politicians and your wacos anti-french. If only TROC would take this more seriously right now, instead of waiting for the next referendum where they will come in Québec and say "we love you" again. You seem to think that I considere the english canadians as bad people. They are nice people and beside that constitutional issue, I would be glad to continue to share this country with them. I feel they are our friends. Not brothers, we are different nations. Friends is a good term to use. Because friends are together because they want to, not because they are forced to in respect of the family unity. I expect no less of the relation we should have. As long as our two nations will stay in litigation, the feelings will never be right. You cannot expect from us to consider normal that we don't have our say on the constitution. You cannot expect us to accept the current constitution. Mulroney is not big enough to use that card and justify why the TROC is so against a Meech 2.

So what? We target only thoe who do not want to serve in french on purpose. Some people figure that learning english is enough and it's up to us to adapt. When I see someone not able to serve me in french, the first thing I do is to evalutate if that person is just trying to do its best or not. It will have an impact on my behavior. Usually I will speak slowly and articulate with gestures. so the person will have the opportunity to learn. I also have my anecdote. I went to a place selling computers and parts. I wanted to buy something, I don't remember what was it. The woman holding the store was alone and could only speak english. So I chatted with her and ask her where she is coming from. She is Russian and came here to follow her husband. So what I did is, I spoke half english, half french. I was teaching her the words like I would to a friend. She did not felt insulted at all and the fact that I was also able to put few words in Russian rather won her interest. You often read columnists of few anglos here whinning about the persecution of english people in Quebec, but it is far from the reality. Our society is open and friendly, even toward those who do not speak french yet. Our rules are meant to target only those who are stubborn and insist to ignore french. If they wouldn't exist, we wouldn't have those rules.

He was just a kid. Dragged into this night mare by his father. We just made it worst. The americans did a setup and we gave our blessing. If there is one man in the world justified to do a terrorist act against Canada, it's him.

It's the very same here. People speak whatever they want at home. In business, a greek owner of a restaurant can speak greek to a greek client. He is just not allowed to speak greek to me, nor allowed to not serve me in my language because it's an official language. See, there is no difference between english Canada and Québec on that. No one is allowed to do discrimination toward the french in Québec. If the people in english Canada are allowed to do discrimination toward you and you feel fine with it, good for you. Not serving me in my language is NOT a freedom of expression. It's an attempt against the home world that accepted you to join in. You can run a business in whatever language you want, as long as your clients can be served in french and the workers working with you can work in french. You are not banned to use english or anything else. You are just forced to use french when your clients or employees want to use it. Your narrowed vision refrains you from seeing the obvious.

Blame him yes, blame only him? No. The provinces could have say, it's almost done, let's try to fix this. They choosed the other way around, let's this one die. Not enough to excuse what TROC did to Québec. Too easy. TROC let Québec down. Brian was not Québec. How do you explain that? is it because the people in Québec are smarter than TROC? You are mixing up things. GST and Airbus have nothing to do with Meech. If the people in TROC were against Meech because of that, than those people do not deserve the right to vote. It's like being against United States because of Britney Spears. If 3 years of negociations is pushing too far, what is a 3 months? A rape? Come on! Mulroney has a huge back on which we can fit alot of reproaches, but not this one. Even if Mulroney was like that, it's not an excuse to do that to your fellows. If anything you said is true... how do you explain the TROC is still so against reopening Meech and negociate with Québec? How do you fit that on the Mulroney is to blame?

Is there a province where a Tamil can get road signs, public schools and even have the right to make surrounding people around in its workplace to speak its language? No! It's english. The reason of Québec's language laws, I have explained them and yet, you still fail totally to argue about it.

What about the places where they can't even send their children in french schools? What about all the complaints to the Commisionner of Official Languages?Why do you always look at one side of the street before you cross it? Then you understand nothing of what they are concerned about. This is not how it happened at all. Learn your history. You may pray more harder than that to make your wish comes true. Yep!

Before you try and debate in english, perhaps you should improve your english. I don't say that to insult you. It's just that it's kind of laborieux to figure what you are trying to say.

What do you think would happen if Canada says, "ok, I agree to Meech or Allaire's report"? What the f--- you think you do? The Quebec bashing and the continuous denial of Quebec's revendication is taking too much place to care about how ill you feel. As a medicinal therapy to endure the beam in your eye?

I'm talking about the period between 1867 and 1939. So we are not talking about the same thing. Quebec is synonymous to Quebec nationalism. It is not with sovereignism though. We are divided on what should be the outcome after all those years of fail to get an agreement with TROC. Neverthenless, we are united when the time comes to define us as a nation.