Leafless

I don't want to sound pessimistic but the proof is almost in the pudding. Could this possibly be associated with a Liberal plot to destroy major White English speaking cities or provinces via uncontrolled (third world immigration) immigration knowing full well what the outcome would be? The same thing happened with British Columbia with the Chinese and Asian element. Ottawa the Capital of Canada is now home to many Quebecer's due to federal interference involving major federal employment forcing francophones on the previously federal English workforce. Quebec gets to pick and choose where it's immigrants come from and at that only accounts for 12% according to the Toronto Star article. I think the writing is on the wall if you happen to be a White English speaking and Christan citizen of Canada.

The problem is Dion is NOT the prime minister, Harper is. Stehen Harper is showing a definite disdain for the majority language of Canada and a lack of respect concerning the history of Canada. It is obvious Mr. Harper continues to pander to Quebec which is his choice but will be remembered by some Canadians come election day. Sorry I completely disagree. I think Harper is being consistent and treating Quebec exactly how the West wants the federal government to treat it. Harper is practicing what he preaches. He is not paying lip service to Quebecers. He is practicing a style of federalism that Joe Clark offered as an alternative to Trudeau's nd one which respects regional differences and is sensitive to regional alienation. I challenge you to find one thing in a Harper speech or policy where he has offered Quebecers anything different then he has any other Canadian. I am a Liberal by tradition so don't paint me as a Harper groupy but this man deserves some credit. He unlike Chretien has not madse a mockery of the French and English languages and put down either side of the equation. He is treating people as he wants to be treated and in my books that makes him a man of integrity and its refreshing. Speaking French first or second means nothing. If you are that petty then so be it. I am glad Harper is not and if I were Westerners be proud this man has shown a Westerner can lead the nation because he may not be French but he knows what its like to come from a region forgotten by central Canada. If anything he is taking away the steam from the seperatists. Quebecers can not look this man in the face and say he is anti-French. His actions speak louder then his words. He has Canadian balls. No, he is not following the steps of Joe Clark or Trudeau. If anything he is following the footsteps of Brian Mulroney and will try to revive Mulroney's FAILED Meech Lake Accord in order to give Quebec an alternative to the distinct society that has previously failed. He will try to accomplish this IMO with his PROMISE of giving Quebec AUTONOMY which could result in the same light as a distinct society which is also compounded by Trudeau's 1982 Constitution which favouably gives Quebec additional constitutional powers which has nothing to do with equality. I for one do not want to see federal powers diluted any more than what they are presently as then Canada could face the extreme danger of other provinces separating as federalism becomes totally dysfunctional creating the same conditons initially as why the U.S. had it's civil war from states having to much power and in our case provinces having to much power. BTW you have a strange definiton of integrity which is 1.- moral uprightness, honesty. If this was the case Mr. Harper would be adhering to the definition of Canadian federalism and treating all provinces equally and not selling out the country to separatist who compose around 50% of the population of Quebec. Mr. Harper continues to play the game of traditional Canadian politics while Quebec is loyal to their provincial government and gears up to be their own country. Mr. Harper is not standing up for the country of Canada. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/04...1543170-cp.html http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2692/41617

Gads Liam, you better tell your friends mother-in-law to quickly learn English. The U.S. recognizes English is being jeopardized and the U.S. Senate has just declared English the "national language' just a step away from making English the official language of the U.S.A. By the way there are already 27-states that have already passed legislation declaring English as the "official language" of that state. Hope your friends mother-in-law doesn't live in one of those states. But this is really no different than in Canada where as language is a provincial responsibility and as the case in Quebec who as made French the official language of Quebec. So it's here to in Canada and will be just a matter of time before other provinces in Canada take the language leap and make their province "officially English" to help protect the English language and it's user's against possible linguistic interference by the federal government and their promoting the French language. This has happened in the Ottawa, Ontario area where many English speakers now have to learn French to get a job not only federally but locally as well concerning private buisness.

You are misusing the words "common idenities" to justify in your mnd a way out as to not support Canadian nationalism or patrotism. The one word that is missing is the word national and when included in your phrase would read "common national identities". Canada is multicultural like the U.S. and we all can relate to stories regarding our ancestry but the important factor is not to allow our previous ancestry to predominate our Canadian nationalism when applied to nationalism and patriotism and dedication to the very country we are living and thriving in with the most important factor being freedom and democracy. No doubt we all owe the country of Canada big time and can express our appreciation with Canadian nationalism and loyality.

Leafless, what you have written is not only wrong, it is even terrifying.If the 20th century teaches anything, it is the grave error awaiting any people who confuses country and government. There is far, far more to Canada than the federal government. Then surley August, you must be making reference to the Queen of Canada.

The problem is Dion is NOT the prime minister, Harper is. Stehen Harper is showing a definite disdain for the majority language of Canada and a lack of respect concerning the history of Canada. It is obvious Mr. Harper continues to pander to Quebec which is his choice but will be remembered by some Canadians come election day. Now we know why Harper starts off public speeches in French, it's Conservative policy. He is off the mark although when he tries to justify this strange policy by stating "French is Canada's first national language and the original word "Canadian" referred to the first French speaking settlers of North America." Of course this is distorted logic and does not make sense. If he feels this way then it would be perfectly justifiable to allow Quebec to form their own country with federal blessings. It's clear Mr. Harper has no respect for the true history of Canada and would probably sell off his own mother for a handful of votes. http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics...2a627d8&k=28515

Ever get the feeling our own federal government is foreign controlled?

Must be from Ontario. I know out here we've felt left out for the last 130 years too. Of course there are no unity problems other than Quebec from Ontario's perspective, their politik ends at how far they can see from the CN Tower. There unity issues with the Maritimes, with the West (all provinces of the west) and even the North with the Inuit. How about all the aboriginals that want self-government? The Second World War taught us an important lesson, people only wish to be governed by those like themselves. The best system of government will allow individual communities to do as they please, within a co-operative context. This is what your missing Leafless. I am as frustrated as you are with Quebec demanding more and more everyday. They are lobbying to rob my province with a Carbon Tax, we have far more to lose from Quebec than Ontario or anyone else does. All Canadians, other than those from Ontario, wish to have more 'self-governance', a term I'll use losely. Quebec, Alberta, BC, Nova Scotia... all the same, in that they are all different than the government that sits in Ottawa, always. You can solve the unity problem by giving the provinces the power to do what they wish within, like I said, a co-operational context. This way Quebecois and we in Alberta can do as they please, and we all reap the economic strength that staying together brings. There are many new constitutional problems that have arisen since the introduction of the 'Constitution Act 1982' that has given Quebec and Aboriginals powers including rights to individuals and groups that in my IMO have played havoc with federalism. Maybe like you say these new conditons have created for some provinces 'feelings for self governance' mainly tiny Alberta (pop. 2,974,807) who has struck pay dirt in the way of black gold and is 'awed by greed' in the same sense Quebec is but with the emphasis on 'lust for power' utilizing what can be described as corrupt and dangerous politics. But we are off topic as this thread concerns basically Quebec and it's effect on destabilizing the country utilizing a small obsolete residential language.

Re-defining your own ambiguous (Quebec game) term with a second nebulous (constitutional blackmail) term does not answer the question. Can you explain what your terms "Quebec game" and "constitutional blackmail" mean with an actual explanation? For Quebec to hold a provincial referendum to separate from Canada is bad enough. But to continue this procedure with no limit on how many times it can do this because of previous failure or failures to separate thus becomes a novelity or a game as each time it is federally rewarded some way to stay in Canada. Since national federal parties are basically dysfunctional and helpless when Quebec (who has never signed the Constitution) continues to play this "Quebec game" the name "constitutional blackmail" is a very appropiate name to describe exactly how Quebec uses 'a referendum pertaining to separation' to acquire additional federal favouritism in the way of powers or programs or financial assistance to continue to pad it's voracious appetite to sustain it's nationalistic aspirations as a soverign country totally separate from Canada, the way many Quebecer's presently see the province. Why should any more federal Canadian money, powers or programs flow into a province that is trying it's best to separate from Canada and is using time and political manovering (referendums) to build up that province at the expense of Canadian tax payers.

What, please tell me, is the "Quebec game"?And as for disunity, within four score and seven years of founding the United States, the states were not united and were embroiled in a bloody civil war that killed millions and took a hundred years or so to put into the past. Keep this all in perspective. What is the Quebec game? It's called constitutional blackmail. Concerning the U.S. and their civil war . They bit the bullet and called a spade a spade. They are united and we are not. In Canada their is NO excuse for the behavior exhibited by Quebec. The ball is always in their court and if they had an ounce of fortitude they would have separated years ago but rather they choose to drag the country down with problems mainly caused by their own hand. Canada has no legal obligation (as far as I know) to create or give Quebec a country.

Halleluliah!! My feelings exactly. When people concern themselves about which language he starts with they don't have much in life to worry about. If it were as simple as you put it out to be I wouldn't give a damn either. But after 139 years of disunity I would presume Mr. Harper would know better. If he wishes to swallow hook, line and sinker all over again it's his choice and I will look for an alternative party. If all federal national parties still want to play the Quebec game then I will simply join the ranks of the disgruntled and simply not vote at all. Our unity problems will be resolved if Harper speaks English first instead of English? In reality there is no unity problems concerning all provinces of Canada excluding Quebec.. It is Quebec that is the continual source of rejecting Canada's Constitution, albeit their behavior has rubbed off on other provinces some demanding the political attention Quebec receives from the federal government. This is despite our federal government making French an official language and creating and utilizing that language within the federal concept of ' federal official bilingualism' which in fact has distorted or slanted federal employment in favour of Quebec and it's minority French language with employment numbers that exceeds Quebec's fair share to federal employment which has diluted access to federal employment utilizing the majority language English concerning employment opportunities from all all other majority English Canadian provinces. Changing our countries flag to accomodate Quebec. Repatriating our Constitution to accomodate Quebec and adding special constitutional powers no other province has. Giving it a multitude of federal programs and transfering federal real estate to the Quebec side including generous equalization payments and including being part of a free democratic country (which strangely it must take for granted) in which it chooses to discriminate against it's English minority. With all of this Quebec still refuses to be officially part of Canada by NOT signing the Constitution of this country and continues to make an ass out of Canada.

Halleluliah!! My feelings exactly. When people concern themselves about which language he starts with they don't have much in life to worry about. If it were as simple as you put it out to be I wouldn't give a damn either. But after 139 years of disunity I would presume Mr. Harper would know better. If he wishes to swallow hook, line and sinker all over again it's his choice and I will look for an alternative party. If all federal national parties still want to play the Quebec game then I will simply join the ranks of the disgruntled and simply not vote at all.

The problem is Dion is NOT the prime minister, Harper is. Stehen Harper is showing a definite disdain for the majority language of Canada and a lack of respect concerning the history of Canada. It is obvious Mr. Harper continues to pander to Quebec which is his choice but will be remembered by some Canadians come election day.

A government represents the country and in our case it's the federal government. The government should lead in a way that creates in each and every one of us a common national identity that relates to the creation of this country and it's traditions and one that we should be proud of from the main distinguishing factor which is freedom and democracy which was given to us in the form of the BNA Act. This country has never recognized this factor fully and preferred to dwell on factors that cause and PROMOTE disunity. The failure of the federal government to correct this in the early stages resulted IMO a series of major constitutional errors that has resulted in a dysfunctional federal government as well as produced a severe lack of loyality and nationalism to the country of Canada, which will be hard if not impossible to reverse.

What you are forgetting is they are a 'SEPARATIST' party and that's their job is to defend Quebec's nationalistic interest including the separation factor. Surely you must agree in all reality they really have no buisness being a 'federal party' if they only represent the nationalistic interest of a single province. You can not compare this federally dysfunctional party to bear any resemblence to other federal national parties.

Maybe that's why they have nuclear weapons and are a world super power and we don't have nuclear weapons much less a functioning military and a screwed up society. Think about it!! And really BD this is a major slight against the U.S. and personal religion to say the amoeba predominates GOD.

Are the words patriotism and nationalism in Canada misnomers? How can Canadian nationalism even apply when the word 'nationalism' is more effectively used describing Quebecer's ideologies towards their province as Quebecer's first and to some Quebecers perhaps Canadians secondly? How can Canadian patronage apply when our own federal government continually panders to Quebec nationalism thus destroying any patriotic feelings one may have for this country? Our own federal government promotes 'multiculturalism' over the aspect of being assimilated and thus destroys the basic requirement of becoming patriotic to the country of Canada. How can any Canadian be loyal or patriotic to this country when our federal government lacks the fortitude and cannot demonstrate that the federal government itself is capable of supporting and propagating Canadian nationalism and patriotism? In my own family concerning people from other countries as Canadians have no concern for Canada and in fact are raising their children to be fluent in languages other than English or French with an associated identity from their source country that predominates Canadian culture and lifestyle. This includes a single motivation to fulfill their greedy aspirations to fullfill their personal lifestyle as foreigners from another country under a non-existent Canadian identity. How many others are doing the same or similar? Would you put your life on the line and fight for this country if ask to?

Is it true that for every barrel of oil (goo) you extract in your precious Alberta, you have to use enough natural gas to heat a family home for four days? And that you have to tear up four tons of landscape, all for one measly barrel of oil? THAT'S NUTS!! http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/peak_oil/index.htm Just think what it does to the enviroment. Water vapour is the leading greenhouse gas. One-hundred burned cubic feet of natural gas (basically methane) produces 200 cubic feet of water vapor.

Good Captains don't leave federal politics. Where is the Captain now that the cod need him? Is this the same Captain Canada as the one your talking about: http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=225

[quote name='Toro' date='Jul 9 2006, 06:53 AM' post='120810' But that's really besides the point. I was using like for like numbers to reach an estimate for Quebec's sovereign debt after separation. You can use all the numbers you like but it doesn't make one bit of difference concerning Quebec's separation factor. That factor is totally unknown and no one even knows if Quebec will continue it's existence on the same planet in it's present form. You are basing numbers on SPECULATION which is like predicting the outcome of a 'before and after' situation which has no bearing on present fact. You are posting incorrect data and unless you can prove Quebec will leave confederation in it's present economic state and continue in it,s present economic state, I suggest you stop your Quebec BS.

Quebec will be dependent on Canada for what? How will Quebec survive under it's present French entity like what the federal government and Canada presently allows it to do? Economically speaking, what will Quebec produce or manufacture without knowing for certain or at all what it will have in assets when it separates? Charest said himself " A sovereign Quebec would be plunged into five years of economic disturbances" whatever that means, as if any Canadian has the capacity to forsee a completely UNPREDICTABLE set of political consequences concerning the Quebec separation factor.

Then you do have doubt or you would not be saying "viable as what". But I agree with you Wilber in the sense that NO province in Canada would be able to achieve an independent successful status as an individual country especially in this age of globalization where as 'the smaller you are , the worse off you will be'. Speaking of Quebec, surley you realize that there is no way Quebec would be able to leave confederation with all it's present assets. Quebec would be best described as an artificial province created by the rest of Canada and will virtually be always dependent on Canada.

Canadian lumber companies will be able to retrieve $4-billion out of $5-billion in previous penalities which is not bad considering the contentiousness of the issue. The deal allows either the U.S. or Canada to withdraw after three years. And under international law countries can withdraw from the agreement with one years notice so it seems no one is holding a gun to anyone's head. For the most part all provinces seem to be in agreement except B.C. In this case I would agree with Quebec as it is better to have a "reasonable deal" than no deal than to continue court action with lawsuits. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/07...1670005-cp.html

Are the unions correct with their analysis that this softwood deal is a "sellout of Canadian interest". "The CEP analysis says: "This treaty is worse than the framework because: - the scope of the treaty is expanded to capture remanufacturing - regional quotas and the surge mechanism will operate on a monthly basis, not allowing balancing of exports over long periods - proposed "regional exemptions" would make Canadian authorities responsible to American oversight and prevent Canadian provinces from enacting progressive forest policies in the future - the BC government is specifically prohibited from future changes to provincial policies that conflict with commitments that the Campbell government has made to the U.S. - The U.S. will be able to abrogate the treaty after two years on three months notice - a perpetual "gun to the head" of Canada meant to intimidate the Canadian industry and policy makers "The Canadian government should not sign this proposed treaty, and instead return to the negotiating table to get a better deal for Canada that provides stability for our industry and respects the integrity of Canadian forest policy." CEP represents a total of 150,000 workers across Canada, with more than one third of them employed in forest related industries." Or do you think Canada as not much of a choice to expect anything better from the U.S.? http://www.sootoday.com/content/news/full_...oryNumber=18279

Query, if Quebec were to leave what would it cost to "work around" the geographical discontinuity? What duty would the ROC have to the cut-off Atlantic Provinces? Or would that fall into Uncle Sam's lap? Further, do you think the US would really tolerate hostile control over the Seaway? Why would you suggest Quebec be in the positon of holding the upper hand in the event of Quebec separation? There would be years of negotiations regarding what Quebec would be entitled to and to suggest Quebec would be hostile to a East-West corridor and take over the St.Lawrence Seaway is premature and nonsensical. If Quebec did leave with no negotiations would be political suicide including having no 'official recognition' as a country or anything else. It would almost ensure immediate U.S. involvement pertaining to the St.Lawrence Seaway (which belongs to the U.S. as well) as it serves 25% of the population of the U.S, generates 150,000 U.S. jobs and over $9-billion dollars in revenue and taxes.