Leafless

I fail to see the significance of rewarding a province like Quebec with half the total of federal money available for Canada Day celebrations who have shown in tha past that close to 50% of Quebec residents vote to separate from Canada. Uh, why do you think we have Canada Day celebrations? It's not for your benefit, or some farmer in Saskatchewan, or some fisherman in Newfoundland. The feds fund Canada day solely to show Quebecers what a great country this is and how lucky they are to live here so they'll vote No in the next referendum. Well, for starters we all know Quebec is part of confederation and if they choose to leave, so be it. I have no reason to believe that Quebecers are as ignorant as you lead people to believe concerning their personal welfare and being part of Canada. And if they are that ignorant they would also not be aware of all the financial resources being pumped into that province by the federal government, courtesty of all other provinces in Canada. So what's the point after 139 years and we are suppose to believe people in Quebec are still in the political darkness not knowing where the dollars are falling from. This unity bit perpetuated by the Liberals (and you must know the Liberals history to realize what exactly is going on) ) is just another way for Quebec to generate income from the other provinces in Canada and it's called constitutional blackmail. IMO no federal government has the right to continually appease Quebec's political demands by way of cold cash and the federal government should call an immediate referendum to establish the political wish of Canadians to decide whether or not to support Quebec and the unity issue any longer. I suggest federal political parties make it part of their election platform to tell Canadains outright if they intend to use Canadian tax payers dollars to support Quebec constitutional blackmail and in my case that is the federal party that will never get my vote.

Yes, i think your confused as there is no contradiction in what you say and what i say... What are my confederalist notions that does not make sense ? What I am pointing out Backunin is you describe yourself as a "confederalist" who has trouble understanding that even Quebec's Father's of confederation knew that central government was a prerequiste of a successful country to help ensure provinces don't acquire to many provincial rights to cause civil war like what happened in the U.S. I don't associate plain confederation with the celebration of Canada Day without of course including federalism and am proud to celebrate that fact. You on the other hand question "why celebrate confederation when it is a federation" and with making it clear your a 'confederalist' -and by definition-who supports decentralization and self-sustainability along the lines of nationalism.

CTV reported three of these individuals were from Montreal. Maybe customs are different in Quebec.

Please explain yourself Bakunin. If your making reference to Quebec, it was part of New France until 1760 and then became a province within the Canadian confederation at it's very beginning in 1867. Maybe you don't like it but fact is fact. I don't understand why we call it a confederation when it is a federation... As a confederalist i think it doesn't make sens. Its a little bit like if north korean would celebrate freedom day or those dictatorship that call their regime a democratic republic or popular republic. its a little bit like if we would celebrate bananas for the apple day. "As a confederalist"- you are confusing me even more with a statement like that and think you mean 'nationalist'. But regardless here is the answer to what you don't understand concerning confederation and federalism. http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/default.asp?L...eFathersofConfe I hope you realize that the same concerns about federalism in the 1860's have resurfaced to a relevant degree to-day. Those main concerns were having a province have to many 'provincial rights' thus resulting in a decentralized federation resulting like what happened in the U.S. and that is the outbreak of civil war. So your "confederalist" notion does not make sense Bakunin as both Quebec's Fathers of Confederation, George-Etienne Cartier and Hector-Louis Langevin both wanted federalism. "George-Étienne Cartier, the trusted leader of the majority of French Canadians, believed that French Canadians needed to have the power to protect their distinctive features. "The central or federal parliament will have control of all measures of a general character...but all matters of local interest, all that relates to the affairs and rights of the different sections of the confederacy will be reserved for the control of the local parliaments". - Hector-Louis Langevin, 1865 He argued in favour of a two-tier federation, with a central government to administer matters of general concern and a local government empowered to deal with education, the legal system and religious matters. He saw these institutions as key to protecting French interests. At the same time, however, he did not see any reason to limit the power of the central government in other areas. He believed that the economic and political interests of French Canada were the same as those of English Canada and should be dealt with by a central administration. Cartier also viewed a federation as the most effective way to accommodate different regional and cultural realities."

Please explain yourself Bakunin. If your making reference to Quebec, it was part of New France until 1760 and then became a province within the Canadian confederation at it's very beginning in 1867. Maybe you don't like it but fact is fact. I don't understand why we call it a confederation when it is a federation... As a confederalist i think it doesn't make sens. Its a little bit like if north korean would celebrate freedom day or those dictatorship that call their regime a democratic republic or popular republic. its a little bit like if we would celebrate bananas for the apple day. "As a confederalist"- you are confusing me even more with a statement like that and think you mean 'nationalist'. But regardless here is the answer to what you don't understand concerning confederation and federalism. http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/default.asp?L...eFathersofConfe I hope you realize that the same concerns about federalism in the 1860's have resurfaced to a relevant degree to-day. Those main concerns were having a province have to many 'provincial rights' thus resulting in a decentralized federation resulting like what happened in the U.S. and that is the outbreak of civil war.

Please explain yourself Bakunin. If your making reference to Quebec, it was part of New France until 1760 and then became a province within the Canadian confederation at it's very beginning in 1867. Maybe you don't like it but fact is fact.

Buisness is obviously looking for new ways to generate new financial growth and this can be accomplished via cheap labour and immigration. The problem is high rate immigration could change the face of our existing labour market where as all or most jobs will be reduced in quality resulting a low wage labour market. The effect of cheap labour immigration can readily be seen at this time with many Canadians accepting low wage jobs and working longer hours and weekends. It's an unfortunate reality 'buisness' is government and there looking after themselves, screwing Canadians in the process. Auto manufacters pull a similar stunt to sell cars or increase profits---eliminate the big block motors--sell to conserve gas with small four cylinder motors and then slowly work back up to speed, and power with increased horsepower and bigger block motors. The suckers bite every all the time.

Yep. Gitmo. Start a thread is you wish. This one here is about an event in Iraq that the US is invstigating and is going public with what they hae found so far. It certaintly is unfortunate if GI's were actually implemented in this allegation but it is hard to find a war where rape is not common place. War is ugly and brings out the worst in everyone. As a matter of fact most rapes at any time are PLANNED. http://sexualviolence.uchicago.edu/mythsandfacts.shtml

So , socialist can read newspapers! What else can they do besides trying to get governments to spend tax payers dollars on their endless list of fantasy socialist demands and their PINK VISION of world affairs.

Actually Canada Day means little to me as far as tradition goes. Previously since 1985 Canada Day was Dominion Day. Dominion Day used to celebrate the anniversary of the Dominion of Canada when the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick formed under one Dominion under the name of Canada. I like Dominion Day rather than Canada Day as it did reflect our history and did traditionally reflect annually ( July 1st ) Canada's initial formation as a Dominion. Yes, but the liberals have worked to destroy everything about Canada's history - while at the same time doing everything they can to memorialize Quebec's. Canada's flag, it's national anthem and its national holiday were all removed for fear of giving offense to Quebec. It's royal symbols were denigrated and removed, its status as a dominion downplayed and rejected, its history ignored, its traditions dismissed and replaced. In that sense, the very blandness of the term "Canada Day" is symbolic of the whey faced dullards, cretins and venal, self serving fools who have come to represent our elites over the last half century. I see these idiots with their faces painted wrapped in flags, their eyes wide and blank, as victims of two decades of propaganda which have turned a quiet national holiday into an loud, obnoxious, American style exercise in flag-waving and national arrogance. Twenty five years ago such people would have been looked at as though they'd just dropped off the moon. Canadians would have been embarrassed by such crude, American style crowing about a simple holiday. But I guess doing their best to Americanize English Canada was part of the plan to downplay our British heritage. And then, of course, they take up anti-Americanism! How symbolic of the dislike liberals have for our society. Of course your correct with your concensus concerning the Liberals doing everthing in their power to destroy the English fact and Frenchify the character of Canada and to this day I don't know how Canadians could not see through this totally disgusting downplay of English Canada and the history of Canada and for Canadians simply to totally ignore the Liberals with their borderline traitorous behavior as a federal government. But the 'PARTY TIME' excercise began in Quebec. For instance face painting with the 'fleur de lis' began years ago with Quebec's celebration of St.Jean Baptiste Day. That party atmosphere was from all reports relevant in Gatineau, Quebec this year where St.Jean Baptiste Day celebration lasted not one day but was a four day celebration. It was the Liberals who adopted the 'carnival excuse' for Canada Day with maple leaf face painting, loud music with not many people even knowing what they were celebrating outside of like last year screaming to the best of my memory Canada, Canada coaxed on by Mr. Martin ay one point. But I disagree with your thoughts on Americanizing Canada since this IS the definite reality and effects of two countries, one being much larger and much more productive in many areas with it's culture being rubbed off on Canada. As far as I'm concerned it's better the U.S. than any other country on this planet.

Actually Canada Day means little to me as far as tradition goes. Previously since 1985 Canada Day was Dominion Day. Dominion Day used to celebrate the anniversary of the Dominion of Canada when the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick formed under one Dominion under the name of Canada. I like Dominion Day rather than Canada Day as it did reflect our history and did traditionally reflect annually ( July 1st ) Canada's initial formation as a Dominion. Dominion Day, (Canada Day) at our house as usually been an uneventful quiet day with perhaps a barbeque and maybe a few pints and a toast with family members in memory of the creation of our country.

I fail to see the significance of rewarding a province like Quebec with half the total of federal money available for Canada Day celebrations who have shown in tha past that close to 50% of Quebec residents vote to separate from Canada. Does this mean concerning other provinces that 'it does not PAY to be patriotic' or to be 'proud citizen's of Canada'? After 137 years of confederation (NOT), Canada still suffers third world problems concerning UNITY despite tolerating undemocratic actions that have resulted with Quebec being the most pampered to, catered to and best treated province in Canada. Go fiqure!!!

Article: Ottawa Citizen, Fri. June 30/2006, Pg.A5, Titled- " Quebec gets lion's share of Canada Day funding: report" It seems the Tory government is pumping EVEN more money into Quebec's Canada Day celebrations, reversing a federal policy aimed at ensuring a more equitable distribution of the patriotic cash among provinces. Last year the Liberals reduced Quebec's Canada Day funding in Quebec by $1.8 million to $3.2-million after coming under criticism for imbalances in how the money is distributed across the country. Heritage fiqures show Quebecers will get $3.7 -million to celebrate Canada Day, half of the $7.3- million federal program money while Ontario will get only $1-million in Canada Day funding. I don't know if all this Conservative coaxing will make Quebecers any more 'patriotic' or inclined to vote Conservative. Me thinks this could contribute to obesity. Just think of all the pepsi, fries and poutine that will be eaten while watching possibly hours of fireworks (with all that money) with most francophones thinking all of this is simply an extension of St.Jean Bapitiste Day celebrations. Any way Mr. Harper 'thanks very much' for screwing Ontario with all most twice the population of Quebec out of all those fireworks and related Canada Day festivities.

[quote name='Michael Hardner' date='Jun 28 2006, 07:55 AM' post='119652' 2/3 - 66.67 % - should be the threshold. LOL, to bad the same can't be said concerning federal elections. 66.67%-Is totally unrealistic. Democracy is a system of government by the WHOLE population. Since we will never be able to achieve 100% in favour or against, it would not be unreasonable to suggest 50% to be the deciding factor concerning any issue (outside of the separation issue since the whole population of the country is not involved). In fact this would not be a bad idea with the Quebec separation issue and that is for the ROC to hold it's own vote (separate from the Quebec one) to establish whether or not Canada should or should not politically co-operate any further to retain Quebec as part of confederation.

I don't think there is a 'misconception' at all. What do you mean? What is a 'democratic manner'? The US has bills to vote on, which is more 'democratic', to be sure, but ours is a system where the gov't gets a 4 year 'mandate' to push the platform upon which they claim won them the election. We can't expect otherwise until we change the system. Canadians were not initially told the truth concerning the reasons regarding repatriation of Canada's Constitution, inclusion of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms into our constitution, official languages, multiculturalism, official federal bilingualism which resulted in major constitutional concessions for Quebec including transfer of certain federal powers and federal real estate. Are you telling me it is NOT Canadians buisness NOT to have been involved in major constitutional changes within our own country? This is what I'm talking about when I refer to behaving in a "democratic manner". The political problems of Quebec are impossible to deal without the federal government acting in a dictatorial manner against the goodness of the democratic manner they were elected into power by the citizens of CANADA. The federal government in actual fact had 'no choice initially' but to show Quebec the door 'out of Canada' concerning it's ludicrous political demands but rather conditioned Canadians with outright lies to what repatriation of the constitution was all about, what offical languages were all about, what offical bilingualism meant in the federal public service, what Charter rights were meant to do for Canadians, what multiculturalism was meant to do for Canada. Quebec was involved heavily within the Liberal party of Canada for years and in my opinion that party 'constitutionally cheated and lied' to meet the political demands of Quebec thus undemocratically degraded previous existing rights of Canadians with the federal government not worrying about any form of 'upheaval' as it was done over a period of time 'conditioning Canadians' to accept this undemocratic constitutional political manouver. http://www.uni.ca/library/trudeau_const.html

National PostI actually thought Harper stepped around the dog doo-doo more elegantly than Dion did. Harper noted the flag but refused to wave it. Dion took it out and waved it. Red flag that is. Harper's gaffe was forgetting the blue flags, with the white flowers. Sometimes you just have to laugh. Dion also said: "Since when am I afraid to dismiss separatist ambiguity". "The difference between the socialogical definition of a nation is very clear. Socialogical is a group that shares a sense of collective agreement. And the legal definiton is a state a member of the United Nations." The whole problem with all this and one Dion did not recognize is many Quebecers see Quebec as a COUNTRY already. The only difference between a Nation and a Country is that a country is the territory of a NATION with it's OWN GOVERNMENT and in the eyes of many Quebecers it's PROVINCIAL government is all that matters in Quebec and fulfils all the requirements of a country. This is all very dangerous stuff and Harper was right to disassociate himself from the word nation as applied to Quebec.

My definition of "good" for democracy is anything that moves away from a majority government that plays Trudeaumania with our tax dollars and laughs at us all as they pay-off the jail guard and go straight to the bank. After decades of Chretien and Mulroney, I would gladly take our fractioned minority government. I think there is a major misconception in what democracy means in Canada and as a result Canadians are being shafted. We are entitled to our choice of government with MP representation by being free to choose and vote for the government of our choice. We EXPECT a government to behave in a DEMOCRATIC manner but not speaking for the Harper government (as it is to early to tell) we have been shafted by previous federal governments mainly Liberal who led the country with priorties (many constitional) best left for Canadians to decide (but didn't) as they were outside the role of NORMAL federal duties. These undemocratic priorties were detrimental and affected everyones existing rights. This is best refered to as TOTALITARIANISM or a DICTATORSHIP a government that some Canadians have appeared to accept and other Canadians who object left with NO democratic voice to express their dissent or worse still no one to listen. On top of this our right MP representation to many important isssue's were none existent with MP's playing the party line rather than pay attention a groups concerns regarding a multitude of issue's. I fully believe that due to the current political makeup of Canada, to run the country along election platforms and normal expected federal duties have been lost in favour of running the country in a TOTALITARIAN manner to appease undemocratic objectives namely appeasing constitutional blackmail.

" What's the matter with you people". I'll tell you what's the matter, SOME Canadians, THEY voted Liberal and now were paying the price for political situations they never did understand initially but nevertheless bought the Liberals socialistic dream line which I highly suspect will be with us for some time.

The problem is what exactly is middle class in relation to supporting the economy. Last time I looked if I remember correctly 0-$25,000 accounted for around 9% of all total taxes paid, $25,000-$50,000 accounted for around 31% of all total taxes paid, $50,000-$100,000 accounted for around 31% of all total taxes paid and $100,000 and over around 26% of all total taxes paid. Middle class would be in the $50k-$100k and over $100k upper middle class region. But people in this bracket generally are busy paying off potential assets, house and cottage mortgages and car payments and generally speaking have fewer expendable dollars but indeed keep the banks healthy. I don't have the stats on this one, but from experience I suspect the people who keep a multitude of small buisnesses and the fast food industry going in Canada are lower income Canadians. That is the 9% and the lower end 31% for a that forms a total of 40% of all taxes paid to this country and the group that has the most expendable income. I think it is ludicrous to say the middle class is all that matters.

"This is good for Canadian democracy". What co-operation are you talking about, that's good for Canadian democracy, whatever that's suppose to mean. The way I see it, I would rate the Conservatives 2.5 stars. Jumping into bed with Quebec when even the Liberals gave up does not ring any bells for me and suggests could this be a revival and extension of Mulroney's failed 'distinct society'? Gad, hope not. Rushing into Afghanistan at the expense of loosing our 'peace keeping status' still a naked military but supported by U.S. firepower. Why not support the Iraq cause then? The questionable soft wood lumber deal. Was it a good or bad deal. We still don't we know all the details. Cancelling the gun registry a definite plus. Middle Class tax credits, at the expense of poor Canadians', not so good. Muzzling the press, a good move but not new, as the Liberals have done the same previously especially during the Chretien era and no one complained then. But I'm encouraged when I hear Mr. Harper sound off with "God bless Canada" sentiments.

That is borderline 'conspiracy theory'. Looking back at 'Canadian History', the English, French and the 'Originals' were all equally involved in creating 'Canada'. I believe that this is why 'totalitarianism' truly belongs to 'the right' and not 'the left', because you seem to dismiss a notion of 'collective culturalism', and would rather have the strongest take over completely, while expecting the 'weaker' to assimilate, aquiesce, or die. There are not to many countries that can afford or recognize "collective culturalism". It seems currently Canada can do it ( due to lack of public outcry) financially speaking but at what expense to other parts of properly maintaining an established society. But the main question being is can Canada accomplish this politically? And to that question I would say NO as the political seams are begining to unravel at a rapid rate to where federal control as been reduced to a mere game similar to the 'price is right' but yet federal parties continue to play this mind boggling game for no other reason than for politcal self preservation.

Of course this is correct pertaining to the whole Kyoto thing and makes no sense especially compared to Canada's small contribution to worlwide pollution. As countries like China who uses more fossil fuels as their economy becomes more and more successful cancels out any meager pollution savings elsewhere around the globe especially utilizing expensive hi-tech gimmickry. This is a problem compounded by population growth and globalization.

It's the Charter that guarantees minorities their rights. If you remove Native or aboriginal rights then you would have to remove Quebec rights or they would appear fraudulent. I fully believe that the only reason aboriginal rights were included in the Charter was for the benefit of Quebec as to not question the rights of Quebecers as minorties pertaining to official languages etc.

MightyAC You wrote: " Both E85 ethanol and bio-diesel cost less and produce far less pollution than gas. Standard diesel engines burn E5 to E20 bio-diesel and hundreds of thousands of flex fuel vehicles that burn gas or E85 ethanol already exist, so the cost of implementing these technologies is minimal. Ethanol, bio-diesel, hybrids and increased transit usage can drastically reduce fossil fuel usage and greenhouse gas emissions." You are reading American numbers. Ethanol in Canada is the same price in Canada as gasoline and NOT adjusted for volume. Supply and demand equates the cost of ethanol and if demand ever exceeds supply we all know what's going to happen, ethanol skyrockets. And like I said with all the viable corn producing acres in North America won't be able to meet the demand. Also back to energy efficient appliances if you utilize a smaller refrigeration compressor and spin it it at twice the RPM in an effort to lower watts or H.P. will result in DECREASED performance. There is no way you can cheat watts or horse power and get the same performance. You also wrote: "You’re obviously out of touch with reality." What you forgetting it is not only the pollution factor we have to worry about but the actual air used to support combustion for enternal combustion engines. And that ratio is 14.7 to 1. That is for every 1-gallon of any kind of fuel you burn you use you use 14.7-gallons of air. And that is why my idea of conservation of restricting a single vehicle per household makes sense and is NO WAY out of touch with reality. I also support public transportation as a viable alternative to help save the planet.

MightyAC Unless you can provide links to proof what your talking about is true you have no buisness calling other peoples statements BS. What happens when you read articles is you don't get all the facts but information that are freindly with the article in question by it's own author. For instance an energy efficient refridgerator might at first glance appear to save hydro until you discover the compressors electric motor is running at twice the RPM of a less effecient refrigeration compressor producing what seems to be a higher degree of efficiency. But the draw back is the capacity to cool quickly simply is not there and it takes twice as long to cool the contents of the refrigerator. Savings , there might be some if your fridge is practically empty most of the time but full of food no and your compressor almost never shuts down. Ethanol is not as cost efficient as you might think relating to both cost and pollution and all the free area in North America will not be able to supply anywhere near the demand. Here are some actual fiqures: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfueltype.htm Also bio-diesel stinks and as you congeals at lower temperatures which is the pure nature of the stuff making it unsuitable in Canada. You also mentioned hybrids shut off when in conditons like stalled traffic. Thta's only providing you have ample battery amps to drive the electric motor otherwise the main fuel motor runs like any other fossil fuel vehicle. I would just like to say to you that there is NOTHING in the market to-day that will make a significant dent in major fuel savings or elminating pollution without costing an excess amount of dollars as compared to the savings you might like to recover from your expenditure. My idea of conservation for starters would be for instance to limit a single vehicle per household and never mind all the fancy gimmics that only help buisness and not the enviroment.