Bakunin

the fact that the province don't have enough money to run their healthcare system are a proof that their is a fiscal imbalance between the federal and the province. I just see this as a power trip from the federal again. The arrogance of the liberal that think ottawa know best. Each province have their own problem with their healthcare system and i don't think that we can harmonize healthcare in canada. Just think about it, each province give different amount of money for their healthcare system, each work according to the need of their population. So harmonizing the system will result in a less good healthcare.

i just think that the federal government is obsolete. Evry important issues are provincial juridiction and the federal government not knowing what to do just keep embarassing the provinces in their work. We could centralize it to make it more modern but the province will never accept it. But their is another solution, abolish the federal government and create a more adequate entity to take care of the responsibility that can't be dealt by the provinces individually. People need to be realistic, the federal government will never be able to get more centralized without fighting constantly the provinces and splitting the country while revising the federal entity could help the unity and harmony in the country. The provinces don't need to have a big brother to force them to do what they don't want, it just make them frustrated, unproductive and it slow down their beautifull identity and particularity. Im in favor of kyoto, but if the alberta province don't wan't to be part of it, i respect that and ill fight for their right not to be part of it. I think that if someone doesn't understand that, its because they like to see other people to be forced to accept their point of vue and i think this is totally stupid and undemocratic. il finish with these word on the province : "To each according their need, to each according their capacity."

I agree on evrything but i would like to specify that they failed to make a bilingual country. And other important issue they screwed the army, and participate in many scandalous scandal. But they are good in 1 thing, getting reelected. They can manage to win election even after all that and with an internal war in their party...

quebec joined canada with 50% +1 just like the other provinces, i don't see why they couldn't leave with it but the reality is that if there is a winning referendum, quebec will probably leave. I think 50% +1 can'T force you to become something in your mind but not this is your point of vue but i think it is to quebecers to decide to witch nation they are part of. its not impossible at all. it already been less centralized even harper talk about decentralization and layton of asymetric federalism. And yes decentralization is the only alternative to separation. You can't keep the butter and the money of the butter. Canada can't keep quebec and a centralized government, thats what i think. I repeat, there is no precedent in the history of the modern world for one part of a nation to break off from the parent. There may have been some breakups through military action but there has been no peaceful separation.

It is pretty hard to refuse a winning referendum (50%+1). you will have to agree on me with that, when you face a majority in democracy, its pretty hard not to loose the population support. On the other hand, negociation is the only thing that is left. Your also talking about the nation concept, i just want to remind you that just before june 28, Harper, Martin and Layton said that quebec was a nation. i know it was before june 28, but in my book, it mean something. Quebec also been told before referendum that things would change, nothing changed. the reality is that 2 sovreign country living side by side, making business will have to negociate one day. As for Kotto, I do not care how brilliant he is. I suspect though that he is not so brilliant or he would not have been seduced by the "Sovereignists." His children are entitled to have any political views that they want - so is he. The difference is that he was an immigrant to Canada and is most certainly not entitled to be here, and payed by the Canadian government, with the intention of destroying Canada. In many societies that would be termed treason, or at the least a security risk. He should be treated accordingly. He is abusing Canadian tolerance. I think you just doesn't understand. The desire of a decentralized country or sovreignty, is way bigger than you think it is and it is way more serious than you seems to think it is. Its hard to find a journalist or a media that is against decentralisation, i don't even know if their is 1. Almost the whole artist community is sovregnist. the liberal party in quebec splitted in 2 with the Adq who supported the pq in 1995.Immigrant can vote or work for one of those 2 party, we call this democracy.

What exactly is sovereignty-association? The idea is to stay associate but be sovregn. Just like a decentralisation. We leave in good term we could say with stuff like free trade and many eventual stuff like having a common army and defense. a little bit like the european union. What will the question be on the next refereendum ballot? i don'T know but it will probably be similar to the 1995 one. in 1980 the question was: "The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will be effected with approval by the people through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?" So 1 referendum to make a deal and 1 where the quebecers say if they accept the deal. in 1995 the question was: Do you agree that Quebec should beome sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Quebec and the agreement signed on June 12, 1995? 1 referendum to become sovregn after offering a partnership to the rest of canada. If the canadian government refuse the partnership, we become sovregn. I don't understand what you mean by the fact that the feds lied about the successful child care program in Quebec - what do you think the federales should have said? What they said in other term is there will buy you a nice new bmw for 10 000$ but in reality what you will have is a cheap gm car for 20 000$ or an accidented car for 10 000$. You can't buy a new bmw for 10 000$ and its wrong to say that you can. What i mean is that it will cost at least 2 time more than they said for a childcare program that wont be accessible for evryone (3-4 years waiting list). it would cost at least 3-4 time more then they said to have a decent childcare program. --------------------- The Clarity Act ensures that there can be no unclear question in the next referendum should there be one. The question can only be a direct one that asks whether Quebec should become completely separate from Canada. It also say that the winning result must have a clear majority but it doesnt say how much is a clear majority. I don't know if it will have an impact on the question but what i know is that the clarity bill is not taken too seriously, just ask Jean Lapierre ;P. Sovereignty Association is no longer a prospect. It meant, in the original misleading of the Quebec public, that Quebec would become independent whole its citizens would have dual citizenship, retain the Canadian dollar and Canadian passport, and keep all the benefits of aCustoms Union - amongst other things. Those benefits are not going to be on the table: and neither is the integrity of Quebec's current borders. That has been made clear and the Quebec public will have to know it in advance. No longer can they have a separate with Canada paying the bills. It mean we would like to stay associate but for an association we both need to agree, and has you can see, if eureka would be the prime minister, it wouldn't work. The question we should ask is will the government accept the willing of the quebecers. As for the rest some people talk about partition, civil war or national war.... well its quite amusing but after a lost of 0,5% in 1995 there was no civil war, partition or anything. On the piece about the African immigrant sitting as a Bloc member! Can you imagine anywhere else in the world where a n immigrant can be payed to work for the destruction of his host country? He should be deported. Maka Kotto is a brilliant man, i really liked him as an artist and im happy he won. He runned in a liberal stronghold and won. Their have been reaserch that proved that the new generation of child issued from immigrant vote in the same proportion of the native french quebecers. It's quite encouraging when we know that they voted against at 70% in 1995 while the native french voted 60% for it. The difference was that before law 101, the immigrant where assimilate by the english community while thei are now assimilate by the french.

I think if the government let evrybody degrade their health with stuff like fastfood and smoke then we will just continue to have bad health and we will continue to have a shitty healthcare service that cost us too much what we can afford. people need to be taken responsible for their health and the government has to make it clear. If you smoke its not my fault, if you get cancer because you smoke too much then your responsible.

someone who smoke evry day, thats what i think is a heavy smokers. I agree we can't start a crusade against evryone but the thing is that people need to be responsible if we want our social program to work. this is not an easy things to do but if someone play with fire... he can't blame the others for his act. He shouldn't be protected by the society else he will never understand.

Well we have to stop the healthcare cost and if possible it should be lower than now. Some people will have to pay for it. If smoking would be illegal, people would continue to smoke. If we say we dont pay for healthcare problem it cause, then people would think twice before starting smoking. And im not a specialist but i think that for big smokers, its easy to identify. It think thats the big smokers that should be targeted.

i keep saying smokers should pay. well the one who get cancer and that its linked. Its just so stupid. People will continue to start smoking to look cool and then can'T stop. Who pay for all their problem after ? the society. As for fastfood, its different. Is not good for health but its not like cigarette.

It will just cost more and more and more... its frustrating i went 1 time to the hospital in my whole life and half of the taxes i pay goes in our healthcare system. Do i really want to give more than half ? one day we will pay 60% 80% of our taxes for healthcare. Its just ridiculus. Cut the health budget in half and let the bad patient pays. Ill pay if its an unintentional accident or if its a born disease but if someone smoke all his life and get cancer, i don't wanna pay. thats how the system should work. If that would exist, im sure lot of people would quit smoking.

i think we should let a place to the private for the moment since we don't have enough money for healthcare for the moment but it doesnt have to be like that forever. Just the time we rebuild our system. 2nd they desparatly needs the help of computers to organize them and to save money. If its possible, they should try to use machine trought the network to save duplication cost. I mean to scan they only need the scanner, then it can be send to the network to a central computer who analyse the result to the place of getting 1 computer for 1 machine. 2nd stop paying unnessesary pills because their is a pills for evrything... it just cost too much. The system is too big for what we can support.

If your talking about CHOI radio station its not for a couple of colour jokes. When an animator attack constantly some people to destroy them, that chose a target like the weather girl and say is brain size is inverse proportional to is breast, that say false thing on the air or not documented thing and that he get warned since 2002 and doesn't change. I think its just normal not to yank the broadcast of this radio station. has for al jazira, will it be subtitled at least ? anyway it can't be worst than cnn.

In quebec we have hydro quebec since about 40 years and it works pretty well. http://www.hydroquebec.com/residentiel/com...ison/index.html The quebec government gets some billions from them and we have low price and we export to the US. the same price no matter where you live. The installation are of good quality and we aquire expertise on electricity domains. Its also help the economy since big industry who need power come here. thats the good thing and here is the bad thing. Well for the moment, one of the reason people get angry at charest is because he wants to approve a hydro quebec plan to build a thermique central that would pollute a lot while we have the biggest eolien potential in America. The other problem is that we want to create big electricity project but we keep using the profit to pay social program.

We are used to the liberal way. The national childcare program in quebec is not a total success like they say. They lied and i think what they did is wrong. The problem is that there are not enough place for evryone so the people have to demmand to get in the childcare program, when their baby are born. I mean years before they can get into the program and if it doesnt work, they don't get full compensation. It cost 1,7 billions and its not enough and the liberal say they want a national childcare that will cost 6 billions... Its not a bad program but its not quite working. I think its not fair to lie to the Roc like they did, thats the reallity.

I read your website and I think its just a big misunderstanding. Where you see special right, i see decentralization. if we decide to get our pension plan and dont contribute to the canadian plan and dont receive money from the canadian plan, then what is the difference ? Ontario could too if it want. its not a specific right to quebecers. The thing is that Roc and quebec are 2 different people. Tell me what is the point of a federal childcare if we already have one ? what is the point of trying to control a province when it think differently.

its not evil its just not suited to the reality like you say. Well thats true, many quebecers are not proud to be canadian. Why do you get frustrated then, why being so much frustrated when you have the chance to stop financing us like you say. Why not transfer taxes point to quebec in exchange of money transfer. After this, if we can't survive like you say it will be our mistake and we will asume it 100%

Well thats your point of vue. But what i say is that your point of vue is not popular in quebec, to the point of leaving the country. Why, you really think that without the federal government the province would destroy the country. It the contrary, The federal government is a government that destabilize the provinces, Evrything they touch is a total mess. its scandal after scandal. The province are by far better placed to know how much money they must spend in healtcare since they are in charge of the hospital and evrything. i think the country will be destroyed if it continue not to satisfie the province. I must agree with you on one thing. The country can't be propely governed the way it is right now. There are 2 choices, decentralize more, or centralize more. The only problem is that with a more centralized country, it will fall sooner or later.

Ok takeanumber ill tell them ! And i hope for canada that the french will separate so the canada can benefit from it economically and maybe get richer than the american...

I didn't see any information just some home made opinion. Canada is less centralized than many country in the world, i would not say all but many. But their are big difference between the situation in canada and in many country. The thing is that we find its too much centralized since trudeau came. Its too much centralized for nothing we could say. The province have to healthcare, education, infrastructure, economy, culture and social policies etc... they taxes us for ~50% in proportion. the federal government has what to care ? defense, the army, diplomacy and immigration thats about it ? they taxes us for ~ 50% in proportion. What happen ? they get lots of money to spare in stupid social program wich they almost always fail to make working. gun control ? sponsorship program ? a future childcare program maybe ?. free healtcare is a good sample of the total federal failure in social programs. They make it free, but they get money problem, what do they do ? they stop financing it. thei force the province not to privatize it but the province can't support the money it cost.... They want to make a childcare program, It won't work because they think they can make on for 6 billion while quebec has one that doesn't respond to the demmand and it cost 1,7 billion. What will they do ? stop financing it but force the province to make them working. If they would transfer the money in taxes % they used to spend on healthcare to the province maybe it could work. Maybe if they would stop taxing so high and just lower their taxes rate, maybe Canada would run better. But no they still use their money surplus to jump over the provincial government to deal with the city directly, Or to make senseless social program while they don't have the expertise. Worst They only have 1 thing they are supposed to work on, "the army", they don't know how to run it. Our army is the size of the jamïcan army with old obsolete english ship and helicopters post vietnam style. The federal government is the biggest canadian failure ever. Thats what i mean when i say its too much centralize for what its need.

We are teaching English in school and its very helpfull. from 3rd primary to cegep and university if we get there. I also took the english "immersion program" where we learn english for half of a scholars years. I don't understand. We don't have special status. we get ruled by the federal government like evry other province and we dont want special status too... we want less power from the federal, thats it. If your talking about why we are called a "distinct society" well that mean nothing, its just word its not more right. Its just mean we are distintc from the canadian society, and who didn't know that ?

very interesting seabee, i think ill buy it. Have you read it ?

It seems that the version you believe, is not the same version that Peter Lougheed, who has/had a lot of goodwill towards Quebec shared in his correspondence. Did it ever occur to you that you are being fed a lot of BS just as the other side is being fed a lot of BS? There is a lot of goodwill on both sides - we need that to shine through dialogue. from what i read, he talk about the fact that the quebec delegation was not there when the 8 province front collapsed and that nine province's came to an agreement.Is it that different than the version Peter Lougheed gave ? I think that source are really important and that it can differ like you say from both side. I even already seen A report on CBC with the same video sequence but rewrited in french for Radio-Canada and it was the complete opposite. Night and day. Thats why i try to use many external source's or fact, not opinion. Just like when eureka said that canada was a federation and it was clear. I just post some american and english canadian text saying the contrary. I also used Fact like the word confederation is used evrywhere in the canadian history even if its clear that we are a federation. Exactly frustration and the fact that we don't understand each others is the thing that is blocking the dialogue politicaly and if we understand that, i think its a step forward to the best direction.

This is exaclty what i was saying. when we don't understand each others, we get frustrated and irrational."If you separate you will go down" post is a good sample. But why not try to understand and debate on the real problem. The centralization that is killing the province's personnality.

i think you did not understand. i said that in quebec the billingualism was higher. I'm not talking about french-vs english(wich is stupid since if someone is billingual, it mean they can talk both language...) its quebec vs rest of canada. It just normal. First french is harder to understand and is almost useless while learning english is really important since we use it constantly. I did not read all of it but i think its near to what i heard. Nine province's come to an agreement while the Quebec delegation was gone to sleep. The next day when he arrived the constitution was written and with compensation from quebec erased. That's why he did not sign.