Is there any true reason why the Bloc is a federal party?

[Tilter]

Can anyone in this wonderful country explain to me why a traitorous group of people determined to break up the very country which they hold power to govern should be allowed to sit & vote in the body of FEDERALLY elected officials who make the laws of the country?

Wordweb defines "federal" as-- National; especially in reference to the government of the United States as distinct from that of its member units. This defines it only for the USA but Canada has a federal government it should also define federal as "National; especially in reference to the government of Canada as distinct from that of its MEMBER UNITS.

As Quebec is a "member unit" and as the BQ ONLY runs candidates in the PROVINCE of Quebec, the elected officials in that party should sit only in Quebec as PROVINCIAL officials.

[M.Dancer]

Can anyone in this wonderful country explain to me why a traitorous group of people determined to break up the very country which they hold power to govern should be allowed to sit & vote in the body of FEDERALLY elected officials who make the laws of the country?

Because we live in a democracy, they are elected by the citizens of Canada and the first and foremost goal is to represent the interests of Quebec.

[Michael Hardner]

Because we live in a democracy, they are elected by the citizens of Canada and the first and foremost goal is to represent the interests of Quebec.

THE first goal is to represent the interests of Quebec ? Or THEIR goal ? The former statement is cynical, the second elementary.

[M.Dancer]

THE first goal is to represent the interests of Quebec ? Or THEIR goal ? The former statement is cynical, the second elementary.

Typo....both are tru

[cybercoma]

There is an interesting situation that arises on bills regarding CPP because of QPP. While the Bloc Quebecois can vote on any motion that pertains to CPP, it does not actually apply to their constituents. Sitting out of those votes would be the right thing to do, but they haven't. Moreover, MPs from other ridings have absolutely no say in QPP. So it's interesting to know that the BQ can screw with the pensions in the rest of Canada, but theirs are untouchable.

Edited April 1, 2011 by cybercoma

[M.Dancer]

There is an interesting situation that arises on bills regarding CPP because of QPP. While the Bloc Quebecois can vote on any motion that pertains to CPP, it does not actually apply to their constituents. Sitting out of those votes would be the right thing to do, but they haven't. Moreover, MPs from other ridings have absolutely no say in QPP. So it's interesting to know that the BQ can screw with the pensions in the rest of Canada, but theirs are untouchable.

Quebecers also receive the CPP.

[GWiz]

Can anyone in this wonderful country explain to me why a traitorous group of people determined to break up the very country which they hold power to govern should be allowed to sit & vote in the body of FEDERALLY elected officials who make the laws of the country?

Here you go >- Brian Mulroney

had come to power by forging a coalitional of traditional Conservatives, disillusioned Liberals, Quebec Nationalists and right wing social conservatives. He managed to accommodate most of these views during his first mandate. By the time his second mandate was underway and he was looking to solidify his role in Canadian political legend by succeeding where he felt others had failed, by creating a consensus and national deal with Quebec over a renegotiated constitution, the coalition was starting to fragment.

Many of the Quebec nationalist had joined the Conservatives in Ottawa in order to manipulate the Government to benefit not just Quebec but a Quebec separation agenda. In 1990 the Conservatives produced a report that addressed changes that should be made to the Meech Lake Accord. Lucien Bouchard who had been one of Mulroney's main Quebec Lieutenants objected to the changes and refused to support them. Bouchard was fired by Mulroney when his nationalism was fully recognised and Bouchard lost no time in leaving the Conservative Party to form the Bloc which would be completely committed to Quebec separation. He was quickly followed by Nic Leblanc, Louis Plamondon, Benoit Trembley, Gilbert Chartrand and Francois Gerin from the Conservatives and two Liberal members of Parliament. -

- The existence of the Bloc has served as a constant reminder of the question of separatism in Quebec and has created a deadlock in Canadian politics by preventing either the Liberals or the regenerated Conservatives, from gaining a majority in the last 3 elections. This may serve as their most effective legacy in attempting to destabilize Canadian confederation. -

http://www.canadahistory.com/sections/eras/moderncanada/bloc.htm

Lest anyone forget what Stephan Harper's mentor (BM) and most staunch supporter did... Harper of course furthered that same "agenda" by making Quebec a seperate "nation" within Canada at the first opportunity...

- As one who experienced western alienation in his bones, Harper sympathizes with the evident alienation of the Québécois. He has gone to extraordinary lengths to court Quebec despite all the warnings that it was a lost cause. He won't give up and starts every speech in French, even when abroad, to recognize French as the founding language of Canada. He recognized the Québécois as a nation within a united Canada and, while he would certainly not condone a separatist government violating the Constitution, he would also never act counter to Quebec's vital interests. -

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/afraid+Tory+majority/4540006/story.html#ixzz1IHzd9WST

[Tilter]

Quebecers also receive the CPP.

No they administer & receive the QPP.

[Tilter]

Here you go >- Brian Mulroney

had come to power by forging a coalitional of traditional Conservatives, disillusioned Liberals, Quebec Nationalists and right wing social conservatives. He managed to accommodate most of these views during his first mandate. By the time his second mandate was underway and he was looking to solidify his role in Canadian political legend by succeeding where he felt others had failed, by creating a consensus and national deal with Quebec over a renegotiated constitution, the coalition was starting to fragment.

Many of the Quebec nationalist had joined the Conservatives in Ottawa in order to manipulate the Government to benefit not just Quebec but a Quebec separation agenda. In 1990 the Conservatives produced a report that addressed changes that should be made to the Meech Lake Accord. Lucien Bouchard who had been one of Mulroney's main Quebec Lieutenants objected to the changes and refused to support them. Bouchard was fired by Mulroney when his nationalism was fully recognised and Bouchard lost no time in leaving the Conservative Party to form the Bloc which would be completely committed to Quebec separation. He was quickly followed by Nic Leblanc, Louis Plamondon, Benoit Trembley, Gilbert Chartrand and Francois Gerin from the Conservatives and two Liberal members of Parliament. -

- The existence of the Bloc has served as a constant reminder of the question of separatism in Quebec and has created a deadlock in Canadian politics by preventing either the Liberals or the regenerated Conservatives, from gaining a majority in the last 3 elections. This may serve as their most effective legacy in attempting to destabilize Canadian confederation. -

http://www.canadahistory.com/sections/eras/moderncanada/bloc.htm

Lest anyone forget what Stephan Harper's mentor (BM) and most staunch supporter did... Harper of course furthered that same "agenda" by making Quebec a seperate "nation" within Canada at the first opportunity...

- As one who experienced western alienation in his bones, Harper sympathizes with the evident alienation of the Québécois. He has gone to extraordinary lengths to court Quebec despite all the warnings that it was a lost cause. He won't give up and starts every speech in French, even when abroad, to recognize French as the founding language of Canada. He recognized the Québécois as a nation within a united Canada and, while he would certainly not condone a separatist government violating the Constitution, he would also never act counter to Quebec's vital interests. -

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/afraid+Tory+majority/4540006/story.html#ixzz1IHzd9WST

Again I ask "Can anyone in this wonderful country explain to me why a traitorous group of people determined to break up the very country which they hold power to govern should be allowed to sit & vote in the body of FEDERALLY elected officials who make the laws of the country?"

You have explained how it happened. You haven't explained why the whole bunch shouldn't be thrown in a jail in the Northern Quebec wilderness especially devoted to housing traitors.

[eyeball]

Again I ask "Can anyone in this wonderful country explain to me why a traitorous group of people determined to break up the very country which they hold power to govern should be allowed to sit & vote in the body of FEDERALLY elected officials who make the laws of the country?"

You have explained how it happened. You haven't explained why the whole bunch shouldn't be thrown in a jail in the Northern Quebec wilderness especially devoted to housing traitors.

Speaking for myself, the only explanation is that Canada doesn't have anywhere near enough hyper-federalist fanatics with the same view.

Personally I think the Bloc's aspirations to get out from under Ottawa's thumb resonate deeply with many on the west coast who aspire to establish far more regional say in the management decisions about things that directly affect us.

Regionalism is the future direction politics is definitely taking in this country. That said I think we should be looking towards the day when we can phase out whole levels of senior government by transferring more autonomy to local and regional governments. I'd prefer my region divest itself of it's provincial governance but so be it if we decide instead to divorce ourselves from Ottawa.

In either case should an asteroid fall on Ottawa tomorrow, I'll be out ululating 'Bullseye' in the street.

[ToadBrother]

Again I ask "Can anyone in this wonderful country explain to me why a traitorous group of people determined to break up the very country which they hold power to govern should be allowed to sit & vote in the body of FEDERALLY elected officials who make the laws of the country?"

You have explained how it happened. You haven't explained why the whole bunch shouldn't be thrown in a jail in the Northern Quebec wilderness especially devoted to housing traitors.

Because it isn't treason. Treason has a very explicit legal definition. Second of all, the Constitution Act, 1982 protects both political and individual liberties.

[treehugger]

Speaking for myself, the only explanation is that Canada doesn't have anywhere near enough hyper-federalist fanatics with the same view.

Personally I think the Bloc's aspirations to get out from under Ottawa's thumb resonate deeply with many on the west coast who aspire to establish far more regional say in the management decisions about things that directly affect us.

Regionalism is the future direction politics is definitely taking in this country. That said I think we should be looking towards the day when we can phase out whole levels of senior government by transferring more autonomy to local and regional governments. I'd prefer my region divest itself of it's provincial governance but so be it if we decide instead to divorce ourselves from Ottawa.

In either case should an asteroid fall on Ottawa tomorrow, I'll be out ululating 'Bullseye' in the street.

Where could a province go on it's own? everything in each province belongs to the country, how can such a few people possibly pay the country back for what they want. People sure like to talk and talk is cheap. Anyone wanting to break up the country should be railroaded right out of here.

[ToadBrother]

Where could a province go on it's own? everything in each province belongs to the country, how can such a few people possibly pay the country back for what they want. People sure like to talk and talk is cheap. Anyone wanting to break up the country should be railroaded right out of here.

Well, that's not technically true. We a confederation of semi-autonomous jurisdictions (the Federal government and the Provinces), not a unitary state. The provinces have a distinct constitutional existence. While there are certainly Federal Crown lands in the provinces, there are also Provincial Crown lands, both held separately in right of the Queen.

This immediately brings up another problem with a province trying to secede. The native peoples and their lands (both reserve and treaty protected) are under the direct protection of the Federal Crown, and so are, in a way, Federal Crown Lands. What's more there is a special constitutional relationship between native peoples and the Federal Crown that does not exist between these people and the Provinces. Attempting to take these lands without negotiating with the native peoples on them would be little more than theft, and the international community in the last few decades has taken a rather dim view of theft of indigenous peoples' lands. This raised its ugly head in the 1995 election, and the Separatists seemed to try to sweep it away, despite the fact even if the Quebec electorate had voted in favor of secession from Canada, they could not just simply get up and walk away with those lands. What it meant was that Quebec could potentially be carved up.

Edited April 5, 2011 by ToadBrother

[eyeball]

Where could a province go on it's own? everything in each province belongs to the country, how can such a few people possibly pay the country back for what they want. People sure like to talk and talk is cheap. Anyone wanting to break up the country should be railroaded right out of here.

As I said I'd just as happily dump the provincial government. In any case I think there are more layers of senior governments than we need.

More localized government weighted with a bio-regional outlook should be an attractive option for treehuggers but that said I've seen treehuggers happily eschew local process in favour of private lobbying in some distant backroom to achieve their aims.

Like you say, talk is cheap.

[Oleg Bach]

Because we live in a democracy, they are elected by the citizens of Canada and the first and foremost goal is to represent the interests of Quebec.

There used to be rules about treachery and treason, even in a democracy. We do not stick to our own laws so why bother making them if we do not enforce them. Quebec is a very irritating and very large special interest group. Pandering to Quebec is like pandering to all other special interest groups. When a person or group say they want to break up Canada and create a nation that is geographically split in two parts is treason. Either send Quebec on its way leaving a corridor open between the Maritimes and Ontario - OR truely embrace Quebec and have our leaders speak french to people who don't understand it. You know how stupid it is when a candidate speaks in French to a group in BC or Manitoba....? It's really bizarre that such pandering takes place.

[Tilter]

:lol:

There used to be rules about treachery and treason, even in a democracy. We do not stick to our own laws so why bother making them if we do not enforce them. Quebec is a very irritating and very large special interest group. Pandering to Quebec is like pandering to all other special interest groups. When a person or group say they want to break up Canada and create a nation that is geographically split in two parts is treason. Either send Quebec on its way leaving a corridor open between the Maritimes and Ontario - OR truely embrace Quebec and have our leaders speak french to people who don't understand it. You know how stupid it is when a candidate speaks in French to a group in BC or Manitoba....? It's really bizarre that such pandering takes place.

Manitoba's not a bad place top speak French --- Sask. almost as good but if you really want your speech to fall on deaf ears, try Alberta & BC. In those provinces more people understand Mandarin, Urdu or Ukrainian than French

Edited April 5, 2011 by Tilter

[SF/PF]

Again I ask "Can anyone in this wonderful country explain to me why a traitorous group of people determined to break up the very country which they hold power to govern should be allowed to sit & vote in the body of FEDERALLY elected officials who make the laws of the country?"

Because they're elected by some voters in Quebec based on that platform? Or as others have pointed out: Democracy.

You have explained how it happened. You haven't explained why the whole bunch shouldn't be thrown in a jail in the Northern Quebec wilderness especially devoted to housing traitors.

Thrown in jail for what?

Edited April 7, 2011 by SF/PF

[Tilter]

Because they're elected by some voters in Quebec based on that platform? Or as others have pointed out: Democracy.

Thrown in jail for what?

Treason---- trying to overthrow a legitimate government and fostering the breakup of a country. I guess another would be their favorite--- BLACKMAIL.

[ToadBrother]

Treason---- trying to overthrow a legitimate government and fostering the breakup of a country. I guess another would be their favorite--- BLACKMAIL.

That's not actually a definition of treason, though it can be part of the general accusation of treason. In the Criminal Code, High Treason is:

46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(a. kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

(B. levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

(c. assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Treason is:

2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a. uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

(B. without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

(c. conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a.);

(d.) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a.) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e.) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (B.) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (B.) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

If you were to charge the Bloc with anything, it would likely surround sedition, insurrection and/or rebellion. The Bloc would not be traitors in such a scenario, and by normal definition.

Edited April 8, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Tilter]

That's not actually a definition of treason, though it can be part of the general accusation of treason. In the Criminal Code, High Treason is:

Treason is:

If you were to charge the Bloc with anything, it would likely surround sedition, insurrection and/or rebellion. The Bloc would not be traitors in such a scenario, and by normal definition.

Sorry, I'm not a lawyer & can see justice in a more pure form than a lawyer.

[SF/PF]

Treason---- trying to overthrow a legitimate government and fostering the breakup of a country. I guess another would be their favorite--- BLACKMAIL.

I suppose by that definition, any party that runs in an election against the incumbent government would be guilty of treason?

Likewise, any party that lobbies for benefits for its voters would be guilty of blackmail?

[ToadBrother]

Sorry, I'm not a lawyer & can see justice in a more pure form than a lawyer.

Uh huh.

[Tilter]

Are any other political parties trying to tear Canada apart???? No, Only the Bloc-----for now

I guess the one party that has a real beef with the way Canada runs and the only party who could go it alone would actually be the Western Canadian Party. With the provinces of BC, Alberta & Saskatchewan holding the vast majority of Canadian oil and with the way they are pissed off about paying Quebec's bills (while listening to them bitch about how shabbily the ROK treats them) there has been talk of the Big Walk and with natural resources, a viable seaport and enough farming to feed not only themselves they are a far more viable section of the country to make a new country.

By the way Quebec--- if that were to happen you would no longer be pulling the billions from them you are now and with Ontario as a Have Not province you would have to beg from France to finance your over-spending. Good luck with that---- they are ready with a handshake and all those Quebec Libra slogans but I think they aren't able to support your extravagances.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Tilter

[GWiz]

Are any other political parties trying to tear Canada apart???? No, Only the Bloc-----for now

I guess the one party that has a real beef with the way Canada runs and the only party who could go it alone would actually be the Western Canadian Party. With the provinces of BC, Alberta & Saskatchewan holding the vast majority of Canadian oil and with the way they are pissed off about paying Quebec's bills (while listening to them bitch about how shabbily the ROK treats them) there has been talk of the Big Walk and with natural resources, a viable seaport and enough farming to feed not only themselves they are a far more viable section of the country to make a new country.

By the way Quebec--- if that were to happen you would no longer be pulling the billions from them you are now and with Ontario as a Have Not province you would have to beg from France to finance your over-spending. Good luck with that---- they are ready with a handshake and all those Quebec Libra slogans but I think they aren't able to support your extravagances.

So sad, less than 100 posts before you lost all credibility...

[bloodyminded]

Are any other political parties trying to tear Canada apart???? No, Only the Bloc-----for now

I guess the one party that has a real beef with the way Canada runs and the only party who could go it alone would actually be the Western Canadian Party. With the provinces of BC, Alberta & Saskatchewan holding the vast majority of Canadian oil and with the way they are pissed off about paying Quebec's bills (while listening to them bitch about how shabbily the ROK treats them) there has been talk of the Big Walk and with natural resources, a viable seaport and enough farming to feed not only themselves they are a far more viable section of the country to make a new country.

Just to clarify: are you offerring a defense of the Albertan separatists, in the very same breath that you denounce Quebec separatists as "traitors"?