Things just went from bad to worse for the Liberals.

[punked]

The article is in French but I will give you the jist. You can Translate it if you want. Denise Verreault is the women who ran and organized the 2008 Liberal campaign in Quebec and who was also the President of the Quebec Wing of the Liberal party. She broke with the party today to back the Conservatives and urged all in Quebec and especially those in Montreal to do the same. The silver lining is after having a white supremacist run for them and having top Liberal party members tell people in their strong hold the Liberals are the wrong option the Liberals Quebec campaign can't get worse. It will interesting to see if this plays in the English Media tomorrow.

http://fr.canoe.ca/infos/quebeccanada/federales2011/archives/2011/04/20110413-220006.html

[Keepitsimple]

The article is in French but I will give you the jist. You can Translate it if you want. Denise Verreault is the women who ran and organized the 2008 Liberal campaign in Quebec and who was also the President of the Quebec Wing of the Liberal party. She broke with the party today to back the Conservatives and urged all in Quebec and especially those in Montreal to do the same. The silver lining is after having a white supremacist run for them and having top Liberal party members tell people in their strong hold the Liberals are the wrong option the Liberals Quebec campaign can't get worse. It will interesting to see if this plays in the English Media tomorrow.

http://fr.canoe.ca/infos/quebeccanada/federales2011/archives/2011/04/20110413-220006.html

Not a peep yet.......

[maldon_road]

And he didn't help himself in the debate either. He was less emotional than in English and addressed policy but still let Layton get under his skin. He needed a really good performance which he didn't give.

And while Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff appeared more at ease in Wednesday’s French-language debate, just 15% of those polled thought he was the best compared to 21% who thought he won the English debate.

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/decision2011/2011/04/13/17986856.html

Only issues left are whether Harper can get a majority and whether Iggy can get enough seats to keep his job.

Edited April 14, 2011 by maldon_road

[scribblet]

The French debate doesn't get the viewers the English debate does, I didn't watch it either, but Duceppe always wins the French one. I'm beginning to think we should just cut the purse strings and turn 'em loose....

[Smallc]

I'm beginning to think we should just cut the purse strings and turn 'em loose....

Yeah, that's a great idea that would cause zero problems....

[Tilter]

And he didn't help himself in the debate either. He was less emotional than in English and addressed policy but still let Layton get under his skin. He needed a really good performance which he didn't give.

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/decision2011/2011/04/13/17986856.html

Only issues left are whether Harper can get a majority and whether Iggy can get enough seats to keep his job.

Sure, that's going to happen for iggy. He's gone man, gone

[Tilter]

Yeah, that's a great idea that would cause zero problems....

Damn, I did want to drive to Halifax this summer, now I have to go via Iglucluc NWT :lol:

[Smallc]

Damn, I did want to drive to Halifax this summer, now I have to go via Iglucluc NWT :lol:

No kidding. What would happen to Atlantic Canada? Would they eventually join the US.

[punked]

And he didn't help himself in the debate either. He was less emotional than in English and addressed policy but still let Layton get under his skin. He needed a really good performance which he didn't give.

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/decision2011/2011/04/13/17986856.html

Only issues left are whether Harper can get a majority and whether Iggy can get enough seats to keep his job.

You really don't get polls do you. Here from the same poll.

Did your impressions of the leaders impove?

Layton +42

Ignatieff +28

Duceppe +20

Harper -36

Tell me more about how bad Layton was. Also 17% of people say they changed their vote to NDP and 17% to Liberal because of the Debate.

[eyeball]

No kidding. What would happen to Atlantic Canada? Would they eventually join the US.

They could join Greenland for all the Vancouver Island Liberation Organization cares.

[ToadBrother]

You really don't get polls do you. Here from the same poll.

Did your impressions of the leaders impove?

Layton +42

Ignatieff +28

Duceppe +20

Harper -36

Tell me more about how bad Layton was. Also 17% of people say they changed their vote to NDP and 17% to Liberal because of the Debate.

We've still got half an election campaign to go. I'm not convinced the debates will have much influence on the final result.

[punked]

No kidding. What would happen to Atlantic Canada? Would they eventually join the US.

Just want to point out everyone forgets the trump Canada has to keep Quebec in Canada. That is the Hydro power is almost all generated on First Nations Land. The First Nations are a their culture in Quebec just as the French are in Canada. They have the same rights Quebec does to separate from the new "Quebec" country and before the 1995 vote, they had their own referendum they voted 95% in favor of staying in Canada and taking their Hydro with them. Quebec could never leave with out their energy.

[punked]

We've still got half an election campaign to go. I'm not convinced the debates will have much influence on the final result.

I agree I was pointing out Layton did very well.

[maldon_road]

I agree I was pointing out Layton did very well.

And I do too. On another thread I opined that Layton was the best of the three anglo leaders in the debate. I just don't think his increased votes will result in any more seats than the one he has already in Quebec.

[punked]

And I do too. On another thread I opined that Layton was the best of the three anglo leaders in the debate. I just don't think his increased votes will result in any more seats than the one he has already in Quebec.

Oh ok I am sorry I mis interpreted what you said. This may very well be true however if the NDP can steal enough Bloc votes we might have a more federalist Quebec. The NDP really only has a shot at 3 seats 6 in a best case right now but that doesn't mean the other federalist parties can't benefit from the NDPs rise.

I always cheer against the Bloc even if it means hoping for the Liberals or Conservatives in some ridings.

[Harry]

The NPD is obviously a growing phenomenon in Quebec, and my hunch is that the Layton/Mulcair duo are now looking at 3-10 seats in Quebec alone.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Harry

[William Ashley]

Just want to point out everyone forgets the trump Canada has to keep Quebec in Canada. That is the Hydro power is almost all generated on First Nations Land. The First Nations are a their culture in Quebec just as the French are in Canada. They have the same rights Quebec does to separate from the new "Quebec" country and before the 1995 vote, they had their own referendum they voted 95% in favor of staying in Canada and taking their Hydro with them. Quebec could never leave with out their energy.

There appear to have been a couple different treaties resoliving the land issue such as the James Bay Treaty.

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/al/hts/tgu/pubs/t9/trty9-eng.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bay_and_Northern_Quebec_Agreement

Edited April 15, 2011 by William Ashley

[TimG]

There appear to have been a couple different treaties resoliving the land issue such as the James Bay Treaty.

There is a BNA act that says Quebec is part of Canada. The issue is Quebec insists on a moral right to seperate then the Cree can also insist on that right. I would expect them to play both sides to get the best deal. The fact that seperatists are in deep denial over this issue does not make it any less relevant.

[punked]

That is the Trump card, not the clarity act, or the Debt Canada would put on Quebec. It is that if Quebec separated Canada could literally turn out the lights on Quebec and the that would be the end of it. I am not saying Canada would hold Quebec Hostage just that Quebec depends heavily on Hydro power and they could not take it with them, this also goes for all the Hydro they get from NFLD to.

[William Ashley]

There is a BNA act that says Quebec is part of Canada. The issue is Quebec insists on a moral right to seperate then the Cree can also insist on that right. I would expect them to play both sides to get the best deal. The fact that seperatists are in deep denial over this issue does not make it any less relevant.

TIMG THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAVE QUEBEC JURISIDICTION ON CONDITION OF A TREATY BEING ESTABLISHED! IT IS QUEBEC. QUEBEC EXISTS AS PART OF A FEDERATION, THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA IS THAT FEDERATION, CANADA AS A STATE IS THE QUEEN AND THE FORM OF NATION IS CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY. QUEBEC IS A SEPERATE CROWN WITH SEPERATE CROWN LANDS. IT IS A CONSENTING MEMBER OF A FEDERATED GOVERNMENT. FEDERATIONS CAN DISOLVE AND INDIVIDUAL PARTIES TO A FEDERATION MAY SUCCEED FROM ONE AT DEFAULT. (THE QUEEN IS THE CROWN OF QUEBEC THOUGH... )

THE LT. GOVERNOR OF QUEBEC IS SUPPOSE TO ACT ON ADVISE OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF QUEBEC. THE LT. GOVERNOR IS SUPPOSE TO CORDINATE WITH THE GOVERNOR GENERAL ON ISSUES OF STATE.

Anyone has the right to a landclaim but from a Canadian legal perspective Quebec is Quebec, and Quebec is a province that composes a jurisdiction of Canada. Its courts are seperate --- and the BNA says what powers and titles quebec has to enforce those are SEPERATE from the federal powers. UNDERSTAND BOTH ARE EQUAL POWERS, except some aspects are able to be vetoed by the federal government. HOWEVER, by the nature of federations ---- if the executive council fo quebec asked to seperate the Lt. Governor and QUeen would be obligated to allow it since the federation has not been consented to be binding by Quebec. Quebec was "created" by the federation but the "society of upper and lower canada still exists... and was assumed into Quebec - as a court. Law defines the nature of social condition. There is a seperate legal society in Quebec than in Federal Canada.

But the federal government specifically gave Quebec control of those areas pending a treaty.

The Constitition defines "province" and the powers of one. It also states that status quo ante would be maintained - with power sharing. Over the 1800's and early 1900's these things were defined in more detail but Northern Quebec is DEFINATELY and undeniably an annex of Quebec, that was granted by the federal government.

In 1870, all of Rupert's Land was ceded to Canada, and in 1895 the region between the province of Quebec and the Hudson Strait became the District of Ungava of the Northwest Territories. In 1898, the border of Quebec was extended north to the Eastmain River. Quebec continued to claim the remaining District of Ungava, north of the Eastmain River, and in 1912 the area was transferred to Quebec

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Boundaries_Extension_Act,_1912

The condition was establishing a treaty...

that is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bay_and_Northern_Quebec_Agreement

All of canada is ancestorial native land.. the descendents of all those people may not be alive though.. likewise the world is mine --- it doesn't mean I don't have to respect other people. That is a universal rule. What is yours is what you have. What you have is what you keep, what you keep is what others don't take. The whole idea of agreements is peaceful coexistence. The idea of landclaims is clarifying issues of land use.

There are multiple aspects of title... origin is one of those... an agreement only stands as long as it is adhered to, but breaching an agreement may be grounds for voiding loss conditions, or even a causa belli

Prior to the establishment of the United States title to Indian lands in lands controlled by Britain in North America was governed by The Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763. This proclamation by King George III reserved title in land to the Indians, subject to alienation only by the Crown.

However the US is defined by the Treaty of Paris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_%281783%29

For instance failure of the US to recognize the republic of Indian Stream sees the treaty of paris void.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Indian_Stream

Of course I naturally claim the Republic of Indian Stream as my own in the event of no other citizens of the republic.

Just be aware the US has violate the treaty of Paris. The whole thing is a hodge podge. So all rights assigned in it are void.

The US is a big bully of course, so even if it were taken factually it'd likely just strong arm itself regardless of the criminal and illegal nature - or rather ignoble character it holds itself within. The sheer act of annexation was an act of war.

Edited April 15, 2011 by William Ashley

[capricorn]

TIMG THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAVE QUEBEC JURISIDICTION

William, why do you use caps in a lot of your posts? I'd like to read what you have to say. It's bad enough your posts are like tomes but those big letters shouting at me are a real turn off.

[William Ashley]

William, why do you use caps in a lot of your posts? I'd like to read what you have to say. It's bad enough your posts are like tomes but those big letters shouting at me are a real turn off.

BECAUSE IT SEEMS PEOPLE WRITE THINGS WHEN THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT AND A BULLHORN CAN BE USED TO MAKE THE POINT.

Also there is no de jure capacity of a given state militia to annex a territory -- indian stream was a unilateral and illegal act.

It was a breach of treaty.

The US is obliged to return Indian Stream

war and the annexation of territory by force are both prohibited by international

law.

THE ANNEX IS INVALID GIVE ME MY LAND BACK!

The vote prior the annexation by force was invalid because it violated the streamer constitution-

Article 7th.....

or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the Judgment of his

Peers, or the law of the land.

Edited April 15, 2011 by William Ashley

[TimG]

Anyone has the right to a landclaim but from a Canadian legal perspective Quebec is Quebec, and Quebec is a province that composes a jurisdiction of Canada.

And if Quebec seperated it would no longer be a province and its borders would be a matter of negotiation. Any legal authority that Quebec has to prevent the Crees from seperating also grants Canada the right to prevent Quebec from seperating. If Quebec wishes to make a moral claim to justify seperation then it cannot morally deny that the Crees have the same right to seperate from Quebec.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The US is a big bully of course, so even if it were taken factually it'd likely just strong arm itself regardless of the criminal and illegal nature - or rather ignoble character it holds itself within. The sheer act of annexation was an act of war.

Correct...all of your obnoxious bloviating does not change this. The US does not exist because of the Treaty of Paris...it exists because of a violent and successful revolution against the British Crown.

[punked]

And if Quebec seperated it would no longer be a province and its borders would be a matter of negotiation. Any legal authority that Quebec has to prevent the Crees from seperating also grants Canada the right to prevent Quebec from seperating. If Quebec wishes to make a moral claim to justify seperation then it cannot morally deny that the Crees have the same right to seperate from Quebec.

I agree this is my point from the start. The Cree BTW in 1995 voted overwhelming to stay in Canada and take all of Quebec Power with them. Quebec would be in pretty tough Shape after that especially if Newfoundland and NS Run an under sea Power Cable to their provinces because then the new Cree province wouldn't even need Quebec to sell its power to the US.