punked Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) Could you cite just where in our Constitution or Charter or anywhere it actually says that? I think you must be too young to remember that there was a time when the Feds did NOT meddle in education and health at all! Starting slowly in Pearson's time and gaining traction during the Trudeau years the Liberals started touting this idea of a federal mandate to ensure equal opportunities in all provinces. They actually had no mandate for this idea. They just pulled it out of their butts! However, as a political tool it was brilliant! What really happened is that within a surprisingly short time Ottawa was giving provinces so much money in the name of education and health that they were dependent on it! At that point the Feds effectively had control. No constitutional changes were necessary. Controlling the money was enough. The Canadian Constitution is a living document. There are many things that it enshrines which are not written. Welcome to our Federal Democracy. I think this was shown in 1940 when EI was challenged and in the end it ended up changing our Constitution to make EI a Federal responsibility. Remember you can leave the Healthcare act anytime however your province still has to pay in, it will just not get anything out. This is the agreement the Federal government has with the provinces. Edited August 3, 2011 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 We have the same standards of Health care and Education across the board. In fact if you don't meet the criteria set out by the Federal government for Health or Education then you can not get Transfer payments for them. Yes that criteria is pretty loose but that is what our federal government decided upon. They could tighten it up if they wanted in the Health act. That is what being a part of a Federation is. Seems like Conservative posters here do not actually like Federalism though the way they talk of Transfers. Yet they love to yell at people for also not being strong Federalists. This is why the whole Bloc thing was so popular in Quebec in the first place. They didn't like the idea of the Federal government having so much power. That does not mean all Bloc members want to separate many of them just want Quebec as a province to be able to make decision for themselves on many issues. THIS IS THE SAME THING CONSERVATIVE POSTERS HERE PREACH ALL THE TIME. I hear you guys always talk about cutting transfers, or equalization because you want your province to be able to decide what to do with its money. That is what most Bloc members have been saying for a long time. The hypocrisy is dumbfounding. Actually I've made the argument that Quebecers who want more autonomy for their province should or could vote for the CPC in the future when arguing why the CPC is likely to dominate Canadian politics for the foreseeable future. There is a difference between more autonomy for the provinces and becoming an entirely separate country. The difference is that conservatives love Canada and are proud of this nation. Meanwhile, many separatists loathe being part of Canada and feel oppressed by the uncultured, boorish English Canadians. Part of the problem is blowhards like you confuscating the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) Actually I've made the argument that Quebecers who want more autonomy for their province should or could vote for the CPC in the future when arguing why the CPC is likely to dominate Canadian politics for the foreseeable future. There is a difference between more autonomy for the provinces and becoming an entirely separate country. The difference is that conservatives love Canada and are proud of this nation. Meanwhile, many separatists loathe being part of Canada and feel oppressed by the uncultured, boorish English Canadians. Part of the problem is blowhards like you confuscating the issue. The problem is that Quebecers don't want the CPC to win. They don't like their policies and the reason they want more autonomy in the first place is they don't want Conservative parties dictating to a Social Democratic sociality policy. That was why "Separatists" had no problem voting for the NDP who might be the most Federalist of the parties in terms of their views of power and policies because they were policies the Social Democratic base of the Bloc want in those province and country. But we agree on one thing if their is a party that is closest to the Bloc in terms of breaking down federalist powers it is the Conservatives. Might be why they have Bloc Cabinet minsters eh? "Pot you are soooooooo Black" Edited August 3, 2011 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 If anyone has picked up their newspaper this morning and noticed at least one editorial proclaiming the demise of the NDP, or that the NDP may not recover from this debacle....and then happened to notice the same bullshit in newspapers left around at work; it starts to fill out a picture that Canada's mainstream media is taking this opportunity of the phony Quebec crisis to cripple the NDP and bring back what they prefer for opposition and/or government - the goddamed Liberals! The most obvious attack come from - no surprise - Sun Media: Choice of former separatist may be death knell for NDP. Leave it to the Sun to emote horror at the thought of the NDP having a separatist at the helm....while failing to mention all of the rightwing separatists the Tories have courted over the years in their efforts to establish a Quebec base! I still remember the mess that Mulroney created when he courted Lucien Bouchard and some other separatists, and then watched them blow up the old PC Party when they used Meech Lake to launch the federalist wing of the PQ. What it all boils down to is a tempest in a teapot. I don't know whether this woman is much of a leader, but she wasn't selected to be Party leader in the first place. The most obvious reason for her posting is because of the rivalry between the two most obvious choices for future NDP leader. And when it comes to Quebec separation: I don't know if it is even a real issue anymore in this age of globalization. There is always going to be a challenge to figure out how to balance Quebec's identity with a federal framework. But the same can be said for how to deal with first nations issues. The overall picture I see from scanning today's papers is an agreement in principle from the rightwing to moderate corporate plutocrats that they want to tell us what we can have as a "party on the left," similar to the false choice that Americans are stuck with right now, that has left real progressives struggling to figure out how to create a real political party that represents the desires of average working people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Face it you are no Federalist. Federalism does not equal socialism...socialism does not equal Canada ...you are right, I am not a socialist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) Federalism does not equal socialism...socialism does not equal Canada ...you are right, I am not a socialist So you believe some provinces should have more and other less, and that all power outside the Military should lay in the hands of the provinces? You should join the Bloc you would fit right in because you are not a Federalist but than again most Conservatives aren't. Remember Canada is considered one of if not the most Decentralized Federal states. Edited August 3, 2011 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 So you believe some provinces should have more and other less They already do.... reality, meet punked, punked, meet reality and that all power outside the Military should lay in the hands of the provinces? What a limited mind you have...have you forgotten foreign affairs? Criminal law? copyrights and patents? fiscal policy? No....your mind only sees what in fact are provincial obligation and you covet them. You should join the Bloc you would fit right in because you are not a Federalist but than again most Conservatives aren't. You should join the federal totalitarian party... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) They already do.... reality, meet punked, punked, meet reality I meant in terms of equalization, I should have made that clear my friend. What a limited mind you have...have you forgotten foreign affairs? Criminal law? copyrights and patents? fiscal policy? No....your mind only sees what in fact are provincial obligation and you covet them. I like living in a Federal state even if it is the weakest Federal state in the world. You however want it to be a Republic. Which is fine however you my friend are no Federalist. Join the Bloc they will forward your agenda. You should join the federal totalitarian party... Why because I believe in Federalism? Here let me spell it out for you or at least I will let the Canada Act spell it out for you. EQUALIZATION AND REGIONAL DISPARITIES Commitment to promote equal opportunities 36. (1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to (a) promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians; ( furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and © providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians. Commitment respecting public services (2) Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.(98) Yah equalization and Transfers are right in our Constitution. If you don't like I suggest you take out a membership in the Bloc because you my friend are no Federalist. Check out Part III of the Constitution Act, 1982. It is titled Equalization. Give it up already most Conservatives are not Federalist. It wont stop them though from pointing their fingers to yell at other for the same thing though. Now that we know you believe more in the Bloc's ideas then the NDP leader can we please move on? Edited August 3, 2011 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 I like living in a Federal state even if it is the weakest Federal state in the world. You however want it to be a Republic. Which is fine however you my friend are no Federalist. Join the Bloc they will forward your agenda. Punked is making the classic mistake, as he often does, of not knowing wtf he is talking about. In this case, as opposed to all the others, is assuming that Federalism ( the political concept) and being a federalist (in the Canadian sense, opposed to quebec separation) are synonymous. He seems to also be unaware that federalism and republicanism are some how, opposites. This will come as a surprise to american, who have a federal system and live in a republic. Maybe punked should stick to explaining how the ethos and fibre of canada is expressed best by transfer payments and welfare...if only for the humour of it all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Why because I believe in Federalism? Indeed. I prefer democracy...socialists...eh not so much, they prefer power, and the more centralized the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 At best Jack has shown a monumental lack of judgement. If she cares about the NDP she really should fall on her sword and resign now, there must be someone out of 103 MPs who would do a fine job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) Punked is making the classic mistake, as he often does, of not knowing wtf he is talking about. In this case, as opposed to all the others, is assuming that Federalism ( the political concept) and being a federalist (in the Canadian sense, opposed to quebec separation) are synonymous. He seems to also be unaware that federalism and republicanism are some how, opposites. This will come as a surprise to american, who have a federal system and live in a republic. Maybe punked should stick to explaining how the ethos and fibre of canada is expressed best by transfer payments and welfare...if only for the humour of it all... If we want to really get into it, Canada is not like America because we are a Confederation where all provinces can leave any time under the Clarity act and before that could leave with a simple vote. That is neither here nor there though. I referred you to the the Equalization section of the Constitution that says all provinces in our Confederation should have a comparable level of social services and that they will pay equalization payments and Transfers to do that. You are the one who does not like that. You also told me that you don't believe in the Constitution of this great nation of ours when I said the same thing. That is the same position that the Bloc takes. Have fun in your new party. Edited August 3, 2011 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Indeed. I prefer democracy...socialists...eh not so much, they prefer power, and the more centralized the better. What are talking about? First of all I am not a Socialist, I do not believe all means of production should lay in the hands of government. That is silly. Next I believe in Democracy and following our Constitution as it was signed and voted on by the people of Canada. You are the one arguing against it. Well you and Steven Harper and his Alberta Firewall letter. I will keep defending my country against people like yourself who want to see our Constitution spit upon because they don't understand how our country works though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 If we want to really get into it, Canada is not like America because we are a Confederation where all provinces can leave any time under the Clarity act and before that could leave with a simple vote. That is neither here nor there though. Kudos...you got something right. I have noted it on the calendar. What's the NPD's position on the clarity act again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 At best Jack has shown a monumental lack of judgement. If she cares about the NDP she really should fall on her sword and resign now, there must be someone out of 103 MPs who would do a fine job. She will do a fine job and as we are finding out in this thread there are more people in on this board who believe in the Bloc way more then she ever did. Going so far as to take main Bloc positions on our Constitution while the NDP defends it. Look at the head Blocer himself Dancer here defending his position that he thinks the Canada act is wrong and the Harper was right to write a letter about how Alberta should stop following it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Kudos...you got something right. I have noted it on the calendar. What's the NPD's position on the clarity act again? Which one is the clarity act? Is that the one written by Separatist Dion? I thought you said Separatist should not be allowed to govern in this country? And he does a flip and flop and he flips and he flops all over this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 . Next I believe in Democracy and following our Constitution as it was signed and voted on by the people of Canada. You are the one arguing against it. Well you and Steven Harper and his Alberta Firewall letter. Interesting. So tell me about the opting out clause again....since you think you are a constitutional expert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Which one is the clarity act? Was the question too difficult? Didn't get your talking points on that? Never mind, the NPDs pandering to separatists is well known...especially in regards to the Clarity act you hypocritically brought up... poor punked... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Interesting. So tell me about the opting out clause again....since you think you are a constitutional expert. You do know the Clarity act is not part of the Constitution right? As of right now there are two separate laws on the books one Federal and one provincial. The Courts have said they will not touch either until if and when a province wins a separation vote however it seems clear that if a clear majority of the population vote for separation the government of Canada would be forced into negotiation of separation which when finished might lead to a price to high for separation of that province. However if you think the Clarity act would ever stop a driven population from separating than you live in lala land my friend. Seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 You also told me that you don't believe in the Constitution of this great nation of ours when I said the same thing. Hold on...before I call you a liar and an idiot, be so kind as to quote where I said the above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Was the question too difficult? Didn't get your talking points on that? Never mind, the NPDs pandering to separatists is well known...especially in regards to the Clarity act you hypocritically brought up... poor punked... I was making a point that you think a "Former" Separatist could never be a Federalist even though the Clarity act which you seem to be enamored with was written by a Separatist. You know I was just pointing more of your hypocrisy. What do we have so far? Oh yeah: You don't actually believe in the Canadian Constitution You support former Bloc members who are now Conservatives You love the clarity act written by a former Separatist I think those are just the ones from your last 4 posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 You do know the Clarity act is not part of the Constitution right? What is the NPD's position on the Federal law known as the Clarity Act? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 I was making a point that you think a "Former" Separatist could never be a Federalist even though the Clarity act which you seem to be enamored with was written by a Separatist. You know I was just pointing more of your hypocrisy. What do we have so far? Oh yeah: You don't actually believe in the Canadian Constitution You support former Bloc members who are now Conservatives You love the clarity act written by a former Separatist I think those are just the ones from your last 4 posts. Delusional much? Or have you decided to come unarmed to a battle of wits? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Hold on...before I call you a liar and an idiot, be so kind as to quote where I said the above. Where you supported Harpers Firewall letter which clearly does not support the Equalization section of the Constitution. Unless do you want to make it clear right now you do not support Harpers past stances on Alberta with holding Federal payments which are clearly laid out in the Constitution. If so and you think Harper's past was just as bad as the NDP leaders please come out and say and we will move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 What is the NPD's position on the Federal law known as the Clarity Act? It is the same as most on the supreme courts and the international courts. No law passed with out the input of or agreement of the people it targets is going to stop those people from doing what they think is right. Why does that not make sense to you? All provinces joined Confederation under the idea that they may if they so choose, then you change the rules on them with out telling them? Sounds kinda unfair. Lucky for Canada and Quebec that we have worked well together and both populations are happy with our system eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.