M.Dancer Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Going so far as having the Anti-Federalist leader Harper write an article detailing how Alberta should break this law in the article "Separatism Alberta style"? Are you wearing canadian made or internationally made tinfoil? It's a rather short article...please cite the so-called details about how alberta would break this imaginary law of yours... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Yes I disagree that the Canada act is part of the constitution and that its function is to make things comparable. Because they aren't. Try having a major heart attack in iqaluit...and another in Toronto. Try getting a midwife in Red Deer...and in Montreal... bah...socialists and their utopian bullpoop... Thanks for pointing out that you do not believe in the Canada Act, Federalism and this is the view of most Conservative who want the NDP leaders head for not being enough of Federalist even though she is more of a Federalist then you are. From PART III EQUALIZATION AND REGIONAL DISPARITIES of the Canada Act. (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.(19) Next time please read the document you are referring to ok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 (edited) Turmel vs. Lebel: their sovereigntist ties How long were they members of a sovereigntist party? Turmel held a Bloc membership for just over four years, from December 2006 until January 2011. She became an NDP candidate shortly afterward. It's unclear when Turmel became a member of Quebec Solidaire, but it only formed as a provincial political party in November 2006. Turmel did not give up her membership in the provincial party until it became controversial last week. Lebel was a member of the Bloc for eight years, from July 1993 until April 2001. In the summer of 1993, the Bloc was fighting its first federal election campaign under leader Lucien Bouchard. (The party became the official Opposition that fall.) Lebel was still a Bloc member when he was elected mayor of Roberval in 2000. Why were they members of a sovereigntist party? Turmel says she took out a Bloc membership to "support a friend": then-BQ MP Carole Lavallée. She says she agrees with some of the Bloc's policies, but not its position on national unity. When Turmel served as the head of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the national federal civil servants' union endorsed Bloc Québécois candidates. Of Quebec Solidaire, Turmel told Rosemary Barton on Power & Politics that her support for the provincial party was based on the fact that "they work on issues for Quebec families." She says Quebec Solidaire spokesperson (the party does not have a leader in the traditional sense) Françoise David is also a friend of hers. Lebel explains his Bloc membership as part of his political and community involvement more generally in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-John region of Quebec, a nationalist stronghold. He told Radio-Canada that he wanted to get closer to then-MP Michel Gauthier, who became the leader of the Bloc after Lucien Bouchard left to become premier of Quebec in 1996. How active and committed were they to the sovereigntist cause? Turmel says that despite her memberships and the small donations (totalling $235) she made in support of her friend Lavallée, she was never active in the sovereignty movement per se. Her past work as a national union leader did find her on common ground with the Bloc on other social and justice issues. She maintains that she is and always has been a federalist. Turmel has disclosed that she voted against separation in both of Quebec's sovereignty referendums. Lebel says that despite his membership and small donations (a few hundred dollars), he never actively campaigned for the Bloc, although he did attend Bloc events and participated in partisan activities. A party organizer for the Bloc during that time period supports his claim not to have been a party activist or strong campaigner. Lebel told reporters in 2007 that he is a Quebec nationalist. Lebel has not disclosed how he voted in Quebec's sovereignty referendums. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2011/08/09/pol-lebel-bloc.html Edited August 10, 2011 by mentalfloss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Hold on wait a Minute do not even know what the Canada act is? You seriously don't know it is the Constitution? WOW how ignorant are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Hold on wait a Minute do not even know what the Canada act is? You seriously don't know it is the Constitution? WOW how ignorant are you? Well. I am about 10 times smarter than you...so go figure it from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Next time please read the document you are referring to ok? You mean the part where I SAID it is concerned with funding, not delivery...or the part where I said the liberals slashed funding...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 You mean the part where I SAID it is concerned with funding, not delivery...or the part where I said the liberals slashed funding...? But it is very specific that it does not address funding. It addresses both funding and delivery. It says the funding must be to provide comparable levels of delivery. Would you like me to post some legal papers which argue this section of the Constitution to prove you are wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 But it is very specific that it does not address funding. It addresses both funding and delivery. It says the funding must be to provide comparable levels of delivery. Would you like me to post some legal papers which argue this section of the Constitution to prove you are wrong? Here....let me help you... 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 They provide the funding, the provinces provide the delivery. There is no wiggle room here. The delivery differs greatly from province to province....you can't argue it isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Are you wearing canadian made or internationally made tinfoil? It's a rather short article...please cite the so-called details about how alberta would break this imaginary law of yours... waiting...hoepfully before your tin foil corrodes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Here....let me help you... 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 They provide the funding, the provinces provide the delivery. There is no wiggle room here. The delivery differs greatly from province to province....you can't argue it isn't. What are you talking about? Yes the provinces provide delivery however it is the Federal government's job to make sure that delivery is the same across the board. Welcome to Federalism 101. I notice how you have changed your opinion though and also how you now disagree with Harper's stance on Alberta holding back their equalization that we wrote about in 2000. Again stop trying to have it two ways. Typical conservative talking about of both sides of his mouth and lying out of each one. So you disagree with Harpers stance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 (edited) What are you talking about? Yes the provinces provide delivery however it is the Federal government's job to make sure that delivery is the same across the board. Something they plainly do not do. Welcome to Federalism 101. I notice how you have changed your opinion though and also how you now disagree with Harper's stance on Alberta holding back their equalization that we wrote about in 2000. Again stop trying to have it two ways. Typical conservative talking about of both sides of his mouth and lying out of each one. So you disagree with Harpers stance? What are you babbling about? No I agree with harpers comment. Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status, led by a second-world strongman appropriately suited for the task. Albertans would be fatally ill-advised to view this situation as amusing or benign. Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous. It can revel in calling its American neighbours names because they are too big and powerful to care. But the attitudes toward Alberta so successfully exploited in this election will have inevitable consequences the next time Canada enters a recession or needs an internal enemy. Having hit a wall, the next logical step is not to bang our heads against it. It is to take the bricks and begin building another home — a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become “maitres chez nous.” In one policy area after another, the province of Quebec, with much less financial independence than Alberta, has taken initiatives to ensure it is controlled by its own culture and its own majority. Such a strategy across a range of policy areas will quickly put Alberta on the cutting edge of a world where the region, the continent and the globe are becoming more important than the nation-state. It is true that any achievement by Alberta will only generate more hostility from other quarters of Canada in the short term, but it will just as certainly put them under considerable pressure to evolve and progress. On the other hand, we should not mimic Quebec by lunging from rejection into the arms of an argument about separation. As that province has shown, separation will simply divide our population in a symbolic debate while, still part of the country, it isolates us from any allies. Separation will become a real issue the day the federal government decides to make it one. Neither should Albertans shun federal politics, but we must carefully guard our interests. Much about the Canadian Alliance is worthy of support, and a large number of Canadians do support it. But the CA will be under considerable pressure to rid itself of any tinge of a Western agenda or Alberta control. This we must fight. If the Alliance is ever to become a party that could be lead by a Paul Martin or a Joe Clark, it must do so without us. We don’t need a second Liberal party. Are you ready to explain how this details breaking the imaginary law of yours...? Edited August 10, 2011 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Something they plainly do not do. What are you babbling about? No I agree with harpers comment. Are you ready to explain how this details breaking the imaginary law of yours...? I am sorry you are right it was his Alberta Firewall letter where he urged his government to break the Canada act. • Resume provincial responsibility for health-care policy. If Ottawa objects to provincial policy, fight in the courts. If we lose, we can afford the financial penalties that Ottawa may try to impose under the Canada Health Act. Albertans deserve better than the long waiting periods and technological backwardness that are rapidly coming to characterize Canadian medicine. Alberta should also argue that each province should raise its own revenue for health care – i.e., replace Canada Health and Social Transfer cash with tax points as Quebec has argued for many years. Poorer provinces would continue to rely on Equalization to ensure they have adequate revenues. See how he is agree with long time Separatist policies? Harper hates federalism. So you agree with the Separatist that runs the country now? Should the West break the Constitution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 I am sorry you are right it was his Alberta Firewall letter where he urged his government to break the Canada act. See how he is agree with long time Separatist policies? Harper hates federalism. So you agree with the Separatist that runs the country now? Should the West break the Constitution? You realize that it would not "break" the constitution... don't you. I mean partisan rhetorical hackery is one thing...but partisan rhetorical stupidity is quite another. ...nor is any of that, separatist policies....just about all of Quebec's moves to greater autonomy came under the Duplessis, Lesage (especially Lesage, Maitres Chez Nous dontcha know) and Bourassa regimes. So you want to call that illegal too? You want to say that Quebec has broken the constitution?/ Would you say it on the podium of the next NPD convention? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 I am sorry you are right it was his Alberta Firewall letter where he urged his government to break the Canada act. See how he is agree with long time Separatist policies? Harper hates federalism. So you agree with the Separatist that runs the country now? Should the West break the Constitution? So you believe that Albertans deserve long waiting periods and technological backwardness that are rapidly coming to characterize Canadian medicine.....jst because BC and Ontario does...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 So you believe that Albertans deserve long waiting periods and technological backwardness that are rapidly coming to characterize Canadian medicine.....jst because BC and Ontario does...? No see how you are changing the argument? My question is do you agree with what the PM at the time said when he was agree with the Bloc and PQ saying that Alberta should break the Canada act? Also would you say what he was arguing for is not Federalism but very opposite of that? I am just proving my point that Conservatives don't know what Federalism is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 You are also allowed to say you are ignorant of the Federalist laws which govern this country of course.It appears by completely ignoring everything you've said, that's exactly what ol' Morris has done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 No see how you are changing the argument? My question is do you agree with what the PM at the time said when he was agree with the Bloc and PQ saying that Alberta should break the Canada act? Also would you say what he was arguing for is not Federalism but very opposite of that? I am just proving my point that Conservatives don't know what Federalism is. Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is a system in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists. In Canada, federalism typically implies opposition to sovereigntist movements (most commonly Quebec separatism). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism You still seem stuck on the difference between being a federalist and federalism. The Bloq and the PQ said that Alberta should break the Canada Act? Hmmm...I thought it was an original idea. Why should a province be married to a federal policy that fails the province? You agree then, sub-standard care for all....simply because you think a nice big central government is somehow what Canada is? Sorry, that fat pig don't fly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 It appears by completely ignoring everything you've said, that's exactly what ol' Morris has done. That was my only point. Conservatives love to pretend they are huge Federalist as long as it means Trashing Quebec however when you ask them about their beliefs and ideas they are closer to the Bloc then the NDP. It is easy for them to be against Separatism while agreeing with the Separatist. It is this talking out of both sides of their mouth that gets them elected. Fact is though the NDP leader is more of a Federalist then the PM when we compare their past statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 (edited) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism You still seem stuck on the difference between being a federalist and federalism. The Bloq and the PQ said that Alberta should break the Canada Act? Hmmm...I thought it was an original idea. Why should a province be married to a federal policy that fails the province? You agree then, sub-standard care for all....simply because you think a nice big central government is somehow what Canada is? Sorry, that fat pig don't fly... No I think in a strong Federation Citizens are entitled to the same standards across their country. You know I believe in what Federalism is, and has always been in this country. Nice link what a Federation is that doesn't speak to what the Definition of Federalism is in Canada and what Referendums have been fought over. Seriously please learn some history of our great country what political terms mean in this country and educate yourself. Maybe then you wont go on witch hunts when the real anti-Federalist witch is leading the country. PS I just want to note you can be an Anti-Federalist in this country that isn't a crime it is a legitimate belief. You however can not be an Anti-Federalist who hates the Constitution this country is government by while at same time lying about it and even worse labeling those who believe in Federalism as Separatists. That is wrong. It might be good politics but it is wrong. Edited August 10, 2011 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 No I think in a strong Federation Citizens are entitled to the same standards across their country. You know I believe in what Federalism is, and has always been in this country. Nice link what a Federation is that doesn't speak to what the Definition of Federalism is in Canada and what Referendums have been fought over. Seriously please learn some history of our great country what political terms mean in this country and educate yourself. Maybe then you wont go on witch hunts when the real anti-Federalist witch is leading the country. PS I just want to note you can be an Anti-Federalist in this country that isn't a crime it is a legitimate belief. You however can not be an Anti-Federalist who hates the Constitution this country is government by while at same time lying about it and even worse labeling those who believe in Federalism Separatists. That is wrong. It might be good politics but it is wrong. Oh..so now you are arguing we are a federation.....how convenient for you Again not a Federation remember CONFEDERATION July 1, 1867? We are a confederation. You remind me of the bass my son caught on the week-end...flip flop flip flop In fact Harper in 2000 spoke of Alberta separating if they did not get the powers they wanted because he did not like the rules that the Confederation we have. Yes that Harper PM Harper is a bit of separatist himself. He certainly is a hypocrite. Of course he didn't, but honestly is not your card to play right now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 No see how you are changing the argument? My question is do you agree with what the PM at the time said when he was agree with the Bloc and PQ saying that Alberta should break the Canada act? Also would you say what he was arguing for is not Federalism but very opposite of that? I am just proving my point that Conservatives don't know what Federalism is. How many times must I say it. Yes I agree with Harper. Breaking the Canada Act is not breaking the constitution...it is however fixing the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Oh..so now you are arguing we are a federation.....how convenient for you It is like you can't fallow anything that is said anywhere. We are a Confederation. The Wiki page you posted to is the Definition of what a Federation is. None of this has to do with the political idea in Canada of what Federalism is. Which is power which lies in our Federal government and the powers that provinces agreed to with our constitution. None of this stuff is mutuality exclusive. You really need to educate yourself on this country and what terms mean. You remind me of the bass my son caught on the week-end...flip flop flip flop I can see how someone who knows nothing about the Canadian government, and political system would think that. Fact is Canada is a Confederation which means provinces are allowed to leave if they want to. However if they stay in the Confederation they must adhere to our Constitution and Central government thus Federalism vs. Separatism. Of course he didn't, but honestly is not your card to play right now You really have never read the Firewall letter have you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 (edited) How many times must I say it. Yes I agree with Harper. Breaking the Canada Act is not breaking the constitution...it is however fixing the problem. The Canada Act is the name the Canadian Constitution took when it was amended in the 1980s. They are one in the same. Wow you really don't know anything do you? You and Harper are not Federalist and are quite clearly less Federalist then the NDP leader. That has been my point this whole time. Thank you for proving my point. Edited August 10, 2011 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 The Canada Act is the name the Canadian Constitution took when it was amended in the 1980s. They are one in the same. Wow you really don't know anything do you? You and Harper are not Federalist and are quite clearly less Federalist then the NDP leader. That has been my point this whole time. Thank you for proving my point. 'scuse me..Canada Health Act Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 'scuse me..Canada Health Act Yah Social transfers and Equalization are again right there in the Constitution. The Health act was created to address the idea that each province should have "comparable" levels of programs. The health act is there to say what comparable means. So yes when breaking it you are breaking the Constitution. 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.