Sep 17 leaders debate

[G Huxley]

"What do you define as significant? Quebec is about 23% of Canada, population wise. Even if every person in Quebec voted for this party they wouldn't have a chance of getting in however you think they should represent Canada as a whole?"

Each segment makes up the whole. Almost a quarter of Canada's population is a very significant amount, but the number is irrelevant. What matters is that the Quebecers deserve the representation they choose just like everyone else.

Most voters don't feel the conservative party represents them, so the idea that the reigning party represents all Canadians is false.

"I didn't ask if you have or would vote for them, I am asking if you 'can' vote for them. If you don't live in Quebec then you certainly cannot vote for them. Democracy is about choice....so how's my inability to vote for the Bloc democratic? Its not."

You can still vote for them. You could write Gilles Duceppe in on the ballot.

"

Again...this is all about being given the opportunity to choose the party which the Bloc will never do outside of Quebec. Hence should not be considered a national party. "

When you vote you aren't necessarily voting for the next national party. Some people vote for who the opposition will be. I've never voted for a party that won Nationally.

Also there was a time when it looked likely the Bloc was going to be part of a national coalition. So if that came to pass they would have been part of a National government.

Edited September 19, 2015 by G Huxley

[Argus]

Providing you ignore Germany, whose productivity is so high that it has basically been keeping an ailing Eurozone afloat single-handed.

I think it's more like the reverse, actually. Absent the Eurozone's captive market Germany would be in serious trouble.

[hitops]

Providing you ignore Germany, whose productivity is so high that it has basically been keeping an ailing Eurozone afloat single-handed.

No Germany got bonked just like everyone in the crisis, with real GDP falling from +3.3% in 2007 to -5.1% in 2009, along with declines in hours worked and productivity per hour when all previous years were increases.

Canada had real GDP fall from +2% to -2.7% in those same years. Both Germany and Canada bounced back in 2010.

However although they got bonked, they still looked good relative to their neighbours. The reason German looks good in the eurozone is because of the common currency. Normally lesser performing countries will have their currency fall and become more competitive, but when you share a currency obviously that doesn't happen. So Germany exports do not become more expensive as they normally would for their neighbours, and their exporting therefore remains high.

Without that artificial advantage, they would have suffered more, as Argus says above. The fact that as you say, Germany is holding Europe up, is actually a bad thing because the main effect is holding the Euro up, making it more difficult for other euro countries to recover.

Edited September 19, 2015 by hitops

[G Huxley]

The reason that Canada did better in the crisis than our neighbours down south is that we had more financial regulation in place and the high oil prices were boueying the dollar/economy.

Edited September 20, 2015 by G Huxley

[SpankyMcFarland]

Not better than 'the rest'. Obviously nations catching up in development like China and India are going to have better performance on growth, but compared to the US and Europe, ya we did quite well, very near or at the best. The whole developed world has sucked during this time, we just sucked somewhat less. Obviously Harper cannot do anything about the housing and then liquidity crisis from the US to the rest of the world, nor falling oil prices recently. Given the various trials over the last decade, he was in general quite competent.By far the most harmful thing he did is never mentioned - in 2007 allowing people to get no money down, 40 years mortgages with CMHC insurance. It was the spark that lit the housing bubble, by far the biggest threat to our economy currently. A very stupid, very un-conservative move.

Canada deserves praise over the past twenty years - not one man. This is a well run country. It was well run when Harper became PM.

Edited September 20, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

Since we've actually gained ground on most of the rest of them in terms of size, any more seems like the wrong thing to say there.

We are the smallest, right? Or are we in the middle of the pack now? So it is a little silly to compare ourselves to much bigger economies.

[Smallc]

We are the smallest, right? Or are we in the middle of the pack now? So it is a little silly to compare ourselves to much bigger economies.

We were always the smallest. If you expand your search to smaller European economies and Australia, we're still well in the top half of the pack.

[Accountability Now]

Most voters don't feel the conservative party represents them, so the idea that the reigning party represents all Canadians is false.

You can still vote for them. You could write Gilles Duceppe in on the ballot

When you vote you aren't necessarily voting for the next national party. Some people vote for who the opposition will be. I've never voted for a party that won Nationally.

.

I've never said the reigning party is the National party, I said any party that runs in every province with a number of candidates is a national party. The NDP are a national party and they have never reigned. I would also consider the Greens to be national. Not the Bloc though. By my definition there are four national parties.

I could write Gilles Duceppe. I could also write Scooby Doo. Both would result in me spoiling my ballot and not actually voting for anyone. I can only vote for Gilles if he was in my riding. My point is that I don't even have the option to vote for the Bloc and choice is the key thing in democracy.

[G Huxley]

Parties can be regional. That's part of Democracy in Canada.

Edited September 20, 2015 by G Huxley

[Accountability Now]

Parties can be regional. That's part of Democracy in Canada.

Again...that is why we have provinces and provincial elections. But I really dont care if the Bloc wants to run federally but I just wouldn't want to hear any complaints if they weren't treated as a federal party

[cybercoma]

Again...that is why we have provinces and provincial elections. But I really dont care if the Bloc wants to run federally but I just wouldn't want to hear any complaints if they weren't treated as a federal party

That's not why we have provinces. We have provinces because they were independent states that came into a federation with each other. The provinces have separate legal jurisdictions from the federal government, as outlined in s. 91 and 92 of the constitution. A province that wants to leave confederation is a federal concern AND a local concern. It's only through a federal party can they appropriately negotiate this in a democratic way that doesn't involve taking up arms.

[ToadBrother]

That's not why we have provinces. We have provinces because they were independent states that came into a federation with each other. The provinces have separate legal jurisdictions from the federal government, as outlined in s. 91 and 92 of the constitution. A province that wants to leave confederation is a federal concern AND a local concern. It's only through a federal party can they appropriately negotiate this in a democratic way that doesn't involve taking up arms.

Exactly. It really does seem as if a lot of people are ignorant of this country's history.

[Bob Macadoo]

Exactly. It really does seem as if a lot of people are ignorant of this country's history.

Life's easier that way. Pass the poutine.

[Accountability Now]

That's not why we have provinces. We have provinces because they were independent states that came into a federation with each other.

Thanks for the history lesson however I wasn't talking about the reason provinces were formed I was talking about the role they play in today's world in that they give us a regional representation. There are many things that happen at the provincial level that are of no concern to the nation.

The provinces have separate legal jurisdictions from the federal government, as outlined in s. 91 and 92 of the constitution.

Which is why I was saying they represent a regional concern...because they have their own jurisdictions.

A province that wants to leave confederation is a federal concern AND a local concern. It's only through a federal party can they appropriately negotiate this in a democratic way that doesn't involve taking up arms.

A province that legitimately wants to leave would be a federal concern however anytime they have addressed this question it was asked provincially and it never made it to the next level. If it was truly a federal issue then why does the ROC not get to vote on it? Quebec as a region has contemplated the idea of separation. And as a region they voted not to pursue it, yet. When they do then it becomes an issue. In either case, you do not need a federal party to make that happen.

[cybercoma]

I'm going to assume your "why doesn't the ROC get to decide whether or not Québec leaves?" as rhetorical, but not very well thought out. I'll just let you think about that one for a little bit.

[Accountability Now]

I'm going to assume your "why doesn't the ROC get to decide whether or not Québec leaves?" as rhetorical, but not very well thought out. I'll just let you think about that one for a little bit.

Your judgement on what is "very well thought' out has never been very good so your above comment really means nothing to me. What you apparently need time to think about is that its not a federal issue until Quebec makes it one. At this point its all talk with the two referendums they've had on this issue resulting in a no. When that referendum is yes then its an issue. In the mean time, having a regional party at the federal level who's only purpose in life is to remove that party from the country is not what I would view as a proper federal party.

[Evening Star]

A province that legitimately wants to leave would be a federal concern however anytime they have addressed this question it was asked provincially and it never made it to the next level. If it was truly a federal issue then why does the ROC not get to vote on it? Quebec as a region has contemplated the idea of separation. And as a region they voted not to pursue it, yet. When they do then it becomes an issue. In either case, you do not need a federal party to make that happen.

Yeah, this basically sounds correct to me. It's not like the BQ has ever been in government, nor could they be except as part of some coalition, so I am not sure how they would even negotiate this if things got to this stage. Negotiations would take place between QC's provincial government and the federal government, which would most likely be led by the Liberals, Conservatives, or NDP. The BQ did not even exist at the time of the 1980 referendum.

Edit: I've got no problem with them being in national debates, though. Duceppe has added value before.

Edited September 21, 2015 by Evening Star

[Accountability Now]

Edit: I've got no problem with them being in national debates, though. Duceppe has added value before.

I think there are about 20 registered parties. At what point would you make the cut off to who can and cannot come to the debates?

[Evening Star]

I think there are about 20 registered parties. At what point would you make the cut off to who can and cannot come to the debates?

'Seat in the House' and 'official party status' both seem like fair criteria to me. By one standard, the BQ would be excluded; by the other, they would be included.

[cybercoma]

Your judgement on what is "very well thought' out has never been very good so your above comment really means nothing to me. What you apparently need time to think about is that its not a federal issue until Quebec makes it one. At this point its all talk with the two referendums they've had on this issue resulting in a no. When that referendum is yes then its an issue. In the mean time, having a regional party at the federal level who's only purpose in life is to remove that party from the country is not what I would view as a proper federal party.

Then you would prefer guns and bombs, right?

[Accountability Now]

Then you would prefer guns and bombs, right?

Do you always use strawmen argument? Seriously....where in anything I said would you conclude that I am looking at guns or bombs. That is clearly your level of comprehension or lack there of.

If Quebec ever wants out then they can leave. The ROC can't do anything to stop that nor should we try (and that includes by force). The point that I keep making, hoping that it will eventually sink in, is that until Quebec actually decides as a region that they want to leave then the issue is entirely regional and not federal. If you think its Federal then why do the ROC not have any input?

Just so you think I'm not biased against Quebec, I also feel that any other party in a similar situation would be the same...for example the Western Block Party (http://www.westernblockparty.com/wsps.htm).%C2'>

[ToadBrother]

Do you always use strawmen argument? Seriously....where in anything I said would you conclude that I am looking at guns or bombs. That is clearly your level of comprehension or lack there of.

If Quebec ever wants out then they can leave. The ROC can't do anything to stop that nor should we try (and that includes by force). The point that I keep making, hoping that it will eventually sink in, is that until Quebec actually decides as a region that they want to leave then the issue is entirely regional and not federal. If you think its Federal then why do the ROC not have any input?

Just so you think I'm not biased against Quebec, I also feel that any other party in a similar situation would be the same...for example the Western Block Party (

The ROC cannot reasonably stop it, but it can put conditions on that departure; and not just in the number of votes it requires to leave. There are issues surrounding the national debt, not to mention potential territorial issues that would have to be negotiated. For instance, when it comes to First Nations living in Quebec's territory, the Crown has a rather strong obligation. What if those First Nations decide they don't to leave? What if a majority in Montreal decide they wish to stay in Canada?

In other words, the act of secession is more than just a vote. It is about the negotiations that would go on afterwards, and however those would proceed would very much be Canada's concern.

[Accountability Now]

The ROC cannot reasonably stop it, but it can put conditions on that departure; and not just in the number of votes it requires to leave. There are issues surrounding the national debt, not to mention potential territorial issues that would have to be negotiated. For instance, when it comes to First Nations living in Quebec's territory, the Crown has a rather strong obligation. What if those First Nations decide they don't to leave? What if a majority in Montreal decide they wish to stay in Canada?

In other words, the act of secession is more than just a vote. It is about the negotiations that would go on afterwards, and however those would proceed would very much be Canada's concern.

And none of that stuff matters until Quebec actually decides they want out.

[ToadBrother]

And none of that stuff matters until Quebec actually decides they want out.

But even the nature of the question is currently a Federal concern. The Clarity Act gives the Federal Government a direct voice in the referendum question and what a successful secession result would look like.

[Accountability Now]

But even the nature of the question is currently a Federal concern.

Sure...you can have it on your radar but having it in the House of Commons is putting the cart in front of the horse. If Quebec wants to separate then have them elect the PQ. When they have repeatedly elected the PQ, then have another referendum. When the referendum votes yes. Now its time to act. Its not like they will separate immediately. Remember...a referendum is only asking the question.

The Clarity Act gives the Federal Government a direct voice in the referendum question and what a successful secession result would look like.

The referendum question has always answered with a no.

I'm not saying that the Feds can't pour time and/or effort into this issue....but do we really need a party at the Federal level to represent the issue when on a regional level they continue to say no?