Spaghetti Canadian style

[Nostromo]

And Canadian voters may be the meatballs. :headscratch: :wink: :D N

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20081127%2fTories_fiscal_0811 28

[Space Tycoon]

Right idea, wrong time to do it. Not when there are so many other issues competing for Canadians' attention.

No more shocks please. Straight and steady should be the way to go right now.






.

[Space Tycoon]

This is just getting dumber and dumberer. (http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=1018614)

I can't say I was ever a huge fan of Stephen Harper's leadership, but I always regarded him as an intelligent, self-assured politician who knew how to win elections and hold on to power.

Now his gambling streak has finally hit the wall. We may very well see a bizarre left-wing coalition seize power, headed by one of the biggest losers in Liberal Party history!

God, if that happens I'm moving to a country with a functioning, democratic, constitutional political system.

Like, say, the United States of America! :smirk:







.

[neglet]

:popcorn:

This is something to consider any time I get fed up with our current gerrymandered, not-so-representative two-party system.

[Nostromo]

"There's too much confusion here - I can't get no relief."

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20081202%2fcrisis_GG_081203

N

[Bill_the_Pony]

Like, say, the United States of America! :smirk:





I was thinking of someplace like Amsterdam or Switzerland.... :o

No rednecks. :)

[Nostromo]

and the winner is ...............

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20081204%2fGG_decision_081204

N

[KingVoyeur]

Not being familiar with Canuck ways, please explain what this will mean for Canada in 5-year old American terms. :popcorn:

[Nostromo]

Means the minority government has bought itself some time. It will deliver a budget in late January after which, the House will vote to approve or reject. The coalition made up of the Liberal, New Democratic and Bloc Quebecois have enough members together, to defeat the budget, causing the government to fall. At that point the coalition could go to the Governor General (the Queen's representative in Canada) and request that it (the coalition) be allowed to form a government.

Over the last couple of days, a variety of public opinion polls have shown clearly that the majority of Canadians do not want a coalition government.
So chances are - the Governor General would order dissolution and there'd be an election. A poll released just this morning shows if an election were held now, the Conservatives would capture 44% of the popular vote. That's considerably more than what they won in the last election in October and, enough to form a majority government.

Space ... you want to weigh in... ????

N :)

[Space Tycoon]

I'd say that's about right.

This constitutional crisis bears some comparisons to the 2000 US elections, in which the losing candidate was put into office by appointed officials--essentially allowing the loser to legally steal the election. Except without the hanging chads. (http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w121/rednekprep/chad.jpg)

So Conservative popularity is higher as a result of all this. The conspiracist in me thinks this was the idea all along... if so then Harper is an even bigger gambler than I thought. Serious brinksmanship. Although the Conservatives have conveniently forgotten their own flritation with separatists over the years.

This whole affair has exposed the polarization that has been growing in Canadian society lo these past several years. Left versus right; urban vs suburban vs rural; Central Canada vs east and western provinces; and so forth. A lot of pent-up anger out there. But I'm glad to see Canadians from all walks of life had the stones to finally get out there and stand up to this assault upon the fundamentals of democracy.

The other day I rode a cab with a Pakistani driver, with whom I couldn't have had less in common, but the first thing he said to me as I entered ther cab was about the politicians in Ottawa. It seems to me that the left in this country have taken voters for granted for too long. They assumed this Frankenstein's Monster (http://www.bigrockcandymountain.racknine.net/juke/Karloff,%252520Boris%252520(Frankenstein)_01.jpg)o f a coalition would guarantee them an easy journey back into power, but their arrogance has cost them.

Let's hope that if there is another election early next year, that people remember their anger, instead of forgetting as we so often do.






.

[Monic]

As a Quebecker, and an elector who is presently represented at Ottawa by the Bloc Quebecois, I'm offended and pissed off by Harper's discours. During the last election in October, the Bloc Quebecois was elected by less then 40% of the Quebec votes, exactly like Harper with less than 40% of the Canadian votes. But that we want it or not, the Bloc Quebecois is now representing a big majority of the Quebec electors. The other 2 parties in the Coalition don't ally themselves with Separatists but with another party who is representing ««CANADIAN»» electors who are not separatists in a proportion of more than 60%! It is outrageous for Harper to use the separatist card to try to diminish the importance of the Coalition against him.

Furthermore, what the Coalition wants to do is not illegale in regards of the Canadian Constitution (Laws). Harper is trying to make it look like a "coup", like someone is trying to steal the power, but it is far from the truth. The Coalition is representing more than 60% of the population, it is not like they have not been elected properly! But no worry, it will not happen. We will have another election before Spring.

NOTE: For those who don't know the Canadian Election System...
Canada is separated in Counties, each represented by a Deputy. When it is election time, each Politic Party can present a candidate in each Counties. We, electors, are voting for our favorite candidate in our residential County. The Party who wins more Counties is elected, and his/her leader becomes Canada Prime Minister. And each candidate who was elected in each County become Deputy at the Commune Chamber, and has the right to vote. But that a Party wins all its Counties by 52% of the votes or lose all the others by 98% of the vote is not relevant. If the Party wins more Counties, the Party wins the election. That's why it is possible to be elected as Prime Minister with less than 40% of the votes.

[Scotia]

I tend to agree with Monic. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional going on here. What the coalition attempted is perfectly acceptable under our current parliamentary system. In truth, we elect a House of Commons not a Prime Minister. If the PM looses their confidence then the government falls. Nothing undemocratic there, imo and in the eyes of most constitutional experts. Harper going to the GG to suspend Parliament is a much more dubious maneuver, I think, because it undermines the will of the House.

What's going on is not so much a usurping of power as it is a rarely seen phenomenon in North American politics.

[Nostromo]

I agree that Harper is playing dirty pool with the rest of them and he's not an honest man but ... the idea of any coalition involving Separatists is just too much.

One thing history has repeatedly shown is that the morning after you sleep with separatists - Bloc or PQ, the price you pay is always more than you bargained for. I have no problem with Quebecers voting for a separatist party. But the next time there's a referendum, please vote to leave confederation. As an anglophone with French Canadian heritage, I'm tired of being held hostage every couple of decades and paying ransom in-between.

The purpose of the Bloc and the PQ is to shakedown Canada. To date, Quebec has vacuumed billions of dollars from the pockets of English Canada. We've given willingly but repayment is always a kick in the head or more threats to leave the play ground. Enough already.

N

[Woodwraith]

And I thought our politics was confusing. :confused:

[Scotia]

I agree that Harper is playing dirty pool with the rest of them and he's not an honest man but ... the idea of any coalition involving Separatists is just too much.

One thing history has repeatedly shown is that the morning after you sleep with separatists - Bloc or PQ, the price you pay is always more than you bargained for. I have no problem with Quebecers voting for a separatist party. But the next time there's a referendum, please vote to leave confederation. As an anglophone with French Canadian heritage, I'm tired of being held hostage every couple of decades and paying ransom in-between.

The purpose of the Bloc and the PQ is to shakedown Canada. To date, Quebec has vacuumed billions of dollars from the pockets of English Canada. We've given willingly but repayment is always a kick in the head or more threats to leave the play ground. Enough already.

N
Climbing into bed with the Bloc is not a recent trend by any means. Harper thought about it in 2004 and even sent a letter to the GG reminding her of her "options" just three months after Martin won his minority. The Allience did something similar (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081203.wquebec1203/BNStory/National/home) and even outlined a coalition involving the PC, NDP and Bloc in the case Chretien lost his majority. The proposed deal smacks of hypocrisy given the events of the last few days. Harper and company only want the support of the Bloc when it's politically convenient. Otherwise, the separatist fear mongering becomes more feigned and theatrical.

[Monic]

Scotia is right, and it's a reason why it so pissed me off.

In the past, the Bloc Quebecois was elected the first time to facilitate the transition to independance in case the Provincial Quebecois Party succeeded to do the independance of Quebec. It didn't happen. And since then, the Provincial Quebecois Party hasn't been in a position to even think about the independance. When elected, the population said "NO". And for the rest of the time, the Quebecois Party was in the opposition (like right now). And contrarily to some nasty uninformed opinions, the Bloc Quebecois is not elected to make troubles. It is there to defend the right of the Quebeckers, primary the French ones, but also the English ones.

If many Quebeckers still vote for the Bloc Quebecois, it's not because they are separatists still, it's because they are not presented with a better choice, a better option, to represent them at Ottawa. I know, because I am one of them! The Province of Quebec is a "distinct society", there is not doubt in my mind. And many of us thinks that we need a Party who understands that fact to represent us at Ottawa. There is nothing more to it.

Yes, I'm Quebecker first, but I'm also Canadian, and I'm d*mned proud of it! :)


The purpose of the Bloc and the PQ is to shakedown Canada. To date, Quebec has vacuumed billions of dollars from the pockets of English Canada. We've given willingly but repayment is always a kick in the head or more threats to leave the play ground. Enough already.

Last time I checked I pay taxes too. Taxes that was also used to defend and promote "English Canada" ideas and opinions. That's the point of the Federation.

[neglet]

:popcorn:

Please, go on.

[Space Tycoon]

Am I opposed to independence pour les Quebecois? Non.

If that is what the people of Quebec genuinely choose, then that is what they should receive. The right of dissatisfied peoples to secede is inherent. Canada should be no different from other lands in this regard. Just don't stick the rest of us with the bill when you do.

I have no issue with the people of Quebec. I have found French-Canadians to be intelligent, cultured cosmopolitans who are proud of their society and think globally. In the 1990's I was no great fan of Jean Chretien, but in retrospect, I'm glad we had a Quebecois Prime Minister who was willing to stand up to the Americans on the Iraq War-- which Harper foolishly supported...



What I am opposed to is this whole Canadian cottage industry that has grown up around the notions of "sovereignty," or "sovereignty-association," or "distinct society," or whatever else we are calling it this week. You are either a Canadian or you are not. It's that simple, my friends.

Nostromo is dead right in this regard, and he deserves my respect for bringing it to the forefront. French-Canadian separatists have hoovered up untold billions from the pockets of The Rest Of Canada for at least 30 years now, in the name of some outdated ideal of top-down Ottawa-based federalism. And they have been enabled by spineless, leftish politicians looking out for their own short-sighted ambitions. This is dishonest, it is corrupt, and frankly, it is racist.

Canada's future is neither Englsih nor French. Neither is it Irish or Scottish. This notion of two "founding races" may have held some quaint relevance 100 years ago but today it is totally inadequate. Canada's future is in the hands of, literally, millions of non-Western immigrants who want nothing to do with the whole Anglo/Franco schism.

Monique... you speak of French Canadian rights. And certainly I would agree, that there is unfinished business there. But let me tell you, on any given day I come into contact with people from all over the world who have suffered far more injustice and discrimination than you or I could possibly relate to. Croatians, Bosnians, Palestinians, Tibetans, Shiite Arabs, Christian Arabs, Ukrainians, Jamaicans, Tamils, Indians, Pakistanis, Kashmiris, Afghans, Vietnamese, Somalis, etc...... try selling Quebec sovereignty to any of these folks. They'll laugh at you.

Not because the Quebec cause is without merit, and not because English Canada has all the answers. It's just because, in the larger scheme of things, our problems are not that great.




Anyway, I've focused too much on the Bloc Qubecois angle of this current crisis. Fact is, I am more worried about the Socialist NDP having control over the next PM of this country. Socialism has been tried everywhere and it has failed everywhere. The Conservatives are not perfect, but at least they have kept Canada in the black, while the rest of North America moves into the red.


Then again, the NDP are the only party that have gotten it right about our involvement in Afghanistan, where over 100 Canadian troops have lost their lives, (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/12/05/america/NA-Canada-Afghanistan-100-Deaths.php) fighting for America's other oil war. So ultimately I can't say I'm exactly in love with either side.

That said, at least the Conservatives haven't had to steal what they've gained.








.

[Scotia]

Not interested in a sovereignty debate. The topic is a nonstarter for me since my position is essentially the same as yours, ST. And for the simple reason that sovereignty has already been talked to death. I swear to God, there isn't a Canadian alive that hasn't studied the issue to the point of apathetic indifference. An entire generation has been numbed into a state of disinterest because there is nothing left to say about Quebec and its desires to become an independent nation. I think it would be unfortunate and overall the country would be lesser for it, but if the people of the beautiful province ever decide to leave federation then so be it. The right to self-determination and all that good stuff must be observed.

Anyway, what's really fascinating to me is that we're having this conversation at all. For the last ten or fifteen years Quebec sovereignty has been a dead issue. A political football that even the PQ wanted to hold a little less snug. But the Conservatives turned the events of last week into a national unity crisis and that's what is so troubling to me. Why reopen old wounds and demonize the coalition when just a short time ago Harper would have gladly accepted Bloc support to topple Martin? His self-righteous indignation is so galling that I can't help but throw up a little in my own mouth. In truth it's a power struggle and Harper needs to come clean about that. He hasn't worked to "protect" our democracy, in fact he has accomplished the contrary. The House of Commons has been shut down and its will suppressed. Instead of addressing the worst economic storm in decades he sends the government on a seven week holiday. Instead of providing brave and thoughtful leadership he has cut and run. It’s outrageous and Canadians of every political colour should be scared shitless of this man’s lack of understanding and principles.

And then there's the precedent set by the Governor General. What's stopping future Prime Ministers from doing exactly what Harper did? Shutting down parliament is certainly an effective, albeit, undemocratic method to avoid a confidence vote. But it works I guess and that’s all that matters to this man. Overnight Stephen Harper has invented an escape hatch for all future minority governments.

[Monic]

I'm not interested in a sovereignty debate either. It was debated to death, and it will not happen anytime soon. It became uninteresting even for Quebeckers. We are fed up with it, even the ones who were "pro". The "Partie Québécois" didn't win the last few elections because of it. The "old guard" cannot just shup up about it, and it hurts the Party. The Party could have the most interesting ideas about other economic matters but a majority of Quebecois don't want to hear about the separation anymore.

I totally disagree with you, Space. Your opinion demonstrate your complete misunderstanding of the problem.

Scotia, I agree. That's exactly the reason why Harper pissed me off! I'm totally right with you on this subject.

[Space Tycoon]

Oh, I think I understand the problem well enough, Monic. ;)

What I do not understand is how Liberals and NDPers cannot see how cravenly opportunistic, cynical and sneaky this little abortion of an attempted power grab was. I blame the Tories for touching off this crisis; but I blame the opposition parties even more for trying to subvert Canadian democracy.

Legal or not, it was wrong. If this is in keeping with the norms of our system, then to quote Dirty Harry, "the system is crazy!" Whoever wins the next election should take all measures to ensure this never happens again. I have nothing against coalitions, often they are the only way for smaller parties to achieve any leverage at all. But any transition of power that takes place without the consent of the governed is anti-democratic, period. Wars, revolutions and terrorism have begun this way.

In any event, I see that Michael Ignatieff is the new Liberal leader. Can't say I like that one bit...







.

[Nostromo]

I'm not interested in a sovereignty debate either. It was debated to death, and it will not happen anytime soon. It became uninteresting even for Quebeckers. We are fed up with it, even the ones who were "pro". The "Partie Québécois" didn't win the last few elections because of it. The "old guard" cannot just shup up about it, and it hurts the Party. The Party could have the most interesting ideas about other economic matters but a majority of Quebecois don't want to hear about the separation anymore.

I totally disagree with you, Space. Your opinion demonstrate your complete misunderstanding of the problem.

Scotia, I agree. That's exactly the reason why Harper pissed me off! I'm totally right with you on this subject.

What is perplexing is, if Quebecer's are indeed fed up with the separatist issue, why did 1.3 million Quebec voters just cast a ballot for the Bloc and send 50 Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?

The Bloc is a separtist party. It represents one province in confederation with a mandate to withdraw Quebec from confederation. Parliament is a forum to govern Canada as a whole. MP's from other provinces stand up in the House and debate the issues as they pertain to their province but not to the exclusion or the expense of other provinces.

There's no justification to allow a separtist party to remain in Parliament.
So Quebec should decide to either leave Canada or stay. If the answer is stay, the Bloc must seek a new mandate that doesn't include separation or, the Bloc should be deregistered as a federal party in Canada.

N

[Monic]

Space: Oh, I think I understand the problem well enough, Monic. ;)

I was talking about the sovereignty problem not the Harper problem. And you indeed don't understand where we are coming from as French Quebeckers to have an opinon like this. Sorry.


Nostromo: What is perplexing is, if Quebecer's are indeed fed up with the separatist issue, why did 1.3 million Quebec voters just cast a ballot for the Bloc and send 50 Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?

I already answered that question... because there is no better alternative for us, no better option. The other parties don't seem to understand our unique situation (the distinct society). Or if they understand, they are very careful to not voice it, otherwise they will lose voters. At least, it is MY reason.

[Nostromo]

Monic wrote: I already answered that question... because there is no better alternative for us, no better option. The other parties don't seem to understand our unique situation (the distinct society). Or if they understand, they are very careful to not voice it, otherwise they will lose voters. At least, it is MY reason.

I understand that Monic - my mother is from Lac Megantic. Is it not possible for the Bloc to represent the unique position of Quebec (within) confederation, without having separation as part of the platform? N

[Space Tycoon]

I was talking about the sovereignty problem not the Harper problem. And you indeed don't understand where we are coming from as French Quebeckers to have an opinon like this. Sorry.


Instead of arguing with you, Monique, I will simply ask you to enlighten me. What don't I understand? Where am I wrong? And why?

Also, I'm interested to know how you would feel if a coalition of Quebec's Aboriginal tribes decided to form a provincial movement aimed at actuallizing certain land claims or other greivances....








.

[Monic]

Nostromo: I understand that Monic - my mother is from Lac Megantic. Is it not possible for the Bloc to represent the unique position of Quebec (within) confederation, without having separation as part of the platform?

It would be possible, and I hope they will make this next step... separating themselves from the Provincial Quebecois Party. I would vote for a Party like that, that Party being the Bloc or other.


Space: Instead of arguing with you, Monique, I will simply ask you to enlighten me. What don't I understand? Where am I wrong? And why?

Like I said, I don't want to enter in a Independance debate here. For me, it's in the past, and I would like it to be for everyone else. But when you write things like this:

Monique... you speak of French Canadian rights. And certainly I would agree, that there is unfinished business there. But let me tell you, on any given day I come into contact with people from all over the world who have suffered far more injustice and discrimination than you or I could possibly relate to. Croatians, Bosnians, Palestinians, Tibetans, Shiite Arabs, Christian Arabs, Ukrainians, Jamaicans, Tamils, Indians, Pakistanis, Kashmiris, Afghans, Vietnamese, Somalis, etc...... try selling Quebec sovereignty to any of these folks. They'll laugh at you.
Not because the Quebec cause is without merit, and not because English Canada has all the answers. It's just because, in the larger scheme of things, our problems are not that great.

It shows me that you don't understand the reasons why in 1970's an almost majority of Quebeckers were wishing for Independance.
It's not because the injustice or discrimination is not overwhelming that it is not debatable. We don't have to relate to the most unfair injustices and discrimnations to want to better our condition. It is unfair to ask us to shut up because we don't measure to those Countries. I will agree with you that Canada is one of the best Countries out there (for us, it is the best!), but it is not perfect. I will not excuse myself to want to make it better by pointing out what it is not working for me.

If only that Independance mouvement would have created a ground to discuss, to try to understand each other instead of divise us. Many of us, Quebeckers, are ready to move on, but it seems that our Federal Government is not ready to do so. Again Harper use the "bad separatists" card to divise us and win. When we want to leave Canada we shouldn't, but when we want to stay and participate in the Canadian debate, we are the bad separatists who shoud have no rights to speak. That's not fair!


Also, I'm interested to know how you would feel if a coalition of Quebec's Aboriginal tribes decided to form a provincial movement aimed at actuallizing certain land claims or other greivances....

I have no problem with that, if they can prove their claims and their own legitimacy into their tribe.
But from my perspective, some Amerindian tribes already have more rights than we will ever have in any Province in Canada. Here, they seem to have the right to not follow our laws, to not pay their bills, and to do whatever they please with complete impunity. This added to all the privileges given to them by the law that I don't have as a not native. But if they also want to leave, and leave behind all those privileges, I have no problem with that. It is their choice.

[Space Tycoon]

I guess you're not really hearing what I'm saying.

No-one is telling les Quebecoise to "shut up." Quebec has been and will contineu to be a part of what makes Canada what it is. Also, no-one is denying the real issues that have driven separatist movements since the 1960's and 70's. What bothers people like me is this little game of wanting something in between independence and federalism. Wanting the popular things that come with Confederation, like health care, social programs and national defense, while also threatening independence unless Canadians fund whatever extras the sovereigntists demand.

And once again for the record, I have no problem with French-Canadian independence in principle--if this is in fact real independence, and not some taxpayer-financed chimera.

I have always felt that the best solution was a massive devolution of powers and responsibilities from the federal government down to the provinces, or even some new confederation of regions. A decentralized federation along the lines of the EU, or the early American Republic. Under such a regime, federal income taxes could be slashed deeply or even eliminated, leading to a Canadian economic boom. Quebec could go it's own way in many areas without dragging the rest of Canada with it. We would have a common foreign and environmental policy, and let everything else sort itself out from region to region of this nation.


It's been said before, and it needs to be said again: the problem with Canada is Ottawa, not Quebec.








.

[Monic]

What bothers people like me is this little game of wanting something in between independence and federalism. Wanting the popular things that come with Confederation, like health care, social programs and national defense, while also threatening independence unless Canadians fund whatever extras the sovereigntists demand.

In my point of view, for the past 10-15 years, it's more the Canadian government who likes to nourish this false idea to create hostility towards Quebec when it serves their purposes. Like Harper just did. Quebec hasn't been in the position to even dream of independance for years... I doubt this threat would be taken seriously right now.

BTW, we participated to create those social programs. Quebec was often among the leaders who created them.

I also like the idea of more powers to the Provinces. We can agree on this.

[Space Tycoon]

Well, I'm not exactly a fan of federally-mandated social programs myself. Quebecers shouldn't be forced to pay for other Canadians' healthcare, and vice versa. Same goes for a number of other programs monopolized by Ottawa.

Better they should be handled by the private sector or by lower levels of government that are "closer to the people," as it were.







.