Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree. The Bloc is a study in mixed loyalties. Since each of them must swear an oath or solemnly affirm allegiance to the country, I wonder how they justify their objective of separation?

http://www.parl.gc.ca/MarleauM.....amp;Lang=E

-Mac
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I often question the Bloc's wisdom - they are basically advocating to put themselves out of work. When they succeed, do they become some form of Quebec Senate? Or does the provincial government? I think it's an odd strategy...

Then again, their intelligence is demonstrated in their strange devotion to the idea that they can survive without Canada. They are already saying they need 3 billion dollars more every year - what would they do with 0 billion coming to them every year? Plus, all the Candadian Forces would be pulled out, the fed government out - leaving thousands of quebecers without jobs - the Forces communities would crumble.. It never ceases to amaze.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
1) Ban semiautomatic weapons and have more stringent screening of gun owners instead of having a form asking perspective owners whether they are crazy.

2) Extend the land mines treaty to include cluster bombs (which the Israelis used in Lebanon) . Any unexploded ordinance look like toys to children. It is appalling that these weapons were used at all during the conflict in Lebanon.

3) We all know what a waste of money a domestic gun registry is from a cost/benefit perspective. Instead start an initiative to create an INTERNATIONALWeapons registry so all weapons can be tracked. Police would then be able to identify the sources of illegally smuggled weapons. It can also be used to find out where terrorists and militiias in armed conflicts are getting their weapons. No gun owners could complain because it would be an international effort. Even if this initiative fails, the Tories can say they tried and would be given full marks for the attempt.


4) Announce full merger with NDP; lose all seats west of Thunder Bay in a caucus revolt.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know, is it possible to win Quebec without pandering to the nationalists? Is it possible to maintain your Western power base when pandering to Quebec nationalists? It seems to me the CPC cannot win big in Quebec, and should even not try.

Ignatieff and the Liberals have abandonded the federalist high ground. the CPC should take it, and make it their own. A strong federalism, tough love with things like the clarity act, and no more pandering to Quebec nationalists who will never be satisfied with any concession anyway. <ulroney's coalition is dead; it would be a mistake to try to rebuild it.

It may not be the most popular, or the easiest approach, but by gum, do we really want a fourth unity and constitutional crisis in our lifetimes?
jnarvey





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 47
Reputation: 17.2Reputation: 17.2
Location: Vancouver

PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Forget about banning guns to win Quebecers over, or revisiting the definition of a distinct society.

Instead, a far more effective method would be to simply ban any federal or provincial separatist political party. No other country in the world would allow such an existential threat to hang over its head for decades. We don't have to, either.

This would actually be healthy for Quebec politics. Rather than oscillate between provincial Liberal governments (the default pro-federal party) and the Parti Quebecois (the separatists), Quebecers could then choose between two local Canadian parties actually interested in the day to day business of benefiting its citizens rather than how best to break up a country. On a federal level, Quebecers could still choose between Liberals, Conservatives, NDP or even a Bloc Quebecois regional party that has come around to working within the Canadian federation.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Although I agree with the principle, I'm not sure how such a solution would work. Would you only ban parties that included seperation in their charter? What about those who verbally support seperation, but don't include it as formal policy? Would such a part be banned at provincial levels, as well as federal?
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, I don't like that idea too much - If Quebec truly wants to leave Canada I don't see why we force them to stay..

Kind of undermines that whole freedom of speech thing we like so much..
jnarvey





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 47
Reputation: 17.2Reputation: 17.2
Location: Vancouver

PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Although I agree with the principle, I'm not sure how such a solution would work. Would you only ban parties that included seperation in their charter?

Yup. That's exactly what I'm suggesting. If the party's constitution states that they are working towards the breakup of the country, they should be banned.

Governments are artificial constructs, in some ways like corporations. If some members of a corporation wanted to form a department whose sole objective was the backruptcy of the company, the board of executives would not accept it. In the same way, politicians who collect paychecks from Canadian taxpayers should not have the perverse goal of separating their consituents from the rest of the country.

Quote:
If Quebec truly wants to leave Canada I don't see why we force them to stay..
Kind of undermines that whole freedom of speech thing we like so much..

This is not a freedom of speech issue. People are entitled to bash Canada all they like. They can take out full-page ads in the Globe and Mail denouncing our federation if they want. I'm merely suggesting that people who are determined to break up the country be barred from our highest political offices.
palomino_pony





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 539
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Lower Mainland, BC

PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Banning political parties because of their platform and charter seems undemocratic to me.

I agree that that it sucks to have to pay the BQ MPs a salary, but outright banning the BQ would do democracy a disservice. Plus this would push up the martyr factor and it could/would be perceived as another insult to Quebec.

From the Elections Canada website...
Quote:
The Canada Elections Act defines a political party as "an organization one of whose fundamental purposes is to participate in public affairs by endorsing one or more of its members as candidates and supporting their election."

Forming and registering a federal political party are two different things. There is no legislation regulating the formation of federal political parties. Once a party exists, it may apply to be registered under the Act.

The Act uses the following terms:

eligible party: a party that has applied for registration under the Act, and that has met all of the legal requirements to be registered (including having at least 250 members who are electors), other than running a candidate at a general election or by-election

registered party: a party is registered under the Act if it succeeds in endorsing one or more confirmed candidates in a general election or a by-election after it has become eligible for registration, and


Perhaps the act should change to say that a party must have 250 members in at least two provinces and it must run candidates in at least two provinces. This seems reasonable, especially if one is trying to get elected to the federal government. I am not sure how many other one province parties there are; the rule would apply to them as well.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

palomino_pony wrote:

Perhaps the act should change to say that a party must have 250 members in at least two provinces and it must run candidates in at least two provinces. This seems reasonable, especially if one is trying to get elected to the federal government. I am not sure how many other one province parties there are; the rule would apply to them as well.


Yeah, although I'm sure some whack-job ontarian or someone in labrador would be willing to run for them ;)
palomino_pony





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 539
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Lower Mainland, BC

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

biggie rection wrote:
Yeah, although I'm sure some whack-job ontarian or someone in labrador would be willing to run for them ;)


I thought of that... but that whack-job will need 250 other whack-jobs to meet the membership requirement... I guess the next step would have the BQ starting to "parachute" people to move to other provinces, which would make them look even sillier.
Forward





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 293
Reputation: 59.2
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:52 pm    Post subject: Re: How to win back Quebec Reply with quote

KPK wrote:
1) Ban semiautomatic weapons and have more stringent screening of gun owners instead of having a form asking perspective owners whether they are crazy.

2) Extend the land mines treaty to include cluster bombs (which the Israelis used in Lebanon) . Any unexploded ordinance look like toys to children. It is appalling that these weapons were used at all during the conflict in Lebanon.

3) We all know what a waste of money a domestic gun registry is from a cost/benefit perspective. Instead start an initiative to create an INTERNATIONALWeapons registry so all weapons can be tracked. Police would then be able to identify the sources of illegally smuggled weapons. It can also be used to find out where terrorists and militiias in armed conflicts are getting their weapons. No gun owners could complain because it would be an international effort. Even if this initiative fails, the Tories can say they tried and would be given full marks for the attempt.


Hey wait! Don't forget! Pull Canada out of NATO and NORAD, proceed with Kyoto, ASAP, nationalize the oil industry, enact a $20 per hr minimum wage law and have legislated affrimitive actio quotas in parliament for MPs.

Yep, then the conservatives will win Ontario & Quebec.
Hasdrubal





Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 1112
Reputation: 66
votes: 5
Location: Nova Scotia

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:05 pm    Post subject: Re: How to win back Quebec Reply with quote

Forward wrote:
KPK wrote:
1) Ban semiautomatic weapons and have more stringent screening of gun owners instead of having a form asking perspective owners whether they are crazy.

2) Extend the land mines treaty to include cluster bombs (which the Israelis used in Lebanon) . Any unexploded ordinance look like toys to children. It is appalling that these weapons were used at all during the conflict in Lebanon.

3) We all know what a waste of money a domestic gun registry is from a cost/benefit perspective. Instead start an initiative to create an INTERNATIONALWeapons registry so all weapons can be tracked. Police would then be able to identify the sources of illegally smuggled weapons. It can also be used to find out where terrorists and militiias in armed conflicts are getting their weapons. No gun owners could complain because it would be an international effort. Even if this initiative fails, the Tories can say they tried and would be given full marks for the attempt.


Hey wait! Don't forget! Pull Canada out of NATO and NORAD, proceed with Kyoto, ASAP, nationalize the oil industry, enact a $20 per hr minimum wage law and have legislated affrimitive actio quotas in parliament for MPs.

Yep, then the conservatives will win Ontario & Quebec.

Do that and the standard of living rises, if twenty dollars is the minimum wage anyone making less then that now will end up equal making all that hard work to earn wage increases useless. The price of everything will become more costly, so instead of a $1.58 for a bottle of pop the price jumps to $30.00 for a measly 591ml. So why should a retail worker making minimum wage make the same wage as a electrician? And for that matter what's the use of going to college to learn a trade if the minumum wage is $20.00? Anyways I could see the unemployment levels sky rocketing Canada progressively towards 3rd world status as businesses are forced to close.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is why those of us in ontario disagree with the Ontario NDP idea of raising min. wage to $10.00

What a great way to ring in the new year - with a big bowl full of Inflation...
da_canuckalhead





Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 3
Reputation: 10.8

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Harper Conservatives are following the (successful...to a point) Diefenbaker and Mulroney playbooks of a coalition of Western regionalists, Quebec nationalists and rural Ontarians and Maritimers.

The only drawback is the tendency in Canadian federalism for claims of one region to upset another, for example bilingualism policy and the CF-18 fighter jet contract. How then, to keep the regions (primarily the West and Quebec) happy and a part of the Conservative tent?

Transfer more spending power and control to the provinces. The Liberals won't follow and the Bloc can only step aside. The Conservatives would be applauded in Calgary and Quebec City. Majority government to follow.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


How to win back Quebec

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB