Conference kaosws::canada

Another one from Chretien that I liked:

	- as he was trying to speak while being interrupted by either Bouchard or
	  Campbell all went silent at once, he happened to turn to the
	  moderator and whispered loudly: "They won't let me talk!."

/Mario

    Cambell should have asked which part of Rene's statement she got wrong.
    Did she misquote him ? Was there a context that was missing ? No, she
    is English, so her opinion is not valid. He stated seperatists belonged in
    Quebec City. What could be clearer than that ? Since Lucy didn't like
    the message, he tried to shoot the messanger. Too late, Rene is already
    dead. 
    
    More of the "your not one of us, so you don't understand". However
    seperatists can, and do frequently, tell Quebecers what the ROC thinks,
    and will do in the future. But let an English person use a well documented
    quote, and they get shafted with French arrogance/self pity (I can't
    decide which one makes them feel they are so misunderstood)
    
    Yet another double standard from the seperatists. (who will
    make it the "national" passtime in the country of Quebec)
    
    							Derek.
    
    

    Il'l watch tonight to see if the story is different (fish swim better
    in water than in mud or to put it another way, Kim, Audrey and Preston
    will give a better show).
    
    It's VERY clear to both the conservatives and to the liberals that
    they need Qu�bec to stay in power, but like Bouchard said last night,
    in '82 we (Qu�bec) had liberals wall to wall, yet our interests were
    not taken care of.
    
    Jean
    
    It could be worse, just look at Moscow today!
    

    Derek,
    
    	We pay taxes to Canada (still) and we can't send who we wish? is
    this canadian democracy?  I guess democracy does not apply to
    separatists he?
    
    Jean
    

    I thought Lucy got a good point across when he said they have a
    democratic right to send who they want. You may be brining your own
    views to the table, and confusing them for mine. As the other Jean
    pointed out last night, seperatists are well known for their
    intolerance. Once you believe in free speech, you can start talking about
    democracy. Without free speech you can't have a real democracy.
    
    I just find it offensive that Rene's quote was dismissed out of hand
    because it came from an English person.
    
     Will the BQ swear allegiance to Canada before the sitting ? If they do
    they are liars. If they don't, they don't belong.
    
    							Derek

    >>but like Bouchard said last night, in '82 we (Qu�bec) had liberals wall
    >>to wall, yet our interests were not taken care of.
                   ------------------------------------
    Don't you mean we didn't get control of Canada, so we want our
    own ?
    
    							Derek.

	It's amazing to me how an educated population can continually be
	brainwashed by the "nationalists" of Quebec. It doesn't matter if 
	we're talking Parti Quebecois or Bloc Quebecois. It's all the same.
	The key word is "QUEBECOIS." Such selfishness and self-centerdness
	is bad enough on it's own merits but when "politicos" can actually
	convince a whole province that they deserve and should be this way
	it has to make one wonder at the sophistication of the manipulation 
	techniques that are being used.  
	
	Maybe people need to feel that they are "special", or "distinct" and
	I suppose that could be enough to make you believe all kinds of
	propaganda. Sometimes the propaganda techniques remind me of pre-WWII 
	Germany. The Jews, Germany and the "superior" Aryan race has become
	The English, Quebec and the "distinct" Quebecois culture. If you think
	about it, it's really not far from the truth. 		

	I hope the people of Quebec wake up to this realization before it's
	too late. 

	Ben

    
       >>     I just find it offensive that Rene's quote was dismissed out
       >>     of hand because it came from an English person.
    
    Not true. I didn't watch the french debate but I asked a few who did
    and they said that Bouchard just avoided the question/quote. It had
    nothing to do w/ her being english. Derek, if you keep it up we're
    going to have to compare you w/ Garry(king of distorted facts). ;*)
    
        Andy

    

    	Ben 

    		I've been saved!



    	I'm a Quebecor ya know. A born there, when I was young. Got a
    Foreign sounding Sur' name and everything. Unfortunately I don't fit
    in cause of my Federalist views.

    I'm sorry if the English translation has led to this error, but could
    you explain the comment from Lucy
    
     "Your no Rene Levesque"
    
     If that was not supposed to shut her up based on who she was (English)
    then I would like to hear your "translation". The fact he refused to
    answer indicates he had/has no defence.
    
    							Derek.

    She just pointed out that she "read" Ren�'s memoirs and she said that
    Ren� said in those memoirs that a s�paratiste had no business in
    Ottawa.  The real quote is; Ren� said he did not have TIME to go to
    Ottawa, not that he had no business there.
    
    Lucien Bouchard only told Kim that she was not the one to INTERPRET
    Ren�'s toughts, and he was right.
    
    Jean
    
    PS Qu�becor is a registrated trademark, belongs to Pierre P�ladeau
    (Journal de Montr�al, Messageries Dynamiques, Qu�becor....)
    

    BTW, I tought Preston Manning handled himself quite well on yesterday's
    english debate.  Kim on the other hand.....
    
    I don't think any of them had a good answer on the deficit. (I would
    say Lucien had the best plan but that would irritate Derek, so I won't)
    
    Jean

    >>(I would say Lucien had the best plan but that would irritate Derek, so I
    >>won't)
    
     Don't be shy, tell us what you really think :*)
    
     								Derek.

Derek's already irritated, so what's the difference?

    Putting on my irritated noter hat ...
    
    Gee, I wish people would stickto the issues and stop jabbing at
    one another.
    
    Stuart

    re -.1
    	Shut up! ;*)
    
    Andy

    The comment abot not non-Quebekers quoting Rene came from a journalist.
    
    Garry

My gripe isn't about the notes with content ... it's all the notes with
no content at all ... like "shut up ;*)"!

Speaking of wasteful spending ... I really like Kim's description of
the manual on how to use an elevator.  Just goes to show that a life
in politics is full of ups and downs.

Stuart

    Watched the debate.  At a bigger loss as to who to vote for. 
    
    Who do we elect, the leader with the most catchy phrase, the most irate
    attitude, the one with da plan, the 'winner' - if there was one?  
    
    It was a childish display from all concerned with no substance, just
    party rhetoric, repeated and repeated.  No manners and no winners.    
    
    It's sad to think one of those on the platform will be our next Prime
    Minister.
    
    

    In yesterday's La Presse, there was a comment on Jean Cr�tien's spiel
    on the two debates.  Jean Cr�tien was telling the viewers that the IMF
    was telling Canada to create jobs to cure the deficit, Kim Cambell was
    saying the deficit was the problem to tackle first (Prestom Manning
    too).  It seems the IMF (International Monetary Fund) is telling Canada
    (the US too FWIW) that both problems must be taken care of at the same
    time, also some social programs must also be toned down to give
    incentive to work.  All these steps are in the Liberal's RED book, yet
    Jean Cr�tien shouts out loud that jobs jobs jobs are the cure, guess
    what he (or his governement) will do when they are in power.
    
    The IMF was also telling us to liberalize (no pun intended) trade
    barriers (GATT and NAFTA), yet all the national parties advocate
    closing the borders (the NDP the most).
    
    All liars, in my opinion
    
    Jean
    

    The IMF supported this crazy form of moetary policy too, and look
    where that got the world.  Friedman's monetarism is a far cry from
    what was implemented.
    
    So, never mind our politicians having problems ... the IMF hasn't
    exactly got a clean nose in all this either.
    
    tuart

    Liberal...spend your way out of a recession
    
    PC........job creation balanced with deficit reduction
    
    Reform....Deficit reduction (with indirect job creation)
    
    Bloc......Don't care they're not there to work "for" Canada
    
    NDP.......just more pro union BS
    
    
    
    Pick your poision
    
    X Reform
    
    
    
    Brian V
    

Bloc......DO care.

One of their main campaign themes is defecit reduction.  They just want Quebec to 
get out before the ships sinks too deep because they seem to believe that none of 
the parties who will likely get elected are able to anything about the deficit.

I say let's hope for a minority government from 1 of the 2 big parties with either 
Reform or Bloc for support.  That'll keep them on their toes.

The way it looks now, Bloc has a much better chance of being the 2nd one in than 
Reform.

/Mario

    

    	Yeah, I heard in the debate when asked "How do you plan to reduce
    the deficit? " Lucy would only reply "We'll trim the excess fat from
    the government"... yeah right!

    	Mario, the whole (or is that hole) Bloc idea is Ludicrous. What if
    an Ontario Party sprang up, telling the people of Ontario "Hey we pay
    the greatest percentage of taxes within Canada, vote for me and we'll
    make sure all those High tech jobs stay here in Ontario, all those
    government military contract are landed by only our own?  That we will
    stop any more wasteful bilingual printing/training and to top it off
    if the Federal parties don't like it we'll leave this country High and
    dry.
    	The Bloc is a crock, looking to bust up this country, in a self
    serving power coup. Swell the ranks in self pity, and lead them towards
    disaster.
        Keep our Federal system just that, FEDERAL not uni-provincial!
	
    	The word bloc should be banished from our common language, and all 
    supporters of the party ostracised.

Trying to hang on to Quebec Mike?

Are you afraid that if Quebec separates your country will desintegrate?

    

    	No, more like worried about my distinct Quebec passport :-)
    
    

    I don't think that Q will ever seperate but I think that the government
    should publish Q's cost/share of the debt, as well a list of what
    assets in Q belong to Canada.   crown lands...mineral rights...
    How about first nations persons...
    How about access to the ST Lawerance...
    How about the military....postal service...
    How long would you allow people to leave/move to Q before the borders
    are closed and new citizenship cards handed out.
    
    Q'ers that beat their chests and talk about seperation are acting like
    small children, threatening to run away from home if they don't get more
    dessert than their brothers and sisters.
    
    
    Brian V
     

    La commission B�langer Campeau (put together by a federalist party, Le
    parti lib�ral du Qu�bec) established Qu�bec's share of the deficit at
    18%, not bad for 25% of the population, who do you think got the lion's
    share?
    
    As for the Bloc, we have a right to elect who we want, I'm sure they
    will do a better job at deficit reduction than either of the previous
    parties in power, I think reform would also do as good a job as the
    Bloc.
    
    A question to all federalists; Why isn't the reform party seen as a
    threat to national unity and the Bloc Qu�becois is?  In the reform's
    program they advocate separation of Qu�bec, they preach out loud that
    bi-lingualism is wrong, that Qu�bec should be all french... all the
    things we have been saying yet they are seen as champions of Canada's
    future by many people from the western provinces and even Ontarians,
    please explain.
    
    Jean
    

   ><<< Note 750.29 by KAOFS::J_DESROSIERS "Lets procrastinate....tomorrow" >>>
   >
   > La commission B�langer Campeau (put together by a federalist party, Le
   > parti lib�ral du Qu�bec) established Qu�bec's share of the deficit at
   > 18%, not bad for 25% of the population, who do you think got the lion's
   > share?
    
    I would love to see how they (or anyone) calculated any province's share
    of the federal debt, but ignoring the mathematics, perhaps the Quebec 
    liberals were trying to show how Quebec has benefited.  "Look at all
    the jobs that Canada has given to Quebec and it only cost us 18%...."
    
    >As for the Bloc, we have a right to elect who we want, I'm sure they
    >will do a better job at deficit reduction than either of the previous
    >parties in power, I think reform would also do as good a job as the
    >Bloc.
    
    You're absolutely right that you can vote for anyone you like,
    including the Bloc.  Perhaps you should inform Bouchard the Traitor
    that it goes both ways - anyone can run wherever they like (in case
    this is not clear - Bouchard the Traitor stated Chretien shouldn't run in
    Quebec).  Regarding the Bloc's or Reform's ability to achieve deficit
    reduction, I don't think you have any factual reason to believe them. 
    Niether have ANY experience in running any government or the finance
    department.  Go ahead and tell us how Bouchard the Traitor was in
    Brian's cabinet...
    
    >A question to all federalists; Why isn't the reform party seen as a
    >threat to national unity and the Bloc Qu�becois is?  In the reform's
    >program they advocate separation of Qu�bec, they preach out loud that
    >bi-lingualism is wrong, that Qu�bec should be all french... all the
    >things we have been saying yet they are seen as champions of Canada's
    >future by many people from the western provinces and even Ontarians,
    >please explain.
    
    In fact, many people do see both the Bloc and Reform as threats to unity 
    and Chretien addressed this issue just recently.  Is it possible that 
    the folks in Quebec have been so completley swayed by Bouchard the Traitor's
    rhetoric that they've stopped listening to other points of view?  CBC
    did a piece on the Bloc last night and indicated that the shift towards 
    the Liberals (because it appears they will form the next government)
    has already started...
    
    >Jean
    
    Regards,
    
    Garry

    The Reform party is not "for" the seperation of Quebec it merely states
    that ALL Canadian citizens should be treated equally.
    
    This is not being done currently because Quebec has been granted
    priviledges not bestowed on any other province.
    
    One thing the Reform party wants is for the federal government to stop
    subjugating to Quebec, and have Quebec decide wether it wants to stay
    as an equal member of confederation or take a hike.
    
    
    
    
    Brian V
    

    That BS number from the BQ will never fly. 18% HA! They come up with
    this number by adding up the physical assets they choose to attribute
    to Canadian dollars, forgetting that Social Spending (which quebec gets
    more than it's population would indicate) is the largest portion of the
    budget and therefore the debt. If they said they would take their
    populations % I could accept that, even though it is not a true
    approxamation of Quebec's share. But no, they insist on trying to screw
    the ROC one more time. Well lets see how much they like it when we
    demand Rupert's Land back. Quebec can stand up like a man (sorry
    ladies) and pay it's share and seperate if it wants. If they try to
    screw Canada with the debt, they may not like their new neighbours.
    
    when push comes to shove, and it will, the numbers will get a compleat
    review, and the 18% will be exposed for the absolute BS that it is. but
    what else could you expect from a bunch of tin pot would be kings who
    only think of their own self interest. Boy I'm glad I don't pin my
    children's future on this pack of bald faced liers.
    
    
    							Derek.

With all due respect Derek, Jean has provided a source for his numbers.  You 
dispute them but you don't have anything to back up yours.

It is my opinion that you will always come back with your side of the story 
and Quebec separatists will always come back with theirs.

Derek, it sounds like you're so angry that you're trying to hang on to Quebec 
as much as you can too, just like Mike.  What would you do without us?

When push comes to shove, will never come...

/Mario

    A disreputable source is no source in my book Mario. As for sources,
    when I see some numbers that I don't have to remember from the last
    constitutional F%$^& Up I will be more than happy to put them in here.
    Just don't accuse me of looking for dirt on Quebec, OK ?
    
    What would I do without you ? Live a compleat and happy life. Without
    having to worry about the future of my country.
    
    Just so I am clear.
    
     Quebec has every right to seperate/stay in Canada. I resent the pride
    Quebecers display in being able to sit on the fence and blackmail
    Canada, and I resent that the political leaders are so spineless that
    they let it happen. Push has come to shove, either Quebec joins Canada
    on the same terms as the rest of the provinces, or they leave. I think
    the last constitutional round showed this to be the opinion of the
    PEOPLE of the ROC. (as compared to the power sucking politicians) It
    also showed that Quebecers feel they need special attention to find
    their place in Canada (asymetrical federalisim). These are two
    divergent points of view. I take to heart Lucy's statements that we
    don't share a common future for the country so Quebec should seperate.
    He is right in that at least. If we can't agree on what should be, then
    we should each persue our dreams in a country that reflects the
    asperations of it's population.
    
     It is time for the seperatists to "put up, or shut up", and I am glad
    there is an election on the horizon that will bring the issue to a head
    in Quebec, so the whole country can deal with it, and get on with life.
    
     If I turn 40 and it is not resolved, my stance will become "thow them
    out". That gives Quebec 4 years to find themselves, and according to
    the gloating seperatists, that should be more than enough time.
    
    
    						Derek.

Sorry Derek, push has not come to shove yet.  That will happen when a 
referendum vote will end up being a yes.  I know you're anxious but be patient. 
Maybe that day will come again sometime.  BTW, didn't we resolve this back in 
1980 *once and for all*?  What brought it on again?  It's Jean Chretien and his 
backroom buddies in 1982 when the constitution came home to mama.

I find it funny when Jacques Parizeau, Lucien Bouchard, and even you Derek talk 
about resolving this *once and for all*.  When the vote ends up being a no 
they'll be talking about the next *once and for all*.

I wonder what Newfoudlanders would feel if we'd tell them to live on the same 
terms as other provinces.  Sorry people, you get no more special UI benefits 
because you're on the same terms as everyone else.  Sorry prairies, no more 
special treatment, you're on the same terms as everyone else.

Stop throwing this *Quebec gets more* &*($# on Quebeckers when you know real 
well that many other provinces get more than they put in themselves.

/Mario

    It's true that other provinces recieve more in transfer payments
    from the fed's than they contribute. * but * how many other provinces
    have the right to limit the civil liberties of their population, how 
    many other provinces have a minimum membership in the supreme court.
    
    When anywhere else in Canada tries the same stunts that Quebec does
    Quebecer's are the first to cry foul; 'How dare we try to limit the 
    right's of francaphones to have public services provided in their 
    native tongue'.
    
    
    I've heard it stated but can not prove that both the Tories as well as
    the Liberal have a policy that at least every other party leader must
    come from Quebec. If this is true it shows how true baised or political
    system is.
    
    
    Brian V
    

    I know well that other provinces recieve more than they put into
    confederation in terms of money. There are only 3 "have" provinces.
    By definition there are 7 have not's. Funny only one seems to consider
    it a burden to accept cash from the ROC.
    
     You are right of course, the whole problem can be laid at the feet of
    PET for trying to repatriate the constitution while a seperatist was
    in control in Quebec. In his blind rush to go down in history (just
    like Brian M.) he disregarded the potential danger for the possibility
    of "immortality".
    
     As for special status for parts outside Quebec, I believe that if any
    province had the economic problems of Nfld, they would get the same
    treatment in terms of UIC. This is not what I would refer to as special
    treatment. Now if Nfld wanted to control the money that is handed out
    via a federal program, then I would have a problem. (sound familiar?)
    Or lets take a garenteed level of representation in either "house"
    regardless of actual % of population, or as another stated a reserved
    number of seats on the Supreme Court. Now THAT'S special status.
    
     Show me the part of the country that demands disporportionate
    representation, and I'll be against that too. the only "NO" vote that
    will stick is the one that answers the question "Do you want Quebec to
    be part of Canada ?" when it is put to the rest of the country. I think
    the political winds are about to blow Quebec off the fence, one way or
    the other. I would like for Quebec to stay in Canada, but because I
    don't think it should be done "at any cost", I doubt the ROC will
    accept the terms Quebec will demand.
    
    							Derek.

    Driving from Ottawa to Les Escoumin I noticed mucho Bloc signs and a
    few Liberal and PC signs.  The Liberal and PC signs very inevitably
    defaced.
    
    Don't parties relalize that this criminal activity backfires.  It makes
    the Bloc look like it condones hooliganism?
    
    So now is 'hooligan' added to 'radical, fanatical, seperatists and
    traitors' the Bloc has been called?
    
    
    
       

	In reading the last few, I have some thoughts for discussion.

	I can forsee a future where the country is split up (not violently
	like Yugoslavia) into the countries of Quebec, Ontario, Western
	Canada and Eastern Canada. The debt etc would be split up. Each 
	would have sovereignty and all that implies. I can see that happening
	with Reform in Western, the Bloc in Quebec. Now as to economic 
	viability, I don't think that Eastern Canada would have a chance, 
	Quebec and Ontario should survive with the manufacturing infrastructure.
	Western Canada might do Ok with its natural resources.

	What do you think? Is this likely? What about links to the USA? 
	Do you think this is bad or good? 

	Susan	

    re .39
    I think your guess is pretty good....the only thing that I'd say 
    different is that the eastern provinces would survive but with 
    a much smaller population.
    
    Brian V
    

    The numbers I gave, were representative of what WAS spent by the
    federal governement.  It means WE now have 25% of the population (down
    from earlier times when it was HIGHER), we give to the feds 25% of it's
    tax base NOW, yet what HAS BEEN spen troughout the years only amounts
    to 18%, we are missing 8%, who got it? eastearn provinces? western
    provinces? Ontario--->bingo!
    
    As to transfer payments NOW, I would guess we are ALL getting borrowed
    money, if only this (supposedly good) federal governement had any
    power, they would stop spending money they don't have yet their campain
    promises are to spend even more, I would take my chances without the
    feds anytime.  The way I see it, the ones to suffer the MOST from this
    breakup would be Ontario, because it has been getting fat from the
    other provinces for so long, they would have to pay the highest portion
    of the deficit.
    
    Jean
    
    PS Derek I tought rednecks were older than 36!
    

    re. 42 say what...???
    
    Ontario gets less than it contributes and has for a long time...
    
    Where do you come up with your info....was .42 entered on friday
    or is monday now make up a fact day too.
    
    Brian V
    

    Ooops that should have been re .41
    

    re .38
    
    
    >> Driving from Ottawa to Les Escoumin I noticed mucho Bloc signs and a
    >> few Liberal and PC signs.  The Liberal and PC signs very inevitably
    >> defaced.
    
           Not true. I've also seen a few Bloc signs that were 'defaced'.
     IE. corner of Cite des Jeunes and Hautes-Plaines (near CTH in Hull).
    
     Andy

    Jean, Keep spouting the seperatist line, you might even convince
    yourself that it is true.
    
    25% of the population does not equate to 25% of the GNP, or 25% of the
    tax base. That large population you are talking about is the reason Quebec
    gets more money that it puts in. Social program entitlements are the
    largest part of the federal budget/deficit. If you don't know or
    understand that, then I can understand why you think a seperate Quebec
    would be better off. 
    
    Does Quebec get more money from the federal Gov than it puts in? The
    potential answers are YES or NO. What do you choose ? (and do you care
    what is the truth ?)
    
    To even suggest that Ontario is the "big winner" when it comes to transfer
    payments shows how badly you are willing to twist information to try to make
    seperation look good. The chickens will come home to roost during the
    next (and I hope last) federalist/seperatist fight in Quebec. I know
    Mario dosen't like me to say it, but as long as Jean tries to make it
    look like Quebec is paying for the rest of Canada I will point out that
    (now read very carefully Jean):
    
     Quebec recieves more money from Ottawa that it contributes (as do 6
    other provinces) and as such it is a "HAVE NOT" province. Ontario,
    Alberta, and BC are paying for this bilingual party we call Canada, so
    twist the numbers any way you choose, it is still a fact. 
    
     It must really hurt a nationalist like Jean to admit that Quebec would
    be worse off without Canada, and this pretty much explains his
    inability to deal with the facts. If the seperatists can't get a simple
    thing like transfer payments straight, it makes me wonder what other
    fabrications they base their beliefs on, and what false hopes and
    dreams thay are passing off onto their fellow Quebecers as truth.
    
    							Derek.

    Re:44
    Didn't know I drove past Hautes Plaines to get to Les Escoumins!

    
    
    Federal Transfer Payments for this year are:
    
    Ontario		Nil
    British Columbia 	Nil
    Alberta		Nil
    P.E.I.		$176 Million
    Saskatchewan	$458 Million
    Manitoba		$844 Million
    Nova Scotia		$880 Million
    New Brunwick	$888 Million
    Newfoundland	$915 Million
    Quebec		$3.6 Billion
    
    So Ontario, BC, and Alberta contribute more than $7.5 Billion to the
    rest of Canada with Quebec getting almost half of the total.
    
    -Gerry
    

              <<< KAOSWS::$1$DUA3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CANADA.NOTE;1 >>>
                         -< True North Strong & Free >-
Did I calculate wrong or does it come out to:

        Quebec:         $553/person      Population:    6,500,000
        Nwfld:          $915/person                     1,000,000
        P.E.I.          $1173/person                      150,000

I'm not sure about the rest because I don't know all the provincial
populations exactly.  I feel bad that B.C., Alberta, and Ontario don't get
anything because they are labelled as *Have* provinces.  At the same time,
don't look at the total, but look at the population too.

Someone correct me if I calculated wrong of if I made the wrong estimates of
population.  Maybe someone can calculate the other *Have not* province numbers if 
they know the population.

/Mario

    Unbelievably sickening.
    This is what must and will stop ( hand outs )  once we:
    A) Get a new Constitution
    B) Part ways.
    For the sake of the COUNTRY, I hope it is A.