Friday, June 05, 2009

I know I feel more united now. How about you?

Ignatieff in Montreal:

A great wind is coming "This wind will bring hope back to Canada, "It will bring Quebecers back to power in Ottawa. The best possible Canada is a Canada with Quebecers in power."

"With Mr. Harper's right-wing Conservatives, Canada's international reputation has been tarnished and its financial edge has been wasted. There are more unemployed, more poor children and, as concerns the environment, Canada has become the laughingstock of the world."

----------
Coming from the man who said this: "I support the [coalition] accord because it's fiscally responsible, it provides responsible economic leadership in tough times and it also conserves the basic principles of national unity, equality, that our party has always believed in." I can see now that Ignatieff knows all there is to know about uniting this country.


And here I thought that bad mouthing Canada or dividing us up into groups based on where we live would be more of a divisive tactic rather than a uniting one.

Silly Ardvark.

69 comments:

kursk said...

Conservative supporters elected PM Harper because we DID NOT want to see more Quebekers in power.

We had enough of them, and rest of Canada wanted in.

We have already seen enough of Iggy as well.

I can't wait for this asshat to be beat down in the next election.

Frances said...

So, according to Mr Ignatieff, Quebec and only Quebec should rule Canada. Where can I opt out?

Bec said...

I'm quite enjoying the 'meanie-weanie' antics of the 'L-OP'.

How many specific references to a Quebec audience about how Quebec is more important than the rest of us hosers, is that now?
Never mind that they are never consistent and never RoC, inclusive.

He's (the L-OP)the gift that just keeps on giving with that ego, the size of the Canadian land mass.

Rural and Right said...

More hot air from the Iffy wind.

Ardvark said...

If the coalition would have went forward Ignatieff would have got his wish. The Bloc with their veto would have been the ones in power.

Éric said...

The Bloc had no such veto. Of course you know that, but prefer to perpetuate that falsity.

And glad to see the respect here being shown to Quebecers. And you wonder why we want to leave...

Leeky Sweek said...

Ignatieff in Montreal:

"A great wind is coming..."

I'm glad he gave his audience some warning. A little Pepto-Bismol ought to clear that right up.

Ardvark said...

Veto perhaps was the wrong word but when the Bloc controlled the vote for any and all coalition policy to pass they were in the drivers seat.

I agree with you on the Quebec bashing, this kind of stuff is ridiculous; "I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up."

scanoo said...

to eric

respect to Quebecers ? you mean having PM's from Quebec for the last how many decades ? for granting virtually any wish for how long ? either Iggy or the doorway ? - no wonder western seperatism is on the rise

Éric said...

No, once again, you know the Bloc had no control over coalition policy. The Bloc signed an agreement that for 18 months it would not vote against the coalition government on confidence issues. End of story.

-- "I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up."

The Bloc is not Satan, and every agreement made with the Bloc is not meant to split up the country. The Bloc was willing to let a government survive unopposed for 18 months. There were no ulterior motives to this, the Bloc simply wanted the Tories out of power.

Why does everything have to be black and white, cut and dry, us vs. them?

Éric said...

-- "you mean having PM's from Quebec for the last how many decades ?"

Irrelevant, considering how hard Chretien and Trudeau worked against Quebec's aspirations.

-- "for granting virtually any wish for how long ?"

Can you list those "any wishes"? I sure don't remember the Canadian government giving Quebec everything they wanted. I do remember the government forcing on Quebec a constitution it did not want, however.

-- "no wonder western seperatism is on the rise"

They just love their country no matter what.

Ardvark said...

You got me Eric. I will no longer allow comments such as this "Quebeckers walk around with this fantasy of how different they are, but they are just North Americans who speak French...They take the minor difference and magnify it." on the blog.

Éric said...

I'm no fan of Ignatieff, Ardvark. I'm a supporter of the Bloc. But if my options are a relatively progressive PM who will work against Quebec's aspirations or a conservative PM who will work against Quebec's aspirations, I'll take the former.

But he wrote that, what, in the early 1990s? I don't believe if someone said something ten years ago we have to assume their opinions haven't changed, especially when that person has actually said they've changed their opinion. Harper said a lot of stupid things too in the past. Should we assume he still hates Atlantic Canadians?

Ardvark said...

Harper "hates" Atlantic Canadians? I suppose you got a link for that gem.

scanoo said...

"irrelevent" ? - sums up what many westerners feel - "love their country" ?
- sure do - so much so, they'll call it Canada West

Éric said...

Sure: http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2002/05/29/harper_atlntc020529.html

Some gems:

"There is a dependence in the region that breeds a culture of defeatism."

"We have a program that says that Atlantic Canada can be as wealthy as any other region, but that needs to be pursued aggressively and we don't sit around waiting for favours."

Ardvark said...

And speaking a truth about dependency on government programs is equal to "hate'?

Speaking of dependency on government programs, how does the Bloc pay for itself? You being a supporter and all should know the answer to that one.

Éric said...

Hate, maybe not. But the comments were definitely disparaging and Atlantic Canadians thought that way about them. My point is, should we assume that Harper still has a negative attitude towards Atlantic Canadians because of that thing he said?

The Bloc pays for itself through fund-raising and government financing based on the votes it received in the last election, like all parties. I voted for the Bloc, why shouldn't the money from my vote go to the Bloc? I'm glad it does.

Ardvark said...

So you see nothing at all wrong or hypocritical with the idea of being a supporter of a party that wants to tear up Canada but is more than happy to take as much money from Canada as it can?

kursk said...

Eric, If you vote for a party that advocates separation from Canada, any comment you may have about Canada, it's leadership and policies is null and void.

Your 'aspirations' read 'traitorous' in my book.The only comment from your ilk should be praise Jesus that the ROC funds Quebec, and has done for decades.You should also kiss the ground that real Canadians walk on for a system that enfranchises and pays treasonous parties to have any say in a nation that they are trying to break up.

I know why you dislike the PM, he wants to cut your lifeline of cash, whereupon the Bloc would wither and die as it cannot raise enough money on its own.

Canadians dislike the dog that bites the hands that feeds, and your type is well up to the elbow by now.

Don't be so shocked at the vitriol.You deserve it.

Éric said...

Considering I pay taxes to that Canadian government, I'm quite happy that part of those taxes goes to help fund the Bloc Quebecois.

"Eric, If you vote for a party that advocates separation from Canada, any comment you may have about Canada, it's leadership and policies is null and void."

Good to know. Half of Quebecers don't count.

So, since you're a hateful idiot, are your comments about Canada, it's leadership, and policies null and void as well?

Do you realise you're the worst that Canada has to offer?

Anonymous said...

kursk hit a nerve...bingo

scanoo said...

speaking of the worst that is on offer, and endless hatreds, how again has Quebec been so badly treated ? and as compared to who/what ? - Iggy speaks of "the great wind" - I am beginning to feel it

paulsstuff said...

Sorry, Eric, but the PM stating Atlantic Canada could be doing better is far from Hate. The PM also criticized Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty because the province refused to make changes to boost the economy. does that mean he hates Ontario?

We'll see who the Bloc really represents in a few weeks if there is a confidence vote. 16 Bloc MP's need another year to qualify for MP pensions. Let's see if they boot out a PM they deride as bad for Quebec, or worry about their own pocket book.

Ardvark said...

You see the problem is Eric is that all of your taxes go back into Quebec and then they take additional money from people elsewhere and also put it into Quebec. That is a dependency and the Bloc is very happy to get it. FYI in 2007 the Bloc raised about 400K themselves but the vote allowance was over 3 Million.

The reason people get so upset about you and your party is that they want to dismantle Canada as we know it. I know you could care less about that but look at it this way. If there was a yes on a future referendum (it should now be best 3 out of 5 but I digress) how are you going to feel when you realize that a good chunk of what you now know of as Quebec (I am speaking of the aboriginal lands and areas) does not come along with you for the ride?

Éric said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
maryT said...

I think most canadians realized that with the coalition the Bloc would have had power. The fact they promised to not introduce a no confidence vote means that, if Dion didn't let the Bloc have lots of input into legislation, so cater to Quebec, they would threaten to vote against it.
The Bloc never promised not to vote against bills.
Duceppe is already making stmts that Iggy is not good for Quebec, he should enlarge that to, not good for Canada.

Éric said...

(fixed a typo)

The sovereignty movement is democratic and the Bloc Quebecois is the democratic expression of sovereigntists at the federal level. Whether the party "upsets" you shouldn't mean anything unless, of course, you are opposed to democracy. Where's that "I don't agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it?"

And the old trope about Quebec getting money from Canada is tired. Yes, sometimes Quebec is a beneficiary of transfer payments and federal services. But some years, it is not. Albertans and Ontarians can feel they've been paying for our social programs all they want, the fact of the matter is that Quebecers paid to build this country at the beginning.

And you speak of native lands separating from Quebec with such certainty, when you know as well as I do that it is far from a certainty. International legal precedent supports the idea of the province of Quebec separating as a whole. That same precedent absolutely abhors and avoids the division of a territory according to ethnic make-up.

If natives wish to remain as a part of Canada, the territory they directly administer probably would be allowed to stay within Canada. The native claims to wide swathes of Quebec territory, however, are less legitimate than even the Mohawk claims to lands in the Caledonia region of Ontario. Quebec would hold a lot of the cards at the separation negotiation, particularly whether we'd take a chunk of Canada's debt.

Bec said...

18 months of support/veto power (call it what it is)= time needed for Bloc MPs to receive MP's pension.
Now that is the RoC paying the Bloc.
So are they in it for the Eric's of Quebec or are they in it for themselves?

Éric said...

-- "The fact they promised to not introduce a no confidence vote means that, if Dion didn't let the Bloc have lots of input into legislation, so cater to Quebec, they would threaten to vote against it. The Bloc never promised not to vote against bills."

No, that is wrong. The Bloc promised not to vote against the government on confidence motions. Period. The Bloc could vote against the government on other issues, but it would not have resulted in the fall of government. So the coalition wouldn't have had to cater to the Bloc, they'd have to find support with either the Bloc or the Conservatives on individual issues, but they were assured survival for 18 months.

Éric said...

This is so silly. If the Bloc MPs are in it for pensions, why not the Liberals, Conservatives, and New Democrats?

Harper is obviously just in it to get off on his power trip and get a pension.

Prove otherwise.

Sheesh.

Bec said...

Harper earned his pension quite a few years ago.Several Bloc MP's need until next summer.

Do your own research.

Éric said...

Right, well now that he has the pension he's in it for the salary and the cottage at Meech Lake.

Grow-up, people. The Bloc MPs are there for the same reason as every other MP, because they think representing their constituents is an important job.

Éric said...

And also, every year Harper is there his pension grows.

So now we know why he wants to hold on to power!

paulsstuff said...

"18 months of support/veto power (call it what it is)= time needed for Bloc MPs to receive MP's pension"

Bec, that is a remarkable comment that I had never thought of myself. I feel a new post coming on.

Éric said...

They agreed upon 18 months because the coalition, which agreed to work together for three years, was unwilling to give in on some of the Bloc's demands. So Duceppe reduced those three years to 1.5 years in return for a few Bloc demands which had little or nothing to do with Quebec alone.

Simple enough, really. It is impossible to believe that Bloc MPs who have been in Parliament since the Chretien years would look favourably upon new Bloc MPs worrying about their pensions.

Come on.

Ardvark said...

Lots to get to but this one sticks out.

"Yes, sometimes Quebec is a beneficiary of transfer payments and federal services. But some years, it is not."

Would you care to provide a date for the last year that Quebec did not receive any money?

This is a good one too.
"That same precedent absolutely abhors and avoids the division of a territory according to ethnic make-up."

But it does not abhor division due to language/cultural make up?

Anonymous said...

Very interesting discussion - If anyone wants a very good history and perspective of the "raise" of the Bloc I suggest reading Chantal Hubert's "French Kiss".

There is a growing misconception that the only reason that the Bloc is on the hill is to break-up Canada however, this is furthest from the truth. Their presence in Ottawa has actually done more to diminish the argument for separation as they have been able to represent the Quebec people in large numbers and bring back some major wins for their constituencies.

For all of those who argue that the Bloc is only there to break up the country please explain to me how they could possibly go about doing that?

Finally, I would really like the Bloc to broaden their perspective and focus on the "french language" and run candidates across the country in francophone communities.

Anonymous said...

Read the Bloc's constitution and principles. The break up of Canada IS the goal.

Bec said...

Eric, points taken but you also must accept a few realities.

Duceppe, is a brilliant tactician, second only to the Prime Minister, however it is pie-in-the-sky for you to not recognize, that he also has a personal agenda. That agenda does not always include Quebec but to USE the RoC for him and his 'team'.

I have no idea how old you are but I suspect unless I (i.e. RoC) am involved in a NATIONAL referendum re Quebec separation, you will never get your dream of separation and Duceppe knows that.

Until then, we are apparently held hostage by the willy-nilly politics of guys like Ignatieff.

Why can't Quebecers see,so what if his grandparents are buried there, he never gave a rats pitewee about Quebec until now. What a hero! Sarcasm!!

Éric said...

-- "Would you care to provide a date for the last year that Quebec did not receive any money?"

It isn't just about transfer payments. Quebec sends money to Ottawa, and in return Ottawa provides some services as well as transfer payments. Some years, the services that Ottawa provides and the transfer payments are less than the taxes sent to Ottawa by Quebec. A financial study by Francois Legault went into great length about this.

-- "But it does not abhor division due to language/cultural make up?"

Quebec would be separating as a province with all the languages and cultures that make up the province, including the anglophones on the West Island.

-- "Duceppe, is a brilliant tactician, second only to the Prime Minister, however it is pie-in-the-sky for you to not recognize, that he also has a personal agenda. That agenda does not always include Quebec but to USE the RoC for him and his 'team'."

Sure, but this can be equally applied to Harper, Ignatieff, and Layton.

Anonymous said...

Read the Bloc's constitution and principles. The break up of Canada IS the goal.

And again I have to ask - how can a FEDERAL party bring this about?

Ardvark said...

You still have not provided a year where Quebec contributed more money than it took but I really did not expect that you would.


This has gone way off topic but it does go back to the point of the original post. This is clearly such a divisive topic, as all the comment here prove, that Ignatieff must be nuts to think that any of the comments that he made in Montreal would not be divisive.

So much for that "uniter" crap he is always talking about.

Anonymous said...

If it was not for Quebec and our countries French heritage there really wouldn't be anything that separated Canada from the US.

Anonymous said...

Is Ignatieff still proposing that we open up the constitution again? It was a big issue for him during the 2006 leadership race.

Éric said...

I'm sorry I don't have a year, but I don't have a source at hand. I'm not lying and making something up to make a point. If you really want me to spend time finding proof, I will.

Bec said...

Aardvark @ 4:47 pm

Yes, and I am sorry if I contributed to the o/t but it really is an issue. It breaks my heart but as I have pursued more clarity, it has become clear to me, this is extremely complicated.

I would like to say to Eric, how would you feel about someone that in 2008 would PAY between 12-30 thousand dollars in income tax EXTRA (over and above what they had with payroll deductions) from BC-Ontario.
What if that same person was to RECEIVE about 40 thousand dollars in Quebec with the same return?

Well, it tells you that the person has a substantial income but it also tells you a whole bunch more.

Who in Quebec are the decision makers, the elite....you fill in the blanks!

....and no, it is not me but I will not provide the source but ask an accountant and they can verify this as fact.

Anonymous said...

Bubba Brown says; "A great wind is coming" an old rhyme comes to mind;
"Pigs can see the wind 'tis said
and it seemeth to them red"

Ardvark said...

Some tidying up is in order.

Éric, I was not implying that you were making things up, as I do think you believe what you are saying, but I took a quick look myself and was not able to find any year that this occurred. Sorry if you took my comment the wrong way.

Bec, my OT comment was not directed at anyone, I myself got very OT in a big way, I was just trying to tie in our little separatist debate in the comments to my main post.

Anon@04:47 True the Bloc can't do it on it's own, but they can cause enough chaos in Parliament to really help their cause if they so desire. Think coalition for one.

Anon@05:04 I has forgotten about Iggy wanting to re-open the constitution. At the time he said that while it was dangerous but it HAD to be done. I am not sure when or if he had waffled on this idea.

Unlike Ignatieff I was here during both Quebec referendums and know how heated things got. For a leader of a political party who runs around claiming to be the great uniter he sure has no clue about how to go about it.

Ardvark said...

That last comment is too long to re-type so I will leave that glaring error in for all of eternity.

"I has forgotten.."

Yikes!

Enjoy the weekend everyone.

gimbol said...

eric:

As a bloc supporter perhaps you can explain why the bloc does not try to expand into other provinces?
It is after all a national body in Ottawa they are members of and not the provincial legislature in Quebec city.

Éric said...

I've actually asked the Bloc about this when I lived outside of the province. They responded that since the Bloc is about defending Quebec's interests only, it would be disrespectful to Canadians to run outside of Quebec.

In any case, the nomination process is not as simple as you would think, and in some regions of the country it would not be possible to meet the requirements to become a candidate. For example, you need a certain amount of signatures from constituents. Those might be hard to find. And the costs of running a candidate are high, and you only get the money back if you earn a certain amount of votes. So, from the financial aspect, it would cost the Bloc a lot of money to field candidates throughout the country, and they wouldn't get anything in return. Plus, it doesn't make much sense considering their platform.

maryT said...

Somewhere Eric made a comment about a constitution Quebec didn't want. I don't think Quebec has ever signed the document so the constitution does not apply to Quebec.
The Bloc might say they want to have their own country, but I don't believe it. They get to much by just threatening. Supposedly libs and bloc are tied, and bloc could lose 20 seats. To who. Another story says libs could gain 20 seats, so if they come from the bloc, ours are safe. Still doesn't give iggy a minority let alone a majority.
Has he told his caucus he is all huff and puff, as he will be in England, on a speaking tour in July. Tickets 120L, whatever that is in cdn funds.
He better tell the media also, so they can quit their spinning.

Soccermom said...

"sometimes Quebec is a beneficiary of transfer payments and federal services. But some years, it is not."

Wow, "sometimes"? "Some years, it is not."

Are you for real? LOL, I'm still laughing at your ridiculous comment...If that's how all Quebeckers think, then we are in deep trouble here.

Soccermom said...

In a culture of entitlement such as Quebec, why do you think Liberals were handing out bags of $$? Because that's how the game is played in Quebec.

I'd like a vote in the next referendum, too please.

Gayle said...

"...every year Harper is there his pension grows."

Does the value of the pension depend on his income? If so, no wonder why he went so nuts when the coalition threatened to take his government away.

Mary - the constitution does apply to Quebec.

The anti-Quebec sentiment expressed here and on other BT blogs is telling. I remember when the BT'ers were having a love in with Quebec; when no one complained about Harper giving them a huge transfer payment to fix that so-called fiscal imbalance. Seems to me the love for Quebec is dependant upon Harper's poll numbers in that province.

Telling indeed...

Soccermom said...

Just giving the separatists the same amount of respect they give us.

Gayle said...

Thanks for confirming my suspicions SM.

You love Quebec when they are supporting YOUR federalist party, but hate them when they are supporting the other federalist party.

In fact, because of the LPC, support for the Bloc is dropping. Doesn't that mean you should be happy???

maryT said...

I disagree with Gayle, we in the west do not love/hate Quebec, depending on the polls. It is because they are never satisfied and spit us in the face regardless what we do. The best thing that could happen is a majority for PMSH without a lot of seats in Quebec. Iggy should pay attention to how Duceppe twisted and lied about the arts funding cut.
He will do the same to Iggy over his stmts that quebecer just speak a funny language and think they are special. That from an interview from Britain after the last referendum.
The least they could do is admit that it has been AB and ONT keeping them afloat for years.
The best thing about the recession? in AB is there will less money for Quebec, same goes for Ont.
Waiting for Iggy to make another climb down that hill re an election.

Gayle said...

I said nothing about the "west" Mary, I was referring to BT'ers in general. Last I checked not everyone who supports the CPC are in the west. I live in Alberta and am very familiar with anti-Quebec sentiment here.

I am quite sure I remember people on BT blogs talking about how great it was for Canada that Quebec voters seemed to like Harper, and while some of you complained about that huge payout to Quebec, most of you recognized it as good politics.

Now that Quebec is turning against Harper, I am reading about how they are all separatists (they are not), and how they do not "deserve" our money.

Well, like it or not, Canada is a federation. The French settlers played a huge role in our history and the development of our institutions and our culture. For many years Alberta accepted transfer payments from other provinces, and some day we will again (maybe not in our lifetimes, but it is foolish and shortsighted indeed to believe we will never be dependant again).

The political parties in Quebec are no different than the ones in Alberta. The provincial politicians play that whole "the big bad federal government is against" us in the same way Klein was able to do so, at the same time as he presided over one of the most corrupt and undemocratic governments in the history of this province.

The biggest difference I see between Quebec voters and Alberta voters is that Quebec voters are more informed than my fellow Albertans.

DblStandard said...

"The anti-Quebec sentiment expressed here and on other BT blogs is telling"

"The biggest difference I see between Quebec voters and Alberta voters is that Quebec voters are more informed than my fellow Albertans."

If Aardvark or any other BT had written this, but with the provincial names reversed, they would be called red neck racists by Gayle and her friends. When Gayle writes such an unproven blanket statement as she did above, it is not telling of anything other than how enlightened she is in her observations and is ignored by the left.

Telling indeed.

paulsstuff said...

"Does the value of the pension depend on his income?"

Actually Gayle, it does. That's why Chretien raised MP salaries and his own dramatically prior to retiring.

"Chrétien played a central role in determining
the size of his own pension package. In 2001, his
government introduced and subsequently approved a bill
that gave MPs a generous 20% raise over their base salary.
It also approved a spectacular 42% top-up for the prime
minister himself (ostensibly to bring his pay in line with
that of the chief justice of the Supreme Court). When
details of the legislation were made public, the Canadian
Institute of Actuaries estimated that the adjustment would
increase Chrétien’s annual pension by about $79,000. The
question is—how much will he actually get?"

And in case you still have a link fetish:
http://www.benefitscanada.com/content/legacy/Content/2004/02-04/Honourable.pdf

Gayle said...

Hi Biff/Dblstandard/silly anon

Albertans have not voted for a change in government since 1971. They have had only 4 changes in government since 1905.

I would say that is pretty telling.

Nice try though.

Gayle said...

Paul - thanks for that. It rather lends credibility to what was initially a fascetious argument - that Harper is really only trying to ensure he gets as much out of his pension as he can.

Ardvark said...

Gayle you seem to have your own fan club.

Thats telling. ;)

paulsstuff said...

"Paul - thanks for that. It rather lends credibility to what was initially a fascetious argument - that Harper is really only trying to ensure he gets as much out of his pension as he can."

Actually Gayle the PM now has enough vested time he qua;ifies for a pension regardless if he quit tommorrow. Any MP elected from 2004 forward does not meet the six year service requirement to get any pension. If you want to spend the time figuring who that is you can do so here:

http://www.benefitscanada.com/content/legacy/Content/2004/02-04/Honourable.pdf

Gayle said...

I am not interested Paul.

In case you missed it, I was merely making fun of those who claimed the Bloc were only in it for the pension.

biff said...

That quote is remarkable.

Add that one to the list of CPC ads when the time comes.

Oh, BTW,

Gayle (and some other Lib commenters) see the ghost of Biff lurking everywhere.

Gayle, feel free to come by the new site and troll (gamefully debate) anytime.

tao_taier said...

Eric said:

"The sovereignty movement is democratic and the Bloc Quebecois is the democratic expression of sovereigntists at the federal level. "

But thats all pretty purposeless if they don't also hold democratic control of the provincial level of government as well.

Would you think it at all wise for them to separate beforehand?

It would be a disaster for the country and the province either way. The bloc clearly haven't thought through the full ramifications (or don't care) of how such actions would adversely effect both sides of the provinces borders and the populaces.

Radical change is their sort of change anyway... and its rather needless.

They can still enjoy their unique culture(s) that add great diversity and colour to the country without having to separate.
50 or 100 years from now in a world where everything is "ideal" for the province to be able to form its own autonomy.

I wouldn't anticipate such a thing under the guidance of the bloc especially in its current form.

The Conservatives on the other hand do more to benefit all the country regardless of region or province when afforded the political capital to do so. In a minority government, position, they have to do so with their hands tied and for expedience.

Better than nothing given that they have to take into account an entire country rather than focus solely around a single provinces aggrievances.... isn't such things meant to be left to that provincial government and municipalities.