Canadian Federal Elections, eh

[Kramodlog]

[video=youtube;DG6fhub9HDQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG6fhub9HDQ[/video]

 

[Umbran]

Appropriating your cuisine is my revenge!

The dish has gone as far as New Jersey, and has been renamed "Disco Fries" there (and has been since at least the 1980s). I think this pretty much outdoes all other appropriation of the dish, and it is time to let it go.

 

[Kramodlog]

As much as i don't appreciate the downloading, at least it wasn't hidden. It was all out in the open, for the electorate to see. That might have been open government. It might have been arrogance. What it wasn't, was sneaky.

But it was. The provinces are the providers of healthcare. When Ottawa cut healthcare subsidies, it was the provinces who have to either raise taxes or reduce services. At the next election people just remembered the line that the federral budget was balanced and blame Québec or Toronto for the reduction in healthcare services. Like I said before, Ottawa has the money, but none of the responsabilities.

Why; because they haven't been given their turn to screw up yet?

Because it has the better platform and leader. If this is about all political parties are the same, it is not accurate. The NDP is pro-choice, ins't working for the tar sands industry, isn't against unionized workers going on strike, is against the UCCB, is for the LSVCC tax credit, is against fees or tax hike for the middle class, etc.

I'm opposed to the Conservatives for reasons of government opacity and failure to provide good governance. I'm largely opposed to the Liberals because Trudeau hasn't seen a foot that he didn't think would fit perfectly in his mouth. (People tend to forget, but Harper was damned near as bad when he took over the Conservative helm) I oppose the NDP for their platform. And I'm a union member. And a worker in higher education.

So you are anti-choice, pro-UCCB, anti-LSVCC, for the tar sands industry tax credits, for the federal government stepping in when workers go on strike?

I would lose the freedom to not pay for other people's kids.

But healthcare is ok? Why is one bad and the other ok?

I would lose the freedom to not see my taxes rise to cover the costs of issues I don't care about.

Can you pinpoint in their platform where they say your taxes will rise? What they propose is use the 4 billion surplus that will come from cancelling the UCCB to finance their initiatives instead of raising taxes.

I would lose the freedom to not support a candidate who likes to cozy up to Separatists.

Writting off 50% of Québec's population only shows that only Québécois who think like the masters are welcomed in the federation. So much for freedom of thought and everyone being equal.

Uber flouts the law and has people working for it who neither pay their taxes, nor carry appropriate insurance on a vehicle used for business. They're a completely different kettle of 4 week old unrefrigerated codfish.

Its respect for the law is irrelevant to Uber being an example of a corporation having an head office that has a substantial cash flow with few employees. The kind an independent Québec would get, along with the ones with more employees.

As to the current situation, I point to the transfer payments that I previously mentioned. Ontario is the cash cow

Alberta is/was the cash cow. Might I remind you that Ontario has been receiving more transfer payments than Alberta for a while now. But the point was that when Québec was the cash cow, Canada clad to take from it and it was ok to give to the needy. Now that the situation is reverse, we are freeloaders. It is a double standard.

No moreso than for my Scottish ancestors

The wrongs the Scotts went through do not cancel the ones we went through. Or the Aboriginales for that matter.

Broken.

No, it wasn't a game. In war there are winners and losers.

Quebec currently has more real political power, in Canada, than does any other Province in Confederation.

You mean more than oil-industry-powered-Alberta has on the Conservatives?

That is Quebec flexes its electoral muscles and Federal political leaders quiver.

This is why the Tories formed a majority government with only 5 elected deputees from Québec in 2011?

Money streams into the Province above and beyond levels reasonable for just reasons of redistribution.

Per capita Québec receives less money than Nova Scotia, PEI, New-Brunswick, Manitoba, Yukon, Nunavut and the NWT. http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp

We aren't getting any special treatement, especially if we go back in time not too long ago when oil wasn't that big in Canada. The list would be longer. Some provinces just got lucky, or in the case of Newfoundland, stole Labrador and its oil from Québec.

I would say that the history you were taught isn't all that accurate either.

So you are saying than when United Canada was created Québécois didn't count for 7/10 of a person? A bit like black people counted for 3/5 of a person in the US.

In Ontario we still live with the legacies of bringing Quebec into the fold. Our Catholic School Boards exist because of it.

Yeah, that compensates for the racism and exploitation...

Quebec receives back billions of dollars more, from the Federal Government, than it pays out to it. That's not as bad as for example what PEI or Nunavut receives, per capita, but make no mistake that there would be a rather large additional bill to pay of the Federal government wasn't sending money Quebec's way.

Which would be compensated by the money we sent to Ottawa and the the things we wouldn't need to pay twice... An independent Québec is very viable economically. At worse, what do we do? Raise taxes or cut spending. The Liberals have pludge Québec in austerity, so cuts are being taken care of.

Back to Greece, it appears Germany is making money off the Greek crisis. 100 billion Euros it would seem or 3% of its GDP, for a profit of 10 billion Euros. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...y-is-making-a-profit-out-of-the-greek-crisis/

 

[Ryujin]

But it was. The provinces are the providers of healthcare. When Ottawa cut healthcare subsidies, it was the provinces who have to either raise taxes or reduce services. At the next election people just remembered the line that the federral budget was balanced and blame Québec or Toronto for the reduction in healthcare services. Like I said before, Ottawa has the money, but none of the responsabilities.

When I say that it wasn't sneaky I'm saying that you could see the knife coming. It wasn't in the back. The Conservatives excel at using the knife in the dark.

Because it has the better platform and leader. If this is about all political parties are the same, it is not accurate. The NDP is pro-choice, ins't working for the tar sands industry, isn't against unionized workers going on strike, is against the UCCB, is for the LSVCC tax credit, is against fees or tax hike for the middle class, etc.

So you are anti-choice, pro-UCCB, anti-LSVCC, for the tar sands industry tax credits, for the federal government stepping in when workers go on strike?

You like their platform. I don't. Conflating that with single specific issues doesn't make it so.

But healthcare is ok? Why is one bad and the other ok?

Because I believe in a social safety net, universal health care, and universal education. I see no need to that to be extended further, just because some people don't like having to pay for things themselves.

Can you pinpoint in their platform where they say your taxes will rise? What they propose is use the 4 billion surplus that will come from cancelling the UCCB to finance their initiatives instead of raising taxes.

The UCCB is a virtual zero-sum shell game, created purely for electioneering. They give the UCCB. They take away the income tax credit. I'm against it because it IS a shell game. There is no 'surplus' to use to finance anything else. Universal child care is going to increase my taxes.

Writting off 50% of Québec's population only shows that only Québécois who think like the masters are welcomed in the federation. So much for freedom of thought and everyone being equal.

A leader who seems to like the idea of breaking up the country he wants to lead isn't the sort of leader that I want. I also don't think that the Bloc should have been permitted to be a Federal party for the same reason. Provincial? Sure, but not Federal.

Its respect for the law is irrelevant to Uber being an example of a corporation having an head office that has a substantial cash flow with few employees. The kind an independent Québec would get, along with the ones with more employees.

I disagree. I think that an illegal enterprise makes for a rather poor example. To take it to the next level would you likewise reference Rock Machine or Hells Angels?

Alberta is/was the cash cow. Might I remind you that Ontario has been receiving more transfer payments than Alberta for a while now. But the point was that when Québec was the cash cow, Canada clad to take from it and it was ok to give to the needy. Now that the situation is reverse, we are freeloaders. It is a double standard.

Ontario was the cash cow, until quite recently. Now it's Alberta. There's a reason for that. Quebec hasn't been the cash cow in rather a long time. Loooooooooong time.

The wrongs the Scotts went through do not cancel the ones we went through. Or the Aboriginales for that matter.

No, it doesn't. It does, however, put the whining into perspective

You mean more than oil-industry-powered-Alberta has on the Conservatives?

This is why the Tories formed a majority government with only 5 elected deputees from Québec in 2011?

Yes, more than Alberta. At least as much, if not more than Ontario. Not more than the entire rest of the country though. This is why the Tories formed a majority government with 'only' 5 elected MPs from Quebec in 2011.

Per capita Québec receives less money than Nova Scotia, PEI, New-Brunswick, Manitoba, Yukon, Nunavut and the NWT. http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp

We aren't getting any special treatement, especially if we go back in time not too long ago when oil wasn't that big in Canada. The list would be longer. Some provinces just got lucky, or in the case of Newfoundland, stole Labrador and its oil from Québec.

I'm well aware of that. That's because they are legitimate have-not Provinces.

Newfoundland's drilling, from what I recall, is offshore. There was nothing to 'steal' from Quebec.

So you are saying than when United Canada was created Québécois didn't count for 7/10 of a person? A bit like black people counted for 3/5 of a person in the US.

Yeah, that compensates for the racism and exploitation...

Nope, I didn't say that. I'd like to see some supporting documentation though. What I am saying is that it's bloody well time to get over it, when Quebecois now have at least the same voting power, if not more actual power, as every other voter in Canada. I've gotten over Culloden, despite my ancestors being decimated by it. I've even got friends whose Clans and families were on the other side.

The "half a man" comment that tends to be referenced with respect to Blacks comes from the Confederate States Constitution. At least that's the only reference that I've ever found, myself, in research.

Which would be compensated by the money we sent to Ottawa and the the things we wouldn't need to pay twice... An independent Québec is very viable economically. At worse, what do we do? Raise taxes or cut spending. The Liberals have pludge Québec in austerity, so cuts are being taken care of.

So give it a try

Back to Greece, it appears Germany is making money off the Greek crisis. 100 billion Euros it would seem or 3% of its GDP, for a profit of 10 billion Euros. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...y-is-making-a-profit-out-of-the-greek-crisis/

Lending money to Greece was always going to be a losing proposition. It was more of a stick to make them get their house in order. They just ignored the stick, to their detriment.

 

[Ryujin]

[video=youtube;DG6fhub9HDQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG6fhub9HDQ[/video]

I'd vote for him.

 

[Legatus Legionis]

One thing I have not yet heard in this election is the write in ballot: "None of the above".

Of course, it is still early is this long election.

But still...

 

[Ryujin]

One thing I have not yet heard in this election is the write in ballot: "None of the above".

Of course, it is still early is this long election.

But still...

We do not have the ability to formally decline our ballots, as a vote of protest, at the Federal level. This is despite a recommendation for just that from Elections Canada, about 15 years ago, and that several Provinces do give that ability. In a Federal election all that you have is cast ballots, or spoilt ballots.

 

[Kramodlog]

When I say that it wasn't sneaky I'm saying that you could see the knife coming. It wasn't in the back. The Conservatives excel at using the knife in the dark.

Honestly, the Tories did a lot of bad stufff, but was it really that surprising? Especially after the two minority governments when they pretty much tried to rule as a majority.

You like their platform. I don't. Conflating that with single specific issues doesn't make it so.

Platforms are an aggregation of specific issues. I do not like it all, like the proposed tax cut for small businesses, but which party satisfies someone 100% of the time?

Because I believe in a social safety net, universal health care, and universal education. I see no need to that to be extended further, just because some people don't like having to pay for things themselves.

Daycare is education. It is also a pre-emptive safety net for becoming adults. It gives them better chances at fully realizing themselves. Plus poor parents might be in better position to work as kids are taken care off. And it is a more complex issue than "someone doesn't like to pay things". That can be said about health care too. Heck, you can say if you can't pay for a heart attack, just do not eat chips and drink alcohol.

The UCCB is a virtual zero-sum shell game, created purely for electioneering. They give the UCCB. They take away the income tax credit. I'm against it because it IS a shell game. There is no 'surplus' to use to finance anything else. Universal child care is going to increase my taxes.

Shell game? It is true that the UCCB is taxable and replaces a previous tax credit, but the revenue from from the taxes do not cover the whole cost of the UCCB and that cost is financed with our taxes. Remove the UCCB and the surplus increases.

And the daycare program proposed is not financed entirely by the government, sadly. Parents will still have to pay 15$ per day per child. If parents have to pay everyday of the week and every week of the year like in Québec, one child will cost 3,900$ a year. A lot, but a lot less than what parents have to pay now. The government pays the difference. It also sets the maximum prices a daycare can charge, so it doesn't over pay.

A leader who seems to like the idea of breaking up the country he wants to lead isn't the sort of leader that I want.

You really think Mulcaire is an independentist?

I also don't think that the Bloc should have been permitted to be a Federal party for the same reason. Provincial? Sure, but not Federal.

Yeah, cause the rule of law shouldn't apply equaly to Québécois with ideas you do not like.

I disagree. I think that an illegal enterprise makes for a rather poor example. To take it to the next level would you likewise reference Rock Machine or Hells Angels?

Cause they do not pay taxes. Cause criminal gangs are illegal. Cause Uber is not illegal, some of its activities are.

But what if I said Google's Montréal head office instead? Better?

Ontario was the cash cow, until quite recently. Now it's Alberta. There's a reason for that. Quebec hasn't been the cash cow in rather a long time. Loooooooooong time.

So? Atlantic Canada never was and you're not calling them freeloaders, even if per capita they take more money than Québec.

No, it doesn't. It does, however, put the whining into perspective

Cause calling out exploitation and racism is whinning. Yeah, its that attitude that condencending attitude and disregard for what happened that fosters independentist sentiments. Just change the word Québécois for Jews and tell me you'll call them whinners.

Yes, more than Alberta.

That is hilarious. Québec controls the Tories, not Alberta? So the oil tax credits were for us?

At least as much, if not more than Ontario. Not more than the entire rest of the country though. This is why the Tories formed a majority government with 'only' 5 elected MPs from Quebec in 2011.

Because Canada wanted to punish Québec for two minority Conservative government?

I'm well aware of that. That's because they are legitimate have-not Provinces.

We hide our gold?

Newfoundland's drilling, from what I recall, is offshore. There was nothing to 'steal' from Quebec.

Land comes with offshore land.

Nope, I didn't say that. I'd like to see some supporting documentation though.

When United Canada was created, Québec's population was 650,000. Ontario's 450,000. Yet they had both the same number of representatives in government. That means a Québécois represented about 7/10th of an Ontarian. This was done to subjugate us.

Canada West, with its 450,000 inhabitants, was represented by 42 seats in the Legislative Assembly, the same number as the more-populated Canada East, with 650,000 inhabitants. With both of the former colonies having an equal number of seats, the democratic nature of Canada East's legislative representation was thus fundamentally flawed. Despite the Francophone majority in Lower Canada, most of the power was concentrated on the Anglophone minority, who exploited the lack of a secret ballot to intimidate the electorate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Canada#Legislative_Assembly

Guess they do not teach that in Ontarian school.

What I am saying is that it's bloody well time to get over it, when Quebecois now have at least the same voting power, if not more actual power, as every other voter in Canada. I've gotten over Culloden, despite my ancestors being decimated by it. I've even got friends whose Clans and families were on the other side.

Being part of the majority in power helps with injustice. We aren't in power. The past is one thing, but it continues today. The disrespect and racism, but also the promotion of policies that aren't beneficial to us or just detrimental.

The "half a man" comment that tends to be referenced with respect to Blacks comes from the Confederate States Constitution. At least that's the only reference that I've ever found, myself, in research.

It was in the US Constitution from the start.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

So give it a try

Stop trying to stop us.

Lending money to Greece was always going to be a losing proposition.

... Germany made money off it and it seems it will continue.

It was more of a stick to make them get their house in order. They just ignored the stick, to their detriment.

What stick? They just got 10% of the money loaned to them and had to do horrible cuts to get it.

 

[Ryujin]

Honestly, the Tories did a lot of bad stufff, but was it really that surprising? Especially after the two minority governments when they pretty much tried to rule as a majority.

That they succeeded in running the government as if they had a majority is on the Opposition parties, who stood by and let them.

Platforms are an aggregation of specific issues. I do not like it all, like the proposed tax cut for small businesses, but which party satisfies someone 100% of the time?

I don't expect to be 100% satisfied with a party's platform, but occasionally there's a 'poison pill' that makes me be unable to support a party. In the case of the NDP it's a couple of little sugar cubes in a big pile of manure, from my point of view.

Daycare is education. It is also a pre-emptive safety net for becoming adults. It gives them better chances at fully realizing themselves. Plus poor parents might be in better position to work as kids are taken care off. And it is a more complex issue than "someone doesn't like to pay things". That can be said about health care too. Heck, you can say if you can't pay for a heart attack, just do not eat chips and drink alcohol.

Daycare is baby sitting.

Shell game? It is true that the UCCB is taxable and replaces a previous tax credit, but the revenue from from the taxes do not cover the whole cost of the UCCB and that cost is financed with our taxes. Remove the UCCB and the surplus increases.

Yes, a shell game, that the NDP are declaring virtually the full value of as the funding for their plans. Where will that money really come from? When you're talking about a net $158.22 per child, from a touted amount of $720.00 then yes, that's essentially a zero sum shell game. It's also patent political pandering and Mulcair is using their 'financial statements' to support his own.

And the daycare program proposed is not financed entirely by the government, sadly. Parents will still have to pay 15$ per day per child. If parents have to pay everyday of the week and every week of the year like in Québec, one child will cost 3,900$ a year. A lot, but a lot less than what parents have to pay now. The government pays the difference. It also sets the maximum prices a daycare can charge, so it doesn't over pay.

So people actually have to pay a pittance to take care of their own children? Compare those daycare costs to those of a similar family in Ontario. I have friends whose spouses essentially work so that they can cover the cost of daycare (if only they could see it!). Yes, perhaps eight times the amount paid by a family in Quebec.

You really think Mulcaire is an independentist?

I don't care if he is or isn't. You know a man by the company he keeps.

Yeah, cause the rule of law shouldn't apply equaly to Québécois with ideas you do not like.

No, because a Federal party should make an effort to run at a Federal level. That's not one Province.

Cause they do not pay taxes. Cause criminal gangs are illegal. Cause Uber is not illegal, some of its activities are.

But what if I said Google's Montréal head office instead? Better?

Having a motorcycle club isn't illegal, though some of its activities may be illegal.

Google would be a better example. How many people do they employ?

So? Atlantic Canada never was and you're not calling them freeloaders, even if per capita they take more money than Québec.

Well we weren't talking about Atlantic Canada, were we? If we're having a discussion about bicycles and you bring up how motorcycles create pollution, you are then being disingenuous as to my position and motives. As you are by making this statement.

But if you want me to comment on that, I will. I'm from The Maritimes. I don't live there, because there are no jobs there. If you want to talk about freeloaders then I would mention the fishermen who work for their season and then collect Employment Insurance based on the pay they received in that period, which could be as much as $100K for a plum job, which is actually more than enough to see them through the whole year if they actually budgeted. THAT is freeloading.

Cause calling out exploitation and racism is whinning. Yeah, its that attitude that condencending attitude and disregard for what happened that fosters independentist sentiments. Just change the word Québécois for Jews and tell me you'll call them whinners.

It certainly is whining, when it doesn't actually have a negative effect on your life today. See Morrus's thread about "angry posting" and how it keeps you being angry

That is hilarious. Québec controls the Tories, not Alberta? So the oil tax credits were for us?

Calling out one thing doesn't negate disproportionate transfer payments, payments to support a separate media system, an entire wing of the National broadcaster dedicated to essentially one Province, that 6 of the last 11 Prime Ministers have been from Quebec (Rather disproportionate, no?), ...

Because Canada wanted to punish Québec for two minority Conservative government?

No, because the rest of Canada just didn't give a damn about what Quebec wanted at the time. Characterizing it as 'punishment' of Quebec is rather telling. If there was any punishment going on that involved the word "Quebec" then it was punishing the Quebec arm of the Liberal Party, for their pay-off scandals.

We hide our gold?

Hiding it is apparently unnecessary, as you receive a disproportionate amount in transfer payments anyway.

Land comes with offshore land.

Yes, it does, and the oil rigs are offshore from Newfoundland. If that was not the case I would agree with you.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_cesd_201212_01_e_37710.html

When United Canada was created, Québec's population was 650,000. Ontario's 450,000. Yet they had both the same number of representatives in government. That means a Québécois represented about 7/10th of an Ontarian. This was done to subjugate us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Canada#Legislative_Assembly

Guess they do not teach that in Ontarian school.

Oh, so that's your logic. By that same logic I am a significantly smaller fraction of a person by virtue of living in the Greater Toronto Area, instead of Parry Sound or Napanee. It's a political expedient to avoid "the tyranny of the majority." "Subjugation" would be to deny any vote, as was the case with women and blacks in history.

THAT DOES IT! I'm part of an oppressed people. I demand that the Golden Horseshoe secede from Ontario!

Being part of the majority in power helps with injustice. We aren't in power. The past is one thing, but it continues today. The disrespect and racism, but also the promotion of policies that aren't beneficial to us or just detrimental.

The past continues to be an issue precisely because you won't let go of it. Try it. The rest of us have and only comment on it when you bring it up.

Your well being is balanced against the rest of the country. That's what being a country is. You can't get everything that you want, just because you want it. Something isn't your due, simply because you demand it.

It was in the US Constitution from the start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

OK, so it was again involved in giving proportional representation, when slavery was still legal US-wide. It continued to provide Southern US States with disproportionately high representation, in government, until such point as slavery became universally illegal in the US. not quite "from the beginning", but close enough.

Stop trying to stop us.

I'm not. I'm recommending it

I've given up on trying to convince Quebecois to stay in Canada. I'm done. Stay or go, but stop standing in the open door. You're letting the flies in.

... Germany made money off it and it seems it will continue.

What stick? They just got 10% of the money loaned to them and had to do horrible cuts to get it.

Cuts that wouldn't have had to be as bad, if they had taken their own situation seriously. If they had started collecting all of those delinquent taxes, that they need for government operations.

 

[Kramodlog]

That they succeeded in running the government as if they had a majority is on the Opposition parties, who stood by and let them.

The opposition managed to block and change some laws, but a the problem with minority governments is that no one wants to be the one responsable the next election. The Tories were good tacticians. I'll give them that.

I don't expect to be 100% satisfied with a party's platform, but occasionally there's a 'poison pill' that makes me be unable to support a party. In the case of the NDP it's a couple of little sugar cubes in a big pile of manure, from my point of view.

Like what manur aside from the daycare program?

Daycare is baby sitting.

It is educating and assuring a child's developpement during a most crucial period. Seriously. I've seen kids 4 years old barely able to talk because parents didn't talk to them. Those kids will have all sort of issues growing up.

Yes, a shell game, that the NDP are declaring virtually the full value of as the funding for their plans. Where will that money really come from? When you're talking about a net $158.22 per child, from a touted amount of $720.00 then yes, that's essentially a zero sum shell game. It's also patent political pandering and Mulcair is using their 'financial statements' to support his own.

We're talking about close to two billions dollars, it doesn't meet the definition of zero.

So people actually have to pay a pittance to take care of their own children?

Huh?

Compare those daycare costs to those of a similar family in Ontario. I have friends whose spouses essentially work so that they can cover the cost of daycare (if only they could see it!).

Wouldn't that mean that she would be better off at home raising the kids?

See what? I'm not sure I understand that part.

Yes, perhaps eight times the amount paid by a family in Quebec.

Yeah, daycare is way too expensive. This is why it is a good national policy to have universal daycare.

I don't care if he is or isn't.

That is just laziness. If he isn't, and he isn't, he won't promote or do Québec's independence. But that is non-sensicale to think he could. That is up to Québec.

You know a man by the company he keeps.

That is just a saying, not an argument. Besides, what you saying is that 50% of Québécois are untouchable and should be bannished from political activities. You aren't for discriminating Québécois? A good Québécois is a docile Québécois?

No, because a Federal party should make an effort to run at a Federal level. That's not one Province.

It ran at a federal level. Even form the official opposition at the federal level. What you want is control of political activities of those you disagree with.

Having a motorcycle club isn't illegal, though some of its activities may be illegal.

They still are not a for-profit that pay taxes.

Google would be a better example. How many people do they employ?

All I could find was 50.

Well we weren't talking about Atlantic Canada, were we?

So? We are poor, they are poorer. They get more money, we get more hate. Doesn't make sense.

If we're having a discussion about bicycles and you bring up how motorcycles create pollution, you are then being disingenuous as to my position and motives. As you are by making this statement.

You're saying Québec takes too much money from equalization payments. I point out that there are others who take more because they have worse economies. Shouldn't they be blame for being poor, like we are blamed for being poor? Why the hate only for Québec?

But if you want me to comment on that, I will. I'm from The Maritimes. I don't live there, because there are no jobs there. If you want to talk about freeloaders then I would mention the fishermen who work for their season and then collect Employment Insurance based on the pay they received in that period, which could be as much as $100K for a plum job, which is actually more than enough to see them through the whole year if they actually budgeted. THAT is freeloading.

Yeah, I've heard a lot about fishermen and the money they make.

It certainly is whining, when it doesn't actually have a negative effect on your life today. See Morrus's thread about "angry posting" and how it keeps you being angry

It still does have a negative impact on our lives. There is still racism, there is still a desire to assimilate us and we still suffer from economic disparity. What Canadians are asking is for us to shut up because we are inconviniant. It is that attitude that keeps the sovereignist movement alive.

Calling out one thing doesn't negate disproportionate transfer payments, payments to support a separate media system, an entire wing of the National broadcaster dedicated to essentially one Province, that 6 of the last 11 Prime Ministers have been from Quebec (Rather disproportionate, no?), ...

The funny thing is, the payments are proportional to our needs to be on equal footing with the rest of Canada. We are poor thanks to centuries of colonialism. We're one fourth of the population, but one fifth of the economy. We're less poor than the Maritimes and we get less money. I guess we get the hate cause of our ethnicity.

There are other francophones outside of Québec. Do you think francophone tax dollars should be used to finance an exclusively anglophone media? Why should you exclusively benefit from our money? Cause we're your subservients? What if your tax dollars just financed one francophone media? No need for two, right? If you do not mind assimilation, why not let us assimilate you with all francophone media?

15 of Canada's 22 PMs came from outside Québec. And one was a senator that served for less than year. Do not worry, we haven't taken control.

No, because the rest of Canada just didn't give a damn about what Quebec wanted at the time. Characterizing it as 'punishment' of Quebec is rather telling. If there was any punishment going on that involved the word "Quebec" then it was punishing the Quebec arm of the Liberal Party, for their pay-off scandals.

The liberals have always been corrupt. This is in part why the Bloc was the better option.

Hiding it is apparently unnecessary, as you receive a disproportionate amount in transfer payments anyway.

It is proportional to our lack of wealth. This is why the maritimes get more, they are more poor than us. But we are more poor than Ontario, so we get more. If you want to explain why you think we are richer than we are, please do.

Yes, it does, and the oil rigs are offshore from Newfoundland. If that was not the case I would agree with you.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_cesd_201212_01_e_37710.html

Cool. Then we just aren't lucky enough to have oil. And we stay poor. *plays sad violin*

Oh, so that's your logic. By that same logic I am a significantly smaller fraction of a person by virtue of living in the Greater Toronto Area, instead of Parry Sound or Napanee. It's a political expedient to avoid "the tyranny of the majority." "Subjugation" would be to deny any vote, as was the case with women and blacks in history.

THAT DOES IT! I'm part of an oppressed people. I demand that the Golden Horseshoe secede from Ontario!

Really? Reductio ad absurdum? You're just deflecting that simple fact: the system was rig to keep us away from power and keep us subjugated. It was done based on Lord Durham's rapport that recommanded "the assimilation of the inferior race". The moral is that history is not like it was presented to you.

The past continues to be an issue precisely because you won't let go of it. Try it. The rest of us have and only comment on it when you bring it up.

Of course, you're in power. You do not care. History, as we've been seeing in this thread, depicts Canadian as goody two shoes and doesn't talk about the dark parts. Of course you want us to shut up about the dark parts. It might mean you'd have to change things or at least listen to our grievances.

Your well being is balanced against the rest of the country. That's what being a country is.

A federation. And we didn't ask to be part of it. It was forced.

You can't get everything that you want, just because you want it. Something isn't your due, simply because you demand it.

That is one thing. The argument is that being in Canada is not in Québec's interest or that Canadians do not have Québec's interest at heart. For example, your comment about the french media is a symptom of that. We need a media in our language to get people informed and avoid assimilation. Yet it makes you bitter to pay for your supposed partner to be informed and preserve its identity.

Cuts that wouldn't have had to be as bad, if they had taken their own situation seriously. If they had started collecting all of those delinquent taxes, that they need for government operations.

Let go of the past.