[Elvis]

Harper promess 3 main thing in order to get some of the soft nationnalist vote in Québec.

1: A place for Québec on some internationnal forum.

2: To solve the fiscal imbalance.

3: Respect povincial juridiction.

Will the CPC fullfill there campaign promess or is this just a cheap way to get vote from the liberal in Québec?

In the past when the CPC had the chance to vote on those issues they have all voted against it? So why should my federalist friend vote for the CPC?

I would like the opinion of Canadian from the ROC on this subject.

[Poisson]

1) Not bad, it could be fullfilled with the support of the Bloc if there's a Conservative minority.

2) It's just an empty promise.

3) Eh...dunno what to say.

The Conservatives are grabbing votes from the Bloc as well, not just the Liberals.

[Elvis]

Latest pole this morning

48% bloc 46.6%
22% CPC 21.6%
17% Lib 19.1%

Those pole have a margine of error around 5%

The seat projection from both pole show 61 to 63 seat for the Bloc
You have to understand Poisson that the Conservative are dividing the federalist vote.

[VitaminC]

Conservatives will take away the clarity act and outlaw french.

[Numure]

VitaminC VitaminC:

Conservatives will take away the clarity act and outlaw french.

If they take away the clarity act then I'm happy. They can outlaw french in ottawa if they want, won't change much in Québec. We already have our own laws here, so what happens in Ottowa as to language is pretty irrelevant.

[maple_leaf1]

Elvis Elvis:

Harper promess 3 main thing in order to get some of the soft nationnalist vote in Québec.

1: A place for Québec on some internationnal forum.

2: To solve the fiscal imbalance.

3: Respect povincial juridiction.

Will the CPC fullfill there campaign promess or is this just a cheap way to get vote from the liberal in Québec?

In the past when the CPC had the chance to vote on those issues they have all voted against it? So why should my federalist friend vote for the CPC?

They voted against a place for Quebec to speak on International matters?

They voted against fiscal imbalance?

They voted not to respect Quebec's jurisdiction?

What the hell are you talking about? And are you talking about today's party or the ones who used to run it in the 80's?

[Elvis]

whooo Maple1 calm down I think you misunderstood my point big time!

Thats not on what they have voted in the past that was the question but what will they do in the future. Will the CPC respect there election promises.

[maple_leaf1]

Well, I'm glad you clarified cuz what you wrote was

$1:

In the past when the CPC had the chance to vote on those issues they have all voted against it

....

Anyways, for results, we will just need to wait and see. Of course, not one party out there is perfect nor will any of them ever do a perfect job at running the country. You put money in one place, someone will cry they want more in another. That's what a society is all about. Trying to find a middle in order to create balance.

Elections...promises...they are visions; they are hopes. Let's wait and see. I'd rather give my vote to a party who hasn't yet stolen my money than bend down and tell the rulling one to screw me again and again.

[Numure]

maple_leaf1 maple_leaf1:

They voted against a place for Quebec to speak on International matters?

They voted against fiscal imbalance?

They voted not to respect Quebec's jurisdiction?

What the hell are you talking about? And are you talking about today's party or the ones who used to run it in the 80's?

In October, the Bloc motioned a vote on obliging the federal government to consult with provinces before signing any internationnal treaty that was in their fields of competence (Education and Health Care). All the other parties voted against it, the Conservatives included. This was 4 months ago.

[maple_leaf1]

Numure Numure:

maple_leaf1 maple_leaf1:

They voted against a place for Quebec to speak on International matters?

They voted against fiscal imbalance?

They voted not to respect Quebec's jurisdiction?

What the hell are you talking about? And are you talking about today's party or the ones who used to run it in the 80's?

In October, the Bloc motioned a vote on obliging the federal government to consult with provinces before signing any internationnal treaty that was in their fields of competence (Education and Health Care). All the other parties voted against it, the Conservatives included. This was 4 months ago.

Find it for me...and link it - I'll read it first and then debate on it. Cuz I'm not sure which one you're talking about. But I'm open to discussion.

[Elvis]

C-260 Here you go c-260

[Numure]

Merci Elvis, j'avais tellement de misère à la trouver. J'croyait que c'était c-407 ou quelque chose du genre.

[maple_leaf1]

Thanks guys. Just read it...completely. I would have voted against it too.

The motion title: An Act respecting the negotiation, approval, tabling and publication of treaties

But then you scroll down and read: “important treaty” includes any treaty,

And here is where the problem/contradiction starts. Some of the definitions are irrelevant of provincial jurisdiction. Here are a few:

- c) concerning the transfer of a part of the territory of Canada or any change to the boundaries of Canada That is a Federal matter. Not provincial...
(d) under which Canada undertakes to impose economic or military sanctions, whether direct or conditional, against a State; Again, provinces have no say over federal matters. Are they gonna start consulting each province before declaring war?

There's more stuff I don't necessarily agree with in the motion. I understand why one would vote against it. Education and healthcare? Yes. The above mentionned fields? No.

[Numure]

maple_leaf1 maple_leaf1:

Thanks guys. Just read it...completely. I would have voted against it too.

The motion title: An Act respecting the negotiation, approval, tabling and publication of treaties

But then you scroll down and read: “important treaty” includes any treaty,

And here is where the problem/contradiction starts. Some of the definitions are irrelevant of provincial jurisdiction. Here are a few:

- c) concerning the transfer of a part of the territory of Canada or any change to the boundaries of Canada That is a Federal matter. Not provincial...
(d) under which Canada undertakes to impose economic or military sanctions, whether direct or conditional, against a State; Again, provinces have no say over federal matters. Are they gonna start consulting each province before declaring war?

There's more stuff I don't necessarily agree with in the motion. I understand why one would vote against it. Education and healthcare? Yes. The above mentionned fields? No.

Territorial integrety is a provincial affair, if it touchs the province in questions territory.

Provinces, under the constitution, have a right to a say in internationnal affairs. The only province that has acted upon its constitutional rights are Québec.

[maple_leaf1]

Numure Numure:

maple_leaf1 maple_leaf1:

Thanks guys. Just read it...completely. I would have voted against it too.

The motion title: An Act respecting the negotiation, approval, tabling and publication of treaties

But then you scroll down and read: “important treaty” includes any treaty,

And here is where the problem/contradiction starts. Some of the definitions are irrelevant of provincial jurisdiction. Here are a few:

- c) concerning the transfer of a part of the territory of Canada or any change to the boundaries of Canada That is a Federal matter. Not provincial...
(d) under which Canada undertakes to impose economic or military sanctions, whether direct or conditional, against a State; Again, provinces have no say over federal matters. Are they gonna start consulting each province before declaring war?

There's more stuff I don't necessarily agree with in the motion. I understand why one would vote against it. Education and healthcare? Yes. The above mentionned fields? No.

Territorial integrety is a provincial affair, if it touchs the province in questions territory.

Provinces, under the constitution, have a right to a say in internationnal affairs. The only province that has acted upon its constitutional rights are Québec.

That motion isn't talking about a "say" but that the Federal governemnt would need to obtain their consent before acting on international decisions that are irrelevant to provincial jurisdiction. These subjects are of Federal jurisdiction.