The general WHAT IN THE WORLD is going on in Canada?

[ITCC_Andrew]

So this is a thread for bashing Canadians and other fellow Canadians? How nice..

No, it's a place full of "the chaps" and "the chums."


I should add a disclaimer, I'm not referring to the French as "mes chums" because I don't swing for the team. However, I just find the basis of the word quite intriguing.


It's a bit of a discussion of Canadian politics, and a bit of a place to tell off-topic Canadian-only jokes. Like the pride of the Canadian spirit being, apparently, the fact that we aren't America, after so many years. I mean, we take pride in not being American. What a joke.


But, indeed, I can't think of another country like Canada. So peaceful, it's boring.

 

[Public'sTwin]

The french, (Quebecois in perticular) have never EVER liked the english for one common reason. Patriotism.
Canada, being a colony of Great Britian, was forced into fighting, this meant that the French Canadians had to as well. The dilema was that they were being forced to fight for a country that had just beaten their own.
French vs English is like Ford vs Chevy.. Born to be rivals.
Hopefully I remebered a bit from history class... Correct me If I'm wrong

Just been beaten? It was more like 140 years (French defeat at Quebec city [1759], followed by fall of Montréal) until the sovereignty (and class, language, race, culture) argument was brought to the fore by the Boer War [1899].

Keep in mind Quebecois were (& are) Canadians by 1899. The French Revolution, and indeed many of the revolutions that swept Europe between 1840-1914, meant for Canada the dream of 'nationhood', fostered by the then-novel concept of nationalism. The French who weathered the British defeat were not the same, highly integrated, wealthy, and politically disproportionately-influential population that resided in Quebec ca. 1900. They were not crushed by a "recent" defeat, so much as galvanized in the certitude of Canada's autonomy (and future international involvement), which at that time was only domestic. So rather than being upset over having to fight for a country "who had just defeated their own", they were quite upset about the demonstrated lack of choice that Canada had in the matter.

The debate, primarily, was taken up by two Quebecers: Henri Bourassa and Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Laurier's vision of Canada as a single, unified, whole was as important to the forging of a Canadian identity as Bourassa's campaign for equal Québec rights was for the people of Québec. The problem, if it can described as such, is that those two goals happened to coincide at the same time and place—and worse—during a moment of national strain (the Boer War question) and rapid provincial development.

Arguably, Bourassa's demands of the federal government, which required a level of oratorical assault and propagandistic rhetoric in order to secure support, could be conceived as having been detrimental to Roman-Catholic Québec's relationship with the rest of an Anglo-Saxon and increasingly Americanised, material 'Canada'. His rhetoric was borderline militant and actually similar in tone to some of the Christian fundamentalism we witness today; his vision was of a utopic, Catholic agrarian society, rich in virtue and untainted by the increasingly powerful and exploitative—not to mention propped up by the federal government—industrial centre that was Montréal.

Laurier's focus on national cohesion, growth, and elimination of the rampant corruption inherited from the previous Conservative government, necessarily meant that he could not devote time to countering such characterizations of him and the Liberal government. But one small nagging factor remained: the position of the Boers in relation to Imperial Britain was roughly analogous of those in Québec. Such a similarity was difficult to overlook, and with Laurier—the man who brought Québec to national prominence—bearing the responsibility for representing Canada in that war, his solution in lieu of army involvement was to send militia volunteers, and a concession like that simply could not please the majority of francophone Canada.

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

Maybe Quebec can partner up with Puerto Rico?

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Maybe Quebec can partner up with Puerto Rico?

French: Non
Spanish: No


Erm, considering that Puerto Rico is extremely Spanish, and Quebec refuses to allow their culture to be watered down... The Quebecois want to be Quebecois, and continue to speak French, with their own culture, and a fair, non-supposedly-corrupt government.


I doubt a partnership with Puerto Rico would work. I reckon Quebec would try to involve France with St. Pierre and Miquelon... Since they would be Quebec's only efficient trading partners. :facepalm:

 

[Joel]

I doubt a partnership with Puerto Rico would work. I reckon Quebec would try to involve France with St. Pierre and Miquelon... Since they would be Quebec's only efficient trading partners. :facepalm:

So you think the US and hypothetical rest of Canada would completely abandon trade with a market of 7-8 million people just because?

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

So you think the US and hypothetical rest of Canada would completely abandon trade with a market of 7-8 million people just because?

I thought Quebec would perhaps completely want to forget us... Considering that's, apparently, part of wanting sovereignty. I mean, do you think that they want sovereignty, so that they can keep everything the same, anyways? That seems like a waste.

 

[Joel]

I thought Quebec would perhaps completely want to forget us... Considering that's, apparently, part of wanting sovereignty. I mean, do you think that they want sovereignty, so that they can keep everything the same, anyways? That seems like a waste.

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense at all. You can be a sovereign nation and still trade. Everything won't be "the same", but they're not going to become the North American version of North Korea. The sovereignty movement is about Quebec being its own nation. Is Canada not a sovereign nation because we trade with the US?

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

What will change?

 

[Joel]

What will change?

Probably not a ton, but they would be able to decide their own direction in the future, could opt in or out of treaties, military operations independently, set up their own tax structure, have a different court system, opt in or out of trade sanctions against other countries, I don't know what else to say. If Quebec was independent, they'd govern themselves. A lot of things could change, or absolutely nothing could change. But Quebec would decide for themselves rather that be part of a country that may not represent the desires of the province's people.

 

[Liquid]

Is Canada not a sovereign nation because we trade with the US?

Is Canada not a sovereign nation because it's an autonomous being within the Commonwealth? Or because the Head of State is not the Head of Government?

Sovereignty does not mean isolation.

This point was addressed to MrMelancholy15. I was backing Noob616 up with another example.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Canada's actually more autonomous than Wales... We don't listen to the EU's guidance, nor, really, Britain.


But, in fairness, your point's valid, Liquid.


And, yes, I do agree, noob, but, is it worth leaving Canada, just to see which decisions would change? There are a few things that the federal gov't pays for, that the province can't afford... Like, for example, free education and healthcare.


If Quebec weren't Canadian, all of that would be in jeopardy.

 

[photonrider]

I love Canada.

And it always feel good to tell the complainers to go back where they came from. Especially the ones who don't call themselves Canadian but always tout another nationality.

 

[Drevenger]

Divide and conquer. You're being spoon fed by mainstream media.
There is no sovereign hype in Quebec, in fact its quite the opposite.
I reckon Alberta will seperate itself from canada before Quebec do.
Marois got slapped in the face this last election in %.
People got sick of Charest cause he's been there for almost a decade, totally normal to see power fade after so long at premier.
Everything is like usual around here untill next election... in 4 months.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Haha, I guess Ontario might be the next province into elections, considering Dalton McWhiney's current popularity. He's a hypocrite! In politics! Who would think??


Then, Québec's turn is coming shortly, I imagine, as the newer parties gain more popularity, while the others fail... Like the sovereign party can't really stay in, too long. I don't think that they can find the answer to any of Québec's current "topics of discussion." I don't think that they have the experience, the expertise to lead a province.


I think it'll fall back to the way it was.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

The only reason that Dalton Mcugly is in office is because all the candidates were 🤬.

 

[Müle]

Tim Hudak is just a mini-me version of Harpo. Do not want.

 

[Omnis]

Is this guy running for Eternal President of Canada? I would vote for him, eh.

 

[Müle]

He makes perfect sense, but doesn't make me trust Harpo the Clown any more.

 

[Joel]

The rhetoric is good, but our current government isn't all that different. The "opposition" would either be worse (NDP), or similar (Liberals).

 

[jcm]

If you were to combine the Conservatives intelligence of the economy with the Greens environmental intelligence Canada would really the shining star that everyone aspires to be, now and 100s of years from now. Things such as light pollution mean the average Canadian citizen won't be able to see that we're a shining star in the sky, so they'll switch and vote NDP who'll probably mess up the economy so that we aren't quite a shiny

It seems to me like every party in Canada is flawed though, and that the Conservatives have the least worrying flaws, for now. It's my opinion the Conservatives biggest flaw is that they don't seem to have any concern for the environment at all, if they formed a coalition with Greens I'd vote for them in an instant! Environmental stability combined with economic stability, that's perfection for 1000s of years! My thinking is that the Liberals, or NDP would be better for a little while, but they would probably create problems for the long-term, and I just don't want to deal with that. Conservatives seem like the safe option. Greens, and although I have no reason to trust them as the leaders of our country, they would be perfect with 30% of the seats in a minority government

So, my advice is vote Green, and hope for a minority government

And this guy didn't make me start liking his party leader, our prime minister Harper. I still think he might be a very-well programmed robot. Not that it's neccesarily a bad thing though

 

[Joel]

I think Harper gets a lot of unfounded criticism for that reason. He's a robot, and is probably the most boring, clean cut, white bread person on the planet. Most of the criticism I hear about him seems to come from this, it's a lot like how people just hated Romney because he's Romney (not that there weren't other issues there though).

 

[Keef]

If you were to combine the Conservatives intelligence of the economy with the Greens environmental intelligence

What sort of "environmental intelligence are you speaking of? I don't understand how that party works so please enlighten us.

 

[Joel]

What sort of "environmental intelligence are you speaking of? I don't understand how that party works so please enlighten us.

Our green party is well...a green party. They support legalization of the green as well IIRC.

http://www.greenparty.ca/platform2011/budget

Carbon taxes, green energy subsidies, tax credits for installing green appliances, discouraging GMO foods, etc etc. The party leader is a bit of a hoot too.

 

[jcm]

Yeah, so if there were a conservative-green coalition this is what would happen.

Conservatives: "Here is our budget for the fiscal year of 201#, as you can clearly see, it's the best possible budget. NDP and Liberal budgets will lead to complete economic collapse, and ours won't, so we are therefore the best."

Greens: "It could be better though! Let's tax a certain medicinal herb, carbon and some other bad emissions, and fine some companies who pollute way more than they need to, and put this money towards creating green jobs such as building, installing, and managing solar panels, and other green stuff."

Conservatives: "Yeah sure let's do that too."

It's perfect, and it's totally gonna' happen

Carbon taxes, green energy subsidies, tax credits for installing green appliances, discouraging GMO foods, etc etc. The party leader is a bit of a hoot too.

That pretty much sums it up Elizabeth May for prime minister 2016

 

[Keef]

combine the Conservatives intelligence of the economy with the Greens environmental intelligence

...taxes...subsidies...credits...discouraging GMO...

It would be great to combine the best of the two - economic and environmental competence, respectively - except the fact that you can't. They're completely incompatible. A strong economy will be one burdened with few taxes, but the Green party supports taxes. A fair economy is one where nobody gets any special financial benefit and the principle of competition is strong, but the Green party supports subsidies. An economy runs best when people do what they naturally do, but the Green party supports tax credits which will incentivize certain behaviors. A competitive economy is one where technology is used to constantly improve products, save money, and streamline efficiency, but the Green party is against the use of technology to maximize food yields (in a country which is mostly fruitless tundra and mountains, no less). And then there's the fact that the market only really works when the government stays completely out of it, but the entire principle of the Green party is for government to guide the economy based on environmental concerns.

Economics and "environmentalism" simply are not compatible, I'm sorry to break it to you. If the consumer truly cares about the environment, companies will go green by themselves in an effort to please their customers, as has already happened. They'll do research, they'll come up with green tech, they'll implement it where it's feasible, and if successful it will eventually become commonplace. The government doesn't have anything to do with that, it's simply the market at work.

 

[jcm]

I understand what your saying, however I believe a small amount of environmental regulation will actually benefit the economy a lot in the long term. Something simple like a small carbon tax doesn't make much of a negative impact on the economy. Gasoline prices are going up very fast as it is, increasing them by 2% would be a great simple way of either cutting the deficit or helping the environment, or a bit of both. A 2% increase in fuel prices isn't something which would be too noticable to the average person.

And legalizing and taxing a certain green herb would also help cut the deficit.

The green parties idea is to replace some of our current taxes with environmental based taxes, so that the average person would pay the same amount of money as they normally would. If they got everything they wanted the economy probably would suffer, and that's why I suggested a combination of the two. Mostly conservative policies, and replace some current taxes with green taxes and we are a better country in my opinion

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

And legalizing and taxing a certain green herb would also help cut the deficit.

Just don't make me smell that stuff. It smells terrible around here.

 

[Joel]

Green party rant

You're preaching to the choir here (at least for me). That being said, our "Conservative" party does similar things. They subsidize our oil sands industry (we're your number 1 oil provider).

 

[Müle]

I don't trust a party that goes into power with a large surplus and manage to turn it into the largest ever deficit, all while making everything top secret and seemingly not knowing what the word "transparency" means. I don't trust a party that wants to spy on what we do on the internet. I don't trust a party that claims to be "fiscally conservative," but wants to waste money on the military and be the US's bitch, ready to fight for Israel at a moments notice.

As pointed out, there are some smart people in that party. But overall, no thank you. At least not with Harpo as leader.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

I don't trust a party that goes into power with a large surplus and manage to turn it into the largest ever deficit, all while making everything top secret and seemingly not knowing what the word "transparency" means. I don't trust a party that wants to spy on what we do on the internet. I don't trust a party that claims to be "fiscally conservative," but wants to waste money on the military and be the US's bitch, ready to fight for Israel at a moments notice.

As pointed out, there are some smart people in that party. But overall, no thank you. At least not with Harpo as leader.

Problem is, it's not just the party's fault. Look at America, Spain, Greece, Russia, and a few other world powers. We're not strong anymore. Our economies took a fit, altogether, in 2009. We're rebuilding, but, America's on that fiscal cliff "thing," Spain and Greece nearly defaulted, and Canada's in a rather large amount of debt.


And all of this because the housing market in the States had a few foreclosures?


And, it's not that we want to fight for Israel. It's that we want to fight against Iran. The Soviets "brainwashed" our leaders into hating communism. Years of threatening will do that. 1950-1991, that's fourty-one years of "we must hate the communists. They have nuclear weapons aimed right over our heads, at our neighbours."