It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bloc Quebecois Demands $3.9 Billion Or They Will Topple Government

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Gilles Duceppe, Leader of the Bloc Quebecois, has anounced that his party will vote against the next budget unless the Conservatives cough up $3.9 billion for Quebec to correct the fiscal imbalance. The fiscal year end for the Canadian government is March 31 and the budget must be tabled by then. The budget is a non-confidence vote and the Conservatives will need the Bloc's support in order to stay in power.



"Stephen Harper must now deliver the goods for Quebec, especially concerning the elimination of the fiscal imbalance,'' Duceppe said in a statement. "If Stephen Harper breaks this promise, we will make his government fall.''

The sovereigntist leader wants Ottawa to hand over at least $3.9 billion to Quebec this year to make up for what he says are funding shortfalls.

Bloc's Duceppe threatens Tories over imbalance

Fiscal imbalances are something that most provinces want to have addressed, but Quebec is the only province in a position to threaten the government which gives them a heck of a lot more leverage than the rest of us. The Conservatives will have to give in to the demand because (a) there is no way the other parties would pass up a chance to bring them down and (b) if they don't do what Quebec wants, they will lose 10 seats in the next election.

It must be nice to have the power to hold the federal government ransom.




posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Wow, Quebec is holding the rest of the country at ransom? Who would have thought this could happen?


The Tories have NO choice but to comply. Damn near every province is complaining about the imbalance but BAM, we have a regional party here that WILL be able to do something. That's the problem I have with a party that only serves 1 province.

That begs a question, who's REALLY in charge in Ottawa? Harper or Duceppe?



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 06:10 AM
link   
It's shocking, isn't it.


I love Quebec, I really do, but they bug me sometimes. It's all 'me, me, me' coming out of that province. If all the provinces get extra money because of this demand, I'll feel better.

There are times when I agree with the Bloc's stance on issues and would toy with the idea of voting for them if they went national and gave up this whole separation business. But if they did that, they probably couldn't get elected in Quebec anymore.


Duceppe is definitely running the show now. He's put Harper on notice.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

I thought this was amusing and on topic. Quebec IS a distinct society, I think. And so is the west....etc. The problem is, the government's only paying for theirs.

DE

PS- I'm a quebecker.

[edit on 25-10-2006 by DeusEx]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
www.youtube.com...

I thought this was amusing and on topic. Quebec IS a distinct society, I think. And so is the west....etc. The problem is, the government's only paying for theirs.

DE

PS- I'm a quebecker.

[edit on 25-10-2006 by DeusEx]


Oh sweet Jesus, that was hillarious. BTW, what's wrong with spending your anniversary at a strip bar, in Quebec? Hell, the wife and I went to Hooter's for one of ours. Had a helluva time, both of us, that is.




I thought this was amusing and on topic. Quebec IS a distinct society, I think. And so is the west....etc.


Distinct society? It doesn't get more "distint" than Newfoundland. They've got an ENGLISH language all of their own. But that's another thread.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
We have Jouale, you know. Redneck French all up in!

Quebec is a distinct society, and as such, they need money for the governing. It's unfair, when you have the Maritimes needing that money much worse, but QUebec has always seen the rest of Canada as against them.

Usually, they're right.

DE



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
We don't disagree often DE but this is bunk. Look at your own post:


Originally posted by DeusEx
Quebec is a distinct society, and as such, they need money for the governing.


Why, are they that bad at governing?


It's unfair, when you have the Maritimes needing that money much worse


YEAH, they need it much worse because they took a BIG hit for NAFTA, that supposedly benefitted the rest of the country. So money for a MUCH needier area should STILL go to Quebec?


but QUebec has always seen the rest of Canada as against them.


Getting REALLY tired of this old chestnut. That's the one that's allow Quebec free reign FOREVER.


Usually, they're right.

DE


No, they aren't. It's a masked perception. The rest of Canada has been catering to Quebec for decades, dare I say, over a century. No, that's wrong, Quebec used to reach out and work with the rest of the country, now, it's blackmail, AND WE TAKE IT.

Sorry DE, I'm tired of this line of reasoning from Le Belle Province, it doesn't fly. Am I "distinctive" because my Grandmother was French? Oops, NOT!!! She wasn't Quebecios, she was from New Brunswick. This is self serving posturing, that has gone on TOO damn long.

Quebec mission statement:

"One province, indivisable, with liberty for us and payment for the rest."

Edit: Fixed BB code.



[edit on 25-10-2006 by intrepid]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Why, are they that bad at governing?


Nawp, but they do have the second largest population in the Dominion. And, as the Laval incident showed, the province IS falling apart. It's not like they're sitting on their hands. Been through Downtown Montreal lately? the Champlain is a nightmare, like all the roads leading to it.


YEAH, they need it much worse because they took a BIG hit for NAFTA, that supposedly benefitted the rest of the country. So money for a MUCH needier area should STILL go to Quebec?


I'm saying our magic surplus should benefit everyone. Both the maritimes and Quebec needs the money. Just because the Martimes need the money doesn't mean that Quebec shouldn't get any. Maybe the 3.9 shouldbe split amongst the Maritimes and Quebec.



Usually, they're right.

DE


Getting REALLY tired of this old chestnut. That's the one that's allow Quebec free reign FOREVER.

No, they aren't. It's a masked perception. The rest of Canada has been catering to Quebec for decades, dare I say, over a century. No, that's wrong, Quebec used to reach out and work with the rest of the country, now, it's blackmail, AND WE TAKE IT.

Sorry DE, I'm tired of this line of reasoning from Le Belle Province, it doesn't fly. Am I "distinctive" because my Grandmother was French? Oops, NOT!!! She wasn't Quebecios, she was from New Brunswick. This is self serving posturing, that has gone on TOO damn long.

Quebec mission statement:

"One province, indivisable, with liberty for us and payment for the rest."


I'd hardly call maligning and the abortion of the Meech Lake Accords 'catering'. Quebec learned then what the other provinces truly thought of them then, on that day in 1990. The reforms were good- I am not a federalist, one of the few points that I dissent with our lord Trudeau on.

Quebec has learned that it cannot rely on others to get its fair share, so it feels the need to take it. It may not seem nice, but to be frank, would New Brunswick do any less if it had the power?

DE



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I agree with much of what has been said. Canada, the Provinces and Territories and Regions and Municipalities need a thorough integrated "look-see' at what's "under the hood". Not hittin' on all cylinders, some's rich, some's lean.

It would seem reasonable to some that a redefining of the Canadian family relationship is in order. There is "fair" and there is not so "fair", not because of any specific group or intent per se but rather because of the change that occurs over time and our systems' inability to react and account for such inter-tangled transfer legislations in a way that all really understand "the deal" across our various cultural, economic and geo-political perspectives. We are a big place and we have lots in need of doing...

Garth Turner had an idea way, way back that had some merit... I think it was in a newspaper editorial in the '80's - the notion of a panel comprised of Canadians from all walks of life to come together frequently to "work on stuff". I'm not in favour of throwing out any accords or existing legislations, but a good overhaul and 21st century refit is in order.

How would you do it? Formula's? Egg-head economists? Disaster to disaster? I would hope that they (experts) would play a part but the real quill would be to have a systematic rationalization that is set by priority at the various integrated levels of government and most importantly - ordinary Canadians... lots of them.

Perhaps even make it a right of the individual citizen to be heard by such a panel. A mechanism to pick issues and deal with them in a way that leads the way for the focus of elected government at all levels... kind of a gentle nudge in the ribs agency that can do what the Auditor General does now but with a planning orientation.

Maybe like a plan for planning to deal with up coming and legacy issues in a flexible set of 5 or so year plans being annually reviewable and renwable in constant on-going session year round. Who might run such a "machine"? I'd suggest the "last clean non-miltary government agency"; the Auditor General's office. I can't think of another agency that isn't all weighed down with vested interests and partisanship.

$3.9 Billion? That's just this year. And only one province, and only part of the actual transfer of wealth. And only two or perhaps 3 provinces are on the "have" side of the equation? Equation? We need a way to figure out how to address everybody's troubles in a more unified and integrated way... we need to make some more "have" provinces, "have" regions and "have" municipalities. Not having a comprehensive long-term strategy is to ignore great potentials.

Victor K.

43'


[edit on 26-10-2006 by V Kaminski]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join