Webdoctors,
Yes, Newfoundland still receives
Dependency is necessary to maintain the legitimacy of the federal government.
But Newfoundland can’t go. That would mean the Canadian Catholic church would have to start importing its pedophiles.
But BC and Alberta, I would support that union in a heartbeat. One giant economic landmass run on tourism, lumber, oil, gas, beef, organic produce and video games.
Canadaslovakia is a far off country about which we know little.
so the newfies are making a bit of money and want to keep it all, and still get money from ottawa. kind of like having the best of both worlds. so what does the premier do, he throws a little fit to get attention. iam out in sask right now, and there is no sympathy for them out here.
as for alberta and bc joining together, i think it would be much easier for alberta and sask to go together. after all everyone from here seems to move there anyways.
you really should get over here soon and help to clean the coffee off the wall. i did manage to miss the moniter when i spit it there, but not by much … 
Brian Adams, maple syrup and beaver pelts. Oh yeah, snow. Lots of snow.
Brian Adams, maple syrup and beaver pelts. Oh yeah, snow. Lots of snow.
[/quote]
Same telephone predial like USA, but own elections.
Strange world this is.
[quote=“Mucha (Muzha) Man”]Dependency is necessary to maintain the legitimacy of the federal government.
But Newfoundland can’t go. That would mean the Canadian Catholic church would have to start importing its pedophiles.
But BC and Alberta, I would support that union in a heartbeat. One giant economic landmass run on tourism, lumber, oil, gas, beef, organic produce and video games.[/quote]
Another interesting article by the Sun which delves into Western separatism.
canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnist … 50260.html
For there’s been much doubt about the national commitments of Albertans ever since the 1980s.
The “New Canada,” which is being manufactured by the Ottawa-Toronto axis and imposed on the rest of us, has been rejected by the West in the last four elections.
If the Canadian flags came down in Edmonton and Calgary, there would certainly be a protest.
But there would also be a great deal of cheering – far more, I suspect, than there would have been in Lougheed’s day.
One thing that fuels this is the blind arrogance of the Toronto media, the self-proclaimed “national” media.
Example: In the midst of the uproar over Williams’ flag exhibition, the Globe and Mail ran a column by Margaret Wente, headlined across the top of its front page: “Newfoundlanders need to stop biting the hand that feeds them.”
There followed a cocky reminder to Newfoundlanders of all the wonderful things that Canada keeps giving them – such as pogey and experimental industrial projects that don’t work – and how hard the people of Toronto sweat and slave to bestow this upon them. “Oh Danny Boy, pipe down,” writes Margaret.
She made no mention, of course, of the fishing rights bestowed by Ottawa on foreign fishermen in exchange for advantages to Ontario and Quebec industry, or how Ottawa made sure that Quebec became the chief beneficiary of the huge Churchill Falls power project.
Most notable, however, is the fact that everything Margaret writes about Newfoundland applies equally to Quebec.
Funny thing is that she’s never written this about Quebec. Perhaps that’s because she knows she’d be fired the next day if she did. For in the New Canada, we all know that Quebec is special and Newfoundland isn’t.
Maybe that’s another reason the flags went down in Newfoundland.
What happened to this…
[/quote]Don’t insult me by calling me a Sun-reader.
Let me guess, you and your Bush buddies still rant about Kerry’s flip flopping. :loco:
Big Nose,
I am not a regular Sun reader, but I am a “newspaper junkie” who reads many international papers from across the political spectrum. The usual definition of a “Sun reader” stereotype is a red-neck Albertan content to read just one source. Of course, I think the paper is actually quite refreshing and sorely needed in a nation dominated by the eastern-centric Globe and Mail, but would still take acception to somebody labelling me as a “Sun reader” because of the stereotype that this label is associated with. Understand?
John Crosbie had an article in Sunday
here is a little bit of interesting information for you all. this all comes from the provinacial govt webpages.
here are some figures for saskatchewan 2004-5 budget estimates. total revenue-$6,590,500,000. total federal transfers-$1,325,700,000. population, 996,194. so thats $1330/person of federal money.
quebec 2003-4 budget. total revenue-$51,837,000,000. total federal transfers $9,377,000,000. population 7,509,928. canada pays $1248/person
newfoundland 2004-5 budget estimates. total revenues-$4,251,862,000. total fed transfers-$1,450,816,000. population 512,930. canada pays $2828/person.
nunavut 2003-4 budget. total revenue- $789,054,000, total federal transfers-$724,583,000. so nunavut only provides $64,471,000 of their own budget, thats only 8.9%. the rest of canada provides the rest. the population is about 30,000 people. so the federal govt gives around $24,000 per person.
these figures are just the provincial bugdgets and dont take into consideration any programs that the federal govt has with the provinces or include money that is part of federal jurisdiction.
so think about all the taxes we pay and how much money goes to places. ive been in nunavut a few times, ive seen how it is. i havent been to a third world country, but people tell me its similar to one. one person said how it would be cheaper for the govt of canada to offer the people of nunavut a one time lump sum payment to move to southern canada. i know that might seem insensitive, it wasnt me who said it. but if you look at the stats, it would be cheaper considering the popluation up there is growing at 8% a year. the median age is 22.1 years old, around 1/3 of the people are under the age of 15. it is going to get expensive in the future if the govt has to keep supporting them, something else has to be done.
so for all of you who want to rant and rave at me about it all, go for it i can just imagine what is going to be written and its going to be funny.
It is about time!!! Let’s hope Harper becomes Canada’s next PM :bravo:
weLL, it llooks to mee az if canoeda is headed za way of Idalie… Lots of shitty little parties and bickering and plenty of money changing hands behind scenes, but little if anything done… Remember, Canada is the land where you have to pay two government fees to get one thing done, like getting your eyes tested in B.C…
In a nation that has no development, or only small-scale developments, barely on par with the industrial and technological developments of other nations, you will see a greater shift towards imaginary employment, like the government itself…
You can be an official when there is nothing to do, like old China. I have always found Canada absurd, and hard to understand for this reason… So much land, so many bright people, yet so many ill-educated red-necks who can’t do anything but manual labor!!!
It’ll be another minority, with a larger NDP block propping up the Liberals. The Bloc will be back in force as well. If only the Liberals didn’t try to get so cute fighting the seperatists, the Bloc might be nothing but a rump. Idiots.
Harper’s last election, Martin’s as well, with any luck.
It’ll be an election about not much, focusing on nothing but negatives.
Far more interesting will be the contest to replace Martin in 1 - 3 years.
Sad state of affairs.
[quote=“Jaboney”]It’ll be another minority, with a larger NDP block propping up the Liberals. The Bloc will be back in force as well. If only the Liberals didn’t try to get so cute fighting the seperatists, the Bloc might be nothing but a rump. Idiots.
Harper’s last election, Martin’s as well, with any luck.
It’ll be an election about not much, focusing on nothing but negatives.
Far more interesting will be the contest to replace Martin in 1 - 3 years.
Sad state of affairs.[/quote]
I’d like to see Harper win. :bravo: However, your prediction could likely come true. If it does, Harper will resign and will be shortly replaced by Peter Mackay. The East will find him more palatable than Harper. Personally, I think Mackay is slightly “soft.” I’d really like to see an intellectual westerner such as Ted Morton step into federal politics. This man’s IQ is higher than a roomful of Libs. tedmorton.ca/
If the NDP under smiling Jack gains more seats and holds the balance of power, Canada will turn even more leftward that it is now 
The damage that was done to the country from 1972 to 1974 under the Liberal-NDP Trudeau-Lewis coaltion still hurts Canada to this day. In any case, the country will lose under such a coalition as the Libs will have to spend, spend, and spend just to keep the NDP happy.
I’m just glad I don’t have to work in Canada. In some government departments, it is illegal now to hire men. 
[quote]We can and must enact an Alberta Marriage Bill of Rights that protects the freedoms of speech, association, religion and conscience of the large majority of Albertans who disagree with same-sex marriage. This Bill of Rights would also extend protection to students, parents and teachers in public, separate and private schools to ensure no Albertan is forced to promote or teach any aspects of the same-sex agenda.
And as a firm demonstration of Alberta
[quote=“MikeN”][quote=“Chewycorns”]
I
I’d like to see Harper win. :bravo: However, your prediction could likely come true. If it does, Harper will resign and will be shortly replaced by Peter Mackay. The East will find him more palatable than Harper. Personally, I think Mackay is slightly “soft.” I’d really like to see an intellectual westerner such as Ted Morton step into federal politics. This man’s IQ is higher than a roomful of Libs. tedmorton.ca/
[/quote]
[quote]We can and must enact an Alberta Marriage Bill of Rights that protects the freedoms of speech, association, religion and conscience of the large majority of Albertans who disagree with same-sex marriage. This Bill of Rights would also extend protection to students, parents and teachers in public, separate and private schools to ensure no Albertan is forced to promote or teach any aspects of the same-sex agenda.
And as a firm demonstration of Alberta
Kim Campbell is opening her big mouth again – this time at my Alma mater to boot :fume:
[quote=“Kim Campbell”]Former Tory prime minister Kim Campbell says she doesn’t think Stephen Harper will win the federal election because Canadians are too afraid of his party’s social conservative agenda.
Campbell made the comments in an interview Thursday at her alma mater, the London School of Economics.
“Their (the Conservative party’s) positions are too socially conservative, I think, to form a government in Canada,” said Campbell about the Jan. 23 election. “People may like their fiscal policies but they’re frightened by their social conservatism…It’s a pity because it denies people a choice on policy issues.” [/quote]
cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006 … 51201.html
However, I find it highly amusing that Campbell is giving advice on elections at all. She spent the 1993 elections screwing her Russian boyfriend and running one of the worse campaigns in history. Although the country was angry at Mulroney, lots of people forget she was leading in opinion polls when the election campaign started. She reduced the party to two seats and should keep her mouth, and judging from the book, other parts of her body closed as well – at least during elections 
[quote=“Secret Mulroney Tapes”]
Campbell is scorned for “screwing around with this Russian guy” instead of concentrating her every effort on the 1993 election campaign. [/quote]
[quote=“Chewycorns”]Kim Campbell is opening her big mouth again – this time at my Alma mater to boot :fume:
[quote=“Kim Campbell”]Former Tory prime minister Kim Campbell says she doesn’t think Stephen Harper will win the federal election because Canadians are too afraid of his party’s social conservative agenda.
Campbell made the comments in an interview Thursday at her alma mater, the London School of Economics.
“Their (the Conservative party’s) positions are too socially conservative, I think, to form a government in Canada,” said Campbell about the Jan. 23 election. “People may like their fiscal policies but they’re frightened by their social conservatism…It’s a pity because it denies people a choice on policy issues.” [/quote]
[/quote]
Campbell’s comments remind me of an earlier post in this thread! 
On May 24, 2004 , Chewycorns wrote: