Benz

Saying that Quebec rules Canada because guys like Chretien and Trudeau are from Quebec, it is like saying Austria ruled the Nazi Germany because Hitler was born in Austria. Quebec never liked Chretien and those voting for him were either english Quebecers or very federalist francos. Same for Trudeau that is considered the greatest traitor in our history. It would be more appropriate to say they are Ontario's Quebec puppets. Since Ontario use to elect them, while they were very unpopular here. Did you forget about the BQ era that started to diminish only after the liberals got beaten by the conservatives. Quebec as always be against multiculturalism, so do not blame us for that. Quebec also never had the intention to match the Ontario's ambitions of importing immigrants, so calm down on that as well. The problem you get when you do such assertions, is you totally discredit yourself. It does not pass the test of facts. So basically, you take whatever you think goes wrong and you blame it on Quebec, even if nothing neither in history books or media records can back that up. How can you be taken seriously after that? NB is not bilingual. It has the smallest difference between the number of french and english speaking people. That does not make them bilingual. By percentage, the francos in Quebec are more bilingual than the anglos in NB. Even when we combine both english and french, Quebec still beats NB in the number or percentage of bilingual people by a huge margin. Quebec is the most bilingual province. Having "ch" and "rd" on road signs like "ch. Young rd", is not enough to pretend the province is bilingual. If I try to live a french life in Toronto, I will never come close to get what an anglo gets in Montréal. Ontario prints bilingual documents. So does Quebec. Poor you! It is very typical. You are not complaining of not being capable to receive services in english, you are complaining because your fellow french canadians receive the bare minimum services in french. I can imagine you talking to your psy and spit your frustration of the fail of Lord Durham's project to totally assimilate the french. So you get all itchy because the highway has french only signs. Ok, I will make it up to you. You give the french outside Quebec the very same priviledges the anglos get in Quebec and I will turn our signs bilingual. I promise! Your call! The total of complaints from non french or english speaking people visiting Quebec is... 0. But eh, whatever makes you happy. 40% of the french are separatists? I do not know today but, in 1995, it was 60%. I never wanted english being banned or such. I am actually speaking to you in english and I am not going to take a shower to wash this dirty sound polluting my ears. What you are doing is, projection. You think that we are as childish haters like you. Oh we probably have few individuals like that but, they are marginals. Just like you are in the english Canada. Your last paragraph is so funny that I have nothing to add. It clearly shows what you think of Quebec and your political myopia. Quebec is does not want to have anything to do with english language. Yeah right, of course!

Québec will never become a TOM-DOM of the France. If it becomes sovereign, it will stay sovereign. We are rather talking about economical partnership. But it would rather be an influence of the French in the EU to create close ties with Quebec, rather than just a one on one France-Quebec.

I do not know where you get your sources but, I suggest you ask few to Dougie93. China is not grasping its hand on Quebec and Quebec is nothing like any African countries. Close ties with a north american country like Quebec would not only benefit France, but the whole EU. Especially since they lost UK, the home of the British Queendom, sovereign of Canada.

You do not talk like someone aware of the content of Meech and the 5 traditional requirements Québec claims. When I say Quebec, I include Quebec federalist like Bourrassa, the one who settle those 5 conditions. In 1981, there were no compromises. Quebec has been kicked out and isolated. It is still today, the best reason to separate. It is still today the same system, same constitution. Don't bother trying to make a point about "we can't please everyone". Our conditions are totally legitimated and no european countries would have accepted the existence of the EU without them. They are 20, with 20 different languages and cultures, and they get along better than us with only 2 official languages. Unless you bring me a paper from the doctor stating that you are an inferior race not capable to get along with people, there are no reasons to behave like that with us. It is the pure old form of imperialism and nothing else. It's no different than with the natives as well. You won't see it, if you do not want to see it. In 1981, Lévesque did a huge concession. He gave up on the Quebec veto claim and in exchange, he wanted all provinces to get an Opt Out of federal program with full compensation to all provinces. 7 other provinces agreed with me that it would be a great thing. They were called the group of eight. Then Trudeau said, ok, I will support your idea and in return, help me to convince the 7 others to accept a referendum. The next morning, the 7 others betrayed and back stab Quebec to sign a new constitution without Quebec. For Meech, he whole country betrayed Quebec again for what? Cause one man somewhere was not happy? I am gonna tell you this straight. As an Anglo, you have no credibility to do me the moral about compromises. Quebec did compromises all the time and as been betrayed every time. It's like if Germans would be moralists to the Jews regarding the racism. Compromises is what your people should have done. When you slam the door in our face, this has nothing to do with compromises. You do not have to convince me about the advantages of stick together. I am already sold to the idea of an adequate federalism that fits the face of the actual Canada. We all get benefits on the geo-political concerns to be united. That part, I am all in. What I refuse, is the actual conditions that were set without us and against our interests. People of Quebec has decided by a tiny margin to stay in Canada, yep... but keep in mind that 60% of the french decided to break free. You need to thank the cheaters for that. If you are satisfied with the outcome despite the results, good for you. Keep sleeping on your both ears. Everything is just fine. The question was clear. It was about giving sovereignty to the people. But added to the question, it was bounded also an obligation to the government of Quebec to offer partnership. It did not garanty or make the sovereignty conditional to the acceptance of the offer to the english Canada. The people who do not understand that, are by coincidence the same people who does not understand what Quebec wants. In clear, the same kind of people who will never understand anything because they do not want to. As long as the international community understands it, it's good enough. We do not need you to understand a question that is not addressed to you. Regarding Alberta, it's not something that can't be solved. Their concerns are only economical, not political. The difficulty lies in the logistics and conflict of interests. This is the kind of thing that Ottawa has a great pleasure to turn us all against one another.

It is not our intention to ask permission to the British. We will rather ask the internation opinion to recognize our existence as a nation state. That is stronger than any other british crown rules or past agreement about the conquered territory where the force was used.

When you want to protect the integrity of a country, you do not piss off a nation like Quebec like that. If Chretien really wanted to preserve the integrity, he should have repaired the betrayal of 1981 patraited in 1982. As long as he refuses to do so, whatever he wants regarding Canada is irrelevent. Trudeau and him are the greatest sponsors of seperation ever. They have no credibility of what-so-ever regarding any kind of clarity. Quebec did not trust any of them. "I think few today would argue that being more beholden to the British monarch and not having protections like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a better situation than what we have today" hmm, no. I never heard anything like this in my life. The Quebecois do not seek any kind of support from the monarchs. They were not against the principle of having the Charter or Rights and Freedoms. They were against the current version and needed few amendements. When english Canada said "we do not care about your opinion, we set the rules without you", they doomed Canada. It is just a matter of time before it collapses. Canada with 10 provinces is living on borrowed time just because of that. I see you are not aware of what Quebec is asking. Yes we ask for asymmetrical federalism but, you have enumareted only the points that are ok with us. Not the ones we do not agree. So you do not iknow and understand why we did not sign in 1982 and why we still can't sign today. How can you think you could ensure the sustainability of Canada if you do not know why we want to break free from it? You are wrong about Mulroney. He said it many times and still say it today. Canada should have signed the Meech accord. The status quo is food for separatism. Of course the other provinces do not see the need to change the constitution. It is their constitution. They choosed it. In their point of view, if it is not broke, don't fix it. But it is broke for us. We are excluded of its design. And it is for us a major reason to quit. So it is broken. They just wait until Quebec really breaks it to do any move. They wait until it is too late. Alot think that Quebec is just black mailing and will never do it. Even after they got a victory by a tiny margin by cheating. So it is pretty clear that Quebec will never find an open mind from the ROC and sovereignty is the only solution. Right now the sovereignist leaders are trying to repair many mistakes did in the past but, it is just a matter of time before that subject comes back to a greater importance. Because the issue is still the very same. You are talking about Energy east... but in the case of Quebec, this is a different topic. The seperatism in Quebec and the one in Alberta per se, have very different basis. For Alberta, it is motivated by money. Their feelings about it vary or is proportional to the ratio of what they get or give to the federal government. There is no such things as Alberta nationalism. They do not feel Alberta is a nation. They feel different from the maritimes as much as Californians feel different from New Yorkers. Unlike Quebec, where the people identify thenselve to the Quebec nation and see Canada only as a federation. Canada is a civic space, Quebec is home nation. People of alberta see their land as a province. People of Quebec see their land as a nation state. Sure there are also few economic reasons why Quebec wants to split, but they are rather the results of unfair rules and too centralized government that has too much power. Quebec tends to assume its choices and its situation. Quebec never got any money from the federal to develop its energy industry. Unlike Ontario and Alberta in nuclear and oil industry. Quebec respects the rules, when Quebec are part of the decision about what are the rules. Some other provinces don't care much about the definition of the rules, but they complain after when it's not going the way they would like. So our observations of the canadian dynamic can be resumed in one phrase. It's "one for all and all against one". One more thing, you say the ROC would never go for... it is important to remind you that in 1981, almost all provinces were on the side of Quebec concerning the claims. Until they turn their coat and betray us. Yet, they are still complaining of the outcome. Same for Meech 1987-90. The provinces and the federal were in agreement with Quebec. Until few traitors like Trudeau, Chretien and others managed to sabotage the proccess with the complicity of Clyde Wells and elijah Harper. Instead of solving the issue, the ROC turned their back on Quebec again and the accord died. Basically, what it means, is the ROC would be open for that, but it is always the bash Quebec group that win at the arrival line. That part, is in your hands.

Clarity act has no legitimity. You cannot be the judge and the party of a cause like this. Someone independant, or simply the U/N/ could decide whether the question is clear or not. Québec has nothing to win of having an unclear question, because after that, the other countries will not recognize the result. I wouldn't either in their place. But the english Canada is not the one to decide what is clear or not. In particular the case of Quebec. Because Quebec has been kicked out of the constitutional commity in 1981 despite it is the only one not english province. No other provinces are as legitimated than Quebec to leave. The federal is responsible for that and is not the one who gets to decide of the clarity.

Look, I am not saying what you state is wrong. I knew it moreless because although I read the BNA act long time ago, I can't say I remember all the details. I know the natives are actually using that specific argument and playing that card for their claims. What I am rather saying is, the actual constitution of Canada have a weight that might diminish alot the scope of BNA act. Before, the Queen was the effective sovereign of Canada. Now it is rather Canada making the choice to keep the Queen as symbolic sovereign. Canada could easily say that it retires that position to the Queen and there is nothing she can do about it. So for me, playing the BNA act card is not promising. The natives are playing it because they have nothing else. As for your feelings regarding the canadians, I understand. I got my share a desapointment as well. I am avoiding defaitism, but I am not building any hope as well. Confusious said, "your son is not your son, he is the son of his time". It's not impossible that after few generations, the game can change and have new people thinking differently. But when? in 300 years? I think that as long as Quebec remains a simple province, nothing will change in Canada. It's a ciment. If the people of Québec says YES to its sovereignty, the game becomes totally differently. Because then, Canada would have something to lose of doing nothing. If the people in western Canada play their cards well, it would be a good opportunity to try and reshap the political structure of the country. But they will always need to consider the others as well. They will never rule Canada. Québec claims are often similar or in the same direction of what the westerners want, but they always been the one to fail us. So I am not very sensible to their complaints. I tell them come back to me when you have more maturity and when you really stand for what you want instead of blaming me for all your problems. In clear, what do you really what for the provinces. Do you want them to be all independant countries? Bound only be an economical agreement like free trade or something?

The Supreme Court has made a decision about it and I don't recall they mentionned anything like it. They rather relied on the constitution. Can you point out to me the part where it supports your assertion please?

The Brexit is a good example that if one wants to seperate, it is totally legitimated and can do so, but you better do it for the good reasons. The British thought they could play a silly game with EU and now they realize that it is turning against them. For now, EU is firm but, still playing nice. Once the Brixit is completed, I bet EU will offer more than a nice smile to Scotland that will attempt again a new referendum. The British are perfectly aware that the EU has that joker in their handle.

Tell that to the Acadians and their experience with the Grand Dérangement. Explain them how much they were protected by the crown all that time. The only reason why the british were giving candies to Quebec and appease their aspirations, is because they were afraid that the USA would win the jackpot and fetch they colonies. For english Canadians, Quebec was an excuse of not being american. When we look at what is our southern neighbor today, it was a wise choice. House of windsor has not much to do with the "protection" of the french since 1982. Quebec tried to stop that patriation because the english Canada changed the constitution without Quebec's consent. The Queen never gave a damn about it. So much for the "direct relatioship". So the americans don't want anyone. Then why they keep pushing for another referendum in Porto Rico, one after another until they win? Why they just do not let them go? What is the other one again, virgin islands? If Canada collapses and all provinces become independants, you can bet the americans will build a plan to swallow them, one by one, under their conditions by taking all means and indirect pressures to accomplish it. For the last ones who would resist, they are going to use the traditional "national security" excuse. They will pretend that terrorists could use those indies just as much as they said they were WMD in Iraq. Or maybe not. Maybe they will not add any of them, but they will sure benefit from that division more than they do right one when canadians are united. On a geopolitical angle, there is more to benefit for canadians to stay united, but not at all cost. The actual federal system is living on borrowed time. That, Zeitgeist better realizes it before it is too late.

Of course, Québec has a very different opinion about your queen. Québec is republican and the idea of one individual having such position based on its lineage, this is totally against our democratic principles. You might not feel any hurry to change that from your english position, but for Quebec, this is non sense. Although we respect the people who chooses that kind of system, because they can do whatever they want within their borders, this is definitely a big no for us. |I wish the Feds don't take care of health and education, but unfortunatly, they do. Not that much for now, but they do. This is something Québec has always been against and the other provinces always betrayed us about that. In the sense that they say the feds should keep its hands out of it but, when the time comes to sign, they step down and side with the federal. Only québec has the balls to hold on. Only one man in english Canada never let us down on that subject, it is Mike Harris. You say the Feds must policing many stuff like ports, etc... oh yueah it does, but who is policing the feds? When the Feds decided to deregulate the train transport and let the private sector regulate itself, what happened after? Several deads in a train crash in Mégantic. The decision of the Feds was completely imbecile. The provinces need more power to bring the Feds back on ... track. So far, the french culture has survived despite Canada. If you say it would have been worst with the americans, I admit to agree. Very tiny consolation on your part. Where I do totally reach you without reserves, is regarding the threat or being swallowed by USA. I see what is going on over there and suddenly I feel that our canadian problems are just amusements. As much as I want Quebec to be sovereign, I am also concerned about how Canada can collapse and become a feast for our imperialist neighbors. There is something good to do with this country, but leaving it as is the sure way to lead it to its destruction. Changes need to be done. You barely talk about the native/indigenous. They are also nations that deserve the respect of their sovereignty, or at least for what they are capable to assume. The best way to avoid the end of Canada like the Roman Empire, is to adapt it to the reality of the people. Go back to the roots. What Canada really is about? It's a nation founded by the english, french and natives. Before and after the british destroyed the sovereignties of the two others. There are many different federation models in the world and some can inspire us, just as well as we can inspire others. A federation where their founding people can be proud of being what they are without being enemies in the opinion of the english majority. I dream of the day I would be just as proud of being canadien, like I am of being Québécois. Just like an Austrian can identify itself as both Austrian and European. We are not there yet. Natives identify themselve as Cree, Ojibway, Innu or else, but not as Canadians. That does not mean much for them. Same for the Québécois. English Canadians should really question themselve about what kind of Canada they want. The one their former imperial leaders shaped with blood, or the one the actual living people are.

I would be pleased to ease your pain and seperate Quebec from Canada. But I your suffering is not really a concern for me right now. Although I do not like the actual federal system, I think something useful for all can be saved. And as I said, and you confirm it once again with this post, even if Québec goes, you will still blame Québec for all your problems for several decades to come again. Anglos in Quebec are not treated as second class citizen and they DO NOT feel like it either. That is a construction of your mind. You are doing your drama queen about the predominence of french over english on the signs, but english language is still used and no one are feeling bad about it, because the facts place the anglos, even in Quebec, in much better position than the french. Take the ratio of english hospitals and schools for its population. Not only the anglos have nothing to complain about it, they are one of the best treated minority in the world. If english Canada would give the french outside Quebec the same ratio, the french language would thrive like never before instead of going down. How many french hospitals? The only one I remember of is Montfort. In NB, where the number of french and english is the closiest, there is a system for the english only, and there is a system bilingual. No system for french only. The number of french schools are limited to the opinion of anglos about what it is worth for it. Where the number justifies... the english opinion. So the french needs to use Supreme Court to open schools. With such disrespect about the french minority, what difference does it make that both languages are used on the cereal box? Keeping french alive is a struggle in many places in Canada because the french have to fight for very basic things that are protected by the rights, but not respected by the authorities. There is a rule that gives an advantage to the bilingual people and since the francos learn english, unlike the anglos about french, then they have an advantage over anglos. But look at your narrowed mindset. Instead of being smart and blame your own educational system to teach you basic french, and therefore, have the asset of speaking both official languages, you are on the contrary blaming the federal to hire people capable to serve its own citizens in both languages. Your mindset makes you think that it is your right to be unilingual and you should be hired at the cost of avoiding services to your own fellow citizens. On top of that, you have been raised in Quebec, in the english system, when the language rules were not created or not yet efficient. You, alone, are a good reason of why Quebec needs those rules and why english Canada should give a better system to its own citizens. For every single whinner like you, there are hundred others who are asking a better teaching of french language. Call them ass kissers if you want, I bet their opinion about you is not laudatory either. The bilingual federal requirement is not a loss for the anglos. The weak french teaching in their education system, that is a great loss. Recent studies revealed that bilingual people have a great advantage over the unilingual. The brain stay sharp longer and is less likely to develop Alzheimer. See, even the science has no pity for you.

It is true that the liberals (both french and english) were clever to maintain the "2 solitudes" in its state for their own advantage. Corruption and dysfunction are appropriate words to describ that, I agree. Although Quebec leaves, you are not free of the federation (the one you call wrongly confederation). The political maturity of english canada on the matter is not as developped as Quebec. With or without Quebec, your problem remains the same. You do not like that federation model. Maybe you would prefer a real confederation (or maybe the english language, it is preferable ot use confederacy). Not sure I understand the subtle difference between those two words. But one thing for sure, the vision of what Canada should be is seen differently by the 2 solitudes. The english wants a centralised federation as it is right now, the french rather wants a decentralized confederacy giving provinces (should rather be states) more autonomy and sovereignty. Ironically, you want to get rid of the best ally to accomplish that. That makes me chuckle. But maybe you just want the collapse of Canada fair and square. Provinces would become all independant countries. Which can be problematic in the long run when you have a big elephant in the neighborhood like the USA. Not sure what you really want... but then, it is another topic. This one is about the french in Canada.

So you got an exhausitve sample. Few guys drinkers mad at you because you are english is more than enough to juge the whole nation in that basis, eh? Sure! Where I live, the quantity of anglos is around 40%. in the hockey or soccer team of my son, the anglo kids percentage is approximatly the same. The relation of the french and anglos are very friendly. No animosity, no mistrust. Our sons play together and we cheer for the same team. All the anglos have a sincere respect of the french language and they always choose to speak to me in french, except there is something specific they are not sure how to translate. I often return the favor by using english sometimes. Your own personal experience does not weight much in the balance. The actual reality is far from what you think of. Neverthenless, if you left in the 70's, I do beleive you that you might not feel welcome in your own birth place. At that time, the injustice toward the french was major. The french had all the reasons in the world to hate the english. But the situation has changed alot in 50 years. Now the french are respected and seen as equal to english people, unlike back then where the french were still seen as second class citizen by the anglos. Of course, there are still some few whinners playing the bash french Quebec like if your life depends on it. But they are not the majority and are rather just few. Although I do not deny that you may have that experience in the past, just the fact that you do not bother about what wrongs your "kind" did to make them mad at anglos, is one of the many justifications itself that make a point against you. When I compare the relation of the french and english today, with the time of my dad and my grand father, I see a huge improvement. Of course, there are still alot like you that entertain hatred without scrupules. But although you guys are very loud, your number diminishes with the years. The fun part about how you describ the french and Quebec, is that you put so much hatred and exaggeration, that you totally discredit yourself. At best, you only please the people as as you. I am sure you are a nice person in real life and you are totally capable to be smart and open. You just make the choice to avoid it. I guess it's like smoking. You did entertained for so long those lies and hatred that it is too difficult to stop. Even when you can't avoid the truth. We should try to invent a "stop-the-hatred" patch. I am a sovereignist, so of course, I do not have a problem with your opinion of splitting Canada. But if Canada changes its dynamic and respect a great level of autonomy to Quebec, I do not have a problem to stay in Canada. You cannot blame the seperatists to be the one that milk Canada. They are the ones who want to leave. If you think the exit of Québec will solve any of your problems, you are living in a fairy tale riding a unicorn in your old town roads. The very same problems will continue as usual. Except this time you will have to blame someone else than Quebec. The reason why I still consider the possibility to find brainstorm on a different union despite I am sovereignist, is because I see how it goes in the international relations and I think both the ROC and QC still have a common mutual interest to get along. You think the federal drags too much from you for what you get in return? No problem. Stop whinning and accept the decentralization requested by Quebec instead of supporting the usual coward politicians you send there that always back stab us. The immaturity of the conservative westerners is annoying and desapointing. Your behavior is childish, yet you think you are a superior race over those poor beer drinkers. If only you knew how small you look like when you do that. But I guess you do not mind. Your interests lies in the good old nostalgia where english and french were fighting against another to be the king of the hill.

In the last 30 years, the french of PEI and NS, and also a little bit elsewhere, had to fight up to the Supreme Court, with alot of energy, time and money, just to open a school. At that time, I had no other choice to note that the english canadians behave like imperialist *place-your-best-coarse-word*. The point I often heard is, in the opinion of the english people, there was not enough french people to justify the existence of a new school. While in the mean time in Québec, all english speaking canadians were granted the right and were going into english public schools. The number was not questionned, it was a right. But in english Canada, that right was not existent for the french. So after the french finally won at the SC and after the first schools were built, something unexpected from the english community happenned. English people were trying to send their children into french schools. It is a phenomenon also seen in NB. What is the reason to explain that? Simple! A big number of english canadians would have loved to learn french and they desire their children to learn it because they considre it is a great asset in their life. The level of french taught in the english schools is terrible and inefficient. This changed my opinion about english Canada. The reality is very different from what the politicians and the medias would like to portray. The silent majority of english canadians not only have no problem with the french, but they would love to be able to communicate or at least understand it. The bad intentions of very few loud ones often prevents if the silent majority to have the chance to learn french, and of course, give a hard time to the french canadians outside Québec. I am back from a vacation of 2 weeks in NB. I visited the Acadie and also areas where english is the most used language. When I taked to english people, I saw three types. Those who can do a little bit of french and are pride to show what they can do, those who cannot speak it and are sorry for it, and those who clearly don't give a f--- about french and are definitly not sorry to not being able to serve me in this official canadian language. I like to meet the real people living normal life like that. It changes from the hatred you often read in english medias or just here in this forum with the usual french bashing whiners. Argos is right that it is not realist to change Canada into a bilingual country per say. Well, not in the short term for sure. But I think that if the spirit of encouraging bilingualism was real and efficient, a greater number of people than we could estimate would follow that path. I am working for a big company that employed several thousands of people. Among them, I'd say 30 percent are more confortable in english than french and when we speak with each others, it is not rare that we mix the conversation because we all understand both languages. I would speak french, my colleague speaks english and it is all fine. Not frenglish tho, that never sounds nice. I think that is the kind of spirit that should be encouraged in Canada. I see this as a mutual respect for both official languages and hopefully bring closer the 2 solitudes. We have to be realist, we cannot reproduce Canada wide what is going in my company but, just removing the obstacles would greatly improve the relations between french and english people of this country. Now, how would it perceived in english canada? It only depend on how big is what I describ as the silent english majority. Maybe I get it wrong and the silent people are no majority. That is up to the english people to tell me. For many of you, I already know what you will going to say.

Drinking beer and partying...lol... that was what Lieutenant-Colonel George Monro said before his defeat against the french. You have a pretty bad unfounded (as usual) opinion of the french canadians and I bet you re-read yourself 3 times to make sure your hatred was clear enough. Your forum mate Nefarious-goes-banana added a layer... because there is never enough Quebec bashing in this land of open mind people. I won't put my cancered toe into that torrent. Instead, I will reply to QOC who seems panicking about QS. QOC is not wrong and I moreless share his view but, from a different angle. It pleases alot the establishment to see the greens, separtists and leftists being divided and that is the only reason why the SRC-CBC and the Desmarais' medias are giving such exposure to that party. I think QS will never, ever going to win an election, nor even be the opposition party. They sealed their future real bad in the last election and after. The best expression I could use to describ them is, Useful Idiots. An expression often used to describ people having a position and doing anything that leads to the exact opposite results. They are the worst separatists ever, they are behaving like if the religions are leading them, they have no clue how the economy works and they sum up the greatest amount of falacies of all canadian political parties combined. I am a left sovereignist very concerned by the environment and I consider them as enemies. The more I hear them, the more I get disgusted. I might not afraid to see them winning an election, but I ma very concerned by the damages they are doing by influencing all those young idealists following the trend. I see nothing good to get from that.

The way you phrase it, one cannot bring his wife / her husband unless the other criterias are met. Same for the children. I go live in Japan for 2 years, get married and have 1 baby, I cannot use that program to bring my wife and my child with me. Nor if I married a wife I want to bring her a 19 years old girl. Even if my wife is accepted, her daughter might not. Or vice versa.

I could have said the same few years ago. Especially when Layton was the leader. But I think that the election of Singh is a revelation of how the libetarian-left took alot of space in that party. It's a doctrine that cannot be reasonned. I understand him to be hopeless regarding NDP. Maybe you are right and the mountain is not as complicated to move as it may seems. But when the leader of a party says that one should have the liberty to choose according to his religious beleifs and substract itself from the rules of wearing a helmet for security, I conclude that I do not belong there. NDP has broken an important link with the core values of the canadians and it's not everyone that is capable to close their eyes on this.

Alot from all sides. But the most virulants were liberals. One in particular that I try to remember his name. I did not see him posting recently. I have been absent from this forum few years and my memory is failing me about who said what. Liberals did not change much about that topic, but the conservatives did. They realize more how much toxic is the multiculturalism than before. Bernier added more precisions to his thoughts and I must say that I agree with most of what he said. I do not remember I ever agreed with him before on any other subjects.

How ironic! 10 years ago, when I was saying moreless the same thing, the same conservatives that are currently on his side, were fiercely accusing me of being a facist racist or something like that. The mindsets are changing in Canada. The left is totally divided in 2. There is a new form of leftist. They are libetarians. Usually, that is a property that you would find only on the right wingers. Not anymore. The best example of this is when Singh says one should have the right to choose to avoid protection helmet for bikers. Personal beleifs and individual rights are now, out of sudden, greater that the common good and people's protection. Even if it is the society that ha to pay for the consequences of your decision. I have zero affinity with that position. Culture is also a word used in so many different angles. In this topic, I make a clear difference between one individual's culture, vs a nation-level one. The second one is something shared by the people that defines them as a nation. Music, food, etc.. are cultural traits that may be shared by alot of individuals but, they are still only to the individual level. Those are not the kind of things the government or state shall interfere in. However, when it comes to communitary traits, like the respect of each others, equality of sex, the behavior in the society, no forced marriages, children's rights, etc... those core values are expected to be shared and adopted by every one. That is what defines a nation and its nationale culture. The problem with multiculturalism, is that those who believe in it, they think we should allow (or even propmote) people from another culture to live with its outside values, even if they are in contradictions to the ones defining Canada on the national level. They do not understand the consequences.

As a Quebec sovereignist, I do not like the equalization for several reasons. The principle or the idea is ok, but the way it is applied is not. I am ok with the federal doing the administration of it, but the federal SHOULD NOT decide how the equalization works. The provinces should decide between themselves what are the rules and how it should work. Once they agree, they mandate the federal to manage. Obviously, all provinces should agree. The actual system gives the power to the federal to change the equalization to whatever it wants and make it suit its electoral decision for its own interests, at the expense of few provinces. That is dead wrong. Some are whinning that Quebec gets more because of their social programs. Listen carefully, that is YOUR problem. Quebec will not give up their programs because you do not want to give any in your province. It is your call. You are not happy with the system, be my guest and let's change it. I am all in. You do not want to touch that? then stop whinning. Canadian equalization is also a smoke screen federalist strategy to make Quebec looks like a loser that need the others. But although we get money from the equalization program, we lose money in many other federal programs where we do not get anything. Overall, we are not milking the system like the equalization shows. For several years, even if the equalization was giving us back money, we were losing overall. Now that the gas price is very high, I guess we get more than we contribute. It's difficult to say because we need to compute the other federal probrams in the balance. I say if we are not capable to get along with a fair equalization program, then let's stop it. But then, it will become more obvious for Quebec how much we lose in this federalism. Why do you think so many federalist, even in english canada, want to keep it in place? Yes it is to pander Quebec. But who really win? The provinces need to be more mature and play in bigger role in the federation. But the good old "all-gainst-Quebec" prevails and they end up giving a white card to the federal and here we go again... the whinners are blaming Quebec for that. Pathetic!

As I said, he won the last time by a small margin against 3 others dividing the votes. Are you really that suprised? Easy to say indeed. But who cares. It's not like I am braging about a prediction I did not make. I just said it's no surprise. Coderre was a big mouth and had alot of attention but, I do not think he ever been very popular.

His defeat is no surprise. He got away with it the last time because of the division of the vote into 4 opponents. This time they were only two in the race. Good riddance, I won't miss him. But give him a year or two, and he will be back somewhere. Federal, provincial, whatever-wherever... or maybe a break into a consulat for few years until another come back.

I totally agree with your post. I will just reply to few points. 1) Regarding the cross, it's a gray area. You cannot compare that crucifix with the religious garmants. No one is wearing that crucifix. The people that are in favor of keeping it there have good points. The people in favor of keeping it are saying that it is a trace of our past and then because of patrimonial reason, it should not be removed. I still think that in the balance, we should remove it. Since it has been placed there by Duplessis few decades ago at a time the Church was having too much power, I do not feel too sensible by their so called patrimony thing. 2) That niqab/burqa has nothing to do with the identity of a woman. On the contrary, it is to destroy a woman's identity. Replace her identity with the indoctrination of a anti woman rule. To format her mindset to a religious and macho constraint. If it was not the case, they would see no issue at all to remove it when required. That one is not a grey area. 3) Québécois do not like Couillard because of financial decisions. Complete austerity toward the people that need help the most, while at the very same time, he gives enormous amount of money to his friends of the party and wealthy people. Even Charest did not go as far in the imbalence between the poor and the rich people. I think Couillard is the most unpopular liberal among the french people in the Québec history. I could not imagine it was possible to do worst than Charest. But he did. You are not affected by his decisions, that's why it looks difficult to explain for you. Ask to the nurses, the teachers, the social workers, ... ask anyone. When you apply such austerity on the people, at least do not give that much money to the wealthy ones at the very same time. His image is toasted. He also took very bad decisions regarding the religious symbols. I doubt the bill 62 will be enough to revitalize his reputation. I think the back stage liberals are already planning the replacement. Their only hope is the division of the other parties