pegasus

I'm happy you agree that this is not a selfish act in the least.

I'm moving back to Montreal to take care of my ailing mother in a month. Therefore I must quit my job here and find a new one there. This is not a simple task. However, I am now considering options where I could leave my job by causing a media frenzy, therefore a job will be waiting for me when I do move back to Montreal

Unfortunately, this isn't quite true. Some are calling on her to be our next PM http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/brigette-depape-prime-minister

I am curious if those here who are so quick to the defence of Ms. DePape would still feel the same way if she held up a sign that read "Stop Abortion" or "Stop Immigration"? Or is it just the message you are defending and not the method of delivery.

Each year, 15 individuals are chosen from hundreds of youth through a national competition to work as a Page for the Senate of Canada. Pages are primarily responsible for assisting Senators and table officers throughout sittings of the Senate by fulfilling various requests as well as those of various dignitaries, Supreme Court Justices, the Prime Minister, and the Governor General when visiting the Senate. Pages are responsible for numerous tasks in relation to Chamber and Committee duties such as: distribution of files and documents, relaying messages, and administrative and procedural duties. Pages attend to and assist with the proceedings of notable events such as Royal Assent, Speech from the Throne, and State Visits. They also share their experiences with youth participating in various National outreach programs such as Forum for Young Canadians and Encounters With Canada, and work to improve the Senate Page Program itself. Pages are remunerated $11,807 divided in 26 equal instalments. Furthermore, upon satisfactory completion of their contract, they will receive an additional amount of $1,200. The Deputy Chief Page is remunerated $18,816. The Chief Page is remunerated $20,347. Furthermore, upon satisfactory completion of their contract, they will receive an additional amount of $1,200. The Senate will pay the cost of travel between the Pages' place of permanent residence and Ottawa, by the most economical means possible, at the beginning and at the end of their contract. While in Ottawa, Pages are responsible for the costs of their accommodation and for all other related expenses, including tuition fees, books, food, etc. The Senate could make arrangements to reserve rooms in the university residence for Pages upon request. Years ago, when I applied to various universities during my final year of CEGEP, one of those universities was the University of Ottawa. I was accepted, but I chose not to attend that university, because I needed work. At the time, I was already working in Montreal as a fast food cook. I applied for the Page program and was completely ignored. So I remained in Montreal, where I was living, and attended Concordia instead. While attending university, I would have loved to have had this job, and it would have paid me twice as much as I earned cooking hot dogs and hamburgers for a living at 35 hours a week at 6$ an hour while attending school full-time. I would have loved to have had such an opportunity that this young woman had, as I'm sure hundreds, if not thousands around Canada. I agree that as a Page one should have knowledge of the political landscape one is working in, and is actually questioned about such knowledge, however, a Page's personal political viewpoint should be left at the front door. If Ms. DePape really had issues with Harper, she could have just as easily protested those outside of her working hours and not in uniform. Remember that this is a part-time job and I'm sure she had plenty of opportunity. This was just a media gimmick to gain attention, pure and simple, and whether she held a sign saying "Stop Layton", "Stop Rae" or "Stop May", I would be just as suspicious of her motives.

I go away for a couple of days and I come in and notice this A young woman who has a sweet job working for the senate shows up at work with a sign stating how much she hates her boss. This was obviously done to create a media bruhaha. Otherwise, if she really hated her job, she would have done like 99.99% of other people do; quit quietly and leave. "Stop Harper" tells me nothing. Stop him from going to the bathroom? From walking on that slippery wet floor? From burning puppies? What? Stop Harper from passing or negating specific policies? If so, which ones? Or does she really have a personal vendetta against Harper? If this is the case, how did she get this job in the first place? Harper was as much of her boss a year ago as he is now. If I quit my job in this manner, I for sure would not have a line-up of organizations waiting to hire me so quickly, and many of the policies of my boss I'm not too fond of either. And there was no election for him to become my boss. He was appointed.

I found this on a trek site today http://wiki.starbase118.net/wiki/images/7/73/83dsmrl8qfxi8xq.jpg

"MONTREAL - It shouldn't be asking too much of Jack Layton, newly elected leader of the official Opposition in the federal Parliament, to state perfectly clearly where he stands on the Clarity ActBut given the opportunity to do so at this week's first meeting of the lately expanded New Democratic Party caucus, Layton shied away from doing so. He continued fudging the issue, as he did during the election campaign, essentially saying sort-of-yes and no to the question of whether he and his party support the act's provisions. When asked if he agrees, as do some of his newcomer Quebec MPs, that a Yes vote of 50 per cent plus one in a Quebec sovereignty referendum would be sufficient, he said only that he agrees with the Supreme Court of Canada ruling of 1998, the precursor to the Clarity Act passed the following year, without actually mentioning the act. That ruling stipulated that the Canadian government would have to enter into negotiations with the Quebec government if Quebecers expressed a clear will to secede. The Clarity Act, which the NDP supported when it came to a Commons vote, stipulates that the federal Parliament has the power to decide if the question posed in any subsequent sovereignty referendum is sufficiently clear, and to determine if any vote in favour of secession is a clear enough expression of Quebecers' will, with the strong implication that more than 50 per cent plus one would be required. However, in an effort to overcome its longstanding liability in this province, which is that Quebecers inclined to support the NDP's social policies also tend to be of sovereignist persuasion, the party adopted something called the Sherbrooke Declaration at a convention six years ago. This clearly repudiated the Clarity Act, in that it stipulates that in the event of another referendum an NDP federal government would basically stand aside and let Quebec's National Assembly dictate what the question will be, and that it would accept 50 plus one as a clear enough endorsement of secession. Asked about that, Layton said the Sherbrooke declaration stands as party policy. Such weaseling on such a vital matter is disturbing coming from the leader of what has become Canada's alternative governing party. The last referendum, in 1995, clearly demonstrated the need for something like the Clarity Act. The question posed at the time was not only deliberately unclear, but decidedly misleading: "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on 12 June 1995?" To people who don't follow politics closely, probably a majority of Quebecers, the reference to an agreement might suggest there was an agreement of sorts for continued formal ties to Canada, a comforting thought to nationalist-minded Quebecers reluctant to endorse a hard break with the rest of the country. In fact, it referred to an agreement among the leaders of the Parti Québécois, the Bloc Québécois and Action démocratique du Québec to join forces for the Yes campaign. A clear question would be something along the lines of: "Do you want Quebec to become a sovereign country separate from Canada?" In neither of the two referendums thus far has the question remotely approached such a level of clarity. (Polling support for sovereignty tends to drop proportionately to the clarity of the question put to respondents.) Similarly, a 50-per-cent-plus-one vote for separation not only falls below international standards for such votes, but should be considered practically insufficient even by sovereignists, since that majority support could readily fade in the face of difficulties involved in enacting a unilateral secession. This would surely have been the case had the 1995 result been reversed and the PQ government attempted a hostile secession on the strength of 50.6-per-cent support. In any case, subject peoples who truly want independence tend to vote for it 90 per cent-plus if given the opportunity. Jack Layton surely knows all this. Perhaps he needs to be reminded that his full title now is Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Repudiating the Clarity Act implies a lack of loyalty to Canada and its preservation, and makes Layton appear unworthy of his new office." http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/editorials/time+Layton+clear+Clarity/4841243/story.html

9 times on Tuesday, http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/cent+plus+Layton+says+bluntly/4846402/story.html Jack was asked if he would follow the "clarity act". He skirted the question 9 times. The "clarity act" specifically implies a "clear question" and a "clear majority". 50% plus 1 is not a clear majority. Voter turnout in the last referendum was 92 percent. Out of 4.67 million votes cast, the two sides were separated by about 50,000. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9510/canada/10-31/ That leaves about 373,600 people who did not vote. Unless you get a 100% turnout rate for the next neverendum, a 50% plus 1 result is not a clear majority. And you will never get a 100% turnout for any election, because some people may be unable or unwilling to vote for one reason or another. But now, after the Quebec Provincial politicians go whacko on Jack's non-committal answer, he agrees that a simple 50% plus 1 is enough to drive a wedge through the country. So Jack, are you in agreement with the Clarity Act or not? To me he appears not to.

$13,000 a year is pretty low. But the amounts of compensation our MPs receive are just way over the top. I think that perhaps $40,000 to $50,000 a year would be more than sufficient, especially for backbenchers, and if they really are starving at the end of their terms perhaps $10,000 compensation until they could find another job. They could always sell their houses, that they bought in their riding on their expense accounts, as well to make ends meet. Also those big screen TVs, etc.

Apparently he doesn't even have the certificates. "University records showed Larose signed up for courses at University of Montreal but never received a certificate." I wonder if he even showed up for classes. I smell an absentee MP here.

To become an MP, read above for the qualifications. To work for an MP, read below. • Excellent communication skills (verbal and written) and interpersonal skills • Proven ability to work to tight deadlines and under pressure • Strong organizational skills and the ability to work with minimal supervision • Excellent computer skills, specifically good knowledge of Suite 2003 and/or Windows Vista and MS Office 2007 • Knowledge of xxx Party, and xxx organizations • Knowledge of xxx riding and riding priorities • Familiarity with social media (eg. Facebook, YouTube, etc.) • Sound political judgment • Relevant post-secondary education or equivalent experience • Administrative experience in busy political office an asset • Familiarity with desktop publishing software, graphic layout skills, an asset • Knowledge of databases an asset • Bilingualism is a requirement Salary: 1/4 of what your boss is earning, with no expense account

Error

I am an anglo Quebecer. I live in Quebec City and I learned French and I like it here. I used to live in Montreal. But if Quebec were to separate, I would quickly pack up and leave. And I know alot of my friends back in Montreal would do the same. But its not so much people that a separate Quebec would have to worry about, its business. Federal employees based in Quebec would lose their jobs, or some transferred. Alot of head offices would leave the province as we saw in 81. Real estate values would drop, also as we saw in 81. The implications of a separate Quebec would be enormous.

I have done the work. Trust me. I helped my father as a teenager, go door to door in a Liberal stronghold and watched my father get laughed at. When he passed on, I was left with his membership, and I still have his old CCF membership card. I remember him being called all kinds of names for following a "Communist" party who was supposedly hell bent to ruin the free market. I followed in his footsteps and helped with campaigns of NDP candidates in Montreal until my early thirties. I spoke about the NDP at Concordia University, where I started my post secondary education in Political Science, then shifted to Psychology and Education. In 1995, I helped organize rallys for the "No" side of the referendum.. I know this didn't have anything to do with the NDP, but I still found that experience to be worthwhile. Yes, its true that I have dropped out of the "scene" for the last few years. My life got hectic, and I could not keep up with the work entailed. I also moved to a new city, and was just learning the language. So don't assume I didn't do any work. I'm sure you would get quite angry if I assumed things about you.

Thats how you see it. I see it differently. Sorry.

I'm not crying, except for the fact that its Friday night and I'm answering responses on a political forum We'll see how she does. If she does great, good for her. And if she brings more people interested in politics and especially, out to vote, that would just be even better. But as I mentioned above, its not what she may or may not do that concerns me, its how she got there in the first place. It will be very hard for her to defend party policy, when she, herself, is the exception to it.

Thats your opinion, however let me explain. One of the main tenets of the society that we live in, and one I have been prone to teach, is the tenet that hard work pays off dividends. Whether its recognition of a job well done, a diploma, a good job, etc. Not always does this follow hard work, however, I have always taught that things don't just fall into people's laps. One has to work in order to attain anything in life. As a social democrat, you of all people should understand that if one does the work, they should be compensated fairly for the work they do. While those who don't do any work, should see no rewards. Reverse this concept, and you have the worst form of capitalism on your hands. One that we've happily erased from most of society by bringing in unions and voting for parties such as the CCF and NDP, who have helped people get off their feet and make something of themselves, even when the obstacles were enormous, by developing social programs and basically, fighting for the workers. But here comes Ms. Rousseau, who happens to be in the right bar, at the right time, performs no work whatsoever, and attains one of the highest positions this Country has to offer. A candidate like this in any other party wouldn't bother me nearly so much. But in the NDP, this candidate rubs me the wrong way, if only because of the values the NDP has always held so dear. That is of hard work, not luck, leading one to higher positions in life. So what does Ms. Rousseau teach our children? If one wants to get ahead, why bother going to get a higher education and paying for it for the next ten years after graduation. Just hang out in an bar in Ottawa, and there is a chance that you might be signing Bills into Laws within the next few years. So no, punked, I don't think I am a bad social democrat for calling the NDP out on this issue. To me it takes away from the fundamental aspects of what this party stands for, and always stood for.

And this was the problem with the BQ. They were so focused on Quebec, that they forgot about those who spoke French outside of the province. I'm unsure if the BQ responded to this, but if they did, I'd like to see a link. This would have been the type of arguments I would have liked to see coming from the BQ. Not only protecting the language and culture of the French speaking population in Quebec, but especially on a National, or perhaps even, North American scale. This could have been done by working to provide proper translation material and educators and perhaps building schools and networks in different Provinces and States. This would have helped Quebec to not feel segregated and alone in a North America dominated by English. The BQ had 20 years to start this kind of project, and was in a unique position to do this, but they let the opportunity slip away.

This is a good question. The Liberal party goes so under the radar in the rest of Quebec, other than Montreal, its never brought up. This gives me a project. I think I may ask some people here in Quebec City what they think.

And this is going to make Harper the happiest man in Canada. I could see it now, after a questionable policy is passed and the press confront him, he'll say "Why are you talking to me? The NDP are the ones who sell your papers."

I agree with betsy. In-fighting will be the Liberal's greatest problem. I also believe that the Liberal's greatest problem right now is that they have too many MPs. The old blood is still entrenched, which will not allow any new blood to take a strong lead. Last night, out of sheer boredom, I went over all the ridings in Canada and looked for a pattern of close second place finishes for the Liberal party (i.e. 10% or less of the vote) and found most to be from southern Ontario (20 ridings). Of those 20 ridings, 19 are Conservative, and 1 NDP. However, across the rest of Canada, I only noted 10 ridings with close second place finises. Of all ridings across Canada, 24 were lost by a close margin to the Conservatives, while 6 were lost by a close margin to the NDP. Therefore, I would say the Conservatives were the ones who took seats away from the Liberals and the Liberals have a huge mountain to climb everywhere except for southern Ontario, especially in the western provinces and Quebec (outside of Montreal) where in many occasions they were a distant third or worse. What the Liberal party needs is new blood, and that is why I opened with the statement that they have too many MPs. It will be hard to change the direction of the party with 34 sitting MPs fighting against any changes. Also, based on my findings, with 24 second place finishes, with a loss at less than 10%, the Liberal party could now go out into the next election and say with almost certainty, that they are the only party that could stand up against another Harper majority in 2015. But that last statement is a maybe. I haven't yet counted the close second place finishes by the NDP across Canada, where the NDP lost to a Conservative candidate. I will keep you informed when I have more free time to do this. Looking over the elected Liberal MPs, I really don't see anyone who could lead this party to substantial gains in the next election. Are parties allowed to choose leaders who are not sitting MPs? If so, maybe that is where they should be looking. Someone who will bring in new blood and more up to date policies. Perhaps they should be going through their membership profiles with a fine tooth comb.

Social Democrat   –noun (especially in Europe) a member of any of certain Social Democratic parties. 1. any socialist who believes in the gradual transformation of capitalism into democratic socialism 2. ( usually capital ) a member of a Social Democratic Party Once again, thank you dictionary.com P.S. I couldn't find the term "democratic socialist". Dictionary.com just reverts back to "social democrat" democratic socialism n Definition: a form of socialism with a democratic government; the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole -- combined with a democratic government Etymology: democracy + socialism

A "social democrat" could be defined as a democrat who likes to be social. (i.e. –adjective 1. pertaining to, devoted to, or characterized by friendly companionship or relations: a social club. 2. seeking or enjoying the companionship of others; friendly; sociable; gregarious. 3. of, pertaining to, connected with, or suited to polite or fashionable society: a social event. - noun 1. an informal gathering, esp of an organized group, to promote companionship, communal activity, etc Thank you dictionary.com. This would lead you to believe that all political parties in this country could all call themselves "social democrats". Adjective 1 - They are all social clubs. 2. They all seek the companionship of others 3. All parties have held social events. And noun 1. All parties promote a level of companionship and communal activity. i.e. All parties that maintain democracy must be social, or else they would not survive.

I received a yellow envelope with perferated sides. You tear them off and inside there is a code at the top, and it has the date, then Dear Madam/Sir...yadda yadda yadda within the next 10 days. Its important...yadda yadda yadda. Complete it online at yadda yadda yadda OR call yaadda yadda yadda to receive the paper questionaire. For questions call yadda TTY users yadda etc. French on the left, English on the right. Whatever it was I said yes.