Bakunin

There is one thing that fascinate me, i don't know if you saw that too august1991, among the quebec federalist their are some that are nationalist(quebec) and some canadian nationalist. The english canadian prolly can't see that. The hard line like trudeau and chretien are canadian nationalist. just like many but not all PLC federalist. Those are very rare. Only those would think about cheating to fight the sovreignist movement. Only those would think about sending the army in quebec if there is a winning referendum or to try to partitionate quebec. What the english canada see are the canadian nationalist wich do not represent the quebec culture proprely. It is sad for the few good federalist politician. Im sure english canada doesn't know how much quebecers are proud and unconditional democrate.Maybe they can feel it with the reaction of the sponsorship scandal in quebec, but they can't fully understand it since the responsible for this scandal are almost all quebecers(canadian nationalist).

There is something funny with our political system. We could have an extreme right president and it doesnt mean the country would be more to the right. why ? cause we have 2 government. Its the stupidity of the system. Even the most extreme right government wouldn't make quebec more to the right cause the only thing that would change is that the provincial government would do the job the federal government decide not to do. But on the other hand, a left federal party have more impact, it force the province more to the right like alberta to be more to the left so since i respect albertan i will never vote for a left wing government even if im a social democrate. So in other word even if im not conservative and i hate their social view, i think harper would be the best prime minister that we can have right now ( considering the bloc have no chance to form a government ). The worst thing that can and prolly will happend is bad international politics.

No. Have you ever been to Quebec, by any chance? I think I can tell you with some assurance that Quebecers don't give a crap whether the signs on the cerial in Vancouver and Regina are in French or not. Quebecers are a naval gazing people. Their interest is in what is happening in Quebec. They are only peripherally aware of what happens in Canada outside Quebec, and even then only, for the most part, of what affects them. All those parents in BC and Toronto earnestly sending their little ones to French immersion class no doubt provides Quebecers with a little warm feeling inside - but it's the same feeling any Francophone, be he in Quebec or France would feel at hearing others learning their language. Francophones are in love with their language the way no one else can imagine, especially Anglos who, for the most part, regard their language as more of a tool than a mistress. Quebecers would be happy, I guess, if all of Canada were French, but having Anglos learn their language is not really going to affect how they feel about Canada or their place in it. As for "assimilation", it's a desperate fear among Francophones, and only Francophones, for the most part. Even in France they have their language police, and the English laugh and jeer at them. Our language was born out of assimilation, of the co-mingling of various peoples and ethnicities. It continues to grow, to adopt foreign phrases and words with blissful ease. This is the nature of a living language. As different groups co-mingle, their languages grow closer and closer together until little is left of the originals. The English understand that, even if they rarely think about it. The French can't abide the thought their beloved language might change or adapt to the world around them. With the ease of communication and travel, and the power of English in culture, entertainment, business and technology, English is becomeing the world language. Some day everyone will speak it. Except of course, those desperate little Frenchmen huddled alone in France and Quebec, determined to cling to a dead language which will increasingly make it more difficult for them to communicate with the rest of the world. Some day Chinese tourists will float past on their hovercars, snapping pictures of the funny little French guys and listening to them talk. And one will turn to the other and say "What'd he say?" and the other will shrug and say "They don't speak any other language. Aren't they quaint?" lol , its funny to read. I agree with most of it but i would like to point out that we learn english too. We will become billingual in the near futur.

Thats because what you say doesn't make sens... you see a genocide because there are less english in quebec but if there are less french in alberta or ontario i guess your very happy with it. when its bad for the french its always good when its bad for the english then its the end of the world...

How do you think paul martin got rid of the deficit ?

I agree and id like to point out that all the quebec provincial party are at a point autonomist. The PQ is sovreignist. The PLQ want asymetrical federalism. The ADQ voted yes at the 1995 referendum, now they want something a bit more drastic than asymetrical federalism. So thei are all uncomfortable with the PLC vision.

In theory it true would be true if all the province would higher their income taxe at the same time each time the federal government decide to do massive cuts in its spending but in reality it wont happend. Its a little bit like the NHL players that say they don't want salary cap and say the team owners only have to give less money to the player in a totally free market. You can say the citizen can vote for another government if they doesnt like what they see but you know how politics work... nothing is rationnal, evrything is based on perception. And for that we would need to have a democracy... right now the only way i think we could have a democracy is by creating 3-4 more liberal federal party.... Why would fiscal incoherence would be a better word that fiscal imbalance ? the fact that a province can taxe more its citizen doesnt make the whole thing less unbalanced. I would say its incoherent and unbalanced... Incoherent cause it make the province budget unstable cause we never know when the federal government will cut more. When they cut it unbalance, and the fact that they can do that is incoherent. The federal government just exploited a hole in the constitution at its advantage to look like if it was the only government that can manage a budget without deficit and take control of the province and specially quebec wich is the big looser in all this cause its the more taxed province.

If there is 1 politician i would trust, it would be Yves Seguin... I just can't beleive that some people claim there is no fiscal imbalance when its proven statistically that the federal government drastically cut transfer for healthcare without giving more taxes point to the province.

I wouldn't call him an autonomist cause its an undefined adq terms but remember when he was quebec finance minister he said the federal was like dracula and (Il voulait que le québec soit percepteur de ses impôts.) I think the problem is that he is not the kind of guy like fournier who focus on doing what the prime minister tell him, séguin do what he thing is best for the population and i would have a hard time see a french quebecers alone in the conservative do whats best for canada and not what hes told to do

Yves séguin won't... the last time i read about him, he looked more like a sovreignist than anything else. I doubt harper want a sovreignist as finance minister. Thats why the PLQ don't want him too to replace charest.

Politics is politics, if harper can't win this election then he will never be able to. Paul Martin would jump on an occasion like this if he could. I think what is the best thing to do is to prepare evryone for a campain election next month, this will let the time to corriveau and group evrest to go at the gomery comissions. If possible they should start after we know what role Earnscliffe had. Anyway after that we will all have a pretty good idea of what happened. There is no way we should let the liberal recover.

I like Duceppe, he his a good politican and he is connected with the quebec society like no other politician is curently. A little bit like Lévesque was. As for the PLQ, hmm im not sure about Couillard. There is no doubt he is a good guy but he has the same problem Fournier has, he doesn't have what it take to be a leader and give order. Yves Séguin has what it take to be a leader. Honestly i hope Seguin bring charest down, if he can't i hope we will join the PQ.

Here is the lastest poll in quebec after the brault alegation: PQ 47% ADQ 25% PLQ 21% ----------------------------- This mean that the ADQ and the PLQ together have less % than the PQ. Ive never seen that... Some liberal are publicly talking of getting rid of jean charest.

Here is the lastest poll, the result are clear... the Liberal will get wiped. the poll is from EKOS-La Presse-Toronto Star. Tories 36,2% Liberal 25% NDP 20.5% In quebec, they lose even more than what we could have imagined even the tories are more popular... BQ 50% Tories 16% Liberal 15% NDP 10% In ontario, the tories take the lead. Tories 40% Liberal 33% NDP 21% The NDP takes the lead in BC, Manitoba and SK The president of EKOS say that if there where election, the conservative would have a minority government. He say the ndp would have more deputy and in quebec he say the liberal would lose evrything (i doubt it ). sry i only have the french version: http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/artic...2005,989618.php The BQ said they will announce if they try to force election tuesday.

I agree, but i like to point out that the seats they will lose are strategic seats. Here are 3 important minister that will lose their county: Jean Lapierre, Lisa Frulla, Pierre Pettigrew. This mean that their will be almost no more quebec wing in the liberal party. Id also like to point out that those minister are in "liberal stronghold" wich became in danger after the sponsorship scandal... However there is no way the bloc can win in english speaking part of quebec id say the liberal will have like 20%-25% in quebec the next election and the bloc something like 55-60% If the tories win it will be by default and thats never a good thing cause it mean there is no place for mistake. There is no doubt that the tories will have to be carefull with right policy if they don't want to have problem in quebec. This is an important point, i saw a poll that showed that 70% of the quebecers wanted election. If their are no election there is a big problem cause the federal government will have no credibility in quebec. However when the tories will get elected, expect the quebecers not to be happy about tories policy. There is no doubt this situation will prove that federalism isn't the best solution for the country. Specially if the tories have 0/75 seats in quebec.

I wouldn't be surprised if there where some more liberal corruption behind that registry program. In fact, Brault was involved at the beginning in that program, it came up at the gomery comission.

Ok, i understand but its because it has nothing to do with the sponsorship scandal. It was a bribe from groupaction to keep a contract.

Its not that simple, its because in quebec a company can't give money to a political party, only a citizen can and maximum 3000$. What groupaction did in other word is to give 3000$ to 17 ppl who gave it to the PQ. The money sent was to secure a contract with the SAQ and the funiest thing is that they lost it. The "Link" is that groupaction got lots of contract from the liberal government with our money in exchange of helping them to finance the liberal elections campains.

And i like to mention something, the liberal organiser accused by brault have also been PLQ organiser... And something bad for the PQ, Brault gave money to the pq to keep a contract with the SAQ ( Alchool store owned by Quebec). Unfortunatly for them they lost there contract... but they have contributed to the party and its illegal for a company to contribute to a party in quebec.

lol, if only they could understand that what we want is a little bit of love and and some understanding... but those crasy people in the liberal party prolly never tought about it...

As i was seeking info about the sponsorship scandal in us website, i found that in the ny times. ------ Quebec Is Shedding Image as Hotbed of Political Rest By CLIFFORD KRAUSS Published: April 3, 2005 MONTREAL, March 30 - The scene on fashionable Rue St.-Denis looked as if it came out of another era: hundreds of students staging a sit-in in front of a Liberal Party office and blocking rush hour traffic on a Tuesday afternoon. Red and black banners flapped as fists pumped in the air. The police surrounded the students in their patrol cars. Advertisement Drivers appeared to patiently accept their inconvenience by not honking. People enjoying the dazzling spring afternoon at outdoor cafes clapped and joined in the chants of protest against cuts in student aid. The demonstration and the signs of popular support were among a number of indications that Quebec's political life, a life that has been relatively quiet for a decade, is becoming vibrant and chaotic again. The targets of this public disenchantment are both the provincial and federal Liberal governments, which have been tarnished by scandal and by stalled attempts at policy reform. While the rest of Canada appears bored with politics and nonchalant about the weakest federal government in a generation, politics in predominately French-speaking Quebec are percolating more powerfully than at any time since the last separatist referendum in 1995, which lost by a narrow margin. "It is a really special moment," said Julie Ouellet, 22, one of the demonstrators, who is studying sociology at the University of Quebec at Montreal. Suggesting that the narrow objectives of the sit-in had deeper, more radical possibilities, she added: "The cultural revolution can come when people begin asking what kind of society we want. Right now, the government is thinking of nothing other than money." More than 170,000 college students in Quebec have been on strike for the last month, in the largest student mobilization here since the 1960's, when social revolution and separatism were in the air. Now, students are demanding that the provincial government reverse a plan to transform $80 million of student grants into loans. There have been dozens of arrests and sporadic violence. College teachers, pressing their own contract demands, went on a half-day strike this week and are threatening more job actions. Elementary teachers and provincial government workers say they will take action to increase wages, unions are pressing to organize Wal-Mart Stores and even the musicians of the Montreal Symphony Orchestra are performing in T-shirts as part of their bid for a new contract. And while workers and students are mobilizing, a federal investigative commission holding televised hearings here has stirred public rage with revelations over the last month of almost unbelievable waste in the supposed cause of thwarting Quebec separatism - like paying huge commissions to advertising agencies close to the Liberal Party for designing golf balls as well as paying for box seats to Ottawa Senators hockey games and Neil Diamond and Shania Twain concerts for political allies. The developments, though not all connected, are strengthening the parties that want to promote Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada. Jean Charest, the Liberal leader of Quebec, whose government was elected two years ago, has been forced to retreat from plans to slash spending and taxes. His policies raising rates for day care and proposals for curbing government wages and cutting social benefits have fueled powerful resistance - and failed to inspire supporters to come to his aid. One recent poll showed his disapproval rating at 70 percent. A loss to separatists by Mr. Charest's Liberals in the next provincial election, expected in three years, could set the stage for a third referendum on sovereignty, and recent polls suggest the result could be close again. The unrest here could more immediately affect national politics. Prime Minister Paul Martin, also a Liberal, faces the probability that his party will be swamped here by the separatist Bloc Québécois should he lose a confidence vote in Parliament and need to go to the polls in a snap election before the end of the year. A big loss in Quebec would make it doubtful that Mr. Martin could ever win back the majority in the House of Commons that his party lost last June. The Liberals, who only won 21 of Quebec's 75 seats then, could lose even more ground. Scandal erupted around the Liberal Party last year, after revelations that the federal government tried to increase its presence in Quebec after the close 1995 separatist referendum, through wasteful spending for sponsoring sports and cultural events. Funds appear to have been siphoned off to influential individuals during the government of Mr. Martin's Liberal predecessor, Jean Chrétien. As much as $80 million went to advertising firms allied with the Liberal Party for little or no work; some of that money may well have been funneled into Liberal coffers, according to recent testimony. An investigative commission led by Justice John Gomery, which started its work a year ago, has been holding televised hearings in Montreal over the last several weeks, drawing out a litany of private greed and government waste. The province has paid rapt attention; French-language news channels reported a tripling of ratings and added new programming to cover the inquiry into the money flow. According to recent testimony, an advertising agency owner who is a large donor to the Liberal Party received federal contracts, from which he paid himself, his wife and two children salaries of millions of dollars. While his firm double-billed Ottawa for work on a stamp promotion campaign, the owner, Jean Lafleur, tried to claim a $1,000 fishing rod, bought as a gift, as a business expense incurred on the government's behalf. In his testimony in Montreal, Mr. Lafleur said he could not remember who his fishing companion was. But in previous testimony, he disclosed that he had gone on fishing trips with a former federal justice minister as well as a senior government bureaucrat who was in charge of the controversial sponsorship program. "Gomery is just the tip of the iceberg," said Michel C. Auger, a columnist for Le Journal de Montréal, a local daily. "The iceberg is, politics are not working anymore."

1) Get rid of social conservatism 2) Get rid of social conservatism 3) Get rid of social conservatism 4) Get rid of social conservatism and finally 5) Get rid of social conservatism ---- That's all they have to do. If they can stop scarying the gays, the womens and the other more socially open minded maybe they could win.

NO, where did you get that idea????? Variety is the spice of life. Canada is not the only country with more than one official language; a variety of cultures, and religion. Heaven help that we share one media. Fortunately, we enjoy not only our own heavily monopolized media (Can West) but can seek information from around the world from various media sources. Then if variety is the spice of life, why do we get a federal government to keep us from expressing ourself. Why do we always have to go in court to keep the federal government from taking over provincial juridiction. How come the federal government said it would pay 50% of health cost wich is the biggest expense for canadian, then goes down to like 15% without lowering their taxes and then force the province to keep the system entirely public ?

To ease the confusion, it might be useful to differentiate between the words "country", "nation" and "state". But then, should the differences be based on conventions (whose?), bad habits, dictionary definitions or legal definitions? In American English or British English? What i mean is that normally a country as 1 culture, 1 language etc.. Nation would be a more suitable word. In fact, i was referring to what pearson used to say about quebec: a nation within a nation. In evry country where there are more than 1 nation, there are inevitably problems. Why ? cause they all tend to imitate the nation-state. Right now we have a very bad kind of government. The federal has all the power he wants and almost illimited ressources. If his budget doesnt balance, he just give less money to the provincial government. That form of government already scrapped our healthcare, it will continue to destroy canada if we doesnt limit their activity. In my opinion you must have 1 government 1 vision to serve the aspiration of a nation. But on the other way, a canada's wide provincial cooperation that could take the form of a confederation where evry province would work on a vonlontary basis to serve the interest of its citizen looks interesting to me. The mistake would be to stay with a system that generate a great amount of conflict with its unilateral vision.