Bakunin

I think its a great childcare program but there are some serious problems too, and i doubt the federal will be able to make a good program. Its a good idea because it assure that the child doesnt just get parked and learn nothing. The goal is to assure a quality service and an educationnal service for the child. And it help alot the poorest part of the population, monoparental women. it cost 7$ a day. But as always the government doesn't have enough money to pay for those service for evryone so there is a waiting list of years... I don't remember the cost but its around 1.5 billions per years i think wich is clearly not enough. But i think that the money spent for children is never lost money. we just have to rework the program to reduce waiting time. --------------------------------------- But how i see this is that the federal wich is swimming in surplus money, try to justify the fiscal imbalance between the federal and the province by spending the surplus on social program.... Maybe to save money they could use the 10 000 bureaucrat for healthcare with imaginary work... lets face it, the federal was made to operate stuff like the army and the rcmp not to control childcare... we dont need bureaucrat to tell the province what to do... they just have to send back their surplus and let the province deal with it... else the money will never get through all the federal bureaucracy and it will be wasted money...

i agree with you, You can't win an election by behing anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-abortion, anti-progressive and anti-french because if you add all those people you will get more than 50%. has for conservative getting seats in quebec it will be very hard. The liberal supporters are mostly die hard fan and immigrant, the conservative can't steal vote from them, has for stealing vote from the bloc it will be hard because the bloc fan are mostly from the left and are sovreignist. there has never been a conservative government here since the 60's. I don't understand harpers tactics, why does he try to get quebec's vote, maybe its just another proof that he never understood quebec. He would get a lot more vote by using the inverse tactic, he should be less friendly with quebecers to get more vote in the roc.

the blue states sill rulez !!!! Usa is all about 2 extreme. There is the modern democratic usa in blue and the old style (racist/slave owners style/redneck) wich include bush. it all start with the secession war.... canada should have helped the blue states and maybe we would be living in the united states of canada and the south would have their country, the rednecks states of america, and alberta could join them ;P )

That could be caused by the immigration too, state with high lvl of immigration are blue. maybe its my imagination but when we compare, the midwest wich naturally gets less immigration, looks like people with another mentality. A more racist, sexist, anti-gay, pro-tradition, pro-war, gun lover, god lover the fanatic way, disconnected from reality kind of society.

before the election, we where anti-bush, but after the election, we see that bush was not an accident, and its quite shocking. Now its quite clear, even more when you watch the election map. The midwest is pretty rich in redneck, anti-gay, and gun lovers..... By hating bush, we hate the red americans on the map, and vice verca, they hate us as well.

Not evryone pay taxes, just look at our PM.....

What you see as special consideration, we the quebecers see it as federal respecting provincial juridiction. I know that the rest of canada doesnt care if the federal doesn't respect is juridiction. This is one of our difference, and it sad if its making some people angry. We shouldn't be angry because we are different, we should just respect each others.

I don't know if it will be the greatest but he will clearly be canadian. Its not a cbc/radio-canada partnership its only cbc... so they didn't even take the time to explain it in french and give the french a possibility to participate.

Worldwide: http://www.cyberpresse.ca/sondage_mondial_...esultats_en.php the result of quebec and roc separate. http://www.cyberpresse.ca/sondage_mondial_...bleaucanada.php ------------ Who would you vote for: Québec Bush 11% Kerry 71% (Rest of Canada) Bush 23% Kerry 56%

I don't know who estimate the surplus in the liberal party but he should be fired.

Logos of all party: http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?sectio...&textonly=false Info on all party and their website: http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?sectio...tonly=false#CAP

Ignore this statement. It is political bias (and also an exagerration) which is not what you are looking for. hehe you didnt see the tv ad ? in quebec the tv ad were saying if you vote for the bloc, you will make the conservative win the election, i must admit it was their best argument and they axed their campain on that...

forget those party, they problably got less than 1%, and are ignored by the media. http://www.elections.ca/ the liberals won ~ 135 seats mostly in the maritime and ontario over the conservative, in quebec, the bloc won easily over the liberal with ~54 seats because of the sponsorship scandal, in the west, conservative all the way for ~99 seats. main issues, healthcare as usual... childcare program, sponsorship scandal and thats about it.... the rest of the campain was axed on scaring the population about eventual change.

Eureka you will never understand quebecers. First your interpretation of history is often ridiculous and you never have document that proof what you say, you know why ? because what you read are personal opinion not fact... And you simply never took the time to read my post, you just take evrything as personal attack and im tired of posting back to you to try to explain how you should interpret it. If you can't well its your problem, i wont reexplain my point of vue again because i know you simply can't understand.

I know theloniusfleabag but its not that simple, having a multicultural country based on 2 founding culture mean a lot of sacrifice. Honeslty if we want it to work i think that we need to separate stuff between our two culture because sometime it can be quite frustrating. As for the pm of canada, i hate the french pm from the liberals. its time to get an english one... The only liberal i can tolerate is jean lapierre .

Alright, i just think this is a concept where the french and the English (british and canadian) doesn't share in common for historic purpose. In france they fighted to get rid of monarchy and it ended in a blood bath. They got rid of the monarchy to instaurate a democratic system called a republic. It took time to instaurate but it was clearly better than monarchy. It was symbolic. In england, the monarchy slowly gave the power to a parliament style of government. Monarchy stayed an heritage symbol. ----------------------------------- I guess its alright if the english community keep a GG and stay subject of the queen but i don't see the point why we the french should stay subject of the queen, I mean we lost alot in 1760 but this ends one day or another... just like colony got there independance back, if we want to live in a democracy then one day or another we should get to choose our own destiny.

Like august posted: Funny, looks like racism, this mean a french person couldnt be GG except if he or she become a member of the england church ? its just another thing that make's it an "english only" symbol. Eureka your a blind man...., do you really think that evry non constitutionnal monarchy country are faillure ? im sorry but you need a brain transplant.. usa, germany, switzerland, france, italy, finland, poland. sorry i do not consider those country failure. Sure you can take them one by one and point out problem wich are absolutly not relyed in the fact they are republic or that they dont have a pure blood born monarch (never elected) to look after them... First i didn't write this text and second read it one more time... --------- no i didnt. And for the last time here is why: 1st) Its Symbolic, like its written it doesnt require to be an enormous change, and the people would not see a big change. 2nd) Its philosophic and symbolic, at lest for the french , read "the social contract" of rousseau http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.txt a small quote: it would be too long and hard to explain. after reading this quote you will tell me then canada is a republic ? well your right it is the same thing, the difference is that in france they fighted to get a republic and it ended in a blood bath.In england, the monarchy slowly gave the power to a republic government to keep their head on their shoulder and now they are symbolic. I think the difference remains there, for some people specialy the french, the monarchy symbolic is not a good symbol, while for the english "monarchy" has no real symbolic or for some stupid reason, some people think that monarchy is a sign of democracy while on its basement, its based on blood heridity... it has nothing to do with democracy... to deviate the debate, some will say a constitutional monarchy is the best government system, while its basically a copy of a republic (What is the difference between coke and pepsi ?)... its is a copy of a republic except 1 thing, the 1 thing where i dont agree with constitutional monarchy... the fact of having a monarchy symbolic. Now if someone want to debate seriously, it must be on this fact: having a monarchy symbolic vs having no monarchy symbolic. AND BY MONARCHY I MEAN HAVING A QUEEN BASED ON BLOOD HERIDITY AND A GG FROM THE ENGLISH CHURCH WHO IS NOT ELECTED BY THE CANADIAN CITIZEN. ps, if someone reply to me and did not undestand what i wrote in CAPS and BOLD, well i won't reply...

I think the main idea of this debate is: Nobility, giving special status to someone based on his blood's heridity (the queen)... vs all man are born equal. The GG is choosen by the queen with the help of the prime minister. vs a GG choosen by the people. ------------------------------------------------ Here are some solution proposed: 1) Indirect election by parliament. Very similar to what we have now where the Governor General is selected by the Prime Minister and approved by Parliament and the Senate. This would simply amount to republicanizing our Westminster style of parliament. It could be done with a minor amount of modification to our current system and minor changes to our constitution. The President would retain the same politically-neutral and symbolic position as the Governor General (with some reserve powers for special circumstances) and would not result in a change in the power now exercised by parliament. India, a former constitutional monarchy, presently has the most successful version of this model. 2) Indirect election by a selection committee of political peers such as judges, former or sitting federal or provincial politicians, academics, etc. This model, a variation of which is practiced by Germany, offers some solace to those who think a President elected or appointed solely by parliament would somehow be indebted or subservient to it. The president remains the politically-neutral head of state with some executive powers while the Prime Minister (or in Germany's case, the Chancellor) retains the position of head of government. This system again would require minimal effort to implement, with very little constitutional change. 3) Direct election by all eligible voters. There are three main sub-groups of this style: a) The U.S. mode that essentially has one executive head of state, the president, but the bulk of the legislative power is distributed between congress and senate. To the lay person, it's a very complicated system that has the President elected not by the popular vote but by a majority of electoral college votes. Comparably, because we've instituted our own constitution (which is uncommon among Westminster parliamentary systems), we already have a strong US style supreme court that can legislate over the will of the government. So in that respect, our systems are already somewhat alike. Outside of that, the similarities are few. In Canada's case, adopting this governing formula would involve merging the position of Governor General with that of the Prime Minister. Since many political observers believe the Prime Minister's Office already wields too much power and due to the total overhaul that would have to be done to our constititution to adopt this style of republic, it may be one of the less likely choices. B ) The French style which is a combination of the Westminster and US systems. Like the Prime Minister, the President is directly elected but has symbolic as well as some executive powers. In many ways, the President and the Prime Minister are political rivals because both are elected separately and thus both are responsible to their constituents. c) Similar to Ireland, direct election but the same duties as that of our current Governor General. In this system, the power structure would naturally change in favour of the President and away from the Prime Minister and Parliament. Although it wouldn't necessarily be written into the change-over, the difference would be not in the powers granted by the position but in the willingness to exercise existing ones. Our current Governor General is a symbolic and ceremonial head of state who asserts his or her limited or reserve executive powers in rare emergencies (as would an indirectly elected or appointed president). However, if this position is filled by a directly elected official, who has their own constituents to whom to answer, the supremacy of Parliament could be altered. For that reason, this style of republic could be difficult - although not impossible - to implement in Canada. i took those suggestion from: http://www.canadian-republic.ca

Canada need a new political structure for the new century. A Republic because its a symbol of democracy. And then in its political structure Canada need to be decentralize. The last election showed it pretty well. The liberal did not get elected in the west and in quebec. they got elected in ontario and the maritime. So they shouldn't have any power over quebec or the west.

Or we could give her task to someone else elected... yeah this is a fact I never talked about constitutional monarchy you did..... I just said earlyer that GG was a symbole of monarchy and i explained what a monarchy is. i never talked about constitutional monarchy. You did not understand. Im talking about a king or a queen is not elected. It is "choosen", thats religious bullshit, at lest it was like that in french monarchy. I know that if elizabeth is queen of canada its because of law, but she was born a member of the royal family in england, else she would not be a queen. Its part of the english canada heritage, a war imposed it to french canadian. i think it make a difference and we can see it in the poll august posted.

Like you say she do what the prime minister tell her almost all the time. If she already refused to do what she was told well it never happend in my lifetime. Well im a democrate... i think we should elect people who has state responsibility. Dont you know what a monarchy is ? Its a dictator called a "monarch" wich has the right to dictate because of its "royal blood", wich is religious bullshit. i think queen elizabeth is the queen of canada and we pay when she visit us, but thats not the point, i was talking about canadian english monarchy.

I know she has almost no power but its a symbol. Lets remplace her by someone elected and someone who has nothing to do with monarcy, dictatorship and religious symbol. Also as a french quebecer, i dont want to be forced to pay tax $ to an english monarchy symbol.

I think we should chop her head off on the public place and make it a holiday for the victory of democracy on dicatorship. An holiday for equality and liberty.

I think its up to the mother to decide if she want to keep it because there are thousand of reason why sometime they shouldn't have a child but its 100% sure that sometime the reason will not be a good one but hey its their business, lets not decide for them.

It all depend on the sector but i would like to bring out another thing, the woman kind of job like secretary are underpaid... this is another big problem, the woman type of job are considered to worth less then they should.