Bakunin

Somebody had to start this thread , oh well i hope the liberal lose this time and id like to see the conservative win. I thought about voting for harper but i don't see the point when in my riding its all about liberal vs bloc. Id really like to see a conservative minority government, we would be safe from social change and we could get a preview of harper. If harper win a majority, id expect some great change about politics and economy but the only thing i really hate is his idea about a free vote on SSM, a conservative majority would assure they would abolish it and if it happen id feel guilty about it so i guess this is why i thought the best would be to get rid of the liberal but still be carefull about harper. I hope we could get the best out of the conservative as a minority without being threaten by social conservativism. Anyway i wish evryone a nice election day tomorow.

I think the report are pretty much realistic. Since 2004, i think Harper started to try to understand quebeckers and what they want. Between ppl who want nothing more than sovreignty (sovreignist) and ppl that want to control be controled by ottawa (federalist). There is another movement in between pushed by the right wing and the youth in quebec called autonomism (pro meech) with Mario dumont and what happend in the last 2 weeks is that the autonomist are now joining the conservative. The autonomist movement is the only hope for canada's unity, unity will be safe as long as the conservative can flirt with that movement but watch out if ever he try to play them to get elected. On the other hand, the liberal are dead in quebec they only have a 14% support outside montreal, they will problably suffer the biggest lost ever since the party exist.

Here is another article about conservative unable to know wich one is the real conservative candidate. http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20060116.../CPACTUALITES02

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20060109...25/CPACTUALITES Here are 2 articles that explain evrything it all and this is from the CUC website wich is anything but pro-sovreignist. http://www.uni.ca/library/option_canada.html http://www.uni.ca/library/option_canada2.html I hate it when i see ppl that refuse to see the scandal, its a bit like the sponsorship scandal, maybe you don't like sovreignist but if you like democracy you should be worried about what was going on.

I disagree with the article, first most of the studies about sovreignty is more likly to promote unity because of their result... Its not correct to say it was money to promote secession. Second, the supreme court accepted the 5millions limit of spending for both side. Third, the scandal is that an undercover organism with gomery's actor violated the law, however it is so hard for the die hard federalist, they are acting like if they agree with it and they agree to violate democracy to promote their goal wich is a total lack of respect IMO.

Here are 2 story: First, if you want to vote for harper in quebec, you need to know politics well because here is the choice: "PC/ PC party" wich is in reality the canadian progressive party or the conservative party old name. "Conservateur/Conservative" wich is the real conservative party.... imagine if we had to vote between: "PLC" and "Liberal"... The second story is a cheap shot...: When you vote by anticipation you need to write dow the name of the candidate and the employe that say the names of the candidates to the voters was caught saying a false name for the Bloc candidate in a circonscription wich mean all those vote wont count.

I don't know about that but i heard something similar, a liberal candidate tryed to buy a ndp candidate in abodsford. http://www.ccnmatthews.com/docs/npdstat.pdf

With the liberal, evry day as its scandal...

lol, it was a great one , i can imagine it in my head.

Paul martin would sell his mother to win the next election, in other word he his willing to say anything to win even if he contradict himself.

Its hard to say, i think at this point anything could happend, we will see in a week. here are 3 possibility: 1) the conservative continue to gain ground to remplace the liberal and a get a couple of vote from the BQ. 2) Ppl could start to panic and the liberal could get more vote coming from the BQ wanting to stop the Conservative. 3) It could stay like this and help the bloc win more seats at the expense of losing its 50+1%.

Can you find a link to the judgement? (French version ok). If the law is based on a federal supreme court ruling then that does change my perspective on the issue. I hated Chretien - wanted him gone long ago. Many people in English Canada felt the same way but they were stuck because the Conservatives could not get their act together. I am pretty sure Harper believes what he says about the fiscal deficit because right wing economic thinkers know that taxes, whenever possible, should be collected by the level of government responsible for spending them. Our current system where the federal gov't is a 'sugar daddy' to the provinces screws up the chain of accountability The best thing Quebequers could do right now is vote Conservative - even if the Conservative candidate has no chance of winning or even if that increases the chance that a Liberal will be elected in a tight riding because more support in Quebec will translate into more support in Ontario. The conservative are now ahead of the liberal in quebec. As for the supreme court thing: http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20060109...25/CPACTUALITES

IMO parizeau was the dirtiest or should i say the only dirty, rude and untrustworthy prime minister we had in the last 45 years, He was intelligent, strategist and its higly probable that he made a few dirty small strategy like the union thing. Nothing as big and dirty as the federalist like the sponsorship ad and option canada but still dirty strategy. This is why i hate him more than any other politician (except prolly trudeau and chretien who where worst IMO). Sparhawk, the supreme court of canada said both side could spend 5millions each, its wasn't a sovreignist strategy its just simple logic just like the rule of any election, a party can't spend more than X amount of money. Levesque was as fair and honest as a politician can be and the same for Bouchard. Both where 2 sovreignist and are prolly the closest sample of how ideal politics should be. Bernard landry and jean charest aren't good prime minister but at least they are democrats. I just can't beleive how much Jean chretien was dishonest that we still hear about his numerous scandal over and over again, it seems to have no end... And we aren't talking about small tricks, we are talking about heavy violation of democracy and thousand of millions spent on propaganda... Trudeau was such an ass, more arrogant than a thousand of arrogants liberals and a dirty strategist, Paul martin doesn't stand up for nothing, he just surf on whatever he can, he his a completly different man than when he was a finance minister, i think he would sell off his mom if he could to win the next election. The last worthy prime minister i can think of is Murloney, maybe he wasn't perfect but he truly tryed to understand the situation, he tryed to understand what canada was all about and find out a way to bring it back together. I think harper is finally understanding this, he his slowly but likly finding its way in quebec, i dont know if he is fooling us to win the election but at least he his truly different than what we know about the liberals.

I guess there is no end to this, once there are fact brought on the table it always end up " bah who cares, the separatist are evil" and blah blah blah ! Could we just for once put partisanship aside and try to understand what is hapenning, damn, violating such law is problably as much damaging as violating an election law. We are hearing so much scandal over the past year its not even funny anymore, the best thing we should do is at least try to understand them. Over a thousand of invoice and documents meant to be destroyed by the federal government ends up a few month ago in a trash dump in the back of a small comercial center and a well known investigation journalist finds them... Then when the government hear about this investigation going on with the paper he asked to be destroyed, he call the RCMP and say finally something went wrong in 1995 and maybe they should investigate... I think just from there, we could almost make a movie out of that... Its obivious that something isnt right in all of this, why can't we agree on that ? because fighting the evil separatist mean it is right to violate law and morality ?

i think it was a cheap political play from duceppe, the conservative are partly involved in option canada but from what ive heard they where not involved in the scandal of option canada.

A new book came out with proofs that the "No camp" violated laws during the 1995 referendum and is problably what would be the begining of the sponsorship scandal. The secret organism would have spend 3 to 3,5 millions illegally to help the "no" camp, with strategy similar to the sponsorship ad scandal. More detail to come. The scandal would affect many people and company from the sponsorship scandal including BCP, Everest, Tony Mignaca, André Morrow communications (the owner is Liza Frulla husband ), Pierre Pettigrew. here is one of the article about it: ---------------------------------------------------------------- New book on unity fund adds to Liberal woes Updated Mon. Jan. 9 2006 3:20 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff News about the imminent launch of a book detailing alleged activities of a clandestine Canadian unity group during the 1995 Quebec referendum couldn't have come at a worst time for the Liberals. On the same day a crucial English language debate is set to hit the airwaves, authors Robin Philpot and Quebec investigative journalist Normand Lester gave a sneak preview into Les secrets d'Option Canada, which hits bookshelves Wednesday. The book provides alleged accounts of what happened to a portion of federal funds that went to Option Canada -- a pro-federalist group during the Quebec referendum. According to the authors, Option Canada received $5 million from the federal government -- and $3.5 million of that sum was illegally spent by the referendum campaign's "No" side by bypassing Quebec's spending laws for the referendum. The authors claim that some of the amount was used to pay Grit volunteers who worked on the "No" campaign, including an organizer who was recently banned from the Liberal Party over involvement in the sponsorship scandal. Sovereigntists have long accused Ottawa of using the group to skirt rules on referendum funding. Spending limits for both the Yes and No committees were set at $5 million each. At a Monday morning press conference in Montreal, Lester said a source recently pointed him to documents from Option Canada in a cardboard box behind a suburban Montreal shopping centre. Philpot told CTV Newsnet in an interview that the documents revealed "a will on the part of the ... conceivers of Option Canada and the federal government to break Quebec's referendum laws and to secretly inject money into a democratic political campaign..." Philpot claimed he and Lester have uncovered a "very, very serious case of the government injecting secret money illegally to deny a legitimate political debate ... from taking place." Included in their book are details about a $12,000 grant that allegedly went to one of Liberal Leader Paul Martin's current cabinet ministers to promote national unity before the referendum. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=election2006

Im sad but not surprized, i thought i could at least get just a very small agreements but once again instead of reconsidering that maybe sometime it has no points to bash quebec all the time, maybe one day you will start trying to understand them instead. I beleive at least i try to understand other provinces.

I don't know if all province are officially billingual, i know that quebec is officially french (80% vs 8%) but what i know is that the city the most billingual is definatly and by far montreal. The fact are that the other provinces doesn't deserve 1/10 of the services and sometime even less like for hospitals. Are there any french university in ontario ? There are 3 english in montreal. I have a question for you, why does Canada continue to shoot itself in the foot trying to operate a country when surrounded by a sea of American and are only hampering their own economic success and making themself dependent of the american ? I wonder why canadian want to be so much different than the american and not understanding the quebeckers working hard to keep their identity wich is problably more different than the canadian-american indentity. If you think canadian are doing a better by being a country instead to be part of the usa well if you would be a quebecker you would problably be sovreignist. I think the truth is lying in between, economy should be one thing and culture & politics another thing. I beleive in free trade and this is why i think the problem canada and quebec is facing is a politic and cultural problem, we a want political liberty and an international economy. The best way to frustrate a quebecker is to ingerate in its political and cultural affair, maybe you feel by not doing so it would be concession to quebec but for quebeckers by doing so, it would be concession to be part of canada. Just take the war on iraq, canadian where so proud to stand up to american, well you know sometime quebeckers feel like that, sometime they like to cut the string usually manipulating them. Another part of your answer is that to you quebec may be a simple province like the other but for us quebec is more than a province, its our identity, our culture, our way of thinking, in other word our nation or what the russian would call our mother land.

... First, quebec and canada depend on usa for its economy. Quebec most important economic partner is usa and not canada, in fact ontario depend more on quebec for its exportation than quebec depend on ontario. Second, id prefer be an anglophone in montreal rather than a francophone in any other city of the ROC... Its alot more open, you can get any services in english, newspapers, tv station, radio, hospitals and etc... In montreal, often its harder to be served in french than in english... As for the school language law, you can learn english if your parent went to english school wich is prolly the case for any of you, there are alot of school and the subsidies for those school are enormous, just the 3 english university in quebec gets 27,7% of the subsidies while they deserve 8,4 of the population (english). There are english school evrywhere while in other provinces the french are trapped in small ghetto, unable to get services in french... there is 1 small french hospital in ontario for 400 000 francophone. (i don't even know if the hospital still exist) there are 18 english hospital in quebec, and they are constructing a mega english hospital center wich will cost more than 1 billions. I think its sad to see so many ppl pick up on quebec when pratically all english provinces sucessfully assimilated their french population and simply failed (problably on purpose) to give them any support and 1/10 of the services an english speakers could get in quebec.

the book didn't balance, the Auditor General had to give up because he didn't had enough documents. A well known ex-journalist form the french CBC found documents about Option canada and made a book that will come out thursday and promised to give back the documents to the auditor general, i don't know what will be revealed but the GRC wants to reopen the case and the quebec wing liberals looks terrified.

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/analysiscomm...ingridings.html Very interesting stuff, here is the ridings won by small margin. 16 ridings by a margin of less than 1% 15 ridings by a margin of 1%-2% 10 ridings by a margin of 2%-3% This is 41 ridings with less than 3% of margin !

Maybe we should just pass a law that enroll ppl in the army if they don't find work after 1 years and don't want to go to school anymore. i guess we wouldn't have anymore gangster.

I think this is an interesting question, how can we define and apply democracy. Its easy to say canada is a democracy but is it really a democracy ? Western ppl may vote for the conservative with a strong majority their whole life and their is a strong possibility that they will never or almost never change anything to the election result. More often than anything, the election result will contrast with their decision. Is this democracy ? do we want a government that get elected by the majority wherever it is or a government that represent well each region of canada ? If a region vote massively against a government year after year after year, does it mean that this region lost its democracy ? Is it the party's faults or is it the political structure itself ?

I have no idea what that means. Since when are French Canadians a different race from French from France? The correct word is still bigotry. Unless you're using "race" in the slightly archaic poetic sense used in the theme song for American Dad. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually i don't like the word race, it sound like if we where talking about dogs. Its the first time i hear this word "bigotry" i can't find the translation in french but the definition looks fine to me. Shane doan is a bigotry and still doesn't deserve to be in the team

No, it was not not! That is why the appropriate authorities almost immediately apologized and decried those taunts. They did not go into a denial attitude. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Exactly, with the doan case, not only he deny it but he get a place on team canada...