Bakunin

The truth is when both have diferent media, different way of thinking, different culture, different way of living, it become hard to talk about 1 entities. By the nature of things, it become 2 entities, it forge completly differents citizens. The only way to get rid of that would be to have a strong central government wich could only lead to a broken country. At best it could be a cooperation, a mutual agreement, some kind of confederation and canada would become a powerfull sample in the world of peace and cooperation of cultures. In other word, you can't ask to quebeckers to renounce to their ambition, to their beleives and embrace the canadian way of living and culture as a minority. But it is still possible to mutually share a government if it can be in a mutual respect and friendship to share common goals. This is something the federal liberals are incapable to do and will be unable to stop.

This is quite funny at least funnier than the GG's joke

This is absolutly what i think and as far as im concerned there is a few solution. since it seems impossible to ellect a party that would receive the majority of the vote in all provinces, then we have to rethink the way we do politics. Solution 1) We give the right to the provinces to opt out of federal programs when they feel it does not fit the regional vision of politics. By the way, that solution was in the Meech accord. Solution 2) A more radicals way is to abolish or restrict a few federal juridiciton or totally abolish the federal government and instore a real confederation or something similar to switzerland. Or to instore autonomous regions like china/hong-kong/taiwan/tibet and etc.. Solution 3) The most radical way is to separate the regions and creating other country's. ------------------------------- Those are the 3 solutions proposed by the 3 most popular provincial party in quebec. Solution 1 and 3 both failled twice and the second, nobody never had enough energy to try to convince people to it, most of the time they ended up supporting one of the 2 others solutions.

It would not work. A party that advocates seperation has no business trying to run the country. If Quebequers want to a have a voice in the gov't the should elect federalists. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If a federalist party could find a vision that canadian and quebecker can agree on, that would be awesome. I think a bloc and conservative coalition could work on a short term because there are many things they can agree on like less government. Then the conservative could win some support and call another election.

What would be an interesting situation is if the bloc win a few more seats and the conservative win also a few more seats but still less than the liberal like the poll say. This would mean that the bloc and the conservative could have a nice majority of a few seats when working together and could decide to override the liberals. But how much time could that work ? who knows :/

I would just like to clarify something. In quebec, Federalists = Liberals. Both words mean the same thing. The conservative and the ndp are like alien from another planet for us, we never see them except in the campain day and they don't have any well known quebec politician to sponsorize their party's vision of canada. As we see it, jean chretien and his friend are guilty for building the program and paul martin and his friends are guilty by association and by not acting or verifying when the bloc was asking question. Now many feel the liberals have to be punished for that and trust me, they have been punished and will continue to be as long as they don't lose an election.

I think we have to make a distinction with what was said by gomery and what really happend. Could gomery say that Chretien or Martin where involved out of no doubt, with solid proof ? No he couldn't, however the important thing is that there have been many fraud, many laws broken and money went to Liberal MP's and to the party. This is all documented in the Gomery report. However i think that chretien and his friend are the main ppl to blame, that kind of program just fit so much well with chretien thinking style...

In fact, any government that choose what party can exist or not, become at a point a dictatorship or a violent states. Before the PQ, there was a form of terrorism in quebec to manifest the rage. I can't imagine a relativly peacefull relation like canada-quebec if sovreignist party where banned. Quebec participate like all other provinces to pay the federal politician therefore they can choose whoever they want at an election, i think its false to say like if it was the rest of canada that was paying the bloc expense.

In other word, instore a dictatorship ? don't worry, the liberals are in the good path to acheive that.

Yup, that night i had 12 years old and was in my bed crying because the "yes" was winning (at the time i had to go to bed). I was afraid to lose my favorite hockey team Canadien de Montreal (Habs) :/ i was a fan of chretien because i felt bad for his weird mouth... I feel both side screwed it up bad after 1995, the liberals did absolutly nothing to integrate the quebecker to canada and the sovreignist completly failed the transition and unlike in 80 with levesque, they did not try any "beau risque", a kind of 3rd way to fix the constitutional crisis. I think it does, one things we ca find out when we analyse polls is that the older ppl, the generation before the babyboomers massively vote against sovreignty (65-70%) while the boomers and their children vote with a slim majority majority for it (55-60%). As for the new generation that didn't vote in 1995, well that is what we don't know yet, The gomery effect and the impopularity of the liberal pushed them for sovreignty wich gived the "yes" 52-54% in the lastest polls but it is in no way a solid majority, i guess we could only find out in a referendum campain wich way that generation will opt for. Well from 12 to 22years old, its clear things have changed, now im able to understand what are the arguments from both side, what are the good and bad of each option. I think ive reached a point where ive put aside sentimental thought and analysed the question back and forth and came to the conclusion that we can't take nothing for granted, that if quebec want to stay in canada, there are condition that must be fullfiled to accept compromise and this is for both sides. Either there is no compromise and a separation wich deal its load of consequence for both side or there is an agreement with conditions and compromise wich could take the form of a constitutionnal agreement.

The funniest thing was the english interpreter too shy to translate what the GG was saying... I think she was quite funny for a GG , not the joke but the way she was acting .

Assymetrical federalism and fiscal imbalance is the same thing. The federal government perceive too much money for his task. Then he use that money to try to control the provincial juridiciton, to control where the money has to be used and then they try to use it as a political realisation of their own government. I guess that strategy problably work in many part of the country but in quebec its a devastating strategy, it has been a strong argument against the liberal federal for years... And have been used by all the provincial party including jean charest and even on the federal scene by the conservative, the ndp and the bloc. All other party are carburating with this liberal stragety and give no choice to Paul martin but to apply asymetrical federalism for political reason.

Lol, damn i think they shouldn't make her drink... She clearly doesn't support alchool Video French resumé of the many dumb statement she made that night...

Why not Gilles Duccepe ? (joking) Seriously, its hard to find the kind of politician that would fit well as a new conservative leader. They clearly need someone able to gather a great part of the liberal vote. They must be able to disarm the liberal fear tactics. And they need some damn leadership...

Who would you suggest? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I can't see an exceptionnal one from the inside, maybe they should look for someone outside politics.

What was his ideological friend again, the long beard one with a military suit he wear all day long. Fighting for libery i suppose... Oh here it is what a nice family picture ! http://www.nscuba.org/Trudeau/bebe-2.jpg

Harper has no charisma, he is a bad strategist and has absolutly no clue on how to beat the liberals... I don't know why he his still running this party.. I think the conservative deserve a better leader.

touché

That was not Trudeau, that was Jean-Louis Roux Quebec's former lieutenant-governor. It is also a strange comment from someone who thinks snorting cocaine while a cabinet minister is a 'forgivable' error of youth. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, both did, i think trudeau used to wear nazi stuff, a helmet or something on his bicycle during the WW2.

Can we see him with his nazi clothing in the middle of the ww2 ? talk about a lack of judgment.. ...

What i wanted to say is that as much as there is quebec nationalism, there is canadian nationalism. To separate is an action, its not a goal, the goal is to give quebecker more control over their destiny. It can aslo be some kind of hope to build something better in what we would feel home. I think its quite normal not wanting to be the minority. Quebeckers want to be part of the action not to be canada's backbencher. Now ppl will say, but the PM is a quebecker.... well we can't see him as a quebecker because he has a different personality, he thinks different and he gotta try to do compromise all the time and it end up we can't see our vision in him. Its a bit like if canada and usa had the same president. Quebec liberals PM are like alien to us, we don't see em often and we feel thei are out of touch. Well this is a bit what we feel like minus the margarine things , we feel the federal government is invading us, trying to control too much in things where they shouldn't have the right and in things we don't want them to have the right. Lets face it, when you don't share the same media, the same culture, the same language, the same vision then you can't ignore its like 2 different world like the liberal are doing... I mean why not let evryone live their life and when both agree on something then it create a link, a bridge between the two cultures. thats how we have to build canada. Not by forcing links and doing stuff that one or the other doesn't want... Its should be something we could be proud of... right now we constantly have to watch our back not to get stabbed and its a constent fight... We where really close to start fixing canada with meech, if we ever restart it won't be easy but its the only way to fix things other then having do dissolve canada.

I never said canadian ? i said canadian nationalist and ironically, the most extremist canadian nationalist are quebeckers but thei aren't many. Well, the 3 party in quebec are fighting for canadian nationalist to let quebeckers live, it doesnt mean that quebeckers are all united but provincial party are at a point all fighting for something simillar. There are many way to leave quebeckers alone. They have 3 different approach, one wants to instaure asymetrical federalism or a meech style accord, one want to instaure an autonomous state (china/hong-kong style), one want to build a new country.

Canadian nationalist do evrything they can to differentiate themselve from the american. They don't like to be controled by americans. Canadian nationalist do evrything they can to control quebeckers and force them to be canadian. In other word they do to others what they don't want to suffer from. This is what im fighting for... i want canadian nationalist (majority are liberals) to stop being asshole and let the quebeckers live their life... im not fighting for sovreingty, im fighting for justice... let us alone and we'll stay or continue and we'll have to go its that simple...

Evry nation are at a point nationalist. It is funny to see a genuine canadian nationalist bash quebecker for being nationalist. You are such an extremist nationalist that you used to fight in a secret group that you are afraid to explain to us... sorry to break your dream but this manifesto is only about political managment of a society wich has nothing to do with the constitutionnal debate.

Agreed. Class sizes at our universities are out of control...higher tuition will mean smaller classes and better professors, enhancing the learning environment of our children. I always liked Bouchard...I thought he was fair and examined both sides of a situation, although I haven't always agreed with all his comments. BTW Charest has got to find some of that irony funny though... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think that what the government has to do is to identifiate how much money is at his disposal, then put lets say 1-1.5 billions to repay de debt per years (wich would slowly grow to 3-4billions in the next 10years and that would pay half of your debt in 25 years), then start with that to find the good amount % of money to put in school and healthcare. Once we spent all that, we let the private sector take the complementary role to assure that all needs are appropriatly filled. I think that the big problem with the quebec model is that we try to fix education by spending lots of money in it and cutting evrywhere esle, then we get a partial success on the short term, then we try to fix healthcare but it means we need to cut in education wich destroy what we was fixing. In other word we need to realize that public healthcare and public education will never be perfect and thats why we need a complementary private sector so that each citizen depending on his needs will decide either at a certain time of his life to pay more for better education or more for better healthcare and the structure will be there to accomodate his needs. If we deny ppl to have better education or healthcare (private), then we have to choose between education or healthcare because the states doesn't have enough money to put into both so either both are in bad shape or one is in good shape and the other in extremly bad shape. We should let the population choose with his money either he want better education or better healthcare. If he doesnt have money then he will still be able to have regular education and healthcare. The role of the states should be to spend wisely the limited amount of money it has at his disposal and let the private sector complete his sector to assure the best quality of service possible to the population.