fellowtraveller

Klein has made a career, a pretty successful career, with his many opponents consistently underestimating him, often badly underestimating him. He has always cultivated an aw-shucks, buffoonish persona, people fall for that and think that is the whole man- then he leaves them in the dust. It has happened countless times in AlbertaHe is of course hated and feared by the media, he treats them like the idiots they too often are and they return the favour.

This is an odd story. Many managerial and technical positions, and many other occupations, would be hired by the Public Service Commission.

And that is about all he said. Is he wrong?

Since when do the criminals get to decide how much they stole and how/when they get to give it back? Soembody explain how a chronically broke Quebec Liberal Party leader like Paul Martin could not have personal knowledge of bags of cash arriving in the Party accounts? Where is the criminal investigation of the theft of a LOT of my money?

Well, given the 33 per cent drop in Tory support in the last election from 2001, they must figure a little vote-buying can't hurt. And, given the stageringly low voter turnout (particularily in the last election) I'd hardly call the 20 per cent of the total population who voted Tory a "huge majority". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Here is a tip for free on how to identify votebuying Black Dog: look around for an election. The next Alberta election isn't for a couple of years. The $400 and the fond memories of the electorate will both be long gone by then. It takes no convincing at all to convince Albertans to do just that. Resource income 2004; about $13 billion total Alberta net contribution to Canada 2004: about $11 billion You don't mind if we keep a few crumbs?

My day has not been wasted. Apparently Linda Lundstrom is all about 'authentic women' so that $116K is money well spent. Has Canada ever looked inward and asked the question: 'What is the role of government, all levels of governemnt?' It is a big and critical question. When we avoid answering that question, you end up with a list like this. You end up with Canada seriously considering a breakup. Some days I wonder if it is both inevitable, and necessary.

It is folly to continually look at issues from only one side. What you see as logical and proper looks like a threat to the other side. They would contend that federal mismangement is one of the reasons they are leaving, and it the historic problems of Canada have little to do with the new republic. Anyways, it is all an argument that comes after the horse has left the barn, which is a not a good place to be for a federalist negotiator I'm not disagreeing that Quebec should be held accountable for its share, just that it is not going to be so easy to negotiate and much harder to collect. This isn't going to be a reprise of the Treaty of Versaille or anything close to it.

Dear Thelonious,Like many things in life, there are different ways to describe what is essentially the same thing. That said, I don't think Canada will exist as always like the amputee - I think it will be a new entity legally and politically. There are a couple reasons for this: 1) The West (Alberta in particular) would demand substantial changes to the structure of the federation before agreeing to be part of it. 2) Quebec seperatists absolutely love the idea that Quebec is theoretically not responsible for any of the Canadian national debt. Formally dissolving the country called Canada would ensure that legally ALL parts of the former country would be liable for that debt in the eyes of international community. I would leave it up to Bosclair to explain to the IMF why Quebec should shoulder less than a per capita share. I am sure the IMF will have no patience for self serving analyses that add intangible 'assets' into the equation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have made point #1 many times, but it isn't just Alberta by any means. A confederation of Ontario plus the West and Martimes, under the old federal model, would be acceptable only to Ontario. Everybody would be obliged to carefully examine their options, and a rehash of what had just failed would not be one of them. Point #2 ignores the reality that the primary thrust of separatism is not a cold analysis of the numers, aseets and liabilities. It's the cultural thrust, the romanticism of founding a new nation that will carry the day. Attempting to frighten the separatists with threats of $100 billion dollar debts won't change a single separatists vote, and making that threat itself may move a few borderline feds into the PQ camp.

I'll leabve the convincing to you, but here is a way to guarantee a meeting. Call Paul on his private line and pretend you're Chuck Guite. Tell him you're wondering if he wants to discuss all this videtape you have compiled over the years from the secret cameras.....

People haven't switched out of disloyalty, they've switched because buying a new car is a big investment for many families and the GM/Big Three vehicles aren't as good as the Japanese. That is what people want, and GM just doesn't get it. Many GM midsize cars - meat and potatoes territory, where you build generational loyalty - is filled with bland, slow, expensive offerings using outdated technology. What do they expect? In Alberta, a full 50% of GM sales are light trucks (not SUVs). They are now getting killed by new offerings from Honda and Nissan...... A story on CBC News tonight interviewed GM assembly line workers. They stated they make about $65K per year, plus excellent benefits(valued at about $35K per year). All this for semi-skilled work, all training provided on site. That is a problem, a big one. The first thing to do to fix this is to shoot Buzz Hargrove. Three weeks ago he was trumpeting Ford as the 'strike target'. Give me a break. Better yet, give the auto industry a break Buzz.

If and when the PQ win a provincial election, the 'yes' vote in a quick referendum is virtually a foregone conclusion. Its' only logical. The time and place to fight, really the only opportunity to fight the separatists, is in a provincial election campaign. Can anybody identify any current or future federalist leaders that the swing vote in Quebec will listen to? Anybody? And to answer the question "What will happen the day after the referendum?" - the answer is that the National Assembly will declare independence from Canada.

I don't think force of arms will ever enter the picture, Canadians will not send troops to stop any independence movement or vote or to enforce the Clarity Act. What would be the point in creating martyrs, murdering people over exercising their democrtic rights to vote as they choose? Municpalities leaving, fighting in the streets? Seems unlikely. I can see an exodus of economic refugees from the Republic, but the second prong of Bosclairs strategy is to soften the normal Francophone -only PQ nationalist protocol and become a gentler friendlier host for non -Francophones. IMO, there is absolutely no way that Boisclair is bluffing about the Clarity Act. It would be utterly foolish for him to do so, it hinders his negotiating stance for him to even suggest it. He is part after all of the unanimous vote in 2001 in the Quebec National Assembly, including Jean Charest, that rejected the legitimacy of the Clarity Act. Really, the Clarity Act is a sop for the ROC, it allows the easily deluded to think it will be some sort of barrier to independence. What is Ottawa going to do, get the Supreme Court to rule on the issue, then try to enforce a Canadian law on an independent nation after the fact? No jurisdiction by that time.

Being dismissive of what is happening doesn't stop it from happening, I'm sure the PQ would be quite pleased if many Canadians take that approach. What would stop him then? What will stop him from leading Quebec out of Canada? I'll answer my own question. The PQ are conficdent they'll prevail. Their announcements of their strategy are mostly for Quebec consumption, though partly for the ROC. This gives him and them plenty of time to tailor their communications if anything comes unglued enroute.The Clarity Act won't make a whit of difference. It presumes that Ottawa will have some kind of offical review of the referendum question before the event, or that Quebec will negotiate much beforehand. Neither will happen. He has to get past a provincial election, then a referendum, then a declaration of the New Rupublic in the National Assembly, then some international recognition. IMO, the only real hurdle for him will be the election. If he wins that, the PQ will move like a steamroller through the next phases.

in case you were wondering, young Andre makes it pretty clear In an interview with the all-news channel RDI to be aired Sunday, Andre Boisclair says independence is up to Quebecers only and he sees no reason to submit to the federal Clarity Act. Boisclair argues that sovereignty is a not a legal decision, but a political one and that voters will have the last word. He maintains the province's legislature has the authority to oversee the process.

Is this latest killing going to result in another photo op for PM Martin, where he blames the Amerikkkans for the violence/guns?

After you say it is hard to comment further, you go on to comment further and slander this old gentleman simply because you suspect he may not vote for the same people you do. Your suspicions have dick-all to do with anything except your fantasies. Nothing "is the case", you've just made it up, repeated your stupid comments and tried to wiggle out of something you should apologize for. Actually, don't bother, your comments diminish you, not the subject.

I'd agree with you if you were right, but you keep singing the same old Liberal hymn. Who cares what the relativity of expenditures with the US might or might not be? While you argue these irrelevancies, the ship is going down, and its going down because one of the biggest partners will not tolerate your " few jurisdictional responsibilities." Neither will the remaining participants in the aftermath. You don't have to like it, in fact you're the one who wants to call in the military to lynch Bosclair and his posse, but only an idiot cannot acknowledge what is in front of him and draw some obvious conclusions from the reality. Keep fiddling Nero.

Public Works contracts out the vast majority of its buildings, they are managed and maintained by a facilities management contractor from the private sector, who employs any necessary tradespeople and operators. Many of these buildings are expected to be sold soon as the govt downsizes its real estate holdings.

The Minister of Finance is in charge of a 200 billion/year budget. He is responsible for allocating funds to the departments, however, once they are allocated it is up to the minister in charge of the department to ensure they are spent properly (i.e. Gagliano). It is extremely unlikely that a Minister of Finance would have paid much attention to a 60 million/year project that his boss took personal control of because the amount of money is trivial compared to the over all budget of the government. To put things in perspective: the sponsership is equal to about $12/year for someone who makes $40,000 a year. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Of course, that ignores the reality that the vast amount of those funds are nuts and bolts program allocations, dished out like meat and potatoes to departments for social programs, grants in lieu, transfer payments, salaries, government operations, military expense and the like. Nobody ppays much attention to the cost of the electricity bill for Parliament Hill, but $60 million loose and on the table for Quebec MPs, including Martin? The sponsorship program is none of those things. It's a political slush fund, a pretty big one too, and it is disengenuous at best to suggest that Martin would not know of it. On the contrary, in his position as Finance Minister and senior man in Quebec - there is simply and logically no way, repeat no way, that he could not have known of the cash money moving into his Party right in front of him. No way, especially given the eternally low ebb of Quebec Liberal Party finances that big chunks of incoming cash go unnoticed..

I disagree somewhat. Collecting taxes and delivering services are simple mechanical undertakings, steps in a process, symptoms of the disease. It is the process itself that is the problem. Our governance model simply does not work, and it is rendered inflexible by our Constitution. It enshrines both the Commons and the Senate, both of which have small roles in how the country is managed. The Supreme Court is misplaced, misused and now makes laws instead of interpreting them. The PMOs office, which actually runs the country, constantly interferes in provincial affairs, those same affairs that are apportioned in the Constitution and routinely ignored by Ottawa. There are side deals galore. We have some serious problems and fundamental issues in this country and they are getting worse. Oddly enough, it will likely take the separation of Quebec to enact change. We are going to be obliged to watch it burn it to the ground and start over, and it isn't going to look much like it does now when it is done.

Why do you imply that he was fighting for either?He quite clearly stated that their was something wrong with Canada today because Canadians elect parties which he claims have 'a record of sleaze, waste and dishonesty' and that he questions whether he would fight for the country today. Yet he seems to have forgetten that the same kinds of things happened in the 30s and 40s. His memory is selective and coloured by his political predispositions. There are many problems in Canadian society today but there where many equally serious problems with Canadian society in the 40s that no longer exist today - yet the vet chooses to ignore this in his rant. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Evasive rubbish. The implication that he was fighting for King is yours alone, and the introduction of Martin is another fantasy. You don't like the message so you attack the messenger, in this case an old man with some spunk. Pathetic. Worse than pathetic is your snide and utterly baseless comments about his purported views about homosexuality, which you have plucked whole from an orifice which is as disconnected from reality as your brain. I noticed you avoided that one completely, shows you are at least marginally aware.

Yes, that is why there is a sense of tranquility, harmony and unity upon the land and its people.

Well, I thought the racism was a little more subtle than that, but apparently not.

shame on you for stating this Why do you imply that he was fighting for either?

Perhaps, but fewer and fewer people in Quebec are interested in what outsiders think about Quebecs motives, plans or future. And the further we get from 1995, the more that is true. I do not see how it would happen either, it would be complete folly for the PQ to win both an election, then a referendum, then squash their momentum by negotiating before an independence decalration. It would make no sense at all, worse from their viewpoint it could kill the thrust entirely. I'm betting on 2007. The only 'if' I see in your scenario is the 'negotiating something'. That will come after independence, not before - a much stronger posture, the only conceivable posture for the PQ. It is certainly going to change again, and it will not end with the secession of Quebec IMO. It is possible the ROC will circle the wagons, lick their wounds and reappear as the same old, same old.... But I very much doubt that the West and perhaps Nfld. will allow that... Their arguments will be: 1) why repeat such an abject and obvious failure, using the same old governance model that no longer works. 2) why would we want to live in a country that will be utterly dominated by Ontario, with no hope of any influence from any other province?This need not be the end, the Balkanization of our country, I see it as an opportunity to relieve many of the old grievances, come up with a new governance model that works for everybody. Perhaps, who knows, an equitable loose federation that might even interest Quebec, something they may actually have some interest in actually supporting?