mcqueen625

The U.N. is not a place to publicly mock leaders of other countries. Chavez is a tyrant by definition. You fail to mention that certain countries have limitations concerning their ability to be helped to substantially improve their economies and that their governments have failed by allowing their countries populations to exceed manageability by their respective governments. The U.S. nor anyone else cannot work miracles for these countries that have allowed themselves to be engulfed by unmanageable poverty. By whose definition, yours? Wasn't this guy elected by a majority of citizens in his own country? So if he was elected, then don't we just have to deal with it? Just because the Americans don't like the guy isn't a real great reason to come down on him, unless you both support Bush and are an American. Having said that I have recently read somethings about the guy, after the "it still smells like sulphur" remark. It seems that he is well supported by the poor in his own land. The middle class are split in their opinion, and the rich hate the guy. But in a democracy a simply majority rules. So unless you intend to argue against the free will of people being expressed in political terms then we kind of have to respect their opinions on their own government. What are you talking about? Chavez is in the process of rewriting the constitution of Venezuela so that he no longer will have to go to the people for a mandate, he will be ruler forever like Castro, his hero. Chavez is just another third world dictator who has ambitions of being crowned King. Chavez, North Korea and Iran ranting at the U.N. about Bush and the U.S. government just goes to show everyone just how childish these individuals really are. It's like sticking out you tongue to a fellow student while standing behind the skirts of the old school marm. It also goes to show just how irrelevant the UN has become when they cannot even demand that member nations show respect for each other. This came about with the likes of Koffi Annan who himself seems to hold the West in contempt, while favoring terrorists organizations and third world dictatorships. Koffi's own son along with Paul Martin's friend Maurice Strong who is now hiding in China, were involved in the oil-for-food scandal over Iraq being able to skirt the sanctions imposed by the UN itself. This is was has made the UN a redundant organization and rather than send money and ambassadors to the UN, all funding should be pulled and directed to far more relevant projects.

Hmmm... What came first, the Palestinian rockets, or the Israeli helicopters? Seems to me that every time there has been a cease-fire, we have seen a lull in Palestinian violence, and a business-as-usual continuation of Israeli murder and mayhem. In fact this goes back to the start of the 2nd Intifada. Could it be that the Israelis are counting on the American propaganda machine to get them out of trouble? I breathlessly await the latest news from Anderson Cooper in his Atlanta condo Just what news are you reading or listening to, or do you just choose to ignore the fact that every time there is some kind of so-called truce between the Palestinians and Israel it is either Hamas or Hezbollah who continues to fired missiles into civilian areas of Israel, or make incursions across the border into Israel. Just what is it you are really saying anyway? What it sounds like you are saying is that Israel should just sit back and allow their people to be killed without lifting a hand to defend themselves? Boy that sure sounds a lot like what the Nazi's would have liked to have happen, with Jews quietly going to the gas houses without putting up a fuss? Iran just showed the world how anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish they are by holding a conference of Holocaust deniers including the likes of David Duke, former head of the KKK, and of course our own Prof. Dossa from St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, NS. This prof. is so dim that he cannot understand why the university does not stand behind his decision to attend such a repugnant conference. Yes, the UN has completely shown itself to be nothing but a biased organization who picks and chooses which countries are allowed to violate human rights regulations and which countries are allowed to do as they please without any condemnation. They are an organization that has outlived it's usefulness, and are now just a huge irrelevant bureaucracy.

Chretien, Martin, Dion = Same old, Same old. All three were involved in so many scandals, dirty deals, and other corruptions and misappropriation of taxpayer's money, that none are credible enough to lead Canada. Maybe Quebec and Ontario because these Canadian's don't seem to know any better, or at least they tend to ignore the corruption. Harper on the other hand is giving Canada another way of doing business, and in a much more responsible way than either the Fiberals or the NDP could ever do. Both of the latter would have us believe that government should be all things to all people from birth to death and every step in between, and both promote invasive programs that decide for Canadians how we are to live our lives. I'm for government that get's their hands out of my pockets and allows me to decide where my money should be spent. I can tell you it won't be on uselss gun registries that does not prevent criminals from gaining access to firearms, which the registry could not do, and it won't be on national day-care programs. The gun registry for one program is simply a very expensive paper exercise that does nothing to get the criminal element to register their illegal guns. Nearly every drug bust has the police reporting the seizure of illegal firearms. So tell me again why we have wasted close to $2 Billion on a registry that does not, and cannot work? The old Russia and Socialist France is alive and well as long as the Liberals and NDP exist with their Socialist policies.

I posted those results in this thread earlier. I also posted that the earlier bump would probably even out. I expect we'll see some more definitive results in January about what the trend is. Trends and polls means absolutely nothing, because it depends on the questions asked, and of whom the questions are asked of. The only poll that really means anything is the one held on election day. The polls held in between always seem to favour the side the group is on that is conducting the survey, and since most of the media seems to be pro-Liberal, any poll they conduct or is conducted for them or reported by them in their media releases, seems to favour their choice or it tends to go unreported.

Kind of a silly argument to make, isn't it? Given how the population is concentrated in a few provinces, it is possible to win enough seats to beccome government and be totally shut out of some provinces. Yes, but not a national government. The Liberals had their base of power mainly in Ontario, and that hardly constitutes a government that has wide ranging support across the country. That is what is wrong with our style of government, we do not have equal representation, and without it we could and have had political parties governing who have virtually no support in certain parts of the country. The more democratic way of governing would eb for Canada to adopt a U.S. style of government whereby each province has exactly the same numbers of MP's and Senators, with both Houses elected to specific terms in office. The Liberal especially don't want that because it would not serve their purpose of catering to one or two provinces while the rest of Canada is virtually ignored. My guess is that virtually everyone can guess which two provinces those are.

Maybe now would be a good time to stop showing your racism.

I am not amused by your sarcasm. When people immigrate to Canada and/or the US from dangerous lands and retain their involvement with dangerous, senseless people, of course they're suspicious. Lie down with dogs; wake up with fleas. Arar's deportation to Syria is the downside of Canada allowing the practice duel citizenship to continue. Never mind entertaining any lawsuit from Arar. Had he not been carrying a Syrian passport there was only one place the U.S. authorities could have sent him, to Canada. Let's not forget the $millions it cost the Canadian taxpayers to pull quasi-Canadian/Lebanese bacon from the fire when war broke out in Lebanon. All these so-called Canadians who held Canadian citizenship as a convenience, but do not pay taxes in this country, suddenly started complaining about the last of quick evacuation from a country they were not only born in, but permanently reside in. Over 7000 of those we paid to evacuate have now returned to Lebanon. It is time for Canada to first, send a bill for the costs of evacuation especially to those who have returned to Lebanon, but to also cancel their Canadian citizenship, and passports. If they cannot pay taxes in Canada why should they enjoy the benefits of citizenship. Let's put this into perspective, K. C. Irving the $billionaire industrialist gave up Canadian citizenship and moved to Bermuda and set up a trust that his heirs can only inherit if they give up Canadian citizenship and claim their heritage in Bermuda where the Canadian tax-amn cannot get to it. what kind of Canadian citizen is that? I contend that we should automatically pull their passports when they take out citizenship in another country. If Arar had only Canadian citizenship the U.S. authorities would have had no choice but to return him to Canada, not that we really want this terror threat within our borders mind you.

Toronto is not the only part of Canada that has smog, I leve in Saint John, NB where the Irving Empire rules supreme, and they pollute the air-shed on a deaily basis from a power plant, 2 pulp mills, a tissue mill, and the largest oil refinery in Canada, and a soon to be LNG Terminal a stone's throw from city centre. This terminal was afforded a 25 year property tax concession where they will be allowed to pay only $500,000.00 per year instead of the estimated $5 - $6 million they should be paying per year, while the rest of the people are expected to put up with tax increases, and a 30" LNG pipeline smack through the centre of the city on the way to the U.S. border. All of these plants are right in the centre of the city and next door to residential neighbourhoods. My son lived in TO for 4.5 years, but everytime he came home for a visit he wound up at the ER with an Asthma attack. He was diagnosed with a term the doctor referred to as Saint John Asthma. He now lives in Calgary and he rarely has to use his puffers, nor did he have to in TO. Pollution is on our minds all the time, but when you have a family as powerful as the Irving's, they virtually control whatever party happens to win an election, and government either doesn't care about polution or they refuse to enforce what environmental laws they already have on the books. All I know is that $1,000.00 fines is certainly no deterrent for rich corporations, instead it is just a mild inconvenience on their way to the bank in Bermuda.

Right On! You have hit the nail on the head becasue nut-jobs like Layton will never be PM so he can make all the promises in the world, and not ever have to make good on any of them. Even better we will never have our country completely destroyed by having an NDP government in power. Just look what Rae did to Ontation and that should be reason enough not to vote either NDP or Liberal, considering the fact that Rae, after he almost bankrupt Ontarion decided that he now wants to be a Liberal and destroy the whole country instead of just one province. The person that beat him, Dion is certainly no better since he was on the team with the Cretin, Martin and many others still at helm of the Liberal Party, and they were responsible for such things as the corruption whci stemmed from teh sponsorship program and let's not forget about the massive cost overruns for an inefficient, ineffective gun registry, that never accomplished what it was stated to do which was to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

You're not amused? Who are you, the friggin' Queen of England? Put a Corgi in it, jbg. Frankly, neither am I. Wilkins based his on a US investigation. That is their perogative. I have no qualms. Even the Judge who conducted the Arar inquiry qualified his opinion by saying he was not privy to information the U.S. government had on Arar. Is Arar a terrorist or a friend of terrorist elements? In all likelihood the answer is yes.

I believe that we are more alike than some segments of our population would have us believe, especially those who would have us align ourselves with the likes of socialist France and lets not forget China, who has one of the most horrendous human rights records in the world. The top of the list of this anti-American paranoia are the members of the Liberal, NDP and Bloc who see themselves as somehow better than our neighbours to the south. I'm with you, I am very happy to the United States of America having our backs, because if we ever have either the NDP governoring this country we may as well put up our hands and capitulate to whomever wants to take over Canada because this party and especially their leaders are naive enough to believe that if we kiss enough ass for our ememies all will be well. My but isn't that the same tactic used by France and the rest of Europe leading up to WW II? They sat back and did nothing until the Nazi's came for them and it took Brittain, Canada and the U.S. to pull Europe's ass out of the fire. As for the Liberals they did their damnest to dismantle our armed forces, and almost succeeded. As it is the armed services of Canada has parties like the NDP, Liberals and the Bloc, thinking that our troops are peacekeepers, when in fact these brave men and women were trained first and foremost to be soldiers trained to kill their enemies, and that peacekeeping is but a small part of what they do. These parties are naive enough to think that these troops can perform only as peacekeepers, but unfortunately, like police officers sometimes it requires that they draw their weapons and kill people.

Hi Thelonoius,Well, it depends whether you feel adopted children should be in a family tree. If they don't belong then some friends of mine would have a rather short tree since they don't know who their real parents are. However, it sounds like they are trying to broaden the family tree to include all people that you consider 'like family' which is not necessarily bad but you would never end up with a tree: it would look more like the 'family matrix'. I guess I agree with you. It is one thing to ask that gay relationships be treated the same as hetrosexual relationships. It even makes sense to create a family tree that includes adoptions by gay couples, however, inventing something new and calling it a family tree is kind of silly. A family tree is just that, a family tree, and adoptive children, although sometimes included are never really biologically part of that family and can't be part of the family tree since they are biologically related. Often times when people search their family tree it is to establish health histories. I know when I had my first heart attack the doctors all wanted to know what my family's medical history was, and since I have 2 brothers and one sister who were adopted, along with 2 biological sisters and a half sister (different fathers), the doctors were only interested in any biological relatives. Ithink it is important at some point for children to be told that they are adopted, and special. Allowing them to continue believing that they are really related is deceiving, and could in the end be harmful to a person, especially if their biological parents have hidden medical conditions that these kids need to know about. Sure kids can be adopted, and be part of a family but the ties are only so deep. Obviously to gays or two lesbians getting together and adopting children, the child still needs to know their biological family for medical purposes. Maybe that is why more and more adopted kids are finding it much easier to find out about biological relatives, and it it very important stuff, especially if an illness occurs. I'm not saying same-sex couples don't and can't make good parents, but is far more important that the children know where they came from biologically.

You are right, he would get his money back upon retirement or upon reaching the age of 60 which is the age at which one can start drawing CPP. I disagree that all provinces do this because the smaller less affluent provinces like New Brunswick it would just create another bureaucracy that teh taxpayers would have to pay. New Brunswick would be just like Ottawa and dump the money into General Revenues and may not have the funds to pay out when it comes time for people to draw it. To illustrate this they allowed pension funds to invest heavily into high yield, high risk stock and other funds and when the market went south, many pension funds were left with $millions in unfunded liabilities which have to under law be made up by employers and employees through either higher taxes, higher premiums, or cuts to pension benefits, or a combination of all three. Of course the Province of New Brunswick, who threw their employees pension money into general revenue, and other risky enterprises, have exempted themselves from having to make up any shortfall, while the cities and towns do have to make up those shortfalls, most likely through increased taxes or cuts to services. The good news for New Brunswick is that the people fnally saw through the arrogance of Bernard Lord and gave him and the P.C.'s their walking papers in the hastily called election this fall, and now golden boy Bernie, is taking his bat and ball and leaving both as Party Leader and as an MLA, effective January 31st. I say good riddence, because rather than listening to the people he thought of himself as some type of lord and master of the province (pun intended).

I'm not sure what world you are living in but I have yet to see a reservation with luxury homes, at least in New Brunswick where there are numerous First Nations reservations. Now if we are talking about people living in luxury how about looking at Acadian fishermen who do live in luxury homes, have luxury cars, trucks, ATV's, pools, etc, etc. and they make a small fortune during the brief fishing season and then live on EI the rest of the year at our expense. We are all equal but obviously some are more equal than others.

CBCThat's how the CBC would choose to present this decision. I would say rather that my vote for the Conservatives has been vindicated and only a Conservative minister from Quebec could do this. Dion Liberals couldn't. Whatever Harper's government does in its short mandate, this decision implies the greatest long term effects for Canada. Hats off to Bernier. Here! Here! The CRTC should be dismantled, because it is a bureaucracy for centuries past, interested in protectionism and nothing more. Canadian content, what a crock! It is simply a mechanism for mediocre talent to leach off the taxpayers and put before Canadians productions that were better left on the cutting-room floor. If these productions had any merit whatsoever they would be making it on their own without the producers having to put their hands into the pockets of Canadians to produce much of this dribble. CBC is one of the worst offenders and should be told, either stay out of the commercial market, or go completely commercial with absolutely no funding from the taxpayers. Make it a subsciber based entity much like the PBS in the States, where the only public money comes from subscribers.If they are going to compete for advertising dollars against unsubsidized rivals they should not get money from the public purse, period.

Quote: "America's Bill of rights is not 'granted' or needed here. Oddly, the Canadians most likely to seek tighter ties with the Bushblairosphere seem to really hate our own Charter of Rights." End of Quote It not so much ties to Bush but to Americans, because they are friends, relatives and neighbours, and our largest trading partner. As for OUR Charter of Rights, it is the worst thing that Canada has ever adopted through legislation, because it is fundamentally a flawed document, because it confers onto even terrorists rights that they should not have. It confers onto criminals more rights than it does to their victims, and that is wrong. It confers onto a bunch a appointed, unaccountable party hack lawyers, judgeships that places them basically above our elected officials, that makes us no longer a democratic country when we have these baffoons being able to tells our elected politicians how our laws are to read according to their own personal biases. Most countries who have a Charter or Constitution, the people have input into it's creation and a vote on it's implementation, and neither of those scenarios happened in Canada, This flawed document was simply imposed onto the people of Canada without any kind of vote, and as the previous two Liberal PM's have indicated, they were quite willing to allow this appointed, unaccountable judiciary to be "The final word in this country," and that is hardly democracy in action, it is instead a dictatorship. The only way of rectifying this situation is to have our judiciary elected to specific terms in office, and then and only then will Canadian's concerns be taken into consideration when some of these off-the-wall decisions are made. The way it now stands under the Charter the judiciary is virtually above the law.

It exists only in the minds of the anti-Semites, who want somebody to balme for their lots in life. A better plan would be for these people to take responsibility for their own shortcomings instead of attempting to blame others for everything that has gone wrong in their lives.

I do believe these anti-US rants make it up as they go along, because if they sprout anti-US hate long and loud enough that paoepl should just believe it. If it wern't for the US, many Canadians would not be working, and paying taxes so that tehy can spout their hate. Get a life Higgley, you seem to know nothing about the law, other than what the ACLU tells you. If I were you I would take anything this bunch of bleeding hearts say with a grain of salt.

So fighting for peoples rights to be masters of their own body is pressuring you to smoke Pot. I think the problem is on your end. Under the Liberal same sex marraige bill no church was or will be forced to marry a same sex couple, now if it was the case the Chruches would be forced to do so, I could see you most certainly having a point. But theoretically agents of the state should not be allowed to refuse people rights that are granted to them by the state. So you want the right to hound women, but not be hounded in return. Well yeah, I think this whole natural governign party of Canada is harmful to not only the Liberals but political improvement as a whole. But I am not about to justify violating other peoples rights to happiness and liberty just because I think most politicians are corrupt and injust. Because if we started to do that, then we become what we hate. And honestly, I don't want to walk around hating myself. Yeah the justice system in Canada is not perfect, but you know what. I do not believe it is wise to say, because the liberals did not punish so and so...I don't want to respect the rights of other members of society. Its a two way street, we shouldn't critisize the Liberals, conservatives, and others for failing to respect peoples rights or failing to do their jobs and on that basis say...I will refuse rights to other people, i will refuse to do my job. Its a downward vicous spiral, that starts with animosity, and it does not achieve the desired outcome of co-operation. I wish the Liberals would stop using tax dollars to fund such programs...it may be one of the issues that keeps me from voting for them. But thats what I will do. If it is a big enough detractor I will not vote for the Liberals. But that will be the action I take, I will not show my dissaproval for the liberals by copying their same ill-advised behavoir. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. So please don't immitate what you hate. Under the Liberal same sex marraige bill no church was or will be forced to marry a same sex couple, now if it was the case the Chruches would be forced to do so, I could see you most certainly having a point. But theoretically agents of the state should not be allowed to refuse people rights that are granted to them by the state. But now you are infringing on a person right to practice their faith, if you force them to perform a ceremony that they find is in conflict with their faith. Marriage Commioners hheld this job before the Feds got into the business of defining marriage, and thewse Commissioners should not now lose their jobs because this arbitrary government decision. Those Commissioners should also be exempt under the same exemption as are priests and other clergy. To not do so is discrimination, based on religious beliefs.

I don't belive they have yet answered that question from English Quebecers. They asked where they fit into this nation thing since they are Quebecers, not Quebecois. Now we have the Acadian Society demanding that they also be considered a nation although I'm not sure where Acadia is, since less that 1/4 of NBer's speak French, and that total is even lower in the other Atlantic provinces, but I am willing to bet that they will be looking for money to lobby for their cause.

Thanks for sharng that...never thought he's that extreme! Can you just imagine how it will be if we have non-Canadians voting? He is the worst case scenario. I'd willingly settle for the Liberals instead of the NDP. I really see little difference between the Liberals and the NDP, both want to be all things, to all people, and neither Party is very much enthused about allowing the people themselves to decide how are money is to be spent. They both represent Bigger and Bigger government. Quite frankly I could care less about the useless bureaucrats that are employed by the many layers of government, and who collect a paycheque for doing virtually nothing. I will vote for any Party that tells me they represent less intrusion into our lives, and smaller government, but you won't find that scenario with either a Liberal or NDP government. Both are have basically socialist and represents a socialist ideology. Remember a socialist society is not a free society, because you have government trying to exert their interpretation on you, of what they think is right. I read somewhere that under the Liberal government having Canadian morals and values really means having no morals or values at all. No wonder Canadians have no sense of patriotism, we stand for nothing, we have no morals as a society, we allow criminals to have more rights than their victims, we allow people to starve while government follows a corporate agenda that benefits only the top 10% of Canadians. What does that say about Canada? To me is says we are a country that cares only about me, what's good for me. what feels good to me, and to hell with teh people who go to bed hungry, and with no roof over their heads. Almost 15 years ago a Liberal government made a committment to end child poverty by 2000, and here we are, almost at the end of 2006, and we now have more child poverty than when that committment was made. Shame on Canada, and shame on our government for allowing it to not only continue, but to grow. Instead of worrying about the hungry, the Liberals and the NDP are more concerned about making sure gays and lesbians are allowed to get married, and even more concerned about legalizing drugs, while sprouting their hate for the U.S. We really have no right to be throwing rock, since we also live in a glass house. In some communities we have people lobbying to have all drugs declared legal, because enforcement of our drug laws costs money. What law are they going to lobby for next to legalize because enforcement costs? I am glad that I am of an age and health condition that I will not likely live to see just how much further down our society's morals and values can go.

The only reason these criminals and thugs get the time of day is because they spout anti-american rhetoric. The hilarious part is the same tactics work in places like Canada and France. The new fallback for any politician during an election is to "stand up" to the USA It is an easy tactic to use. Us versus them. Convince everyone in your country that the rest of the world is against you and that all your problems are a result of outside forces. This will keep the masses thinking of other things rather then the domestic problems that they might be causing themselves. Well, with Paul Martin or Chavez or Ahmedinejad it's more about playing off their own citizen's irrational hatred of the USA. The problem with that thinking is that it is not the citizens who hate the U.S., it is the politicians from the Liberal and NDP Parties. Most Canadians do not have a problem with the U.S., in fact, many of us have close relatives who are either living in the U.S. or are actually American citizens. I have no idea why the Liberals and the NDP have such an irrational hatred for the U.S., after all they are our largest trading partner and many of the jobs in Canada depend on a strong United States, since many of the corporations that that Canadians rely on for employment are owned by Americans, yet these two political parties sprout anti-American sentiments. I would much sooner do business with the U.S. than with a country like France who seems to love doing business with every terrorist group and every totalitarian dictatorship in the world. I have no doubt that if this were 1939, with the present day politicians who are running France, they would be jumping on the Hitler bandwagon as did Mussolini during WW II. Socialism seemed like the good idea but has proven to be wrong-headed and actually makes people simply want to rely on government for everything. Sound familiar, because that is the vision both the Liberals and the NDP have for Canadians, to be all things to all people. The only chance we have for freedom and independance is through a government that makes people stand up for themselves, do for themselves, but be compassionate enough to have a social safety net for those who cannot accompilish this for themselves. The vast majority of Canadians and Americans do not need a government to be all things to all people, but will be our future under either a Liberal or NDP goverment.

Excellent answer. I agree, the likely future is a Liberal minority. With an NDP balance of power. Can't see it, Dion is dispised even in his own province of Quebec. The only place they will get any support is from the stupid people of Ontario, who seem to be still in love with politicians who want to steal them blind, and otherwise waste their tax money on feel-good programs that do absolutely no good. Let's take the gun registry for instance that has not stopped one death by guns, because the criminals for some reason that the Liberals and NDP can't understand just refuse to register their guns. I simply can't figure out why it is that socialist politicians find that so hard to understand. The last thing Canada needs is another PM from Quebec. Their record of looking after the rest of Canada is abmismal, since their main and only concern seems to making sure Quebec comes first in every decision followed by Ontario. Dion's just another Chretien, who can't seem to grasp the English language, a language by the way that most people in the world understands, and whom many speak. It is not French that the people in Asia are clammering to learn, it is English.

Just what we need another politician from the Chretien team. At least with Iggy he wasn't part of the caucus who dreamed up the sponsorship program that syphoned off money to hand off to the crooked advertising lobby in Quebec. Iggy also isn't a Quebecer as Canada has had her fill of Quebec politicians who's only concern seems to be is insuring Quebec is happy, and never mind the rest of Canada. I am a Liberal provincially, but federally the Liberal Party no longer represents my view of Canada, nor do they represent the views of a great many other Canadians who would normally have vote Liberal. Somewhere, somehow the Liberal Party forgot about the morals and values held by Canadians to the point that they are no longer are in sync with ordinary Canadians. Our justice system is a laughing stock where criminals have more rights than their victims, and you can probably get more time in jail for poaching a slamon or hunting out-of-season than you will for getting behind the wheel drunk and killing an entire family, or shooting another human being. It has become a system where bleeding-heart Liberals are appointed to the bench to anaccountably make decisions that change our society for the worst. I read somewhere that Canada has become a nation where to have Canadian morals and values really means having no morals or values at all. I'm sure that is not what our founding fathers had in mind when Canada was formed. Vote Liberal, not in this lifetime!

Neither one is worth a dime as leader. Just what Canada needs another Quebecerleading the Liberals. This country had had far too many Quebeers leading this country down the drain. It seems that every time we have a PM from Quebec all they want to do is open the purse strings to Quebec while the rest of Canada does without. I am Liberal but I will never again vote for a leader from Quebec regardless of what party they represent. When push comes to shove with Quebec they will always take the side of Quebec, regarless of what the rest of Canada wants.