Quebec Election Special

Upcoming election: click below to hear Neil interview René Lévesque, and while you are listening you can peruse some Quebec political posts from the past which we are republishing today.

WILL QUEBEC SEPARATE?

Former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has raised a storm in Canada with an interview he gave in Britain in which he said Quebec will “eventually” separate.  Even now, he said, Quebec is master in its own house.

“Now effectively …. we’re almost two separate countries.”

Later Ignatieff said he was a strong federalist and that he had been taken out of context.  It is hard to see how.

Will Quebec separate?

What do you think?

 

Posted by Neil McKenty on April 25, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Filed under Politics  |  Tags: Michael Ignatieff, Quebec, Separatism  |  Leave a comment  |  Trackback URI

 

13 Comments »

1

Robert Sapienza Says:

I suggest that Quebec is already 90 percent “sovereign”. In fact, defacto independent. The only things missing being an army and post office. Not to make light of a serious situation, with all the concessions made to Quebec since the “quiet revolution”, I believe we are a stone’s throw from the full package. I think we can expect (under a PQ government) that there will be a renewed thrust to go the full distance. Of course, whether they will be able to mobilize public opinion into their camp remains to be seen.

Posted on April 25, 2012 at 4:58 pm

2

Janus Bellator Says:

Don’t know what you find so hard to see, Neil; he’s right. We ARE almost two separate countries. The only thing missing is the formality of recognition.

Posted on April 25, 2012 at 7:25 pm

3

littlepatti Says:

Ignatieff is a “sore loser”. He’s getting even for his abysmal showing. To make matters worst he’s claiming that he was quoted out of context.
I don’t think that separation is inevitable, some are doing the math now and realize that Quebec would quickly become a failed state. Once the old guard are 6 ft. under, the project will die. The hard liners are all over 65 &70. Only 1/3rd of the population thinks it’s a good idea now, and I think they are rife with a group who would reply negatively to a poll and then never go to actually vote.
For the time being (and understanding the French “culture”). I suggest that we don’t poke the bear.
Maybe I’m misreading the scene because I don’t want to have to move out, but I confess I am sick of the subject here.

Posted on April 25, 2012 at 9:15 pm

4

littlepatti Says:

BTW: There are more than a couple of things missing-Employment Insurance, Medicare support, Highways & Bridges money etc. and the fact that Quebec is a “have not” province now and depends on Federal money more than ever. In the event of separation, not one big project here could afford to go ahead.

Posted on April 25, 2012 at 9:22 pm

5

Tony Kondaks Says:

Robert Sapienza said it so succinctly and dead on that I have nothing to add.

Posted on April 25, 2012 at 9:49 pm

6

Jim Says:

Monsieur Neil, don’t spoke to me while I am spoking to you.
All 10 provinces are 90% different from any other province. Each is unique in its own way, with its different positives and negatives.
There is no chance that Quebec will separate. To begin with, too many concentrate on the 50% plus 1 rule which isn’t a rule but a wish. There is no way that Canada will accept this percentage and neither, by-the-way, will the International Community.
Justin Trudeau rattled the same sword as Ignatieff the other day. Throw in the NDP and Tony Kondaks and you get yourself a quartet, all moaning the same mantra, “Quebec, please stop dipping into the till in Ottawa” Are you kidding? Come on down and let’s discuss it over a poutine.

Posted on April 26, 2012 at 4:28 am

7

Jan Morgan Says:

I’m with Patti – and Jim. I’m old enough to have lived through a big piece of the Quebec saga. Stefan Dion pointed out some years ago that Bill 101 virtually ensured Quebec would stay in Canada.
French-speaking Quebecers have had many legitimate fears over the past century. They have many fewer of them now. As Patti pointed out, those who remember all the past grievances, are greying; the younger ones, keen on the internet, and with problems in common with the youth across the country, are taking on new issues. Separatism is fading away – even in the PQ!

Posted on April 26, 2012 at 10:53 am

8

Janus Bellator Says:

“To make matters worst he’s claiming that he was quoted out of context.”

Perhaps he was quoted out of context. Media fights, set up by the media to inflame passions, sell more media. So, sometimes they misquote on purpose.

“…Quebec is a “have not” province now and depends on Federal money more than ever.”

And that’s probably the main reason we haven’t yet seen the borders slammed closed permanently. If anyone is seriously serious about keeping Quebec in Canada, start turning off the money tap. Now. Then start horsetrading for actual equality, instead of across-the-board “special” status for les francophonies…

Posted on April 26, 2012 at 12:55 pm

9

littlepatti Says:

I saw the interview with Ignatieff and he said what he said.
Of course it’s a “dependant” situation. IF Quebec didn’t need the Federal government/equalization payments, there would have been a logical argument for separation, and it would be a fact now. IF Nfld. could have managed, they would not have joined the Federation. and as my Dad would say “IF my uncle had t-ts, he’d be my aunt”. Excuse if your sensibilities are bruised.
Quebec is unique, unlike any other province, and has some special needs, and complexities which I admit have been met to some extend at a very high price, by those of us who have hung in here, and those beyond our borders who have contributed. History will tell if it’s been a worthwhile effort.

Posted on April 26, 2012 at 1:35 pm

10

Janus Bellator Says:

Patti, we are ALL unique. And we ALL have special needs. I’m tired of catering only to one group.

Posted on April 26, 2012 at 10:18 pm

11

littlepatti Says:

Our differences should unite us, not divide us. (who said that?)
I have travelled East to West and visited all the nooks and crannies of our country and I can assure anyone that this country is unlike any other. We should celebrate that. Tolerance is a good start.
PS: We’ll be in Alberta and BC this summer and enjoying every minute. Come to Quebec, you’ll like it!

Posted on April 27, 2012 at 8:24 am

12

Janus Bellator Says:

I’ve been to Quebec — it’s beautiful in Shield country! I was there in late summer — fruit harvesting season…stuffed myself silly. Practised my high school French, too. Well, I tried, anyway; as soon as the locals heard my execrable accent, they found their English to be much better than my French! ;D

And if you want to see cultural celebration in action, come to the Fusion Festival Jult 20 and 21! Tolerance is merely putting up with something because it’s not polite to do otherwise. But we do know how to celebrate!

Posted on April 27, 2012 at 1:34 pm

 

COULD THE PQ DISAPPEAR?

Bernard Drainville, a heavyweight separatist told Le Devoir this week that the P.Q. could disappear.  He was visibly moved by the party’s current state of disintegration. But he likelihood that the PQ could be reduced to a small rump in the National Assembly is not beyond possibility in the party’s current dysfunctional state.

In addtion more polls suggest that an increasing number of Quebeckers – verging on a majority – are coming around to the idea this would be no big loss.

Behind Marois’s back is Gilles Duceppe holding the stiletto

This is the same Duceppe who has zero experience in government beyond running his own party with a tight fist, a tendency that would be bound to sew yet more dissension in the Parti Quebecois.

In the light of this and much more, it’s tempting to think that in just disappearing, the P.Q would be doing itself, alon with the rest of us, a blessed favour.

Could  the PQ disappear?

What do you think?

Will the PQ disappear? (Poll Closed)

Yes  57.14%

 

Non  42.86%

 

 

Posted by Neil McKenty on January 21, 2012 at 11:11 am
Filed under Politics  |  Tags: PQ, Quebec  |  Leave a comment  |  Trackback URI

 

17 Comments »

1

Tony Kondaks Says:

Amusingly,Neil writes:

“This is the same Duceppe who has zero experience in government beyond running his own party。。。”

Gosh,what world leader does this describe before he was elected to run the world‘s most powerful country?And who since his election has demonstrated how his inexperience has contributed to his great failure while in office?

Posted on January 21, 2012 at 1:45 pm

2

Tony Kondaks Says:

If the PQ disappears that doesn’t mean that separatism will disappear which is stronger than ever.

Posted on January 21, 2012 at 1:45 pm

3

Lady Janus Says:

Federal SoCreds disappeared, why not the PQ?

Progressive Conservatives disappeared. Anything’s possible…

Posted on January 21, 2012 at 2:27 pm

4

Neil McKenty Says:

Ton y says separatism is stronger than ever. This is utter rubbish. A century from now Quebec will still be the most progressive province in Canada.

As for Obama he is now coasting to a second term on blood shed by his benighted rivals. Crazy Gingrich will win S.C today in the clash of the clowns.

Posted on January 21, 2012 at 2:43 pm

5

littlepatti Says:

Not to forget: The BLOC and the ADQ, the Reform, and the Liberals (nearly).
Does anyone remember Union Nationale?
The PQ are like a pack of Hyennas-I think the party is imploding but they will be replaced in some form or another- At least until the “old guard” like Parizeau & Landry & their ilk are 6ft under…not a moment too soon.

I like Obama. I am disappointed with his showing, but I do have to give some points for inexperience and a really difficult “inheritance”. He will do better next time around. I agree with Neil-He will get another term. That Republican party-what a pitiful display! I would be ashamed and apologetic if I was an American. Although, we’ve had Boisclair, and Ignatieff, I shouldn’t talk!

Posted on January 21, 2012 at 3:03 pm

6

Tony Kondaks Says:

The extent to which separatism is “dead” is the extent to which Canada has allowed and accomodated Quebec’s violation of human rights (read: the hate law/race law Bill 101) and Quebec’s continued push towards special status (read: the continual push towards autonomy and more and more powers unto itself).

This is NOT a country I am either proud of or want to continue to be a part of.

If the only way to kill of separatism is to have de facto separatism, why have a country at all? At some point, Quebecers are going to wake up and say to themselves: “We are being given a pretend nation, a pretend country. Why not have the whole enchilada? We are being insulted by Canada by being told we are a nation when in fact we are not.”

All of this appeasing being done towards Quebec will, ultimately, prove to be a stepping stone to real independence. You are all fooling yourselves by thinking that, through your appeasement to Quebec nationalists and separatists and human rights violations, that you are solving the problem. You are not. You are creating and adding to the problem.

A country has to mean something. Having segregation, as we do in Quebec, and a culture and set of laws that promote xenophobia and one ethnic group over all others is a recipe for disaster that will, eventually, come home to roost.

Posted on January 21, 2012 at 3:27 pm

7

Jim Says:

Tony – Why don’t you allow me to enjoy my misery?. Why don’t you enjoy the fact that you don’t have to pay income tax on dividends? Find something to put yourself back on track, such as going out on another date with you know who? For whom the bell tolls? It tolls for me. Want a project to occupy your time and mind? Investigate why the RCMP is out of control in BC. Have a nice day.

Posted on January 21, 2012 at 5:53 pm

8

Neil McKenty Says:

So, Tony, you have just dealt yourself out of the most admired country in the world. Too bad. You rant on about the disadvantages of living in Quebec = one of the loveliest places in the universe. Come see how contended we are with our lot.

Posted on January 21, 2012 at 5:59 pm

9

littlepatti Says:

We admit to being tiresome, the black sheep of the family. Hardly a day goes by in Quebec, that we don’t have some political crisis or another, but we don’t take ourselves so seriously.
Tough times? We just came home from a glorious Greek/Italian dinner. The restaurants in the area were all packed to the hilt, and the sing-song sound of various languages was a delight.
I agree with Neil “this is one of the loveliest places in the universe” and we will survive and prosper despite the differences.

Canadians: We are a beautiful family. Every member has diverse needs and opinions. Sometimes the “head of the household” is right and sometimes (God forbid!)…wrong. Eh?

Tony: Did you say, that …”this is not a country I want to be a part of”…?
Are you going elsewhere? Bonne Chance.

Posted on January 21, 2012 at 9:15 pm

10

Tony Kondaks Says:

Neil writes:

“You rant on about the disadvantages of living in Quebec = one of the loveliest places in the universe. Come see how contended we are with our lot.”

With 500,000 anglos out of a population of 1.2 million who have left, no wonder there is no fight left in you. But I wouldn’t delude myself, Neil, by calling it “contentment”. Even today, some 37 years after Bill 101 was passed, overwhelming majorities of anglos and non-francophones are opposed to the bill. Indeed, even 60% of francophones are opposed to the key measure of Bill 101 — the language of education provisions — and that is a good sign.

Posted on January 21, 2012 at 9:54 pm

11

littlepatti Says:

Anglos have adapted. We are sending our children to French schools, and English/French emmersion and they are graduating perfectly bilingual. The French families are now fighting for the right for their children to learn English earlier also, because it is, after all, the International language.
However, over 50% of the population here have concerns about losing their culture & language over time & of course there’s another 10% we could term as “rednecks”. (Yes! we have “those here too.)
It would be a break through, if the other provinces would see the benefit of learning 2 languages and more, but they have steadfastly resisted bilingualism.
I guess they’ll all show Quebec a thing or two…

PS: The big “exodus” Tony refers to happened 37 years ago.. Why is he so adamant if he doesn’t live here…there are plenty of fights to fight for or against, in the west:
Oil, lumber, taxes, environment, drug injection sites etc.

Posted on January 22, 2012 at 8:00 am

12

Tony Kondaks Says:

littlepatti writes of “the benefit of learning two languages”。

Sure。 But why French,an essentially useless and dying language whose status and importance is such only as a result of legislation?All other languages have
their status in our culture as a result of the marketplace. Giving French official language status puts it in the enviable position of a protection that gives it an advantage that should disqualify it for any other special dispensations, which Bill 101 gives it.

As to the benefits of learning a second language, of course that’s always a good thing…provided it is personal choice.

And let’s rid ourselves of the notion that knowing the language of another culture in our society is something that brings harmony and peace…it does no such thing. To wit: the two peoples with the most murderous recent past are the Serbs and Croats and they share the same language: Serbo-Croatian.

There is no “breakthrough” to learning two languages, particularly when one of those languages is really not necessary for anything other than to get government jobs or jobs in the private sector that human-righs violating legislation (ie, Bill 101) requires the use of that language.

By all means, let’s have French as an official language, both federally and provincially (if only in Quebec and New Brunswick)。But anywhere else in society is simply none of the government’s business。

Posted on January 22, 2012 at 1:58 pm

13

littlepatti Says:

Tony! Your red neck is showing!

Posted on January 22, 2012 at 3:42 pm

14

Lady Janus Says:

Not necessarily, Patti. Tony lives in Vancouver, where French is pretty much useless as a second language. Living here, one would be far better off to learn Mandarin (the Chinese business language), Farsi, Hindi, Punjabi, or Spanish.

Why are taxpayer dollarts being spent on something no one uses?

Posted on January 22, 2012 at 5:35 pm

15

littlepatti Says:

You are right, but if we could better foster a climate of learning, our children would be better off for it. Very few Canadians are bi-lingual, except for immigrants and I would like to encourage 3, 4, 5 languages. Language learning (like math) develops the brain. If you travel with 2 or 3 languages, you can always find another to communicate with. I loved the Netherlands. Most people there speak 5 languages. I understand that it gets easier: learn French & Spanish is easier. Learn English and German is easier. Asian is in a class alone, and certainly should be taught the earliest. Kids can handle several languages at a time, from 1-5 years old.
Here in Canada, we resist. I speak English & French, but I could have learned Czech from my Mom. At that time it just wasn’t “cool”. I also started Spanish, found it easy, but quit…and do you remember Latin?
“Too soon old, too late smart.”
BTW: Many private day care centers in Ontario, have Chinese being taught. Those babies are awesome!
The young generation sees it clearly and want opportunities given to them but we are stuck arguing about French & English….
I have known many people who went West to work for large corporations where they use French and it was a winning skill. On a resume it’s a plus anytime.

Posted on January 22, 2012 at 7:46 pm

16

Tony Kondaks Says:

“Red necks” are associated with the Deep South of the U.S. where intolerance was the norm, segregating blacks from whites. It connotes intolerance, hate, xenophobia.

Bill 101 segregates Quebecers. It also promotes one ethnic group over all others。 It promotes intolerance and division amongst people both
in letter of the law and in its effects upon the population。Thus, people like me who oppose Bill 101 and its hate are the antithesis of “redneckism” and I take offense at being associated with the term.

Those of you who accept and/or support Bill101‘s existence without complaint are more deserving of the “red neck” moniker。

Other than governmental services, freedom of speech and freedom of association governs what language I speak at home, work, and play. Bill 101 infringes upon these freedoms in numerous ways. It must be repealed in its entirety.

As for French being a dying language, I was specifically referring to French IN Quebec. Indeed, if French wasn’t dying, why the need for Bill 101? Let the marketplace decide who speaks what language, not the government, not the majority. Indeed, charters of rights guarantee indiidual freedoms SPECIFICALLY to counter the effect of majorities and their tyranny through the legislative process.

Our charters of rights — both the Quebec and Canadian versions — are embarrassments that do NOT work. It is time for the hate law/race law Bill101 join the dust bin of history。

Posted on January 22, 2012 at 10:26 pm

17

littlepatti Says:

“It connotes intolerance, hate, xenophobia.”

I think the term fits you perfectly, Tony. When you get on the subject of Bill 101 and the Sherbrooke Accord you can’t see any possible view point but your own and you launch into a tirade every time.
Why is that? You don’t live here.
You really should channel that angry energy elsewhere, it’s destructive, (makes wrinkles)

Posted on January 23, 2012 at 7:34 am

 

I think that Canadians do tolerance & celebration quite well.
I won’t be there at that time in July, but someday I’ll come back for the Alaska tour.
Well at least that’s what’s on my “bucket List”.

Posted on April 27, 2012 at 3:19 pm

IS SEPARATISM DYING?

A new poll, just out, contains bad news for Quebec separatists.  According to CROP , 71 per cent of Quebeckers think the sovereignty debate is “outdated”‘ up from 58 per cent last year.  Only 25 per cent want to separate from Canada. Seventy per cent of Quebeckers think independence will not be acheived.

Can you believe that 76 per cent of Quebeckers are very or somewhat proud of being Canadian?

At the provincial level, the group led by Francois Legault, is leading the polls. He has promised not to talk about separation for 10 years.

These are ominous  figures  for the PQ.

Is separatism dying?

What do you think?

 

Posted by Neil McKenty on October 17, 2011 at 9:10 am
Filed under Politics  |  Tags: Quebec, Quebec separatism  |  Leave a comment  |  Trackback URI

 

23 Comments »

1

littlepatti Says:

IT’S ABOUT TIME!
Imagine, giving up Canadian ownership/citizenship in favour of a Quebec country.
On any level, it does not compute. It never did make sense except to those elite who could convince their peasants, that they were hard done by, and promised a silver lining, and a chicken (oops, lobster) in every pot.
Reality has outed Parizeau, & Levesque as the “Drunkerd’s Dream”, and Marois & Boisclair who contributed to the downfall of the PQ.
I am interested to see what Francois Legault brings to the table.
In the meantime, we are enjoying road work & building going on everywhere, for the 1st time in 35+ years! It’s inconvenient and hopeful.

Posted on October 17, 2011 at 1:08 pm

2

Tony Kondaks Says:

Separatism is alive and well.

1/3rd of those polled a few months ago who voted for the NDP said they’d vote “yes” in a referendum. 1/3rd of 44% (the percentage of Quebecers who voted for the NDP) is 14%. Add that 14% to the 23% that voted for the Bloc (100% of whom would vote “yes”) and you’ve got 37% support for sovereignty….all in a time when separation is supposedly dead.

Well, 37% is 75% of the way to 50% plus one, the threshold that the Official Opposition in Canada’s Parliament (the NDP) says is enough for Quebec to make a unilateral declaration of independence.

Anyone who says separation is dead has their head in a hole in the ground. When Pierre Trudeau left office, support for separation according to polls was in the teens. A few short years and one humiliation later (ie, Meech Lake) and support was back in the 50-60% range.

This has happened before: complacency on the part of federalists. Well, just ask yourself if you think Quebec would ever give up the best formula they have to get what they want: political blackmail. Threatening separation and breaking up Canada is, simply, good business. It is the winning formula for Quebec to get all sorts of goodies all the time.

Just wait. You’ll see separation surge again soon. Now that Quebecers are a nation within Canada they will start demanding to be treated like the nation we claim they are. And nations aren’t satiated until they obtain real nationhood status. Indeed, once the “insult” of the label of “pretend nation” is realized (which is exactly what Harper’s motion is), this will not lower the numbers of those supporting separation.

And this will only increase the demands for booty. And when they don’t get what they want, they’ll very quickly start the rumblings of separation again. But next time, the “yes” side very well may win.

Posted on October 17, 2011 at 1:54 pm

3

Paul Costopoulos Says:

Separatism has been around since 1759 and will stay around as long as there will be Quebecers feeling that they are being short changed regardless of “goodies” received. It’s an idea, a concept, an emotion and those don’t die, they just ebb and flow.
Now look west to the Wild Rose, the Sakatchewan Party, the Northern Ontario Coalition and east to some groups in the Maritimes and Newfoundland/Labrador. Quebecers are not the only one chafing under the collar.

Posted on October 17, 2011 at 2:37 pm

4

Neil McKenty Says:

I agree with Paul that separatism is an idea, an emotion etc. In that sense it will never die.

But in the p olitical sense, as Tony uses the word, separatism is a no hoper.

Posted on October 17, 2011 at 3:07 pm

5

littlepatti Says:

Boo-hoo- Good point. I guess the debate isn’t dead, only in a coma.
But the number I don’t agree with, is the 23% Bloc vote, attributed to Separatists.
I think that many people who voted for the Bloc felt that they had no choice.

Posted on October 17, 2011 at 3:13 pm

6

Tony Kondaks Says:

littlepatti wrote:

But the number I don’t agree with, is the 23% Bloc vote, attributed to Separatists.

When I ran my “figures” past a friend, he said the exact same thing you did.

Curious: what percentage of Bloc voters do you think would NOT vote “yes” on a sovereignty referendum?

Posted on October 17, 2011 at 3:24 pm

7

littlepatti Says:

That’s a trick question…Neil says “Only 25 per cent want to separate”, according to a recent poll.
If 14% of the NDP vote WOULD vote yes, that leaves 11% of the Bloc WOULD vote yes.

Posted on October 17, 2011 at 3:40 pm

8

Tony Kondaks Says:

littlepatti: I am fascinated by your math skills.

Posted on October 17, 2011 at 4:55 pm

9

littlepatti Says:

ha ha ha

Posted on October 17, 2011 at 5:29 pm

10

jim Says:

Tony – In the past, referenda ballot questions posed have never been to vote on “the unilateral declaration of independence” Therefore, when a poll is taken today, the question posed must be identical to the previous ballot questions, otherwise, the comparison is useless.
BTW – We Quebecers are pretty good at squeezing money out of Ottawa. So if you hear rumours of a cutback, let me know, I’ll crank up all the Irish-Canadians here, to put on our “let’s leave Canada” act, tabarwet.

Posted on October 17, 2011 at 10:54 pm

11

Tony Kondaks Says:

jim — I essentially agree with you regarding the wording of questions. However, I think the bottom line is that if Quebec truly believes itself to be a nation, it’s gonna happen.

But I’m not amused by the blackmail routine that Quebec engages in. It’s bad form to continually be negative towards a country from whom you obtain a significantly net positive financial benefit.

Posted on October 17, 2011 at 11:29 pm

12

littlepatti Says:

Harper just delivered a huge check to Quebec and that should be the pacifier for awhile, along with the building of the new Champlain Bridge.
No wonder the rest of Canada gets fed up with the Quebec antics, but we need to dig ourselves out of this “have not” status, and not with blackmail. I think that followers of the PQ are starting to get it, finally.
On the subject of “math”. Statistics can be easily manipulated to reflect any scenario. Just one of the joys of numbers.
It’s like our personal budget at home-it all looks so good on paper. How come it doesn’t work out?

Posted on October 18, 2011 at 7:33 am

13

jim Says:

Tony – My previous BTW was tongue in cheek. However, most Quebecers of any political leaning look at money coming from Ottawa as returned money previously collected thru overtaxation.
As to the “separate nation” bit, a minority wanted it but another minority wanted it with the caviate that there was a tie of some sort (i.e. as a member nation of a confederation). Another minority said “we don’t really want it, we just want you to note we are here.” Tony, separation is passe. One of the things making it so is that with time the education level of the people will rise and further inquiry by the graduates will show that separation is a non-winner.
I don’t think we will even see another referendum. The hard core separatists know that their losses were really much larger than indicated by the vote. For example fudging at the polls and the tricky ambigious question on the ballot. The people are now better informed. Legault knows that, and that is why his 10 year hiatus on the non-referendum (sic) is a vote-getter from all sides.
Littlepatti – Re the “have not” status, I have always struggled with the thought that is it the people or is it the government thru subterfuge who have put us into this situation. I think Francois Legault, who is a stand-up man, may end the status. On the other hand, as we know, money talks, and that heavyweight may send him to where he does’nt want to go.

Posted on October 18, 2011 at 2:21 pm

14

Tony Kondaks Says:

jim:

Putting off a referendum for another 10 years is just sweeping the problem under the carpet.

In the meantime, we are stuck with the hate law/race law Bill 101 which has no place in free and democratic countries. We as a country must decide whether we want laws like this within our border. I don’t. Particularly the language of education laws that segregate all Quebecers and determine rights according to classifications and who one’s parents are. But you’ve heard me go on ad infinitum on this for years.

Let’s say to Quebec: repeal Bill 101 in its entirety and if you don’t like it, get out. Let’s see if that raises the separatism sentiment. I am saying, in effect: if you want to be part of Canada, the blackmail must stop.

Hallmark Greeting Cards promoted a very famous and successful saying:

If you love somebody, let them go. If they return, they were always yours. If they don’t, they never were.

Here’s my paraphrase as it pertains to Canada’s relationship with Quebec:

If Canada and Quebec really want to be together, Canada must give Quebec the opportunity to go. If they stay, they always were and will always be Canadian; if they leave, they never were.

Posted on October 18, 2011 at 2:55 pm

15

littlepatti Says:

Jim says: “Re the “have not” status, I have always struggled with the thought that is it the people or is it the government thru subterfuge who have put us into this situation.”
Hi Jim: I think we were a “have” province until the downward slide started in 1977 (?) with 400, 000 tax payers leaving, and taking their investments, & head offices, after the PQ government took power. The bleeding never stopped. I know that we have replaced that population with immigrants and returnees, but the damage was done in one fell swoop. (Replacing numbers with French speaking immigrants was not the answer either). Are followers of the PQ, finally coming to grips with that? With the constant threat of another referendum, Quebec was hard pressed to convince high profile investors to come back.
So, if the government is really “of the people”…The people are responsible. Another case of a minority (separatists) rule.
I agree that F. Legault may usher in a new day for Quebec.
I think that Charest has done a good job. I like all the construction happening and I like the “Plan Nord” possibilities, but he is not a popular guy & he’s not about to become Quebec’s favourite son any time soon.
Tony, I agree that Bill 101 is unconstitutional, but it has served a purpose. (Hold your nose). Government can not withdraw it because of that vocal minority, of Separationists.
However, English is an International language and as soon as it dawns on those who would argue otherwise, Bill 101 will be replaced by something more positive.
i.e: multilingualism.
We may actually live long enough to see the day!

Posted on October 18, 2011 at 4:01 pm

16

jim Says:

Tony – Your para 1 – There never should have been a referendum in the first instant.
Para 2 – Speaking of education, some of the money sent to Quebec by Ottawa is used to lower the cost of education. Annual fees for a university, in Ontario, are twice as high as Quebec.
Para 3 – You wrote “Let’s say to Quebec….” Who is to say that?
Para 4 – Using a greeting card to make your point??? I’ve seen your ditty before in the far past. It wasn’t about a person it was about a bird. A great poem if someone is for the birds.
Last para. If constitutionally, Canada cannot get rid of the Queen, how in hell can it get rid of Quebec?

Posted on October 18, 2011 at 4:06 pm

17

Tony Kondaks Says:

littlepatti writes:

<iTony, I agree that Bill 101 is unconstitutional, but it has served a purpose. (Hold your nose). Government can not withdraw it because of that vocal minority, of Separationists.

Actually, littlepatti, the sad thing is that Bill 101 has been deemed completely constitutional according to the Supreme Court of Canada. Yes, there were parts that were judged unconstitutional but Quebec either amended Bill 101 to conform to the Court’s rulings or used the “notwithstanding” clause to circumvent their ruling…but even the use of the “notwithstanding” clause was constitutional because the constitutional allows for its use.

The Supreme Court, in my opinion, has made numerous political decisions when it came to Bill 101 and did not follow the rule of law as they were supposed to. But they are not a political body and should have put individual rights above political considerations. Perhaps the Court used the same reasoning as you yourself do, above, when you wrote “(Bill 101) has served a purpose”, the purpose being to appease Quebec in order to placate them and keep Quebec within Canada.

littlepatti also writes:

However, English is an International language and as soon as it dawns on those who would argue otherwise, Bill 101 will be replaced by something more positive. i.e: multilingualism.

With all the goodies that Ottawa extends to Quebec in the form of equalization, transfer payments, and sweetheart deals in both the public and private sectors, there is no incentive for Quebec to change its ways. Bill 101 obviously results in a huge loss of jobs, revenue, and investment in the province. But Ottawa makes up for it with the net flow of those cash goodies.

That is one of the reasons why I believe independence will be good for anglophone rights: all those payments will cease to flow to Quebec from Ottawa once independence occurs and Quebec will be put into the cold, harsh reality of realizing that in order to attract investment, entrepreneurs, and professionals into the province that they will have to do away with Bill 101. Quebec is surrounded by a sea of not only English but unilingual English speakers who are affluent, entrepreneurial, and will to invest in Quebec only if they can come to Quebec and live, educate, invest, and interact in unilingual English.

Under the current scenario, this will never happen. Why change your ways when your bad policies that result in a bad economy are made up for by the central government. That is why people like Stephane Dion is correct when he states that “Bill 101 is a great Canadian law”. I don’t know about the “great” part but it is the #1 thing in my opinion for why Bill 101 is still law…and I think that is what you meant by your comment as well.

Posted on October 18, 2011 at 9:00 pm

18

Tony Kondaks Says:

jim writes:

Para 3 – You wrote “Let’s say to Quebec….” Who is to say that?

I want the Canadian people — via their elected government in Ottawa — to say that. Entirely wishful thinking on my part but that is the Canadian government that I would like to have.

jim also writes:

Last para. If constitutionally, Canada cannot get rid of the Queen, how in hell can it get rid of Quebec?

I think the answer to that lies in the Supreme Court reference to this question. I am not as familiar with the judgement as I am with other ones but my layman’s understanding is that if a clear majority answers “yes” to a clear question, then Canada would be obligated to enter into negotiations with Quebec in order to reach an agreement for Quebec to exit. How the amending formula enters into that, I am not sure. But you are correct in comparing it to the requirement regarding constitutional changes to the Monarchy: unanimity would be required (ie, 10 provinces and the House of Commons agreeing to it).

Posted on October 18, 2011 at 9:10 pm

19

littlepatti Says:

Thanks Tony, you make many really good points, but (isn’t there always a “but”)…
TONY WRITES: “That is one of the reasons why I believe independence will be good for anglophone rights:”
How many Anglos do you think will remain in Quebec in the event of independence? Not I! And not anyone I know. There would be no cooperation from the rest of Canada, in fact, I think that they would go out of their way to cut Quebec off. My family & friends would leave and we are all tax payers, and investors. I think that Quebec would be left with separatists and “have nots”.
I would leave in a heartbeat. I don’t have any interest in living in the slag dump this would become in no time at all. I am a Canadian.
I love Quebec, but it isn’t easy to live here. “but”…it’s never dull!

Posted on October 19, 2011 at 7:27 am

20

jim Says:

Over the years I’ve tried to look at the situation in Quebec by looking at it from a different angle. I pondered about alternave moves, and one was where I put myself and all my Irish brethern into the place that the french-canadians occupy. In other words I want our Irishmen to separate from the rest of Canada and rename the province New Ireland. Now this thinking is not too far off, as about 40% of the population have Irish blood in them. As we say in the bogs “how do you like them apples” (sic). Most of the people remaining in Canada would be a bunch of Brits who are Protestamt descendents of people who used to beat the shit out of us back home. The only reason why we’re here, is that they figured it was cheaper to pay the one way steerage fare once, vis-a-vis paying to feed us until we died.Yes, they were feeding us potatoes grown on our own land, which they had stolen from us. Come to think of it, why don’t we take over all of Canada. We could call it potato emancipation day. The same idea would apply to Greeks. Just pondering folks.

Posted on October 19, 2011 at 10:47 am

21

Tony Kondaks Says:

Actually, jim, if I remember my history correctly, it was that there were no potatoes to be had that got so many Irish emigrating to the New World. British landlords had dictated that only one type of potato be planted across the land and when a disease particular to that one strand of potato took hold in Ireland, widespread famine resulted.

An amusing response nevertheless.

Posted on October 19, 2011 at 11:52 am

22

Paul Costopoulos Says:

Jim, in 1837-38, during the so called “Rebellion”, the main military commanders of the “rebels” were named Nelson and O’Callaghan. In 1829, the Fenians tried an invasion of Québec from Vermont. Your idea is nothing new. I agree with Tony about the potato thing.
As for Balkanizing Canada, despite appearances, I guess the process has already begun.

Posted on October 19, 2011 at 3:41 pm

23

jim Says:

You’all – There were potatoes available in England which were verbotten for export to Ireland. The Irish managed to find some kindred soul working on the waterfront in New Orleans who organized a collection from the other longshoremen. (BTW the Irish controlled the waterfront. They had managed to muscle out the blacks) They bought some potato seed in the U.S. and smuggled it into Ireland. The seeds didn’t take due to the nature of the weather and the land. My people left Ireland in 1846 on the next “potato boat” .Did the Irish have to pay for the passage? Eventually, yes, they were indentured out to the elite in Quebec City. They were fed. They weren’t paid until the voyage cost was paid to the ship owners first. Thousands died in Quebec City from various diseases. Many coleens married local MEN. In those days the hewers (not a spelling error) paid the tab for all marital expenses. The Irish blood lines prevail to this day. Now about that Fenian raid, what happened? The last time I checked, they hadn’t arrived yet.

Posted on October 19, 2011 at 5

IS CHAREST’S MAJORITY A GOOD THING?

This morning Quebec federalists – and indeed federalists in the rest of Canada – are breathing easier. For the first time since Taschereau 1920′s a federalist leader has led his party to three straight election wins. It is an historic achievement and means that the government of Quebec will be in federalist hands for another four years.

Some observers expected that Charest would win an even larger majority. We know why he didn’t. In the last 48 hours, the savage attacks by Stephen Harper on a legal party in Quebec – and on Quebecers themselves – drove thousands of voters into the arms of the separatist party.

It was not a good night for Harper. His Quebec buddy, Mario Dumont, led his party to an ignominious defeat and announced he would resign. And as I said above Harper’s malicious comments cut into the size of Charest’s majority..

Speaking of Charest and Harper, there is a rumour going around that when the Conservative brain trust gets rid of Harper (as they will), Jean Charest will move to Ottawa to replace him as Tory chief. Remember you heard it here first.

Charest against Ignatieff. What a spectacle that would be.

Charest got his majority.  (And it may grow larger if upwards of five ADQ members cross the floor and join the Liberals.)

Do you think that’s a good thing?

 

Posted by Neil McKenty on December 9, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Filed under Politics  |

 

7 Comments »

1

Paul Costopoulos Says:

Neil, you are right about the PQ leaning backlash the recent Harper pronouncements have caused. Each time someone in the ROC starts bashing things Québec there is a surge in nationalistic feelings. I’ve always said that the best allies the sovereignists have are Québec bashers in the ROC. The higher they are the more impact they have on the sovereignists emotions. Let’s not fool ourselves under a veneer of rationalisation the PQ is almost 99% emotions.
As for ADQ members crossing the floor to the Liberal side, well remember that of the 7 elected last night, 3 or 4 are more likely to move to the PQ should the ADQ disband eventually. Dumont, Caire and another one whose name I forget were on the Yes side in 2 referenda.
Amir Khadir, from Québec solidaire, is also from a sovereignist party albeit to the left of the PQ. The green vote is also separatist tainted.
So, last night Harper was instrumental in creating a separatist surge. Had all the true blue ones and the leaning to been united in one party, this morning we would have a sovereignist majority government.
Sobering thought for the Maple Leaf wavers and a warning shot for the likes of our dear Harper.

Posted on December 9, 2008 at 2:50 pm

2

Peter LeBlanc Says:

I agree Neil, it would be easy for Charest to leave Quebec after turning over a majority government to someone else.

Charest would be the Liberals worst nightmare and secure a majority at the next election for the Conservatives, by capturing Quebec.

Harper on the other hand would still have life. He could form a western seperatist party to promote the interests of the West.

I’m all for representation for everyone.

Posted on December 9, 2008 at 3:23 pm

3

Paul Costopoulos Says:

Given the current orientation of the Reform party in Ottawa, I’m not sure Charest would be suicidal enough to run for its leadership. As a Quebecer he would be soundly trounced by the western militants and it would be a great boost for the Bloc and the PQ. Charest has a nationalist streak in him and he sees his immediate future in Québec. He is, for the moment the guy who can steer Québec close enough to the ROC yet not so near as to beach the province and the PLQ.

Will be away for the next 24 hours, off to a meeting of my old coworkers in the Laurentians. Behave yourselves now.

Posted on December 9, 2008 at 4:50 pm

4

exposrip Says:

I think the demise of the ADQ is bad. They were becoming a viable third option. Instead, more of the same for Quebec. Not good.

Posted on December 9, 2008 at 5:36 pm

5

Cornelius T. Zen Says:

Good morrow, all!
Interesting. No matter what party (Liberals, PQ, Union Nationale) forms the government in Quebec, they all turn to Ottawa with the same body language: mouths open and hands out. “Pay us or we’ll run away from home.” They are Quebecois premier and Canadians…alors, ze loonie and passport are such evil necessities, n’est-ce pas?
As for Charest: Immediately following the 1993 federal election (you can look it up, you know), some tourists spotted Jean Charest walking about Parliament Hill. Distressed, they called a policeman over. “That man is talking to himself!” they tittered. The policeman, seeing who it was, sighed and told them, “No, folks, he’s not not talking to himself. That’s Jean Charest. He’s holding a caucus meeting.” (and seriously, could we get the guy a decent barber?)
What I find REALLY interesting is that Charest labels himself a Liberal on the provincial level, and a Tory on the federal level. That gives such sincere, genuine meaning to the party names.
Some people believe that even if Charest were to become PM, it might be too little, too late. In astrophysical terms, it called,”slipping over the event horizon.” When you’re circling the drain, the last thing you wanna do is call Roto-Rooter. Or so I would digress…CTZen

Posted on December 9, 2008 at 7:06 pm

6

exposrip Says:

“Interesting. No matter what party (Liberals, PQ, Union Nationale) forms the government in Quebec, they all turn to Ottawa with the same body language: mouths open and hands out. “Pay us or we’ll run away from home.”

Quoted for truth.

Posted on December 10, 2008 at 3:08 am

7

Cornelius T. Zen Says:

Good morrow, exposrip!
What would happen if a PM developed the stones to tell Quebec, “Fine. Need help packing?” Mind you, that same week, the NHL would get a franchise bid from some dude with a pitchfork and pointed tail.
Quebec may have the resources to become politically independent, but it will not have the recognition it seeks. By the time the borders and property allocation are all settled, the great-grandchildren of the separatistes will be wondering: We wanted to leave Canada, why?
Not only that, chances arte, all Anglos will pull up stakes and head out. That leaves just the Indians. And they have guns. Oops. CTZen

Posted on December 10, 2008 at 6:42

SHOULD CHAREST GET A MAJORITY?

Premier Charest avoided gloating about his election chances on Saturday even though a new poll showed the Liberals possibly steaming toward a majority government on Dec. 8. “You have to take it with a grain of salt,” Charest said.

A CROP poll showed the Liberals have the support of 42 per cent of Quebecers, compared with 31 per cent for the Parti Quebecois and 15 per cent for the ADQ.

The poll would seem to reflect the widely held view that Charest has given good government since the last election two years ago. Budgets have been balanced and Quebec is enjoying widespread social peace. An English rights party under Allan Nutick couldn’t even get off the ground. Nutick will be soundly defeated in NDG where he is running.

Both the Parti Quebecois and its leader, Pauline Marois, are in the doldrums. The party is so divided on the sovereignty issue (which Marois soft pedals) that fistfights have broken out at several nomination meetings. An internal poll shows that Marois is perceived as a wealthy upper class matriarch. Signing her advertising with her first name, “Pauline” does not seem to have helped much.

Poor Mario Dumont and his ADQ are going down the drain. Many of his candidates are weak and he is desperately trying to develop a divisive issue to hang onto. The ADQ won 41 seats the last time. He’ll be lucky to win 10 this time.

A majority win by Charest will guarantee a strong federalist government in Quebec for the next four years.

Do you agree?

 

Posted by Neil McKenty on November 17, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Filed under Politics  |  Leave a comment  |  Trackback URI

 

20 Comments »

1

exposrip Says:

Don’t know about you Neil but to me Quebec politics is hopelessly petty.

NOT ONE PARTY SPEAKS FOR ME.

I thought Dumont would but…bah.

Meh.

Posted on November 17, 2008 at 5:38 pm

2

jim Says:

A political poster is an invitation to come on board. I noticed that Charest has invited my neighbors, who are French-Canadian, to come aboard by way of the posters, but he has not invited me nor any other English-speaking Canadians as the posters are not (English/French) bilingual.

Posted on November 17, 2008 at 8:36 pm

3

Paul Costopoulos Says:

Polls can be misleading. The vote spread is most important. How much of that 41% is concentrated in Montreal where, in most precincts 3 voters = 1 voter in the others and even 5:1 in the Gaspé/Iles-de-la Madeleine and the North Shore. What part is francophone? It matters outside Montreal.
And yes the posters should be bilingual…but Bill 101 forbids it and can you imagine the outcry fron the PQ, the Parti Indépendantiste and Qébec Solidaire. Not to mention la Société nationale des québécoises et des québécois and the Société St-Jean-Baptiste. The PLQ would dip below 30%.

Posted on November 17, 2008 at 10:33 pm

4

Tony Kondaks Says:

Neil writes:

A majority win by Charest will guarantee a strong federalist government in Quebec for the next four years.

I weep when I read stuff like this.

I wouldn’t call Charest a federalist, let alone a strong federalist.

Sure, I left Quebec 14 years ago and reading the online version of the Gazette every morning is not the best way to keep my finger on the pulse of Quebec but, Jeez Louise, the Liberal Party of Quebec is the party of Bill 150, passed in 1992. Calling for a unilateral declaration of independence if the results of a referendum on separatism was 50% plus one vote, Bill 150 surpassed anything the PQ had done up to that point. Although later amended, many of the most radical parts of the law still remain intact.

The Liberals still fully endorse and support the race law/hate law known as Bill 101.

Have you ever heard Charest refer to himself as a Canadian? I understand it’s like pulling teeth to even get him to acknowledge anything good Canada has done.

No, Neil, Charest is neither a federalist nor a strong federalist. What he is, is a soft separatist. Indeed, I would even call him a dishonest separatist.

The PQ are honest separatists; the Liberals are dishonest separatists.

Posted on November 18, 2008 at 12:09 am

5

exposrip Says:

It wouldn’t hurt Dumont, who went to Concordia, to spill and spew some words in English during any of his speeches.

Not that I care either way. It’s a fact in Quebec. It’s rationalized along the lines of “we’re well treated” here. Gee, thanks. I guess.

Posted on November 18, 2008 at 1:15 am

6

neilmckentyweblog2 Says:

Well, Tony, I think we must agree to disagree.

I know Jean Charest slightly. During the referendum campaign of 1995 I heard him warmly praise Canada many times.

He is as strong a federalist as Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chretien or Stephen Harper.

Many Quebecers will vote for him on Dec. 8 because of his strong federalism.

Posted on November 18, 2008 at 4:32 am

7

Tony Kondaks Says:

Neil writes:

I know Jean Charest slightly. During the referendum campaign of 1995 I heard him warmly praise Canada many times.

Neil, I care not a hoot what these alleged federalist Liberal leaders do when, in opposition, they head the “no” side during separation referendums.

Nor do I place much credibility or truthfullness in what they and their Liberal MNA minions tell us anglos whenever they are west of St. Denis Boulevard.

I do, however, care very much what they do and say when they are in power and govern. That’s where we see their true colours.

Neil, care to tell us what the great federalist Jean Charest has done that could possibly be labelled pro-Canadian or pro-federalist when he has been Premier (and, please, don’t hurt yourself trying too hard)?

Posted on November 18, 2008 at 5:26 am

8

Paul Costopoulos Says:

Tony, while you are away, Charest has been instrumental with Ontario and BC in creating the Federation Council a valid tool to reinforce Canadian unity, where all the provincial and territory premiers get their say and usually come to a consensus very difficult to ignore even for a semi dictator like Harper. By getting some longstanding irritants with Ottawa settled, v.g. fiscal imbalance that other provinces profited by, some infrastructure deals good also for other provinces he strenghtened Canada and effectively lowered support for separatism in Québec. I’m sure Neil could come up with more but at 5.55am that’s the best I can come up with.

Posted on November 18, 2008 at 10:57 am

9

neilmckentyweblog2 Says:

That’s a good list, Paul.

Posted on November 18, 2008 at 1:58 pm

10

Tony Kondaks Says:

Paul:

Thanks for the list. I was not familiar with the Federation Council and will have to research it. I hope it is not just another “where is my booty” vehicle for getting Quebec more transfer and equalization payments, but I will be happy to stand corrected if that is not the case.

I’m not sure I understand your example you cite of one of the longstanding irritants Charest settled with Ottawa: “fiscal imbalance that other provinces profited by.” ‘Fraid that sounds suspiciously like “Quebec has been screwed out of some free money from some silly federal transfer payment scheme and if you cook the books the way we want to, you owe us money.” But, again, maybe I’m being unnecessarily cynical and, with more information from you, I can be persuaded that I’m wrong.

As for “effectively lowering support for separatism in Quebec”: I’ve brought this up before on this forum when I’ve pointed out that support for separatism in Quebec comes and goes in waves. Separatism is now considered to be at the bottom of the trough in terms of support yet polls show an astounding 36% support (i.e. 45% of all francophones because there is virtually zero support amongst non-francophones).

If that’s considered a low percentage of support, just wait until the next great humiliation — imagined or real — is visited upon the French Quebecer (these great humiliations come in waves, too, just as the sun rises and sets each day). Then we’ll see what happens to those numbers.

But, Neil, your insistence upon Charest being the great federalist you claim him to be means you should be able to augment Paul’s list without much difficulty…can’t you come up with anything?

Posted on November 18, 2008 at 5:36 pm

11

neilmckentyweblog2 Says:

Well, yes, Tony.

Charest lives in Westmount which is one of the greatest federalist bastions in the country.

Posted on November 18, 2008 at 6:59 pm

12

Tony Kondaks Says:

Neil writes:

Charest lives in Westmount which is one of the greatest federalist bastions in the country.

…and its Liberal MNA is Jacques Chagnon who is, of course, a separatist.

Why do I blaspheme thus and cast dispersions upon a man who always has and will continue to claim to his predominantly English-speaking Westmount constituents that he is a die-hard federalist?

Because Chagnon told me that he was a separatist himself.

Flashback to 1989. Westmount City Hall. Pre-election. The coming-out party for William Cosgrove (flown in from Washington D.C. to be the star Liberal candidate for Westmount, selected personally by Robert Bourassa) and his annoucement as candidate. I asked Chagnon, who showed up to support his fellow candidate, what will happen if Meech Lake doesn’t go through. He looked me in the eye and said: we will separate. He was sincere, earnest, and had the glint of separatist/fascist anger in his eyes.

And I don’t think Chagnon has had any great epiphony since then about how great Canada is. All that changed was that his St. Louis riding boundaries got redistributed to encompass Westmount which, of course, then required him to start lying better.

You Westmounters thought you only had a MNA separatist when Dickie Holden switched to the PQ back in 1992. Well, guess again; you’ve had one ever since.

The citizens of Westmount may be federalist but their MNA isn’t.

Posted on November 18, 2008 at 7:24 pm

13

neilmckentyweblog2 Says:

If I had been a Quebecois when Meech Lake was shot down by the stagnant forces of this country, I could well have become a separatist myself. Of course, Chagnon will be elected easily by the federalists in Westmount.

Posted on November 18, 2008 at 8:30 pm

14

Paul Costopoulos Says:

Tony, all the info you need is out there on the Web, just clear the blinding Arizona sun and the blowing sand from your keyboard and screen and you’ll find it. After Charlottetown and Meech, I almost turned separatist myself. I guess I remain an old optimist fool.

Posted on November 18, 2008 at 10:10 pm

15

Tony Kondaks Says:

I turned separatist after the Supreme Court decision of December 1988.

Posted on November 18, 2008 at 11:28 pm

16

Paul Costopoulos Says:

Well seen from here you have separated from Québec and Canada but have not joined the USA. You remind me of the Irish peasant who was against no matter who or what.

Posted on November 18, 2008 at 11:36 pm

17

Tony Kondaks Says:

I’m the United States of Kondaks.

Posted on November 19, 2008 at 4:17 am

18

exposrip Says:

Meech was an anti-democratic scam.

Isn’t Charest babbling about “too much English” being spoken?

Yeah, he’s a winner alright. An opportunistic one.

Posted on November 19, 2008 at 2:06 pm

19

Tony Kondaks Says:

exposrip wrote:

Isn’t Charest babbling about “too much English” being spoken?

Of course.

It’s 2008…30 years since the passage of Bill 101 and we’ve got to the point at which a person is considered a federalist if they supports this race law/hate law.

And it’s not just the Charest’s and Neil McKenty’s of the world; it is the Stephane Dion’s and Stephen Harper’s of the world, too.

That’s why this country must end. As wonderful as the concept of Canada is, there are other concepts that are more important.

One of those concepts is individual freedom, the cornerstones of which are free speech and freedom of association, both violated by Bill 101 (not to mention equality guarantees).

Federalists have adopted the principle that individual freedom is to be sacrified to save Canada (i.e. appease the Quebec separatists by letting them have their Bill 101).

I say we’ve got our priorities wrong. I say: if there’s any sacrificing that should be done, it’s Canada that should be sacrified for individual rights and not the other way around.

Posted on November 19, 2008 at 3:46 pm

20

exposrip Says:

One of those concepts is individual freedom, the cornerstones of which are free speech and freedom of association, both violated by Bill 101 (not to mention equality guarantees).

Whither liberalism.

Cultural nationalism takes precedence.

Posted on November 20, 2

IS QUEBEC READY FOR A NEW POLITICAL PARTY?

If a general election were held in Quebec today, a new Leger survey shows  that former pequiste businessman, Francois Legault would lead a majority government into power. Among decided voters, 34 per cent would vote for  a  Leg per cent for Leault party, compared to 25 for the Liberals, 17 per cent for the PQ and nine per cent for the  ADQ.

The poll spokesperson explains that after the big Wave to the NDp in May, “Quebecers are waiting for Wave 2 of the big cleanup.”

Legault is far ahead of his rivals among francophone voters – and this despite the fact that legault wants to head a business government with empahsis on the eoncomyy.  Legault has taken the sovereignist option off the table for at least a decade.ault party

A Legault party would take voters away from aall other parties.  Twenty-four per cent of PQ voters  and 17 per cent of Liberals would switch to a Legault party which expects to be up and   before the end of the year.

Do you thINK Quebec is ready for a new business-oriented party led by Francipis Legault?

Do you think such a party could be elected in the next election?

Would you consider voting for such a party?

What do you think?

 

Posted by Neil McKenty on September 20, 2011 at 8:36 am

4 Comments »

1

Paul Costopoulos Says:

I would not vote for privatizer and separatist in disguise Legault. But I’m afraid that many Quebecers sick and tired of the Liberals and P.Q,, weary of the A.D.Q., could vote for Legault not fully realizing whjat he stands for.

Posted on September 20, 2011 at 8:01 pm

2

Neil McKenty Says:

That’s interesting, Paul. Before your welcome comment I thought I might give Legault and Sirois a shot. Now I will think again. Thanks.

Posted on September 20, 2011 at 11:31 pm

3

jim Says:

1) Separists – kaput.
2) Charest has been chiseling away at non-francophone rights, such as schools not having english text books, but are tested on what is in the books. Also he has failed to maintain Quebec’s infrastructure on roads, overpasses, and bridges. Also underhandedly tax us by way of a fine of $1089.00 for exceeding speed limit of 120 km hr. Ontario, for same offence $90.00. All his sneaky machinations will cost him the English vote.
3) Legault is trying to get erase his separatist past without verbalizing it. He will get the English vote if he maintains his position on – no talk of separation for 10 years. The ADQ were somewhat on the same track, and then screwed it up by waffleing on the independance issue.
4) The miscellaneous are no-shows even before they are out of the starter’s gate.

Posted on September 21, 2011 at 5:27 am

4

littlepatti Says:

My jury is out on this one. What choice do we have here? None, right now.
Ideally, a terrific Liberal contender for the top job steps forward…
Okay, I am dreaming!

BTW-I don’t blame Charest for all of our problems- He has been trying to mop up after 50 years of uncertainty, neglect. & corruption in this province.

(re: corruption- who DIDN’T KNOW what was going on during Expo “67 & Olympics ’76?)

I am however, disappointed in him- I think he would have been a better Prime Minister and that’s the job he worked for. He seems to be 1/2 hearted running Quebec. Of course it’s a thankless job.

Posted on September 21, 2011 at 8:1

 

 

3 Comments »

  1. 1
    AdapetupZet Says:

    You produced particular great points there. I did a research on the idea and discovered the vast majority of people can agree with your weblog.

  2. 2
    Andrea Beide Says:

    I was suggested this website by my cousin. I’m not sure whether this post is written by him as nobody else knows such detailed info about my problem. You’re amazing!
    Thanks!

  3. 3
    Enrique Chamberlain Says:

    Magnificent goods from you, man. I’ve be aware your stuff previous to and you are just too great. I actually like what you’ve acquired here,
    really like what you’re stating and the way through which you assert it. You’re making it entertaining and you continue to
    take care of to keep it sensible. I can not wait to read much more from you.

    This is really a wonderful site.


RSS Feed for this entry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: