The Canadian Election Thread. (Or maybe not...)

[Rysto]

it's not like he just forgets everything he ever learned about economics while figuring out policy.=
I am saying that is exactly what he does. No economist would have ever cut the GST over any other tax, but it was politically advantageous, so the GST was cut. It's a recurring pattern for him.

[Frank]

I don't see how it wouldn't do him *any* good - he is educated in economics, and understands the principles and policies, and he brings that to every decision he makes - it's not like he just forgets everything he ever learned about economics while figuring out policy.
I'm uncertain when economics became an exact science. I always thought that if you get two economists in a room, you wind up with three opinions.

"He's educated in economics," really means, "He's educated in a school of economics that I happen to agree with."

[Leaffan]

I am saying that is exactly what he does. No economist would have ever cut the GST over any other tax, but it was politically advantageous, so the GST was cut. It's a recurring pattern for him.

Chretien promised to abolish the GST, and didn't. Harper promised to lower the GST, and did.

[The Flying Dutchman]

At some point I'm sure a lot of us were surprised and even impressed upon hearing and seeing Harper's piano skills, stage performance and passable singing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-57ydwbqb_M). He could hold your attention. I was reminded of Bill Clinton on the sax.
I'm sure that warmed a few Canadians up to Harper.

Jack Layton, you are no Stephan Harper. (http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/world/Video+leader+Jack+Layton+sings+Cockles+Mussels/4550332/story.html)

Reading the lyrics, cradling, not playing a useless guiter, and showing little emotion. He'd be voted off Canadian Idol on the very first day.

If you want to be the prime minister of Canada you don't need to be a good musician, but you must not try to emulate your opponent and above all you must not show extremely poor judgement.

[Rysto]

Chretien promised to abolish the GST, and didn't. Harper promised to lower the GST, and did.
I have no idea what you think this proves.

[Muffin]

cradling, not playing a useless guiterhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UURIRMnTgDY

Socialism and folk singing go a long way back together -- actual musical talent is not required.

Neither Harper nor Layton hold my attention as musicians.

[The Flying Dutchman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UURIRMnTgDY

Socialism and folk singing go a long way back together -- actual musical talent is not required.



Okay so Layton can strum a guitar. He still has to read the lyrics so his performance is contrived for the media.I would never consider Tony Hatch's Downtown a folk song.

[Leaffan]

I have no idea what you think this proves.

Veracity.

[Cat Whisperer]

I am saying that is exactly what he does. No economist would have ever cut the GST over any other tax, but it was politically advantageous, so the GST was cut. It's a recurring pattern for him.

I'm uncertain when economics became an exact science. I always thought that if you get two economists in a room, you wind up with three opinions.

"He's educated in economics," really means, "He's educated in a school of economics that I happen to agree with."
Economics (to this person who only dabbles in it as an interest) seems to mean the study of why people do things in the financial sense; cutting the GST was a perfectly sound economical move if it got PM Harper the results he intended. As for economics not being an exact science, I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of wheat in Saskatchewan. "He's educated in economics" means, he's educated in economics. He didn't spend six years or whatever it was playing tiddlywinks at university.

[tingbudong]

While Stephen Harper has a Master's degree in economics, I don't believe he has ever actually practiced economics in a professional setting. As far as I know he has been a career politician campaigning for the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives in some fashion since the late 80's. I don't think I would call him an economist. That's just me though.

[Frank]

"He's educated in economics" means, he's educated in economics.
Lots of people are educated in economics. Many of them agree with Harper; many do not. You're casting out the fact that he was so educated as proof that whatever he does is right. Because he was educated.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Bush has a MBA. Look what he did to the US economy.

[Cat Whisperer]

Lots of people are educated in economics. Many of them agree with Harper; many do not. You're casting out the fact that he was so educated as proof that whatever he does is right. Because he was educated.
I don't think I was doing that; I wasn't intending it, anyway. What I was intending was contrasting someone with a Master's degree in economics with someone with a PhD in history - I'll still take the economics degree over the history degree.

[Frank]

What I was intending was contrasting someone with a Master's degree in economics with someone with a PhD in history - I'll still take the economics degree over the history degree.
Ah, then I was misunderstanding you. I apologize. But I still don't agree. It really doesn't matter to me what a politician has a degree in, instead it matters what they stand for. Especially as very few politicians who have reached national leadership levels have been practicing in whatever career they may have studied in college, instead they have been practicing as career politicians.

And that said, a knowledge of history is not a bad thing for a politician to have. Nor is a knowledge of economics, for that matter. Nor a knowledge of any number of other things.

[Sam Stone]

The problem with quizzes like the CBC's is that they give all questions equal weight. But it's possible to be for the majority of things a party stands for, but still be opposed to them because you see the minority of issues you disagree with to be a big damned deal.

If you gave me the right set of questions, you could 'prove' that I'm a hard-core lefty. I support gay marriage, drug legalization, I'm not religious, I hate 'intelligent design' and any argument based on religion, and I don't much like social conservatism in general.

However, none of those issues are going to make or break the country. But let's say a party believed in all of those things, but also believed in economic and political isolationism. I would have to oppose that party. The one big thing outweighs all the others.

I probably agree with the liberals more than the conservatives on a plurality of issues, but then they come out and promise universal day care, or a long gun registry, or a host of wildly expensive 'green' projects, and they lose me. For all the things the Conservatives suck at, I simply trust them more to abstain from doing something really, really big and stupid.

I say that while acknowledging that the Chretien-Martin governments did a fine job of running the country - shrinking the size of government, lowering taxes, etc. Good on 'em. But my reading of the history of that administration suggests that it was really Paul Martin driving that whole show, and there were an awful lot of rank-and-file Liberals who bitterly disliked what he was doing. Martin's people are all gone, and I have no faith that the new bunch would be good stewards of the economy - and their current economic plan reinforces that impression.

The liberal platform includes cap and trade, higher corporate taxes, a big tax increase for the oil sands, and almost $3 billion in increased social spending. These are all wrong-headed policies, and they have huge potential impact on the economy and our fiscal situation. I could agree with them on just about everything else in their platform, and this stuff would push me to the Conservatives.

That kind of weighting won't show up in a quiz, because the quiz can't know how you evaluate the relative importance of issues.

[ThePylon]

Re: corporate tax fut rollbacks and dropping subsidies for the oil-sands: we are a social country and that takes cash. We've seen what lowering corporate tax rates to appease companies threatening to leave; just look at Ireland. They are flirting with natinal bankrupcy. As for the oil-sand subsidies: a lot of that's just increasing our share on the backs of Chinese owners. The oil is there and needs to come out. The funny thing about it is no matter how big a cut we take, it is still some of the best (if not cleanest) sources of oil in the world. Especially as the mid-east gcontinues to go through turmoil. Canadians will continue to work there and continue to make $Billions. Decreasing subsidies to the companies drilling will not drive them away.

[RickJay]

Chretien promised to abolish the GST, and didn't. Harper promised to lower the GST, and did.
Keeping a promise is admirable, but keeping a promise by implementing stupid policy is still stupid.

With regards to the CBC quiz, Sam makes a good point about the concept weight when it comes to political quizzes. The importance of an issue to the voter is just as important as where you stand on it.

With regards to the election, I have to admit the Liberals are running some very effective campaign ads on TV. They're making promises our nation's finances can't keep, of course, and so I think they're unmitigated bullshit - the "We'll give you four thousand bucks in your RESP, no problem" is particularly stupid when you stop and think about it - but the ads are some of the best ads I've seen in a Canadian election in years. The branding is excellent, the message is clear and consistent from ad to ad, they're wonderfully produced, and they're designed to take votes from both the Conservatives AND the NDP, which is the genius of it; the "Your family, your Liberals" tagline is sensational and clips the NDP's emphasis on "working class families" while also leveraging the perception of Harper and the CPC as mean. I haven't seen poll numbers lately but right now I'd say the Liberals have run the best campaign through Week 1.

Conversely, the Tories look stiff and are doing an uncharacteristically poor job of getting a coherent message out; they're spent way too much time blathering about coalitions. The NDP is definitely not getting a great message out, either; their ads are a bit too strident and in at ;east one case are just too transparently bullshitty (the health care ad, which seems to operate under the assumption that Stephen Harper is the Premier of all the provinces, rather than being the guy in charge of the federal government.)

[mnemosyne]

One Conservative ad that runs in French involves using a quote from Pauline Marois to somehow explain why the Bloc won't represent all the regions/rural Québec (an absurd premise to begin with, given their voting base but whatever). The quote is badly recorded and it took me several attempts to listen to the ad to figure out what Marois is saying, and when it finally clicked in my mind...it's such a complete nonsequitur to what the narrator was saying, that the ad still doesn't make any sense.

The French-language ads that I've seen by the Liberals are much clearer and to the point. I don't think I've seen a Conservative ad that wasn't an attack ad, and none with Harper speaking French so far. And small points to Ignatieff: his accent in French is adorable. I don't recall seeing any ads by the NDP or Greens at all so far. Then again, I kind of expect only the major two to pay for ads during hockey games, which is all I watch lately (so much homework...!!!)

[Malthus]

However, in spite of the lame Tory ads, they seem to be firmly in the lead.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-enter-second-week-with-commanding-14-point-lead/article1969494/

[RickJay]

Man oh man. If that's how Ignatieff's Liberals are doing after a GOOD campaign week, one wonders how they'll do when they make their first gaffe.

[Cat Whisperer]

I think most of the campaign ads I see are ridiculous and blatantly manipulative, but I did like the Conservative ad about Ignatieff - "He didn't come back for you." That just seemed to sum it up for me.

[The Tooth]

What did Harper do for me?

[RickJay]

These days, my standards are so low I just want them to not do anything TO me.

Today's National Post columns had a lot of criticism of Stephen Harper and the Conservative campaign. Words like "ridiculous" were used.

By comparison, the Star has pretty much abandoned even the pretense of being a newspaper and is now officially a Liberal Party campaign document. I used to think of the Star as being the Liberal rag and the Post as being the Conservative rag, with the Sun being a newspaper for children, but there's no longer a parallel, really; the Post has a position on things but they're reasonably honest about it, while the Star is amazingly dishonest, regularly - I mean every single day - presenting editorial opinion as fact and, on at least a weekly basis, just making shit up.

I never find the CBC biased because stacked against the Toronto Star, nobody could possibly look bad by comparison.

[Raygun99]

I used to think of the Star as being the Liberal rag and the Post as being the Conservative rag, with the Sun being a newspaper for children,

As a member of the Sun Media family, I resent that comment.

We're aiming at adolescents.

[Cat Whisperer]

What did Harper do for me?
What has Ignatieff done for you?

[Muffin]

What did Harper do for me?I think he has done a very good job at getting us through the international financial crisis. Yes, credit must be given to Martin, and to the general banking culture in Canada, but at the same time, I think Harper also deserves credit. BTW, I have never voted Conservative -- just calling it like I see it.

[Muffin]

Maclean's Paul Wells has written a couple of interesting articles. One on Ignatief (http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/14/flatlined/), and the other on Harper (http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/04/harpers-game/)

[Rysto]

Man oh man. If that's how Ignatieff's Liberals are doing after a GOOD campaign week, one wonders how they'll do when they make their first gaffe.
I think that your mistake is in believing that this was a bad week for the Conservatives and a good week for the Liberals. If the last election campaign showed us anything it's that the Conservatives understand Canadian voters better than the Liberals do right now.

[tingbudong]

I think he has done a very good job at getting us through the international financial crisis. Yes, credit must be given to Martin, and to the general banking culture in Canada, but at the same time, I think Harper also deserves credit. BTW, I have never voted Conservative -- just calling it like I see it.

Having piles of natural resources helps a bit too (especially of the black variety). That kind of export will slow down, but it is always in demand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting story on CBC about two students that were denied access to a Conservative rally because on their Facebook page they had pictures of themselves posing with Ignatieff.

Think this will get any play or will it slide off? I think that the Liberals could spin this into motivating the student vote.

Link (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/05/cv-election-harper-ignatieff-rally-923.html)

[Malthus]

Having piles of natural resources helps a bit too (especially of the black variety). That kind of export will slow down, but it is always in demand.


Sure, but having piles of natural resources did not prevent our economy from being in the crapper in the past ...

[Cat Whisperer]

Interesting story on CBC about two students that were denied access to a Conservative rally because on their Facebook page they had pictures of themselves posing with Ignatieff.

Think this will get any play or will it slide off? I think that the Liberals could spin this into motivating the student vote.

Link (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/05/cv-election-harper-ignatieff-rally-923.html)
That story doesn't pass the sniff test for me.

[Leaffan]

That story doesn't pass the sniff test for me.

Me either.

Pretty damned convenient that it just happened to be a Muslim woman who was kicked out.

For all I know right now, this could be a completely valid story, but something just doesn't sound right. Are the Facebook pages of all rally attendees typically reviewed? I would think not.

I don't know who might be behind this, but I'm guessing that she did something to intentionally get kicked out and then went straight to the CBC with the story.

I absolutely do not ascribe to conspiracy theories, but there's something else going on with this story.

[The Tooth]

I think he has done a very good job at getting us through the international financial crisis. Yes, credit must be given to Martin, and to the general banking culture in Canada, but at the same time, I think Harper also deserves credit. BTW, I have never voted Conservative -- just calling it like I see it.

What did Harper do, other than not fix something that didn't need fixing? And did he do it for me? Apparently, according to the Conservative ad mentioned above, I can expect federal politicians to do things for me. That seems to be the Liberals' big failing according to the Conservatives. Nothing to do with policy, Ignatieff's just a big meanie who didn't come back for us. Wah!

In other words, what a meaningless advertisement. Positively American in political content.

[ThePylon]

Sure, but having piles of natural resources did not prevent our economy from being in the crapper in the past ...

At $28 a barrel to extract, bitumen wasn't much of an economic saviour until the price shot over that.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

According to the Chronicle Herald (http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1236896.html), the conservatives also turned away a Dartmouth volunteer who helps homeless veterans from a rally in Halifax.

I hope the tightness of the control surrounding events featuring Prime Minister Harper will begin to count against him. Certainly Michael Ignatieff has displayed much more openness, as well as a lot of class when a man in Winnipeg refused to shake his hand. Rather than a Lucien Bouchard-style explosion, he merely said 'Enjoy your lunch.'

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Me either.

Pretty damned convenient that it just happened to be a Muslim woman who was kicked out.

For all I know right now, this could be a completely valid story, but something just doesn't sound right. Are the Facebook pages of all rally attendees typically reviewed? I would think not.

I don't know who might be behind this, but I'm guessing that she did something to intentionally get kicked out and then went straight to the CBC with the story.

I absolutely do not ascribe to conspiracy theories, but there's something else going on with this story.

Follow up story can be found here (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/05/cv-election-harper-ignatieff-rally-923.html?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d9b8311cc213923%2C0). It is also from the CBC, so if you discount them altogether as a news source, that's your call. However, I would point out that there is a quotation from John Baird -
Conservative candidate John Baird said Harper's spokesman Dimitri Soudas is planning on apologizing to Aslam. Contacted earlier Tuesday, Aslam said she hadn't yet heard from Soudas.But Baird wouldn't answer repeated questions from reporters at a press conference in Ottawa about why the students were thrown out and how the screening happens. If he'd wanted to deny the story altogether, that would have been a good moment. He does not seem to be denying the story. He went on to work in a shot about Michael Ignatieff's acomplishments while out of the country. Instead, Baird said Ignatieff shouldn't be criticizing Harper for un-Canadian actions after spending years outside of Canada.

"I just think that Mr. Ignatieff should be the last person in this country, certainly the last person in Canadian politics, to level charges at people and actions of being un-Canadian when he called the United States his country, when he talked down this country," Baird said, in reference to a comment Ignatieff made on U.S. television in 2004.

However, I think the best shot of the whole thing has been Mr. Ignatieff's But Ignatieff says Canadians are in a bad place "when you have got a prime minister who does a background check on his audience at a democratic crowd and doesn't seem to do a background check on the people he hires in his Prime Minister's Office, like Mr. [Bruce] Carson."

Awaiting further developments...

[RickJay]

It unquestionably happened, guys. The details are well described in major, reliable media sources. It's obviously an embarassment for Harper, and he'd be well advised to apologize (which the Conservative Party has already done, but he should apologize personally.)

[Malthus]

I don't see any reason to doubt it happened.

The problem for the liberals is that, so far, they are running a smoother and I think better campaign than the cons - but they just can't get any traction in the polls.

What they need is a real scandal - something with legs, that will last right to voting.

[Cat Whisperer]

I don't doubt *something* happened, but I am having a very hard time believing that it happened the way the media is describing it. Who in Harper's camp didn't know how this would play in the media? Why wouldn't they want Ignatieff supporters at their rally so they can convert them? I just feel we're missing some critical detail to make it make sense, because it doesn't make sense to me now.

[RickJay]

I don't doubt *something* happened, but I am having a very hard time believing that it happened the way the media is describing it.
What is it you doubt? What's unbelievable about it? Two women were told that they were known to have attended a Liberal rally and were told to get out. Some fool in security overreacted; nobody has suggested, nor is it even logical to assume, that Harper himself or anyone particularly close to him ordered the ejections. We know for a fact that people are vetted before attending many of the Conservative events. Perhaps most importantly, nobody in the Conservative camp has denied the claims. What's to doubt?

Anyway...

I agree with Malthus - to date the Liberals have run a much, much better campaign, a shockingly good campaign, and the Conservatives had made a series of gaffes. But Canadians just don't want Michael Ignatieff to be the Prime Minister.

Current www.threehundredeight.com projects the Tories will nab 154 seats, exactly half. And that's after a BAD week for the Tories. The Liberals need the Tories to keep screwing up, a lot.

However, there are some indications that overall numbers are trending towards a narrowing of the gap. It has to change a hell of a lot more for the Liberals to have a hope in hell, but it has changed a bit. I suspect this is a bad sign for the Liberals; if you have a great week, and the best thing you can say is "well, things have slightly narrowed a bit," what happens after you have a bad week?

We'll see. I'm amazed at how the Grits are outcampaigning the Tories so far - who knows, maybe the Tories will implode.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

To be fair, the Conservatives are afraid that they will be the subject of protests, heckling or that they will be punked by 'This Hour'. Certainly, I would welcome the opportunity to shake the hand of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and respectfully ask him something awkward like 'What is the truth about Afghan detainees being tortured? Why hasn't the government called a full inquiry instead of hindering the process?'. The fact that I would like to do this is why there are people whose job it is to keep me away from Conservative rallies. Sadly, those people seem to have been overzealous. Twice.

And now there's this ad, linked in the Globe and Mail article. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-accused-of-following-tea-partiers-script-in-new-ad/article1972359/) It does indeed look like a plagiarism of Tea Party Governor Tim Pawlenty's ad. It rather interferes with the message that Michael Ignatieff has spent too much time in the US, to have the Cons putting out this kind of dreck. I liked it much more when the Conservatives plagiarized the Australians.

And what the Hell is this sixty second tautology about, anyway? "Ocean. Snow. Canada. Hockey. When I speak, jets fly through the sky. Cowboys. Toronto. Proud. Vancouver. Prairie. Nonsense. Blather. Substance in five years when we balance the budget..."

I'm hoping the Conservatives continue with this election strategy.

[Cat Whisperer]

So that's the norm - if you're known to have attended a rival party's rally, you're not welcome at the other one? What's the news story then?

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

I wouldn't have said that was the norm for rallies. There are certainly events which are restricted to party members - conventions, nominations, some types of fund-raisers. Public rallies, though? I can't remember being at one where I've been asked to pre-register and be vetted at the venue. Anyone else? (I'm not trying to bait anyone, here - I'm genuinely curious....)

[Raygun99]

So that's the norm - if you're known to have attended a rival party's rally, you're not welcome at the other one? What's the news story then?

How did you get that it's the normal practice for all parties out of that?

[Spoons]

I wouldn't have said that was the norm for rallies. There are certainly events which are restricted to party members - conventions, nominations, some types of fund-raisers. Public rallies, though? I can't remember being at one where I've been asked to pre-register and be vetted at the venue. Anyone else? (I'm not trying to bait anyone, here - I'm genuinely curious....)I do recall an appearance by Pierre Trudeau at the University of Toronto's Scarborough College in about November, 1979. It was open to the public, unvetted; but needless to say, most of the audience was made up of university students. I was in the audience, being a U of T student at the time, and having classes at Scarborough, and being interested in the issues of the day. And besides, I wanted to hear Trudeau speak--regardless of what I may or may not have thought of him, he was a powerful orator and one I wanted to hear speak.

The hall where Trudeau spoke wasn't really a proper auditorium or hall at all, just a large area that hundreds of students passed through daily. On weekends, it was used for parties; at other times, it might have art exhibitions or tables set up for campus groups to promote themselves. If you're familiar with Scarborough College, it was the "Meeting Place." For Trudeau's appearance, though, it had a podium and chairs for the audience.

There was plenty of security. Uniformed RCMP officers and Metro Toronto police mingled with campus cops in and around the crowd. Not to be outdone by the professionals, the Student Council had also called out its bouncers; who were normally used for parties. Undoubtedly, there was plenty of unmarked security as well. After all, Trudeau was the PM at the time; and as head of government (and remember our timeframe--it hadn't been ten years since the FLQ crisis and Rene Levesque's Parti Quebecois was fanning the flames of separatism in Quebec and would hold a referendum on separatism a few months later, in 1980), he was a target. Not necessarily of the PQ, but of any crank or crackpot that wanted to take a shot at him. Naturally, there was plenty of media there as well: print, TV, and radio.

In addition, the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan a short time before. This bothered the Americans, and as their closest ally, what would Canada do? Trudeau wasn't saying--he was campaigning for re-election.

In the end, Trudeau spoke, took questions from the crowd, and provided the networks with an evening news broadcast, and the papers with something to report and comment on. But what they commented on was more than just what Trudeau said.

At some point during Trudeau's speech, a Conservative supporter unfurled a banner which read, "Trudeau Gutless in Face of Soviet Oppression in Afghanistan." This lasted only a moment or two, until one of the Student Council bouncers grabbed the banner and threw it away, grabbed the Conservative, and took him outside, where he and a few other bouncers did a number on him. As I recall, an ambulance had to be called.

This was the incident from Trudeau's 1979 Scarborough College speech that the TV and papers reported on. And the media had a field day: "Free Speech Dead at U of T" was one of the headlines I recall. Op-ed columnists of all political stripes nationally went crazy. The University itself was in an uproar.

In the end, things returned to normal, as they tend to do in Canada. We returned to classes. The election happened, Joe Clark's Tories won a minority, only to be defeated in a non-confidence vote when they introduced their budget a few months later. Another election was called. And history went on.

This may not be exactly what you're looking for, Le Ministre, but it's an example of--well, maybe not exactly a rally, but it's certainly something. Nobody was vetted prior to attending; it was open to all. Unfortunately, I cannot find any "easy" links to media reportage at the time, though I am certain it is available to subscribers of the major online media. But I was there, and I remember the incident. Heck, I watched it happen.

[ThePylon]

I'm no fan of Duceppe's politics, but this is pretty damn funny: "Harper should have invited Carson (Harper's much-maligned adviser) to a Conservative rally - then he would have been screened"

[Cat Whisperer]

How did you get that it's the normal practice for all parties out of that?
I'm trying to understand what happened at the rally, because as it is being reported, it doesn't make sense to me. I don't know what goes on at rallies or in the vetting for rallies. Either the Tory security was indeed overzealous (and shockingly blind to how it would play in the media) or it was simply business as usual.

[Raygun99]

Either the Tory security was indeed overzealous (and shockingly blind to how it would play in the media)

I guess, like RickJay, I'm finding it hard to understand why you find this possibility (which is what I believe happened) so hard to believe, especially when no one is denying it.

[ThePylon]

So what do you folks think about the contempt of parliament ruling?

The ruling was made by an impartial party (the Speaker). Would giving the Conservatives a majority be saying that being in contempt of parliament is acceptable to us?

Interesting opinion piece on this: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/going+reward+contempt+Parliament/4565800/story.html

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

So what do you folks think about the contempt of parliament ruling?

The ruling was made by an impartial party (the Speaker). Would giving the Conservatives a majority be saying that being in contempt of parliament is acceptable to us?

Interesting opinion piece on this: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/going+reward+contempt+Parliament/4565800/story.html

I'm disappointed that this issue has had so little traction in the press and in the polls. Does it reflect that we've come to expect no better from our Members of Parliament?

At any rate, no, re-electing the first government to be found in contempt of parliament in the Westminster system is not acceptable to me. Not even remotely.

[ThePylon]

Man oh man. If that's how Ignatieff's Liberals are doing after a GOOD campaign week, one wonders how they'll do when they make their first gaffe.

I guess we'll find out soon...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ignatieff-orders-probe-into-candidate-who-called-natives-featherheads/article1973158/

What a pinhead.

He should be gone.

[the Lady]

Yes - when I read the "featherheads" comment I was a bit surprised - then I read the article and discovered it's actually one of the candidates? Oy.

As with many of these gaffes, (no matter the party) I seriously have to wonder about the people involved - does no one stop to think "gee...how will this look on the front page of every paper in Canada?"

[Euphonious Polemic]

They're making promises our nation's finances can't keep, of course, and so I think they're unmitigated bullshit - the "We'll give you four thousand bucks in your RESP, no problem" is particularly stupid when you stop and think about it

I'm not sure why you think it is particularly stupid - have you looked into the details?

The plan includes dropping the current tax credit for the student amount and textbook amount. Essentially it takes the money that would have gone into the tax credits and reallocates it into grants that go into RESPs. The students would therefore get the money up front when they need it, rather than later on when they are employed, making money and are able to claim the unused portion of the tax credit.

Also, it would encourage lower income parents to set up an RESP - something that they are currently much less likely to do. This policy encourages good financial behaviour.

Granted, there are some problems with the plan; It would cost a bit more - but don't assume that it would amount to $4k per student - some of the costs are offset by the elimination of the tax credit.


Bottom line: Is this plan debatable? Yes. Is it "unmitigated bullshit when you stop and think about it? No.

I encourage you to actually stop and think about things before declaring them "bullshit".

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Yes - when I read the "featherheads" comment I was a bit surprised - then I read the article and discovered it's actually one of the candidates? Oy.

As with many of these gaffes, (no matter the party) I seriously have to wonder about the people involved - does no one stop to think "gee...how will this look on the front page of every paper in Canada?"

Not to mention the riding association...

For all that, Michael Ignatieff is doing the right thing by me - “The reported remarks of this candidate are utterly unacceptable,” Mr. Ignatieff told reporters outside of a co-op store in Compton, Que., Wednesday morning. “They do not reflect Liberal values.”

Mr. Ignatieff said “as soon as I heard these remarks had been made,” he ordered an immediate inquiry. And as soon as he finds out the facts, he said he would take “decisive action.”

Repudiate the remarks, investigate the circumstances and take action. Handled correctly, this could actually make him look good. Handled incorrectly, this is toxic.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Ooh, it didn't take them too long to produce this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6hDv6gCe1I)... "Hey Stephen Harper, stop creeping me on FaceBook"

[Malthus]

I guess we'll find out soon...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ignatieff-orders-probe-into-candidate-who-called-natives-featherheads/article1973158/

What a pinhead.

He should be gone.

How on earth did this guy get to be a Liberal candidate?

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Rick Mercer's special column in this week's Maclean's (http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/04/mr-harper-are-you-on-your-meds/) is also worth the reading.

[ThePylon]

As with many of these gaffes, (no matter the party) I seriously have to wonder about the people involved - does no one stop to think "gee...how will this look on the front page of every paper in Canada?"

I think this might be a reflection of the volunatry nature of campaigns. There's not a lot of vetting going on, and they can get desperate in some ridings for help. No excuse, though.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

In the 2008 election, the NDP lost a candidate in BC because he had posted footage of himself getting stoned while driving... Article about it here (http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=9547e047-c8c0-4825-abee-b941eb321dd1). Again, you'd think someone would have figured that one out before he embarrassed the party.

[RickJay]

How on earth did this guy get to be a Liberal candidate?
It's not as easy as you might think to find out what someone was doing a long time ago, if they don't volunteer it. We're not very far into the time of everything being online.

I don't see how one could blame Michael Ignatieff for this.

[RickJay]

So what do you folks think about the contempt of parliament ruling?

The ruling was made by an impartial party (the Speaker).
Just to be clear,

1. the Speaker, Peter Milliken, is a member of the Liberal Party and was the elected MP for the party from the riding of Kingston and the Islands. He's a good man and a dedicated speaker but he's not technically impartial.

2. The finding of "contempt of Parliament" was not made by the Speaker, it was a vote in the House of Commons. The Speaker did prima facie find a Minister, Bev Oda, in contempt, but not the government, and he also stated that the possibility of the government being in contempt should go to committee.

I don't mean to minimize the fact that the Conservatives really did hide stuff from Parliament, but the fact is that the "contempt of parliament" vote by the House is simply the opposition parties claiming it and collectively they had a majority. What the government did has been done on various issues and files before, but when the government holds a majority - which it usually does, of course - you can't have a "Contempt of Parliament" finding because the government won't let its own MPs vote that way.

That said, Oda should have been fired immediately, it reflects badly on Harper that he didn't fire her, and the government hiding stuff is bad, even if other governments have done it too. It merits serious examination of Harper's judgment as Prime Minister.

[Muffin]

Just to be clear,

. . . The Speaker did prima facie find a Minister, Bev Oda, in contempt, but not the government, and he also stated that the possibility of the government being in contempt should go to committee.And just to be clear, the larger contempt issue of non-disclosure was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This committee found the government in contempt. It was chaired by a Conservative, and had the same number of Conservatives sitting on it as all other parties combined. The Committee found the government in contempt. Following this, the House then found the government in contempt.

[ThePylon]

Just to be clear,

1. the Speaker, Peter Milliken, is a member of the Liberal Party and was the elected MP for the party from the riding of Kingston and the Islands. He's a good man and a dedicated speaker but he's not technically impartial.

I disagree. Regardless of his political origins, he was absolutely impartial, and was respected for being so by all parties.


2. The finding of "contempt of Parliament" was not made by the Speaker, it was a vote in the House of Commons. The Speaker did prima facie find a Minister, Bev Oda, in contempt, but not the government, and he also stated that the possibility of the government being in contempt should go to committee.

...

I don't mean to minimize the fact that the Conservatives really did hide stuff from Parliament, but the fact is that the "contempt of parliament" vote by the House is simply the opposition parties claiming it and collectively they had a majority.



Muffin addresses this and I agree - the finding was done by the committee (I stand corrected), then presented to Parliament. Parliament decided that the contempt determined that they no longer supported the Conservative party and the vote was held. They didn't claim it, they confirmed it.


That said, Oda should have been fired immediately, it reflects badly on Harper that he didn't fire her, and the government hiding stuff is bad, even if other governments have done it too. It merits serious examination of Harper's judgment as Prime Minister.

This I don't get - the one thing Harper semes to be a master at is keeping his folks in line (as someone who was involved with the Reform party years ago, I think he needs to be...). Where did that go with Oda? She seemed to have carte blanche to spin away, and dig her own grave and make the Conservatives look bad in the process.

[Malthus]

It's not as easy as you might think to find out what someone was doing a long time ago, if they don't volunteer it. We're not very far into the time of everything being online.

I don't see how one could blame Michael Ignatieff for this.

I for one don't blame Ignatieff, who no doubt had no idea (and could not be expected to).

I do have questions about the party machinery though. They should vet candidates more thoroughly to avoid surpises like this.

[the Lady]

Yes, just to clarify - I don't blame Ignatieff. Same as I don't blame Harper for everything. Yes, the leader is the head of the party, but they can't possibly know every single thing that is going on every day.

[RickJay]

I disagree. Regardless of his political origins, he was absolutely impartial, and was respected for being so by all parties.
I'm not suggesting Milliken did not act fairly or render a fair decision, but he isn't impartial. A person who is impartial has no stake or interest in the outcome; a member of a political party is not in a position of partiality.

I see no reason to think Milliken's decision was based on anything but the plain facts, but he is not, by definition, an impartial party. That's not his fault, obviously, he was doing his job.

This I don't get - the one thing Harper semes to be a master at is keeping his folks in line (as someone who was involved with the Reform party years ago, I think he needs to be...). Where did that go with Oda? She seemed to have carte blanche to spin away, and dig her own grave and make the Conservatives look bad in the process.
Harper is not the super duper political strategy genius he's made out to be. I don't know why he's earned a reputation among so many people for being the Sun Tzu of Ottawa, but he's made enough stupid mistakes to prove he's not, and this was one of them. I will grant that we don't know what was happening in caucus, and we can't know how throwing Oda to the wolves would have affected his relationship withthe rest of the party, but on the surface it's hard to imagine he could have come out any WORSE by jettisoning Oda, especially when Oda so obviously deserved to be shitcanned.

Well, you know, I take one thing back; I think I know why Harper has gained this reputation. It's just a matter of comparison:

- The Conservative/Reform/CRAP leaders prior to Harper were hopelessly not up to the task. Preston Manning seems like a decent man but he couldn't speak French and when he spoke English you wanted to shoot your TV, and he never seemed to be able to accept that the electorate's opinion was worth respecting.

- Stockwell Day was absolutely the least qualified person to ever lead a major political party at the federal level.

Compared to THOSE guys, Stephen Harper is great. Instead, it's the Liberals who have been saddled with a succession of bad leaders. Paul Martin had a fine career as a Cabinet minister but he seemed tired and quite possibly promoted past his level of competence; Stephane Dion is a wonderful person but just doesn't have the personality; Michael Ignatieff is a complete jackass. (Like the Toronto Maple Leafs, he seems to be able to play well when it's too late to win.) And twice now the change of leadership has been a nasty, unseemly backstabfest.

If the Liberals had nominated a good leader instead of Stephane Dion, they'd be winning this election.

[elbows]

Yes it happened, right here in lovely London, Ontario.

The girls pre registered online. Got to event, got ID badges, got admitted. Then they were told to 'come along', and hustled into a private room, where their badges were ripped from them and shredded while they were informed they were being effectively bounced. They both burst into tears, and were escorted off the premises. They bounced another guy, at the same event. He had an NDP sticker on his car. Pretty much identical procedure, minus the tears, of course.

I am disgusted. He's supposed to be a Prime Minister to all Canadians, not just the ones who vote Conservative. He feels threatened by a couple of coeds? How lames is that?

Talk radio, in this city, is getting a lot of steam out of these events.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Paul Martin had a fine career as a Cabinet minister but he seemed tired and quite possibly promoted past his level of competence; Stephane Dion is a wonderful person but just doesn't have the personality; Michael Ignatieff is a complete jackass. (Like the Toronto Maple Leafs, he seems to be able to play well when it's too late to win.) And twice now the change of leadership has been a nasty, unseemly backstabfest.

If the Liberals had nominated a good leader instead of Stephane Dion, they'd be winning this election.

It all started with Martin. Had the Liberals nominated a non Quebecker instead of him and maintained the proven historical winning strategy of choosing leaders alternately from Quebec and the ROC they wouldn't be in the mess they are in now. They probably got fooled because they may have thought that Martin with an anglo name might be acceptable.

I mean really, they've dominated Canada since confederation, even with the CCF and the NDP bleeding out their left wing support with respect to the Conservatives. That is until Martin. To continually lose out to the Conservatives is a new and solid trend









I say that with tongue in cheek. Or maybe not.

[RickJay]

It all started with Martin. Had the Liberals nominated a non Quebecker instead of him...
Although Martin at that time represented a Quebec riding, and although you're being sort of tongue in cheek, he's an Anglophone Ontarian. Born in Windsor.

[Muffin]

And U. of T. Psi Upsilon, along with the Torys, McMillian, etc., so although he was of French Canadian heritage, and ended up living in P.Q., his formative years were in Ontario WASP culture.

[ThePylon]

I'm not suggesting Milliken did not act fairly or render a fair decision, but he isn't impartial. A person who is impartial has no stake or interest in the outcome; a member of a political party is not in a position of partiality.

I see no reason to think Milliken's decision was based on anything but the plain facts, but he is not, by definition, an impartial party. That's not his fault, obviously, he was doing his job.



I think I will agree to disagree; though he was by definition a Liberal, I've heard and read enough said and written by folks such as John Baird (of all people) to believe he was completely impartial.

Harper is not the super duper political strategy genius he's made out to be.

I don't know if I'd say genius; in fact he's made plenty of mistakes, I agree. But he's been consistently absolute in his resolve. When he was President of the National Citizens Coalition, that served him well, I'm sure... as leader of the government, not so much.

[RickJay]

I think I will agree to disagree; though he was by definition a Liberal, I've heard and read enough said and written by folks such as John Baird (of all people) to believe he was completely impartial.
I don't think we're disagreeing, but arguing at cross purposes. You seem to be saying Milliken was fair and honest in his duties as Speaker. I heartily agree. Milliken was the most honest man in politics today. However, that's not the same as "impartial." If Milliken was impartial he could have run as an independent (and I suspect he'd have won, at least in the last few elections.)

Suppose, to use an analogy, I volunteer to umpire my daughter's T-ball game. While I can be fair and honest in my duties as an umpire (Whcih of course I would be) and an external observer might watch and conclude I made every call fairly, I cannot be impartial. Impartiality is a matter of circumstance, not behaviour.

[ThePylon]

I noticed that the Liberals released their platform on a Sunday (to get in into the beginning of week cycle and have it followed all week) and the NDP are slated for this Sunday (likewise, I assume). So I wondered - why would the Conservatives release on a Friday, where editors go to bury stories (as less attention is paid on the weekends). It seems there's a reason: it appears as though they are pulling some of this out of their asses:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/08/what-changed-in-the-last-17-days/

They found an extra $8 Billion sitting around over the last 17 days. Impressive!

[Euphonious Polemic]

They found an extra $8 Billion sitting around over the last 17 days. Impressive!

Wow! Maybe they checked behind the cushions on the couch, or perhaps had a look in Harper's sock drawer for change.

A more likely guess is that they are inflating projections of future government income beyond any reasonable expectation, and/or planning even more cuts to public services that they have neglected to tell anyone about.

[Cat Whisperer]

What changed? Would it be too simplistic to say the price of oil (currently at $112/barrel USD)?

[Leaffan]

What changed? Would it be too simplistic to say the price of oil (currently at $112/barrel USD)?

No, the savings will come from strategic reviews, program cuts, and attrition of public service employees apparently.

To think that any incumbent government would not put cost savings into their election platform is a little naive. It happens all the time.

[RickJay]

No, the savings will come from strategic reviews, program cuts, and attrition of public service employees apparently.

To think that any incumbent government would not put cost savings into their election platform is a little naive. It happens all the time.
It's equally naive to believe it. Everyone pulls this "we'll save billions by just cutting waste" baloney, and it never happens.

It takes guts to come out and say "We're gonna cut spending but actually cutting spending" but I guess none of the parties have any guts, except the NDP, who seem to just openly say they're gonna tax and spend like crazy bastards. You have to give them credit for being straightforward about it.

[Raygun99]

It's the courage of people who know they're never going to be called on to fulfill their promises.

[elbows]

Prime Minister Harper will be meeting with the girls that were bounced from his event, for their picture with Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff (aka Iggy!) posted on Facebook. A date has not been set, but his campaign will swing back around here before they're done. The PM announced that he'd directed his RCMP detail to not roust the voters please. On last night's news was tape of him directing, his people, to see those protesters get into his latest stop. It could seriously not have looked more staged.

One of the girls made it clear to the PM's office, when contacted about an apology, that she was not interested in a photo op, that she just wanted a couple of questions answered. We'll see how this plays out, should be entertaining.

[Max the Immortal]

I noticed that the Liberals released their platform on a Sunday (to get in into the beginning of week cycle and have it followed all week) and the NDP are slated for this Sunday (likewise, I assume). So I wondered - why would the Conservatives release on a Friday, where editors go to bury stories (as less attention is paid on the weekends). It seems there's a reason: it appears as though they are pulling some of this out of their asses:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/08/what-changed-in-the-last-17-days/

They found an extra $8 Billion sitting around over the last 17 days. Impressive!

It's actually rather clever; the headlines read "Tories vow to eliminate deficit early". Never mind that it's only compared to the distant projection they previously came up with, it's still "early".

[mnemosyne]

Why would the Conservatives have "mandatory drug testing for prison inmates" as a platform point? I mean...they're in prison. How about better security/procedures/etc to prevent drugs from getting into prisons? Is it even that big an issue, for it to be part of an election platform? And what happens if a prisoner is tested and is found to be on drugs...he/she goes back to prison? Where they are able to get drugs anyways? So free money to drug testing laboratories, but no cure for the problem of drugs getting into prisons in the first place?

Either this is the dumbest bullet point ever, the news article I got it from misstateed it, or I missed some other aspect to it that might make it make sense to me. Does anyone know more information about this?

[Muffin]

The theory is that if you can keep the prisoners off drugs while they are in prison, fewer of them will take up drugs again once they are out of prison.

I think that is a little simplistic, for it does not address the entire lifestyle that goes along with the prison drug culture, and continues after release.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

I think it does play well with voters who are of the opinion that prisoners have it too easy. It also reinforces the idea that we 'need' new prisons that are more secure.

In terms of fact, this doesn't pass my smell test. I think this is pandering to the voter base, pure and simple.

[Cat Whisperer]

Oh my God! Politicians in an election cycle pandering to voters! Stop the presses!


:D

[newcomer]

Oh my God! Politicians in an election cycle pandering to voters! Stop the presses!


:D Well, doing the way Harper is... kinda creepy...

http://www.therecord.com/print/article/514465

[tingbudong]

I think it does play well with voters who are of the opinion that prisoners have it too easy. It also reinforces the idea that we 'need' new prisons that are more secure.

In terms of fact, this doesn't pass my smell test. I think this is pandering to the voter base, pure and simple.

I agree. It always boggles me that so many folks believe prisons are some sort of Club Med. They are fairly awful places...even with cable TV.

Frankly, the whole 'new prisons' platform kind of freaks me out a bit. Once you go down this road and pony up the hard/soft infrastructure it's quite difficult to change directions especially when local economies (often depressed in the first place) become tied to the prison-industrial complex. It will just keep getting bigger and bigger until it becomes to big to die.

[newcomer]

Just to summarize the link to article - Conservatives are promising to establish Ministry for Religious Freedom. Some of the qutoes from always subtle Immigration Minister Jason kenney:

Perhaps there are some rabid secularists out there who don’t understand there are a lot of vulnerable religious minorities under attack around the world,
...
To those people who would challenge it because they are uncomfortable with religious faith, I would say, ‘Get over it’. We’re talking about fundamental rights here.

:smack:

I just wonder at what point will decent folks draw a line...

[RickJay]

The article obviously says nothing of the sort.

What it says is that they're saying they will "create an office" within an existing Ministry (Foreign Affairs) that will monitor issues of religious freedom, with a very modest budget.

Saying that they're planning on creating an entire Ministry when what they're doing is just reassigning a few bureacrats is analogous to confusing a nuclear weapon with a Bic lighter.

[newcomer]

The article obviously says nothing of the sort.

What it says is that they're saying they will "create an office" within an existing Ministry (Foreign Affairs) that will monitor issues of religious freedom, with a very modest budget.

Saying that they're planning on creating an entire Ministry when what they're doing is just reassigning a few bureacrats is analogous to confusing a nuclear weapon with a Bic lighter. While I may have described it somewhat eerily (for the effect) your analogy is not doing it the justice either.

Just the idea that such an office will be created within Foreign Affairs Department strikes me as odd, unncessary and obvioulsy created to derive partisan emotion from a wedge issue plus some payback for all the money that are going into Conservative's campaign.

Also, it comes from the quarters of influence that is gaining strength in Canadian politics - the same ones that made Bev Oda insert "NOT".

John Torry had an idea — funding for religous schools — from the same quarters of influence and it ended badly. My hope that the voters will recognize this and act responsibly.

[Cat Whisperer]

He's not talking about religious freedoms in Canada; he's talking about religious freedoms around the world, which actually is a big deal in any foreign affairs programme - do you want to try and deal with a country like Iran without addressing religious freedoms? It really is about basic human freedoms in that scenario.

[RickJay]

While I may have described it somewhat eerily (for the effect) your analogy is not doing it the justice either.
With due respect, your description was not for effect, it was misleading (if iunintentionally so) and factually wrong. "Creating a Ministry" is a huge, huge step that would cost billions, and is extremely different from what they actually said. Assigning a few guys in an office to a project at a cost that would barely be noticed in any federal ministry is a move of no significance at all.

Also, it comes from the quarters of influence that is gaining strength in Canadian politics - the same ones that made Bev Oda insert "NOT".

John Torry had an idea — funding for religous schools — from the same quarters of influence...
Yeah, because Ontario doesn't fund religious schools.

Oh, no, wait, we do. They're called separate schools. We've been funding them for generations. What Tory was proposing was that all Ontarians be treated equally, and that rather than just having state-supported schools for Roman Catholics, we have them for all. Dalton McGuinty opposed equality in this regard, using a little Islamophobia to help win the argument, I might add. McGuinty, I cannot help but notice, is Catholic, and his wife is employed by a separate school board, but I assume that had absolutely nothing to do with his opposition to equal treatment for all Ontarians and his stance that only Catholics should get taxpayer money for their religious indoctrination of children.

Of course, my preference would be secular state schools and nothing else, but fair is fair and what we have is not fair, while what Tory proposed is fair (even if ill-advised in other respects.) Are the "quarters of influence" the quarters that think everyone should be treated equally under the law?

[Muffin]

While I may have described it somewhat eerily (for the effect) You deliberately misconstrued it without providing a direct cite to it.

[Muffin]

I wonder if the televised debate will be bumped for the Habs game?

Either that, or hold it between periods, and include Grapes: “I’m wearing pink for all the pinkos out there that ride bicycles and everything . . . . I've been ripped to shreds by the left-wing pinko newspapers out there . . . . Put that in your pipe, you left-wing kooks."

[antonio107]

I wonder if the televised debate will be bumped for the Habs game?

Either that, or hold it between periods, and include Grapes: “I’m wearing pink for all the pinkos out there that ride bicycles and everything . . . . I've been ripped to shreds by the left-wing pinko newspapers out there . . . . Put that in your pipe, you left-wing kooks."

Lol. I had the Canucks game on in the background, and I seem to recall hearing SOMETHING about the debates preempted by the debates. Is there a CBC2 where we can watch the hockey game? :D

[newcomer]

Dalton McGuinty opposed equality in this regard, using a little Islamophobia to help win the argument, I might add. Cite?

[mnemosyne]

Interesting when you think about it - the Green party polls about 6-7% Canada-wide, but can't get their leader in the debates because they officially have no seats. The debate is scheduled to coincide with the start of the playoffs? Sure, we can change the date (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/habs-v-election-debate-french-language-debate-moved-to-wednesday/article1979036/), not a problem!

What an interesting world we live in!

Go Habs, go!

[kushiel]

I wonder if the televised debate will be bumped for the Habs game?

Either that, or hold it between periods, and include Grapes: “I’m wearing pink for all the pinkos out there that ride bicycles and everything . . . . I've been ripped to shreds by the left-wing pinko newspapers out there . . . . Put that in your pipe, you left-wing kooks."

Yup yup, Duceppe got his way. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/10/cv-election-debats-duceppe.html)

[Muffin]

Yup yup, Duceppe got his way. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/10/cv-election-debats-duceppe.html)From your link to the CBC report:
Duceppe called on the other party leaders to present a united front to put pressure on the broadcast consortium to make the change — and the other parties weren't about to disagree.

NDP Leader Jack Layton said he suspected a "very large number of people" would choose to watch the game between Montreal and Boston.

”Were I not in this election, I might well make the same decision,” he joked.

Dimitri Soudas, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's spokesperson, echoed Layton's comment in a post on Twitter Sunday: "These decisions lie with the television networks. We'll be there on the days they choose."

Martin Cauchon, the Liberal candidate in the Montreal riding of Outremont, told reporters the Liberals strongly support the debate being moved.Hey, that's a coalition between the Bloc, NDP and Liberals, led by the Bloc, and not opposed by the Conservatives!

[kushiel]

From your link to the CBC report:
Hey, that's a coalition between the Bloc, NDP and Liberals, led by the Bloc, and not opposed by the Conservatives!

*laughs* I said Duceppe because the article did focus on him, and it's funnier to think of the Bloc being the ones fussing over the French debate. He'd probablyjust shrug if the playoff game was on the English debate day.

[Frank]

Interesting when you think about it - the Green party polls about 6-7% Canada-wide, but can't get their leader in the debates because they officially have no seats.
"Officially" have no seats? The Green Party has no seats. Period.

[Cat Whisperer]

They should have the debates *after* a hockey game - that might actually induce some people (the ones who have misplaced their remotes) to watch it.

[mnemosyne]

"Officially" have no seats? The Green Party has no seats. Period.

Well, yeah. But there was that one time, with the independent guy who became Green or something. I don't know what I was writing, really! It's still a little funny.

[Frank]

Well, yeah. But there was that one time, with the independent guy who became Green or something. I don't know what I was writing, really! It's still a little funny.
Ah. He never actually sat. The independent Blair Wilson (who left the Liberals in 2007 before he got kicked out) joined the Green Party on August 31, 2008, and lost his seat on October 14th. Yeah, his story is mildly amusing.

Personally, I'd think it was funny if some Green Party candidate won a seat, resigned in favor of May, and she lost the by-election because nobody liked her.

Maybe that's just me. ;)

[Euphonious Polemic]

Personally, I'd think it was funny if some Green Party candidate won a seat, resigned in favor of May, and she lost the by-election because nobody liked her.

Maybe that's just me. ;)

I think it would be absolutely hilarious if there had been a proper investigation into the criminal phone fraud that occurred in Gary Lunn's riding last election. (http://mikewatkins.ca/2008/10/14/telephone-fraud-in-conservative-gary-lunns-riding/)

Also perhaps a proper investigation into Gary Lunn's campaign breaking spending limits (http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Federal-Politics/2009/03/23/SiskayQuestionLunn/) by improperly using third parties to buy signs and election ads.

Funny as hell that would be. Too bad nobody is particularly interested in looking into election fraud.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Tories misled Parliament on G8 spending: Auditor-General (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-misled-parliament-on-g8-spending-auditor-general/article1979865/)


The Harper government misinformed Parliament to win approval for a $50-million G8 fund that lavished money on dubious projects in a Conservative riding, the Auditor-General has concluded.

And she suggests the process by which the funding was approved may have been illegal.

In a nutshell, the government tabled supplementary spending estimates that requested $83-million for a Border Infrastructure Fund aimed at reducing congestion at border crossings.

However, it was always the intention of the government to devote $50-million of that money to a G8 legacy fund in Huntsville, which is nowhere near the Canada-U.S. border.

The conservatives misled Parliament on a budget matter.

Question: Does this sort of thing even matter anymore? Or is the election simply to be decided on how many scary pictures and insults to Ignatieff the Conservatives can come up with?

[Leaffan]

Tories misled Parliament on G8 spending: Auditor-General (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-misled-parliament-on-g8-spending-auditor-general/article1979865/)



In a nutshell, the government tabled supplementary spending estimates that requested $83-million for a Border Infrastructure Fund aimed at reducing congestion at border crossings.

However, it was always the intention of the government to devote $50-million of that money to a G8 legacy fund in Huntsville, which is nowhere near the Canada-U.S. border.

The conservatives misled Parliament on a budget matter.

Question: Does this sort of thing even matter anymore? Or is the election simply to be decided on how many scary pictures and insults to Ignatieff the Conservatives can come up with?
Seems fair that if you're going to pick and choose which quotes to include, then I should too.
Conservative cabinet minister John Baird reacted quickly, saying the contents of the final report are different from the draft report. Specifically, he said the final report doesn't say the government “misinformed” Parliament.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Forgive me if I don't believe a word John Baird says. ETA: (or maybe he's right - the report does not say "misinformed". Maybe it says "lied" or "misled" or "misdirected" or "spewed a bunch of crap".)

I have not trusted him since he broke international law by defying the Kyoto protocol (of which Canada is a signatory). The protocol legally requires signatory countries to set up compatible carbon trading markets.

In direct defiance of this international legal obligation, in March 2007, Baird indicated that he wanted Canadian companies to be banned, or at least severely restricted, from participating in the international carbon market.

But hey - he's a Climate Change denier, so if he wants to break international commitments - who can blame him?

[Max the Immortal]

[Nitpick mode]
Conservative cabinet minister John Baird reacted quickly, saying the contents of the final report are different from the draft report. Specifically, he said the final report doesn't say the government “misinformed” Parliament.

I noticed that the Globe says (in the article linked above) that Baird made statements regarding the final draft of the report, while the CBC reports (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/11/cv-election-ag-report-reaction-1244.html) that Baird said that he hasn't seen the final draft. The Globe article has an earlier timestamp, too. "I told you what was not in the report. I don't have the authority to release subsequent drafts. I haven't seen the final draft," Baird said.


In this twelve-minute clip (http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/1221254309/ID=1877293318) of Baird talking to reporters, he's very careful to not claim that he's seen the final draft. He referes to a later draft, not the final draft. Around 6:00 in he says he's seen "a more final report" but that he hasn't seen the final draft.

[/Nitpick mode]

[mnemosyne]

How plausible is it that the Auditor General completely changed all the facts and conclusions she wrote up from one draft to another?

[Leaffan]

Well, obviously changes can be made as the document goes through the revision process. Here's a link (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/leakwatch-so-why-cant-sheila-fraser-just-release-the-final-version-of-the-g8-report.html) that includes a statement from the office of the Auditor General.

We work very hard to keep our reports confidential before they are tabled. There are indications that an early draft of this report may have been released by someone outside our Office. Our normal audit process requires that we share early drafts of our reports with government departments. We do this so they can validate the facts on which our conclusions are based, provide any additional relevant information, and so they can prepare responses to our recommendations. Sometimes during the process of fact validation, additional information is brought to our attention. Only the final report that is tabled in Parliament represents our audit findings and conclusions.

There must be something in this report, but it sounds doubtful that it will be officially released prior to the election.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Has John Baird seen any other draft of the report? If so, how, legally? Has he seen the final draft of the report? Perhaps the conservatives would like us to believe that Sheila Fraser is biased, brain-washed by the left wing media.

It seems much more likely that John Baird is trying to 'mislead' until after the election. It's okay - lots of good people have had their names cleared after the election is over. Ralph Goodale is a prime example. If he ever got the front page 20-point type apology he deserved, I seem to have missed it.

[the Lady]

I don't believe Sheila Fraser is able to release the final report until Parliament is sitting again. So, after the election.

[Euphonious Polemic]

I see the official spin from Baird now is that the money that was not spent on anything to do with the G8 summit was simply a gift to the region "to thank the greater region of Muskoka for hosting the summit.”

Nothing to see here. Just gift giving to the nice folks from Muskoka.

Curiously, Baird did not seem to explain why this "gift" money actually came from supplementary spending estimates that requested $83-million for a Border Infrastructure Fund aimed at reducing congestion at border crossings.

[Max the Immortal]

And now, this:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/11/cv-election-weston-ag-fraser.html
Auditor General Sheila Fraser has written a scathing letter rebuking the Conservatives for misquoting her in a parliamentary report on the costs of the G8/G20 summits in Toronto last summer, CBC News has learned.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

I see the official spin from Baird now is that the money that was not spent on anything to do with the G8 summit was simply a gift to the region "to thank the greater region of Muskoka for hosting the summit.”

Nothing to see here. Just gift giving to the nice folks from Muskoka.

Curiously, Baird did not seem to explain why this "gift" money actually came from supplementary spending estimates that requested $83-million for a Border Infrastructure Fund aimed at reducing congestion at border crossings.



Nor does it explain why the conservatives gave city of Toronto the steam off their piss, despite hosting the G20 and suffering the worst of the vandalism and police excesses.

[Euphonious Polemic]

And now, this:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/11/cv-election-weston-ag-fraser.html

Auditor General Sheila Fraser has written a scathing letter rebuking the Conservatives for misquoting her in a parliamentary report on the costs of the G8/G20 summits in Toronto last summer, CBC News has learned.

It's actually worse than a simple mis-quote.

The report quoted the auditor general as saying: “We found that the processes and controls around that were very good, and that the monies were spent as they were intended to be spent.”

In actual fact, this quote of Fraser's had nothing whatsoever to do with the recent G-8 summit; it was from an interview she gave with CBC News on security spending by a previous Liberal government after the 9/11 terrorist attacks a decade ago.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

In actual fact, this quote of Fraser's had nothing whatsoever to do with the recent G-8 summit; it was from an interview she gave with CBC News on security spending by a previous Liberal government after the 9/11 terrorist attacks a decade ago.

That's gotta be really embarrassing; when the best quotation you can come up with from the Auditor General is from the previous Liberal government and you're desperate enough to use it anyway.

The current conservative party has clearly learned everything they know about ethics from Brian Mulroney.

[mnemosyne]

Which is slightly terrifying, when you take into the account today of Mulroney implying (or someone choosing to infer, at least (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/972525--mulroney-shows-his-unease-with-harper-s-tories?bn=1)) that he's not too pleased with the current conservative party!

Seriously, it's not alleged conservative principles that worry me (even the social conservatism, as backwards as I think a lot of it is). It's this party, these people - it just all feels like a power grab, with lies, denial, cover-ups. Sure it's happened before and it will happen again, but that's no reason we need to tolerate these people any longer. I want my government to at least pretend they're doing the right thing, you know?

[Euphonious Polemic]

I want my government to at least pretend they're doing the right thing, you know?

At least they are being honest, and admitting that they are rewarding support with tax money: (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Tories+stimulus+cash+political+weapon+campaign+trail/4593889/story.html)

“If you look across the country, where the Conservatives have had strong representation, a lot of projects have taken place,” said Smith, who resigned from the Senate to run for the Tories in Montreal’s West Island. “But it’s normal that you are going to focus on the areas with the people that do support you.”

[Muffin]

Paiken's TVO interview of Mulroney: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVrubDd_mqI

Mulroney says who he will vote for at 20:23. I think the Star is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, for throughout the interview, it is obvious that Mulroney is taking the long view of a senior statesman, as opposed to the view of someone running for election.

[RickJay]

I have not trusted him since he broke international law by defying the Kyoto protocol....
Canada was already in defiance of the Protocol before the Conservatives took power; we essentially ignored our commitments starting the day after we signed.

According to the Protocol there was supposed to be demonstrable progress by 2005. There was effectively none; Canada in particular did nothing, and overall carbon emissions were soaring.

I'm not saying the Conservatives don't have a bad reputation in this regard but dude, Kyoto was as dead as dogshit before they took over. The idea was nice but it quite obviously was stillborn.

The Conservatives are happily digging their electoral grave on other issues, but this one seems to me to miss a greater point. Indeed, whereas there are legitimate criticism of their honesty, with regards to Kyoto they're refreshingly honest; the protocol was a sad joke and a complete failure.

[Rysto]

Which is slightly terrifying, when you take into the account today of Mulroney implying (or someone choosing to infer, at least (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/972525--mulroney-shows-his-unease-with-harper-s-tories?bn=1)) that he's not too pleased with the current conservative party!

We're talking Brian Mulruney here? He's probably just upset that he has little-to-no pull with the Conservative party on account of him being a crook.

[newcomer]

At least they are being honest, and admitting that they are rewarding support with tax money: (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Tories+stimulus+cash+political+weapon+campaign+trail/4593889/story.html) It’s a sad state of affairs when the most you can tell about someone is not on the account of what they say makes sense but rather that they are being honest. Like, you know he`s a racist and bigot but at least he is being honest.

And today`s article headline in Globe and Mail has got to be one of the most surreal in recent memory - Five years later, Tories see their ethical advantage slip away (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/five-years-later-tories-see-their-ethical-advantage-slip-away/article1981301/)

They never had any ethical advantage to speak of and, it did not "slip away", it stormed off in a fury.

[RickJay]

They never had any ethical advantage to speak of
Er... in the context of wha the Globe article is talking about, elections, obviously the Conservatives had an enormous edge on the Liberals in the 2006 campaign, when the Liberals were drowning in scandal and the Conservatives had been out of power for so long there was nothing about them to be scandalized about. How is that not an edge?

[Leaffan]

Not to mention that this particular variant of the Conservative Party had never been in power, and were starting with a clean slate.

[newcomer]

Er... in the context of wha the Globe article is talking about, elections, obviously the Conservatives had an enormous edge on the Liberals in the 2006 campaign, when the Liberals were drowning in scandal and the Conservatives had been out of power for so long there was nothing about them to be scandalized about. How is that not an edge? It is not in a sense that in order to be comparable at a point in time (5 years ago) both sides should have a demonstrable record of governing where one record of governing shows to be ethically better than the other at the same job. Since Conservatives as such did not have experience to speak of there was no ethical advantage to speak of. They had, at best, potential to be better. As demonstrated (5 years later) they suck big time.

Or, as John Tory on his radio talk show yesterday called – and I`m paraphrasing - that`s what always happens with a ruling party (my point he is only saying that now that Conservatives blew it).

[newcomer]

Not to mention that this particular variant of the Conservative Party had never been in power, and were starting with a clean slate. Well, that slate while "clean" was quite ugly. Now it's deep in the mud.

[Malthus]

Or, as John Tory on his radio talk show yesterday called – and I`m paraphrasing - that`s what always happens with a ruling party (my point he is only saying that now that Conservatives blew it).


Absolutely, it seems part of the Canadian political experience that the party in power grows more corrupt in time - Libs, Cons both do this. When corrupt enough, the public gets pissed off enough to turf the bums out and elect the other set.

The question is - why, according to the polls, is this not happening now?

To the point - so far the Libs have run a tight campaign, whereas the Cons have not - they have lots of scandals to explain, their attack ads suck balls, and Harper as usual exudes negative charisma (remember last time, when they tried making him look human by putting him in a sweater? :D ).

Yeah, all this is true ... and still they are not dented in the polls. Even with all the crap pulled by the Cons, with an unsympathetic PM making shitty attack ads, overall people don't want the Libs in power.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/305586

Why is that?

I put it down to the notion that, overall, Canadians feel that while they do not love their government one bit, they love the alternative even less. Harper may be an autocratic bastard, but at least he appears to be in charge - Canadians seem to like that in a leader (after all, they liked Trudeau, who was every bit as much an autocratic bastard - albeit one with charisma too). With Iggy, you get the sense he's been imported for his resume. He's not a career politico (all the better for him personally, but still). The impression is that he's just a mouthpiece.

Combine that with the economic thing. Canucks are taxed to the limit already - or at least, feel like they are, which amounts to the same thing politically speaking. We came out of the recession in okay shape overall (the Cons may take credit for that, but much of it is surely owed to the previous Libs) but shaky on our pins ... the last thing Canadians overall want is an orgy of public spending (which is why the recent Con frolic of pork-barrelling hurts 'em - albeit pretty minor). The feeling is that a Lib gov't, particularly a Lib gov't beholden to the NDP and the Block (whether in actual coallition with 'em or not), will spend like a drunken sailor on his last night in a Manilla brothel before the Japanese invasion ...

In short, Canucks will but up with (albeit not love) a tight-fisted autocratic bastard, and perhaps even love a free-spending autocratic bastard who also has some sort of claim to charisma and political vision (who can convince 'em that they are opening their wallets for some sort of social purpose), like Trudeau. They will not vote en mass for a guy they think is a mouthpiece who promises free spending but doesn't appear to have a real grip on his *own* party, much less one probably beholden to *two other* parties, one of which is socialist to a degree most find unreasonable and the other of which wants to break up the country.

[Leaffan]

Well, that slate while "clean" was quite ugly. Now it's deep in the mud.

Nah. They're not deep in the mud, and the latest polls (http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/polls.html) will tell you that.

CON 41%
LIB 30%
NDP 15%
BQ 8%
GRN 5%

The Liberals and the left-biased media are throwing anything and everything at the wall right now and trying to get something to stick: very little has.

[The Tooth]

59% of whoever was polled dislike the cheating dishonest Conservatives. There's hope for my country yet. Not my province, though. Alberta should just import some guns and some armadillos and call itself "L'il Texas" officially.

[Cat Whisperer]

That's about it, malthus. I hate all the corrupt shit that the Conservatives seem to be doing (I say "seem" because it's awfully convenient timing for all of this to be coming out at this exact moment), but I am afraid that a Liberal government will ruin us as a country. I'm not alone in thinking that Liberals in power will mean NEP II: Electric Boogaloo and that will be a Very Bad Thing for all of us, not just people in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

[RickJay]

It is not in a sense that in order to be comparable at a point in time (5 years ago) both sides should have a demonstrable record of governing where one record of governing shows to be ethically better than the other at the same job. Since Conservatives as such did not have experience to speak of there was no ethical advantage to speak of. They had, at best, potential to be better. As demonstrated (5 years later) they suck big time.
I don't think you understood the Globe article you claim to be so wrong. They're taking about having an edge in the context of an election, in the ability to win votes.

They weren't saying which side was actually more ethical.

Alberta should just import some guns and some armadillos and call itself "L'il Texas" officially.
Accusing people who disagree with you of being somehow less Canadian than you are is not an admirable approach to political discourse.

[lexi]

I am sick of the irrational fear of another National Energy Program. It is as if the province is afraid the ghost of Pierre Elliott Trudeau is going to rise from the grave & steal all the oil & take all their jobs away.

Perhaps nobody here has noticed that more than just Alberta has oil now, there is oil in B.C. and Saskatchewan now.

Also it seems that they have no clue that the west has far more power than it did in the 1970's and 1980's.

Even if the NDP got in power, there is no way an NEP like program would be put in place.

It is a strawman being promoted by the far right to scare people here into voting Tory.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

'To wear a shirt that's relatively clean
You needn't even launder off the dirt
If you have two shirts to choose between
And always change into the cleaner shirt."
- Piet Hein, "A Grook with nothing whatsoever to do with the two party system."


Here's hoping there will be some good points raised at the debates over the next two nights.

[Malthus]

'To wear a shirt that's relatively clean
You needn't even launder off the dirt
If you have two shirts to choose between
And always change into the cleaner shirt."
- Piet Hein, "A Grook with nothing whatsoever to do with the two party system."


Heh, brilliant aphorism. Very appropriate. :D

[Cat Whisperer]

I am sick of the irrational fear of another National Energy Program. It is as if the province is afraid the ghost of Pierre Elliott Trudeau is going to rise from the grave & steal all the oil & take all their jobs away.

Perhaps nobody here has noticed that more than just Alberta has oil now, there is oil in B.C. and Saskatchewan now.

Also it seems that they have no clue that the west has far more power than it did in the 1970's and 1980's.

Even if the NDP got in power, there is no way an NEP like program would be put in place.

It is a strawman being promoted by the far right to scare people here into voting Tory.
Jack Layton wants to eliminate $2 billion in subsidies for oilsands. (http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/QPeriod/20110331/ndp-layton-110331/)

Ignatieff wants to stop oil shipments from being shipped from the West coast, and cap-and-trade policies put in place. (http://www.calgaryherald.com/story_print.html?id=4552528&sponsor=curriebarracks)The federal Liberals plan to establish a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, formalize a ban on crude oil tankers moving through the West Coast, and develop a clean energy partnership with provinces, territories and industry....the most contentious section of the Liberals’ environmental platform proved to be the promise to introduce a cap-and-trade system, a mechanism that limits the amount of greenhouse gas emissions by large industries and auctions off permits to companies who can trade and stay within the law.

A look at some opinions on cap-and-trade policies. (http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/Liberal+environmental+policy+will+erode+living+standards/4587919/story.html)

Then there's the whole idea that natural resources are supposed to be the jurisdiction of the provinces, not the federal government.

I would dearly love to see the oil and gas industries properly regulated and large efforts put into making them more environmentally sound, but putting a large, federal government boot on the neck of the oil and gas industry is not the solution.

[Frank]

I'm watching/listening to the debate on www.cbc.ca and they're occasionally popping up a survery question. Can't they tell I'm not in Canada, and won't be able to vote? I'm answering anyway. :D

[Frank]

For those of you who have a better view on TV, is Harper wearing a Canadian flag lapel pin?

[Cat Whisperer]

I'm watching/listening to the debate on www.cbc.ca and they're occasionally popping up a survery question. Can't they tell I'm not in Canada, and won't be able to vote? I'm answering anyway. :D
Are they asking for your postal code? Just use H0H 0H0. :D

[Frank]

Are they asking for your postal code? Just use H0H 0H0. :D
No, they're not. I'd just go dig up my old one in Ottawa.

Duceppe's suit looks horrible. He's asking decent questions, though.

[Frank]

No, they're not. I'd just go dig up my old one in Ottawa.
Come to think of it, that's what I did for the political compass thing. There must be a cookie remembering it.

[RickJay]

Crap. I had it in my head the debate started at 8 and I missed 45 minutes of it.

[Frank]

Crap. I had it in my head the debate started at 8 and I missed 45 minutes of it.
Hah. I'm missing The Simpsons for it!

You missed 45 minutes of Layton just flat out kicking ass, by the way. :p

[Frank]

Harper has just pissed me off.

It is not valid for a coalition to take the government if no party in that coalition has won the most seats. Duceppe: "You're full of something!"

Canada's government depends on winning the confidence of the House.

[RickJay]

The immigration debate is surreal. Since when did we stop letting people immigrate? 2010 saw the highest level of immigration into Canada in my lifetime.

Jack Layton - not just tonight, but repeatedly throughout the campaign - keeps making promises that the federal government will do things that are provincial responsibilities. It's funny that there's so much talk about Constitutional issues when it comes to Parliament, buit evidently not when it comes to the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments.

[RickJay]

Oh, and four people's too many.

[Frank]

Oh, and four people's too many.
I agree, but I don't see how it can be avoided as things stand now. (Layton's support of proportional representation would make things even worse.)

[Gorsnak]

I agree, but I don't see how it can be avoided as things stand now. (Layton's support of proportional representation would make things even worse.)

Easy. Tell Duceppe he can't join the party unless he runs candidates in every riding in the country. :)

[Frank]

Crap. I had it in my head the debate started at 8 and I missed 45 minutes of it.
You must not be the only one. The video has just flat out died on me in the last 20 minutes. Audio is OK, thankfully.

[Ike Witt]

Easy. Tell Duceppe he can't join the party unless he runs candidates in every riding in the country. :)

Doesn't that mean that the Green party should be there then?

[Gorsnak]

Doesn't that mean that the Green party should be there then?

Only if that's the only criterion. I actually don't have any problem with 5-way debates, I was just taking a cheap shot. :)

[Ike Witt]

I just noticed Duceppe saying "the provinces and Quebec".

[Cat Whisperer]

I just noticed Duceppe saying "the provinces and Quebec".
He also says, "Canada and Quebec."

[Frank]

He also says, "Canada and Quebec."
Yes. He's not won my vote.

[Ike Witt]

I wonder, with the right platform could he get the average Canadian to vote for Quebec sovereignty?

[Cat Whisperer]

"NDP will never cut taxes." Hee!

How does Gilles Duceppe talk about a Federal government wasting money with a straight face, when Quebec is sucking down billions and billions of dollars of transfer payments every year (and then turn around and tell us how Quebec needs to be its own country)?

Oh, I recall a couple of years ago when PM Harper actually did officially recognize Quebec as a nation. Big fat liar Duceppe.

[Cat Whisperer]

I wonder, with the right platform could he get the average Canadian to vote for Quebec sovereignty?
Now, *that* would be an interesting vote!

[RickJay]

"NDP will never cut taxes." Hee!

How does Gilles Duceppe talk about a Federal government wasting money with a straight face, when Quebec is sucking down billions and billions of dollars of transfer payments every year (and then turn around and tell us how Quebec needs to be its own country)?
Because to his target voter, all money is wasted that isn't given to Quebec. As odious as he is, at least he's upfront about it. The fact that the taps would be turned off if Quebec gained independence isn't relevant; once that happens, Quebecois are... ah, what the the phrase? Lobsters in a pot. Transfers won't be an issue anymore.

If Quebec could get more money by having a nuclear weapon explode in Winnipeg, Gilles would pass out the sunglasses.

[Ike Witt]

How does Gilles Duceppe talk about a Federal government wasting money with a straight face, when Quebec is sucking down billions and billions of dollars of transfer payments every year (and then turn around and tell us how Quebec needs to be its own country)?

I used to say if they really want to go, let them go. How long can they go being the spending black hole that they are? Quebec needs the rest of us, and we need them.

[Frank]

"NDP will never cut taxes." Hee!
As honest as anything. Given the social goals of the NDP, they cannot cut taxes, and at least they're not claiming that they will do so.

Well, I think Ignatieff didn't do bad at all. Harper struck me as passionless, and how does one convince voters to support you if you're not passionate about your beliefs? While Layton and Duceppe asked good questions, neither is going to be the next Prime Minister.

I'm still inclined to think that I would vote NDP, and would be mildly content with a Liberal government.

[Leaffan]

Layton: Embarrassing. You are the weakest link: goodbye. (And did he suddenly shrink by a foot, or what?)
Duceppe: Mailing it in.
Ignatieff: My 13 year old daughter asked "Who's the meanie? And who's voting for him?" Meh. He was all right and if he was PM I wouldn't defect.
Harper: Hate to say it folks, but he was the most poised.

I expect Conservative results to be higher tomorrow.

[Baffle]

Layton: Embarrassing. You are the weakest link: goodbye. (And did he suddenly shrink by a foot, or what?)
Duceppe: Mailing it in.
Ignatieff: My 13 year old daughter asked "Who's the meanie? And who's voting for him?" Meh. He was all right and if he was PM I wouldn't defect.
Harper: Hate to say it folks, but he was the most poised.

I expect Conservative results to be higher tomorrow.

I think a lot of people have so far only known of Ignatieff through mockery of his resume and foreign credentials. Seeing him speak intelligently and even score a few zings on Harper might just have the opposite effect.

I also wonder how Steve Paikin felt, with all of the early references to the G20 -- he after all, was one of the journalists harassed and intimidated last summer in Toronto, witnessing Steven Harper's brand of democracy in action.

[RickJay]

The blog/chatosphere seems to think Layton performed best, Harper acceptably, Ignatieff badly. Duceppe, who cares.

I only saw half of it but I'd generally agree - not based on whose stuff I agree with more, but in terms of presentation, comfort, clarity and message delivery, I thought:

- Layton was much improved from previous debates; he was less strident and offended than in previous debates (that still came out a little) and bested the others, especially Ignatieff. I was quite impressed. The problem facing the NDP leader is trying to explain that the NDP is a valid choice without sounding indignant about it, which usually means telling the existing Opposition leader that he's arrogant. Layton did that much better this time than in 2008, and benefits from the fact that Ignatieff actually does seem arrogant, unlike Stephane Dion, who didn't. Layton stayed on message without sounding canned. It was the best job of his career. His attack on Ignatieff's attendance record was a brilliant late-round uppercut.

- Harper was about as good as his personality and the circumstances allowed, but that doesn't allow him the dynamism Layton can demonstrate. Given that he really has no excuse regarding the various ethical matters that arose in Parliament he did about as good a job as could be expected trying to deflect those, but it doesn't score you any points; Harper just took punches well, he wasn't landing many. The sitting PM is always on the defensive but in a way that might help Harper avoid his greatest weakness... the perception that he's Mr. Angry. When he's perpetually defending he has to stay calm, and it benefits him.

- I thought Ignatieff struggled a bit with his delivery and stayed on talking points too long, making him sound canned. That's strange because the talk about him on the campaign trail is how at ease he's been. His closing remarks were really bad and he needs to work with a coach on his facial expressions. He has more ammunition to throw at Stephen Harper than Arnold Schwartzenegger could carry but I thought he kept using the same phrasing too much. Rather than repeating over and over that the Conservatives help Parliament in contempt, an abstract concept that the polls show has little traction, he should have spent more time saying what they'd done to result in that finding - lies, withholding documents, Bev Oda. He did mention them but not enough.

- Gilles Duceppe's a traitor so screw him.

[The Tooth]

Accusing people who disagree with you of being somehow less Canadian than you are is not an admirable approach to political discourse.

I didn't accuse anyone of being less Canadian than me; I'm sure the citizenship of my fellow Canadians living in Alberta is as valid as mine. Please don't make things up and pretend I said them. Just because I see similarities between Albertan backwardness and the apparent (never been there, just know what I see on the news) backwardness prevalent in the southern US doesn't mean I think other Alberta residents are less Canadian than me.

[Frank]

Layton: Embarrassing. You are the weakest link: goodbye. (And did he suddenly shrink by a foot, or what?)
Layton did debate extremely well. His problem is that most Canadian don't agree with the views of his party, and given that, he argued those views with vigor and enthusiasm.

While he may not have gained the NDP seats (which, if so, will be the first time since he's been leader), he didn't lose any either.

I saw something on the CBC (before I got cut off) about simultaneous translation into English of the next debate. That's on the 15th?

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

I don't think there was anything in the debate that will change anyone's mind. My conservative friends are trying to convince me that Mr. Harper 'won', my impression is that Michael Ignatieff is by far the most intelligent leader with the best platform,... No knockout punches, no major gaffes, a couple of good one liners.

Frank - the French debate is tomorrow; in French on Radio-Canada and TVA, in English (simultaneous translation) on CBC (English).

[Cat Whisperer]

There were a few laugh out loud moments from the debate, so I have to thank the leaders for that. I was wondering why Premier Stelmach wasn't there to represent Alberta's interests like Duceppe was.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

There were a few laugh out loud moments from the debate, so I have to thank the leaders for that. I was wondering why Premier Stelmach wasn't there to represent Alberta's interests like Duceppe was.

I though Mr. Harper was there to represent Alberta's interests... :D

[Cat Whisperer]

I though Mr. Harper was there to represent Alberta's interests... :D
You're a funny guy, but you know looks aren't everything. :D

<snip> my impression is that Michael Ignatieff is by far the most intelligent leader with the best platform,... No knockout punches, no major gaffes, a couple of good one liners.<snip>
I don't doubt that Ignatieff is the most intelligent guy in this race; I just think it's moot.

[Ike Witt]

If there were any justice, the debate tomorrow would not be translated in to English.

[Frank]

I was wondering why Premier Stelmach wasn't there to represent Alberta's interests like Duceppe was.
As much as I disagree with the BQ, they are, in fact, a federal political party with representation in Parliament, and Mr. Duceppe is the leader of that party. Can Premier Stelmach say the same?

[Frank]

If there were any justice, the debate tomorrow would not be translated in to English.
Was tonight's not translated into French?

[Leaffan]

Layton did debate extremely well. His problem is that most Canadian don't agree with the views of his party, and given that, he argued those views with vigor and enthusiasm.

While he may not have gained the NDP seats (which, if so, will be the first time since he's been leader), he didn't lose any either.

I saw something on the CBC (before I got cut off) about simultaneous translation into English of the next debate. That's on the 15th?

It appears he did indeed do well. I didn't see it. I found him to be embarrassingly naive. So, I suppose that points to his disparate political views from mine.

I tried to take off my blue coloured shades, but it really is hard to be objective. I trust we all fall for the same selection bias, whether or not we care to admit it.

[Cat Whisperer]

As much as I disagree with the BQ, they are, in fact, a federal political party with representation in Parliament, and Mr. Duceppe is the leader of that party. Can Premier Stelmach say the same?
I was being facetious; I think it would be very interesting if we had another federal party that was as blatantly representative of one particular province as the Bloc (and no, the Conservatives are not representative of Alberta - you could argue that the Conservatives are more representative of all of Canada than any other party).

[Ike Witt]

Was tonight's not translated into French?

I assume it was and it shouldn't have been. We are supposed to be bilingual after all.

[mnemosyne]

As much as I disagree with the BQ, they are, in fact, a federal political party with representation in Parliament, and Mr. Duceppe is the leader of that party. Can Premier Stelmach say the same?

Thank you.

Was tonight's not translated into French?

I believe it was, on TVA, but I didn't watch it to be sure. I missed most of it due to schoolwork, and so I can't comment on the debate. I'm not even sure I'll be able to watch the French one tomorrow - too much studying to do.

[mnemosyne]

I used to say if they really want to go, let them go.

Most Quebecers don't want to go. But please don't let that stop you - or others in this thread - tarring us with the same brush. :rolleyes:

[Frank]

We are supposed to be bilingual after all.
Well, we're not. Neither in Quebec nor Manitoba. What we are supposed to be is to be accepting, to make allowances, and so on.

[straight man]

First time watching the Canadian debates! Much like the American ones, except I actually cared. Anyway, I thought Layton came across as smarmy, the other three did fine, and there was nothing terribly decisive. CBC has been kind enough to provide a fact-checking (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/realitycheck/2011/04/fact-checking-the-leaders-debate.html) service on their website, of which I approve.

I'm definitely warming up to Ignatieff —but of course, my Liberal bias doesn't really help me.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

If there were any justice, the debate tomorrow would not be translated in to English.

Why do you say that? I honestly don't get your point of view. Are you saying we should not need it translated?

[Cat Whisperer]

Both debates are translated both ways, are they not?

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Well, we're not. Neither in Quebec nor Manitoba. What we are supposed to be is to be accepting, to make allowances, and so on.

In New Brunswick, the province is officially bilingual.

[Frank]

In New Brunswick, the province is officially bilingual.
As should all provinces be. Regardless, that's not a big deal to me. What is a big deal to me is that a French speaker in Calgary, and an English speaker in Gatineau should be able to receive identical government services in their language.

Two official languages does not mean that all Canadians should be able to speak both; it means that whichever of those languages a Canadian speaks that they can receive local, provincial, or federal government services in the language they prefer.

[mnemosyne]

But there is no requirement that any individual in any province - including New Brunswick - actually be bilingual. The province offers services in both languages, and both are taught in schools across the country (and yes, English is taught in Québec, just as French is taught in Manitoba or wherever).

Not that this is news to anyone.

[Muffin]

Most Quebecers don't want to go. But please don't let that stop you - or others in this thread - tarring us with the same brush. :rolleyes:Most do not want to go, but at the moment 47 of 75 Quebec seats in the House of Commons are held by the Bloc, which most certainly does want to go, as is set out in it's election platform: http://www.blocquebecois.org/document.aspx?doc=84D7BA77-686E-4367-8063-DFBC477E0114 (pdf download).

[Cat Whisperer]

Most do not want to go, but at the moment 47 of 75 Quebec seats in the House of Commons are held by the Bloc, which most certainly does want to go, as is set out in it's election platform: http://www.blocquebecois.org/document.aspx?doc=84D7BA77-686E-4367-8063-DFBC477E0114 (pdf download).That's only in French. Is there an English version that I could read?

[antonio107]

As should all provinces be. Regardless, that's not a big deal to me. What is a big deal to me is that a French speaker in Calgary, and an English speaker in Gatineau should be able to receive identical government services in their language.

Two official languages does not mean that all Canadians should be able to speak both; it means that whichever of those languages a Canadian speaks that they can receive local, provincial, or federal government services in the language they prefer.

I would say that's a bad example, since Gatineau is part of the National Capital Region, and is for all intents and purposes part of Ottawa, and has a fair number of Anglophones. Your point is taken, nevertheless. Outside of large urban areas, however, it's simply not feasible. When I went to conduct business in Gracefield townhall in Quebec once, I had to use my grade 9 pigeon French; it's simply not practical to mandate employees speak English for a population that's 99% French. But in large metropolises? Sure, why not.

[Polycarp]

"Officially" have no seats? The Green Party has no seats. Period.

Stupid question, perhaps, but I don't have a whole lot of Canadian-centric news sources available: I thought the Greens won a seat somewhere improbable, e.g., Nunavut, last election. (NOT the Independent guy, an actual Green candidate winning a seat)


===========

For all of that, what exactly is Duceppe's platform? My impression was that the Bloc were seeking Quebecois "nationhood" as opposed to independence -- something like what Catalonia has in Spain, or Scotland in the UK: a separate identity within Canada. Am I wrong on this?

[Cat Whisperer]

I used to say if they really want to go, let them go. How long can they go being the spending black hole that they are? Quebec needs the rest of us, and we need them.
I forgot to ask you about this - what do you think the rest of Canada needs Quebec for?

[Muffin]

That's only in French. Is there an English version that I could read?I don't think there is -- you'll have to run it through a translator. In and around page 17 is the meat of the sovereignty position.

[Muffin]

I forgot to ask you about this - what do you think the rest of Canada needs Quebec for?One could ask that about any region of the country.

[Cat Whisperer]

Stupid question, perhaps, but I don't have a whole lot of Canadian-centric news sources available: I thought the Greens won a seat somewhere improbable, e.g., Nunavut, last election. (NOT the Independent guy, an actual Green candidate winning a seat)


===========

For all of that, what exactly is Duceppe's platform? My impression was that the Bloc were seeking Quebecois "nationhood" as opposed to independence -- something like what Catalonia has in Spain, or Scotland in the UK: a separate identity within Canada. Am I wrong on this?
I found some information on the Bloc in English (http://www.blocquebecois.org/dossiers/campagne-2011/documents/EnoncePolitique-Anglais.pdf) - they are definitely still separatists.

Québec will only truly be free once it has decided to create a sovereign nation.

[Cat Whisperer]

One could ask that about any region of the country.
The other regions of Canada all contribute to the cohesiveness of our country with the give and take that that involves, without constantly demanding special treatment and considerations. I think if you want to be demanding all kinds of special things, it's fair to ask what you're doing to deserve those.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

Stupid question, perhaps, but I don't have a whole lot of Canadian-centric news sources available: I thought the Greens won a seat somewhere improbable, e.g., Nunavut, last election. (NOT the Independent guy, an actual Green candidate winning a seat)
No.

For all of that, what exactly is Duceppe's platform? My impression was that the Bloc were seeking Quebecois "nationhood" as opposed to independence -- something like what Catalonia has in Spain, or Scotland in the UK: a separate identity within Canada. Am I wrong on this?
The Bloc is a bit of an odd party, and there's a disconnect between its official platform and what it actually does. To really understand you'll need a short history lesson. When the Parti québécois won its first majority government in 1976, there was talk by some sovereigntists to start a federal party, so sovereigntist Quebecers wouldn't have to vote for Trudeau's Liberals. (At the time the Liberals had the vast majority of Quebec's seats as the Conservatives were still perceived as the anti-French party.) The Rhino Party, which you may have heard of, had actually been previously formed by writer Jacques Ferron both to mock politics, especially the Liberals, and express the fact that as a sovereigntist, he shouldn't have to vote for them. Of course the Rhinos weren't a plausible alternative. No such party was formed, Trudeau was reelected in 1980 and was an important player in the defeat of the 1980 referendum. A few years later Brian Mulroney appeared on the federal scene and was interested in a new federal deal that would actually solve both Quebec's desire for sovereignty and the West's alienation. Mulroney's Conservatives won vast majorities in 1984 and 1988, with help from Quebec nationalists who were willing to give them a chance, but the new deal failed and a few Quebec Conservative and Liberal MPs bolted to form the Bloc with a few other people (notably Duceppe, who was first elected in 1990).

So at the time, the Bloc was clearly a sovereigntist party and its goal was to speak for the sovereigntist movement, until such a time as a next referendum was won. It was very successful, actually forming the Official Opposition. The PQ came back to power in 1994 and held a referendum in 1995, but while the "Yes" vote was much higher than in 1980, it was still short of a majority. So now what was the Bloc to do? These politicians had to justify their jobs, and given that even on a bad day independence can poll from 35 to 40% in Quebec, these people wouldn't go back to voting for federalist parties. So the Bloc tried to juggle both being a parked vote for sovereigntists (which means officially supporting Quebec independence) and working within the federal government's framework to extract the best deal possible for Quebec. And since there is no change to the constitution in sight, this mostly means getting money. It's a bit of a schizophrenic goal, but that's what the Bloc has been doing for 15 years. They cannot do anything for independence, but they're still obligated to officially support it.

Even though the English Canadians in this thread say the Bloc wants to "break up the country" and that Duceppe is a "traitor", I get the impression that this isn't what they really dislike about that party. It's the fact that while the other parties do not (officially) support one province over all others, the Bloc is unapologically all for Quebec. It's viewed as an unfair advantage. Of course, the Bloc's response to this would be that all other parties are led and largely staffed by non-Quebecers, who don't know anything about Quebec's economy and culture, and who will therefore favour the rest of Canada if only through ignorance. And that even when Quebecers actually voted for federalist or pan-Canadian parties (see: the 1970s and 1980s), the federal government was actively working against their provincial government and their interests as a nation, with no Quebec MP able to say anything about it. For this reason, the Bloc is needed. It's actually a compelling argument, and the main reason why I vote Bloc most of the time, even though I'm not really in favour of their goals, their current emphasis on money for Quebec makes me really uncomfortable, and I would welcome some sort of reconciliation with the rest of Canada if they'd just accept what we are and leave us be, the way we already mostly leave them be.

So what's the future of the Bloc? It will probably remain as a parked vote for sovereigntists, as long as these sovereigntists are there. I note that the NDP's Quebec strategy is starting to bear fruit, with it gaining votes in Quebec at the expense of the Bloc. (Maybe I'll look wholly predictable if I say that the Bloc and the NDP are the two parties I'm thinking of voting for this election, but that's because I'll be voting in Gatineau and if Françoise Boivin is again running for the NDP, she both has a chance and would once again make a great MP.) The NDP, of course, isn't far from (the urban wing of) the Bloc socially and economically, Jack Layton is very popular in Quebec, and the NDP, despite being a left-wing party which is usually more centralizing -- see Ed Broadbent, who amazingly was also popular in Quebec -- has expressed tolerance for the fact that Quebec is in many ways different from the rest of Canada and there may not be only one way for the whole country. matt_mcl might be able to say more about this. On the other hand, like the Bloc the NDP has no chance to form the government, not alone anyway. So we'll see where that leads us.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

So the Bloc tried to juggle both being a parked vote for sovereigntists (which means officially supporting Quebec independence) and working within the federal government's framework to extract the best deal possible for Quebec. And since there is no change to the constitution in sight, this mostly means getting money.
I'm too late for the edit window, but here I'm talking a bit too much like an English Canadian. What the Bloc actually does is make itself the mouthpiece of the Quebec government, even when (as now) this government is actually federalist. Jean Charest's government currently wants for Quebec (who was the first province to harmonize its sales tax) the same kind of money the other provinces then got for doing it, and so the Bloc's main talking point in this election -- other than the risk of a Conservative majority -- is this. I think Charest has also criticized the federal government's giving money for the Lower Churchill hydro project in Labrador, and he's also been joined by Duceppe in this. It is schizophrenic to have an officially sovereigntist party make itself the mouthpiece of a federalist government, but that's the role the Bloc has given itself.

As should all provinces be.
I disagree, but whatever. Even the federal government probably shouldn't have to offer services in both official languages all the time. I know I wouldn't dare go to Calgary, even in a federal government office, and speak French. And if I try it's likely I wouldn't find anyone who'd be able to talk to me, official bilingualism or not.

Two official languages does not mean that all Canadians should be able to speak both; it means that whichever of those languages a Canadian speaks that they can receive local, provincial, or federal government services in the language they prefer.
Federal. (Local and provincial are other things.) And as I've said, even despite the fact that it's the stated policy of the federal government, I'm not convinced it's really evenly applied, or should be.

I would say that's a bad example, since Gatineau is part of the National Capital Region, and is for all intents and purposes part of Ottawa, and has a fair number of Anglophones.
Now please don't say such things. Gatineau is a suburb of Ottawa, and is part of the National Capital Region, but it's not "part of" Ottawa. I come originally from Gatineau, and I'm a Quebecer, definitely not a Franco-Ontarian. You may not be able to see the difference, but believe me it is there.

And despite the fact that Gatineau has a fair number of anglophones, it's still largely a French-speaking city, and part of Quebec. I remember Sunspace starting a thread about having gone to Ottawa and being amazed at how "bilingual" the city was, with street signs in both languages, and hearing people speak French on the street. I didn't post anything in that thread, especially since it's true that the greater Ottawa-Gatineau region is bilingual and bicultural. But Ottawa is an English-language city with a French-speaking minority. Francophones in Ottawa are ethnics. I am not.

This said, I don't have any problem with anglophones living in Gatineau being able to get services in English from the municipal government, regardless of whether the city is officially bilingual or not. It shouldn't be hard anyway. Francophones in Ottawa getting services in French from the municipal government is probably much harder, even through the city is officially bilingual, but probably feasible anyway.

I don't think there is -- you'll have to run it through a translator. In and around page 17 is the meat of the sovereignty position.
It's interesting that the Bloc is placing its constitutional position around page 17 of its official platform, if that's supposed to be what this party is all about. I think that ties in with my previous message.

[ThePylon]

No.

I would welcome some sort of reconciliation with the rest of Canada if they'd just accept what we are and leave us be, the way we already mostly leave them be.


I think this is the problem. I think you've summed up the issue Quebecers have with the rest of Canada. The problem here is - the ROC keeps saying "What are you on about?". In our opinions (I don't mean to speak for all of us, but, truly - this is the case), we have no problem accepting who you are and letting you be. How is that not the case in Quebecers perception?

[ThePylon]

As to the debates, I thought Layton and Ignatieff did quite well. Harper seemed like he was on quaaludes. Duceppe was funny and astute - though the stuff on reasonable accomodation made me uncomfortable.

All that to say - I would not be surprised if the political landscape settles pretty much exactly how it was before the election was called. In accordance with threehundredeight.com - I think the Harris Decima poll is about right where we'll be on May 2nd: 144 seats for the Conservatives, 87 for the Liberals, 44 for the Bloc Québécois, 32 for the New Democrats, and one independent. I think Ontario may go a few more Liberals at the expense of the Cons. And the Cons get a few more here and there to offset. And that's about it. No clear mandate to anyone, and no way for anyone to for a clear alternative government. I guess it'll be interesting?

[Raygun99]

I disagree, but whatever. Even the federal government probably shouldn't have to offer services in both official languages all the time. I know I wouldn't dare go to Calgary, even in a federal government office, and speak French. And if I try it's likely I wouldn't find anyone who'd be able to talk to me, official bilingualism or not.

Oh, of course you could. Don't be silly.
And not for nothing, but French is a language I hear on the streets here with increasing frequency.

[RickJay]

I forgot to ask you about this - what do you think the rest of Canada needs Quebec for?
What a strange question. Are we now going to divvy up the nation based on who we think we need and don't need? Is this "Survivor"?

You seem to think Quebec is unique in being demanding. Come on. What the hell does Newfoundland do for me? When was New Brunswick last a net contributor to the country's finances? What good are the territories?

I want Quebec to be part of Canada because it's full of Canadians.

[Leaffan]

I want Quebec to be part of Canada because it's full of Canadians.

We'd lose a lot of great hockey players too. ;)

[the Lady]

I know I wouldn't dare go to Calgary, even in a federal government office, and speak French. And if I try it's likely I wouldn't find anyone who'd be able to talk to me, official bilingualism or not.


Of course you could! You might have to wait a little bit longer til a French speaking person was available to help you, but it's not like they'd unleash the hounds!
Heck, on Sunday at Aggie Days (agriculture-themed show for kids) at the Stampede Grounds I directed someone to the pancake breakfast in French.

[mnemosyne]

Most do not want to go, but at the moment 47 of 75 Quebec seats in the House of Commons are held by the Bloc, which most certainly does want to go, as is set out in it's election platform: http://www.blocquebecois.org/document.aspx?doc=84D7BA77-686E-4367-8063-DFBC477E0114 (pdf download).

47 of 75 seats, yes, but voted in on 38.1% of the popular vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2008#Results_by_province). Saying the Bloc represents all Quebecers is like saying the Conservatives represent all Canadians. The actual voter numbers don't support that. The majority of Quebec votes were split across federalist parties.

There are also many people who vote for the BQ not because of the sovereignty issue, but because they have been pretty successful in improving life for Quebecers and, as I've said before, people who vote for them feel that their representatives in parliament should - and do - represent them.

Also note, as mentioned, that the provincial government is currently a Liberal majority, attained after one (or was it 2 - seems I'm always voting lately) Liberal minority governments. The PQ at the time received 35.15% of the popular vote. Keep in mind that the political position of the PQ is kind of like the Conservatives at the federal level, in the sense that there isn't really a viable third option. It's well-known that many people will vote for one party as a measure of punishment for scandals, greed or failures of the other party, not because they necessarily agree with sovereignty. All the other issues in a platform also come into play.

Besides, in the unlikely event that sovereignty were to occur, it won't be due to the words or actions of the members of the Bloc on Parliament Hill. It won't be due to the actions or words of the PQ in the Assemblé Nationale. It will be due to the population choosing to go down that path; and the majority of the population does not want to go down that path.

[elbows]

Gilles was killing me with that laboured 'just give us the money, let us do what we want', thing on health care. Sheesh, he seems to want no accountability, just keep the money coming! As though Quebec was not notoriously thick as theives with corruption, but, no, no, don't ask any questions.

What province wouldn't want this deal? Just cut us a check, and then stay out of it, would ya?

Colour me unimpressed.

[Cat Whisperer]

What a strange question. Are we now going to divvy up the nation based on who we think we need and don't need? Is this "Survivor"?<snip>Now, there's an interesting idea! Survivor Canada!

[Baffle]

Now, there's an interesting idea! Survivor Canada!

If we got to vote for the unceremonious exit of whomever we liked least, the Conservatives would disappear first. ;)

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

I want Quebec to be part of Canada because it's full of Canadians.

A way better answer than anything I could have come up with.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Now, there's an interesting idea! Survivor Canada!

I've wanted to have one for years. Just think - if those bimbos ran around Manitoba with their groodies hanging out like they do in all those other locations, they'd either be mosquito food or frozen, depending on the time of year.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

Oh, of course you could. Don't be silly.
Well, I said I wouldn't dare speak French in Calgary (unless I'm sure my interlocutor is francophone), which is true. That's what I did when I actually was there in 2006. To me Calgary is deep in your part of Canada, so not a place for French. Even in Ottawa I rarely speak French with someone I don't know, unless I'm sure it's their first language.

In New Brunswick (an officially bilingual province) I usually speak French when I'm in a francophone city, and English when I'm in an anglophone city. It just makes sense. It gets complicated with bilingual cities like Moncton, but I tend to default to English out of the perception that anglophones might not speak French, or want to hear it even if they do speak it, while francophones (especially outside Quebec) just don't care. And bilingual cities like Moncton and Ottawa are usually more English than French anyway, since they attract people from the rest of the (mostly English-speaking) province, so I'm putting luck on my side.

In Quebec though, even in Montreal, I default to French unless my interlocutor clearly doesn't speak it. In Pontiac I'd probably feel shy going with French first, but then force me to do it as a matter of principle. So that's my policy regarding language borders, in Canada at least.

And not for nothing, but French is a language I hear on the streets here with increasing frequency.
I am aware that a number of young Quebecers are moving to Alberta because of the economic strength over there. But does it translate to more public servants who can actually serve the public in both languages? I'm not sure, and as I've said it's definitely not something that I expect, despite Canada being a bilingual country and everything.

What the hell does Newfoundland do for me? When was New Brunswick last a net contributor to the country's finances? What good are the territories?
Hey, if we separate we'll lose the Rockies! :p

Nevertheless, Cat Whisperer brings out an important point. All parts of Canada contribute something to Canadian identity. But what Quebec brings is largely something you don't care about. That's not "bad" or wrong. But given this, can we really claim to be one country or one nation?

Also note, as mentioned, that the provincial government is currently a Liberal majority, attained after one (or was it 2 - seems I'm always voting lately) Liberal minority governments.
One. The 2007 election led to a minority government, replaced in 2008 by the current majority government. Next election to be held, I suppose, in late 2012 or early 2013. Still enough time for Charest to resign and let his successor build up some achievements to show for the next election.

Besides, in the unlikely event that sovereignty were to occur, it won't be due to the words or actions of the members of the Bloc on Parliament Hill. It won't be due to the actions or words of the PQ in the Assemblé Nationale. It will be due to the population choosing to go down that path
Of course, but let's not disregard the need for leaders. A good leader can inspire his country to do great things. I'm sure Quebec's history would be different if René Lévesque had stayed in broadcasting, or joined Trudeau's government, or been killed during World War II.

I think this is the problem. I think you've summed up the issue Quebecers have with the rest of Canada. The problem here is - the ROC keeps saying "What are you on about?". In our opinions (I don't mean to speak for all of us, but, truly - this is the case), we have no problem accepting who you are and letting you be. How is that not the case in Quebecers perception?
Well I can tell you what my main issue with English Canada is, and it doesn't have anything to do with recognition or money or anything of the sort, just perception and attitude. English Canadians know next to nothing about Quebec, which I have no problem with (I know little about most foreign countries either), but constantly act with the utmost arrogance, as if they knew everything, and knew that of course we have a problem which they know how to solve. If you check what you people say about us, it's always about how racist and xenophobic we are, we supposedly hate Jews, Muslims, blacks, Latinos, Asians and everybody who isn't pure laine (a phrase I've almost never heard in French, only in English), or how mercenary we are, or how dishonest (elbows basically just called us a nation of thieves; I remember another thread where we've been called a nation of strip club owners but that was more of a joke and I guess at least it's an honest trade). There's never any sense that when Quebec and the rest of Canada differ on any issue, it may be because we're two different peoples whose culture, fears, hot-button issues are largely similar, but may differ even on some important points. It's always that Quebec is WRONG!, probably because its little people is being lied to and controlled by demagogic separatist politicians, so good English Canada must intervene.

Add to this the complete lack of awareness about themselves that English Canadians sometimes show. Yes, English Canadians are a proud people, almost a people of flag-wavers despite the fact that they claim to just be "nice" and understated and that all this overt patriotism is "American :rolleyes:". There isn't anything wrong with that, but by God just recognize it! And this multiculturalism which you're so proud of is really nothing special. It doesn't make you automatically not racist; neither does the French on your cereal boxes and the fact that you claim to be bilingual. You're not less racist than us (not more either), if there was a means to measure that. I mean, English Canada is the country where, when there are debates about making some cities officially bilingual, you have these little old men go to Town Hall in their military uniform saying that they didn't fight for the country to now surrender to the French.

Yes, I know it's always hard to see our own defects, while seeing them in other people is pretty easy. Yes, we Quebecers do that as well: I can point out English Canada's defects, but I'd have more difficulty pointing out ours. But the main difference is this: English Canadians consider Quebec, as part of their own country, something they should have influence on. So they look at us, filter what they see through their own prejudices and their ignorance, and then tell us what we are and what we should be. They tell us in English, so of course this is what Americans know about us (how many Americans think there are currently separatist terrorist groups active in Quebec?), and it filters out to other countries as well. Quebecers don't think they have any standing to tell the rest of Canada what to do. I can say that Albertans are redneck Creationist brutes who think they've got a God-given right to destroy the planet (note: I don't actually believe this), and who cares? As I've said earlier, Alberta is in your part of the country, so it's none of our business, and the more nationalist the Quebecer, the more he believes that. (Well, except for the "destroy the planet" part, which affects us all.)

So there's that, to start with.

[ThePylon]

Well I can tell you what my main issue with English Canada is,
...

So there's that, to start with.

Well, those are Canadians that I've never met. And I've met a lot of them. I'd argue you are making the majority of that up. I'll go so far as to call it absolute bullshit. It saddens me that you seem to actually believe it.

[Raygun99]

Well, I said I wouldn't dare speak French in Calgary (unless I'm sure my interlocutor is francophone), which is true. That's what I did when I actually was there in 2006. To me Calgary is deep in your part of Canada, so not a place for French. Even in Ottawa I rarely speak French with someone I don't know, unless I'm sure it's their first language.

In New Brunswick (an officially bilingual province) I usually speak French when I'm in a francophone city, and English when I'm in an anglophone city. It just makes sense. It gets complicated with bilingual cities like Moncton, but I tend to default to English out of the perception that anglophones might not speak French, or want to hear it even if they do speak it, while francophones (especially outside Quebec) just don't care. And bilingual cities like Moncton and Ottawa are usually more English than French anyway, since they attract people from the rest of the (mostly English-speaking) province, so I'm putting luck on my side.

In Quebec though, even in Montreal, I default to French unless my interlocutor clearly doesn't speak it. In Pontiac I'd probably feel shy going with French first, but then force me to do it as a matter of principle. So that's my policy regarding language borders, in Canada at least.


I am aware that a number of young Quebecers are moving to Alberta because of the economic strength over there. But does it translate to more public servants who can actually serve the public in both languages? I'm not sure, and as I've said it's definitely not something that I expect, despite Canada being a bilingual country and everything.

Well, sure you'd have a better chance at communicating with a random Calgarian on the street in English than in French (you'd probably have a better chance with Mandarin than French), but if you spoke to someone in French here that didn't speak it, the worst you'd get is a "sorry, don't speak it" as they walked past you. I swear we're not hostile to French here.

As far as the government bureaucracy, I'd consider it a scandal if you weren't able to walk into the Federal building here and get served in French.

[Leaffan]

There are rednecks on both sides. Most of us on both sides just want to get along.

There's also a lot of media propaganda on both sides who would like to convince us what the other side is thinking, when we're really not.

[mnemosyne]

Nevertheless, Cat Whisperer brings out an important point. All parts of Canada contribute something to Canadian identity. But what Quebec brings is largely something you don't care about. That's not "bad" or wrong. But given this, can we really claim to be one country or one nation?

I think this kind of goes back to another thread from a few years ago rather than this one, but I just wanted to say this: When I perceive "English Canadian" culture that I didn't grow up with, I think of it simply as something I haven't discovered, and I embrace it (except for country music. That shit's crap no matter where it comes from. And fishing. Fish are gross.). Same with "French Canadian/Québecois" culture. Just because I didn't know it and didn't grow up with it doesn't mean it hasn't influenced the people, the society and the politics around me. So it's my culture too, if I embrace it, which I do.

Many - most - Quebecers don't do that with regards to "English Canadian" culture, and most of the ROC doesn't do that with regards to "French Canadian" culture. It's a shame, really, because it's all actually Canadian culture. We all had to be taught about our own cultures in order to appreciate them. Sadly, too many people choose to stop learning, especially when it gets too hard (such as with another language).

[Malthus]

Well, I said I wouldn't dare speak French in Calgary (unless I'm sure my interlocutor is francophone), which is true. That's what I did when I actually was there in 2006. To me Calgary is deep in your part of Canada, so not a place for French. Even in Ottawa I rarely speak French with someone I don't know, unless I'm sure it's their first language.

In New Brunswick (an officially bilingual province) I usually speak French when I'm in a francophone city, and English when I'm in an anglophone city. It just makes sense. It gets complicated with bilingual cities like Moncton, but I tend to default to English out of the perception that anglophones might not speak French, or want to hear it even if they do speak it, while francophones (especially outside Quebec) just don't care. And bilingual cities like Moncton and Ottawa are usually more English than French anyway, since they attract people from the rest of the (mostly English-speaking) province, so I'm putting luck on my side.

In Quebec though, even in Montreal, I default to French unless my interlocutor clearly doesn't speak it. In Pontiac I'd probably feel shy going with French first, but then force me to do it as a matter of principle. So that's my policy regarding language borders, in Canada at least.


I am aware that a number of young Quebecers are moving to Alberta because of the economic strength over there. But does it translate to more public servants who can actually serve the public in both languages? I'm not sure, and as I've said it's definitely not something that I expect, despite Canada being a bilingual country and everything.


Hey, if we separate we'll lose the Rockies! :p

Nevertheless, Cat Whisperer brings out an important point. All parts of Canada contribute something to Canadian identity. But what Quebec brings is largely something you don't care about. That's not "bad" or wrong. But given this, can we really claim to be one country or one nation?


One. The 2007 election led to a minority government, replaced in 2008 by the current majority government. Next election to be held, I suppose, in late 2012 or early 2013. Still enough time for Charest to resign and let his successor build up some achievements to show for the next election.


Of course, but let's not disregard the need for leaders. A good leader can inspire his country to do great things. I'm sure Quebec's history would be different if René Lévesque had stayed in broadcasting, or joined Trudeau's government, or been killed during World War II.


Well I can tell you what my main issue with English Canada is, and it doesn't have anything to do with recognition or money or anything of the sort, just perception and attitude. English Canadians know next to nothing about Quebec, which I have no problem with (I know little about most foreign countries either), but constantly act with the utmost arrogance, as if they knew everything, and knew that of course we have a problem which they know how to solve. If you check what you people say about us, it's always about how racist and xenophobic we are, we supposedly hate Jews, Muslims, blacks, Latinos, Asians and everybody who isn't pure laine (a phrase I've almost never heard in French, only in English), or how mercenary we are, or how dishonest (elbows basically just called us a nation of thieves; I remember another thread where we've been called a nation of strip club owners but that was more of a joke and I guess at least it's an honest trade). There's never any sense that when Quebec and the rest of Canada differ on any issue, it may be because we're two different peoples whose culture, fears, hot-button issues are largely similar, but may differ even on some important points. It's always that Quebec is WRONG!, probably because its little people is being lied to and controlled by demagogic separatist politicians, so good English Canada must intervene.

Add to this the complete lack of awareness about themselves that English Canadians sometimes show. Yes, English Canadians are a proud people, almost a people of flag-wavers despite the fact that they claim to just be "nice" and understated and that all this overt patriotism is "American :rolleyes:". There isn't anything wrong with that, but by God just recognize it! And this multiculturalism which you're so proud of is really nothing special. It doesn't make you automatically not racist; neither does the French on your cereal boxes and the fact that you claim to be bilingual. You're not less racist than us (not more either), if there was a means to measure that. I mean, English Canada is the country where, when there are debates about making some cities officially bilingual, you have these little old men go to Town Hall in their military uniform saying that they didn't fight for the country to now surrender to the French.

Yes, I know it's always hard to see our own defects, while seeing them in other people is pretty easy. Yes, we Quebecers do that as well: I can point out English Canada's defects, but I'd have more difficulty pointing out ours. But the main difference is this: English Canadians consider Quebec, as part of their own country, something they should have influence on. So they look at us, filter what they see through their own prejudices and their ignorance, and then tell us what we are and what we should be. They tell us in English, so of course this is what Americans know about us (how many Americans think there are currently separatist terrorist groups active in Quebec?), and it filters out to other countries as well. Quebecers don't think they have any standing to tell the rest of Canada what to do. I can say that Albertans are redneck Creationist brutes who think they've got a God-given right to destroy the planet (note: I don't actually believe this), and who cares? As I've said earlier, Alberta is in your part of the country, so it's none of our business, and the more nationalist the Quebecer, the more he believes that. (Well, except for the "destroy the planet" part, which affects us all.)

So there's that, to start with.

Hell, in your very post you state that you "don't dare speak French in Calgary". Seems to me right off the bat that your perception of the RoC is a trifle ... off. What exactly do you expect to happen if you speak French "deep in your part of Canada, so not a place for French"?

This sort of encapsulates the problem right there. You have created this highly negative image in your own mind of what the RoC is about, and it is seemingly based on language dualism. It is sort of distorted mirror image of what you claim the RoC thinks about Quebec. The fact is, in the RoC, aside from some small town bigots in Ontario near the Quebec border, most people would be charmed to hear French spoken, and are unlikely to 'release the hounds' if someone speaks French. It simply isn't that big an issue.

[mnemosyne]

Well, those are Canadians that I've never met. And I've met a lot of them. I'd argue you are making the majority of that up. I'll go so far as to call it absolute bullshit. It saddens me that you seem to actually believe it.

Some of them have acted like this in this thread. Telling Quebecers their opinion isn't needed or valid, just act like everyone else, the "you're special, happy now? Now shut up" attitude. Yes, it absolutely goes both ways (many Quebecers have a twisted view of the ROC), but you're being blind if you can't recognize that it exists.

[Malthus]

Some of them have acted like this in this thread. Telling Quebecers their opinion isn't needed or valid, just act like everyone else, the "you're special, happy now? Now shut up" attitude. Yes, it absolutely goes both ways (many Quebecers have a twisted view of the ROC), but you're being blind if you can't recognize that it exists.

Is anyone in this thread claiming that they "don't dare to speak English" in Montreal, unless they knew that the person they were speaking to is Anglophone? How would you react if someone said that?

There is no symmetry here.

[mnemosyne]

People have certainly said it to me in real life, and I could probably find examples elsewhere on these boards. Some people seem to find a lot of joy in relating a story about visiting Québec and finding a random gas station attendant that didn't speak English and then being all pissed off about it. Rants about the "language police", and digs about being "forced to learn French" (which did happen in this thread). Comments about being afraid they'll get yelled at for speaking English. I lived in the GTA/Hamilton for six years. You will never convince me that these sorts of things don't get said, because they got said to me all the time, by all kinds of people.

Just because it wasn't said in this thread, doesn't mean it isn't true.


ETA: FWIW, in Montreal my default language is French. I simply don't assume people speak English as well as I speak French.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

There are huge differences between different regions of our country, and also differences between the cultures that came here and settled. Winnipeg is different from Montréal; Mennonites have a different perspective from Ukrainians. Those differences are interesting. The big question is - are those differences more important than what we have in common?

For me, the answer is a clear 'no'. We've shared a history for too long, even if our points of view differ. I have far more in common with even the most ardent separatist or fanatical conservative than I have in common with a randomly picked Australian, or New Zealander, or USAlien...

[Cat Whisperer]

I think there's a lot of misinformation on both sides. I came across this site on Winning the United States to Quebec Separatism (http://www.expansionistparty.org/ForQCsep.html), and it made me laugh out loud in places, it was so out of touch with reality. I don't think that site is typical of a separatist site (or maybe it is, I don't know), but there's plenty of misinformation to go around.

[Malthus]

People have certainly said it to me in real life, and I could probably find examples elsewhere on these boards.

The point here is that someone from the Quebec side has said it right now, in this thread, in the post the person you were responding to was reacting to. And said it as if there was nothing particulatly controversial about the notion.

This is a disconnect with reality, which is particularly egregious in a post condemning the RoC for its "arrogance" in making invidious assumptions about Quebec.

No doubt someone, somewhere, has said equally clueless stuff about Quebec. But tu quoque sounds no better whatever language it is said in ...

Some people seem to find a lot of joy in relating a story about visiting Québec and finding a random gas station attendant that didn't speak English and then being all pissed off about it. Rants about the "language police", and digs about being "forced to learn French" (which did happen in this thread). Comments about being afraid they'll get yelled at for speaking English. I lived in the GTA/Hamilton for six years. You will never convince me that these sorts of things don't get said, because they got said to me all the time, by all kinds of people.

Just because it wasn't said in this thread, doesn't mean it isn't true.

ETA: FWIW, in Montreal my default language is French. I simply don't assume people speak English as well as I speak French.

You are mixing up issues. Someone finding some person in Quebec who does not speak English and being all pissed about it isn't being delusional, only parochial and bigoted; people can genuinely disagree about the wisdom of Bill 101 (I think it is a bad idea myself) without being outside the border of fact.

[Muffin]

Some people seem to find a lot of joy in relating a story about visiting Québec and finding a random gas station attendant that didn't speak English and then being all pissed off about it.You mean Americans? {Muffin ducks and runs after making an unfounded cheap shot.}

[Ike Witt]

Most Quebecers don't want to go. But please don't let that stop you - or others in this thread - tarring us with the same brush. :rolleyes:

Don't let your little huff get in the way of the fact that I was past tense.

[Baffle]

Is this really how Quebec views the rest of Canada? That is wholly disheartening.

I am a Montreal-born Anglophone Canadian (a Quebecker, even!) I grew up speaking French and English until my parents decided that the Quebec political climate was becoming hostile to English speakers and not a great place to raise children. I find it heart-rending to contemplate such major changes in my family's home.

But I think you need to get out and expereince the rest of Canada, Hypnogogic Jerk. Bilingual people are everywhere. You pretty well can't get a job in customer service in a government office unless you're bilingual. (I take it you haven't been on jobs.gc.ca recently). You can't even get a customer service job in the private sector, because if it requires telephone answering duties, they're looking for someone bilingual. My good friend spent four years at business school -- just to get hired solely because he grew up in French Immersion school. (My parents never chose that option for me, despite my Quebec background. They speak fluent French too, or at least they did in 1988.) Not having used my French in nearly twenty-three years has made me forget nearly everything I knew, and that has put me at a great disadvantage, trying to work in English Canada, where you wouldn't dare speak French.

I knew French people in Calgary, too, when I lived out west. They might have been the recipients of some mockery by some idiot redneck, but I never witnessed it firsthand. Canadians are by and large welcoming and patient, and understanding of cultural and language barriers, and we have a large (certainly much larger than you seem to believe) population of French-speakers who are required to use it in a business setting. Even in Calgary.

I'm wishing I could learn French again. Not because I feel some amorphous sense of guilt for being Canadian and not knowing French, but simply because it's a highly useful job skill that is in demand.

[RickJay]

Nevertheless, Cat Whisperer brings out an important point. All parts of Canada contribute something to Canadian identity. But what Quebec brings is largely something you don't care about. That's not "bad" or wrong. But given this, can we really claim to be one country or one nation?
I'm sorry but on this topic I don't think Cat Whisperer has a coherent point at all, nor do you. The worth of the different peoples that make up a state is not something measured on a balance sheet, as CW implies, and you seem to be projecting the xenophobia you feel onto others. In my honest opinion you're both hopelessly out to lunch, just at different restaurants.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Did anyone get to watch the French debate? I just got home from rehearsal - missed the whole thing.

[Cat Whisperer]

I'm sorry but on this topic I don't think Cat Whisperer has a coherent point at all, nor do you. The worth of the different peoples that make up a state is not something measured on a balance sheet, as CW implies, and you seem to be projecting the xenophobia you feel onto others. In my honest opinion you're both hopelessly out to lunch, just at different restaurants.
I didn't realize that my comment would be taken as a balance sheet thing (although I probably should have anticipated that). I just meant that in response to the idea that Canada needs Quebec just like they need us, I was questioning why - what is Quebec bringing to the table other than a list of demands?

[straight man]

This thread is such a wonderful microcosm of Canadian politics. Just wonderful. :)

[Muffin]

Did anyone get to watch the French debate? I just got home from rehearsal - missed the whole thing.
I was at work, but was able to speak at length with a friend who was able to watch it while in Trois Rivieres. From how she described it, it sounded like a repeat of the English debate. She (usually a Conservative) was disappointed by Harper, whom she said was quiet and lacked hard facts. She didn't like the way Duceppe and Layton kept interrupting. She thought Ignatief spoke very well, both in his content and in his ability to speak French.

[Leaffan]

I didn't realize that my comment would be taken as a balance sheet thing (although I probably should have anticipated that). I just meant that in response to the idea that Canada needs Quebec just like they need us, I was questioning why - what is Quebec bringing to the table other than a list of demands?
Hydro-electric power.
Poutine.
Celine Dion.
Roberto Luongo.
William Shatner.

Not much else really.














(I'm joking BTW.)

[mnemosyne]

The idea that a province consisting of approximately 25% of a country's population brings nothing at all to said country is ridiculous.

[Muffin]

Aside from four hundred years worth of post-contact culture and advancements across a broad swath of the spectrum of human endeavours, in GDP alone Quebec is a powerhouse. Take Alberta's GDP and add half as much again.

[tingbudong]

Montreal and Quebec City contain some of the best examples of heritage architecture in Canada. Western Canada merely has isolated spatterings of such items. Both cities have a far more old school European urban feel than Vancouver. IMHO. Adds a lot to the country in that aspect.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

There is an Avaaz petition circulating, calling for the immediate release of the Auditor General's report. In it, the statement is made "Parliamentary experts say that no law bars the Auditor General from immediately releasing this report to the public." No source is given for this assertion. I wanted to ask, particularly those of you whose legal knowledge is greater than mine (and yes, that would be just about all of you.) if anyone else has any further information to confirm or deny. From my reading of the last couple of days, this would seem to be wishful thinking, particularly as all the parties have indicated that they, too, would like this report released.

[Cat Whisperer]

Hydroelectricity and 20% of Canada's GDP, eh? I can live with that.

[Cat Whisperer]

Aside from four hundred years worth of post-contact culture and advancements across a broad swath of the spectrum of human endeavours, in GDP alone Quebec is a powerhouse. Take Alberta's GDP and add half as much again.
Depends on which measuring stick you're using; Quebec's GDP per capita from 2009 is $37,278, and Alberta's is $49,563. :)

[RickJay]

Depends on which measuring stick you're using; Quebec's GDP per capita from 2009 is $37,278, and Alberta's is $49,563. :)
Sure. Now.

What's it going to be in 2020? 2040? If oil drops to $20 a barrel, or runs out, will Alberta complain when they start getting equalization payments?

Even if we're to count the "Value" of our fellow citizens by their GDP, which I find abhorrent and pointless, these things don't stay the same. Twenty years ago Newfoundland was a basket case, now it's getting rich. Same with Saskatchewan. Ontario is down right now to the manufacturing decline; within a few years it'll be back up.

If we started splitting up along lines of who costs us money, Canada would end up being 308 separate countries and each one would be carving off neighborhoods.

The last thing the world needs is more countries. Frankly, the human race needs to start moving towards the unification of nations, not towards further subdivision. It's the existence of exclusively sovereign states that causes war and inequity.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

When I said that I wouldn't "dare" speak French in Calgary, I didn't mean that I'd be afraid that doing so would put my life in jeopardy. I think many of you are putting too much weight on my use of the word "dare". I'm in an English-speaking country, and I speak fluent English: of course I'll go with English. I wouldn't "dare" speak French in Dublin either, not because I think the Irish have anything against the French language, but because I don't think they'd understand me.

When I was in Western Canada in 2006 (Alberta and BC), I didn't have any problems, I was treated well by most people, I had fun and I didn't feel threatened. I think I pissed off a cashier at a movie theatre in Edmonton by asking him to repeat what he'd said two or three times because I hadn't understood, but that's the extent of my troubles. So yes, I know that Western Canadians don't feel any kind of murderous rage toward me just because I'm from Quebec.

This said, I know that Albertans in particular feel that bilingualism is a terrible waste of money, and they project this annoyance on the French language, and on Quebec which they view as the source of all those wasteful projects. So am I going to go there and force them to speak to me in French? Hell no! The polite thing to do anyway, in any country, is to try to speak their language as much as you can manage it. I'm in Italy right now (once again) and I try to go with Italian as much as I can. I was in Switzerland last week and I went as far as I could with my few words of German (it's amazing what you can do with "Hallo", "Auf Wiedersehen", "Rösti" and "Bier" :p ); otherwise I tried English. Yes, French is one of the official languages of Switzerland, but why would the German-speaking Swiss speak it? Similarly, French is one of the official languages of Canada, but why would the English Canadians speak it. So that's what I meant by "dare". Don't take it as an indication that I feel like I could become a target of violence or something.

Well, those are Canadians that I've never met. And I've met a lot of them. I'd argue you are making the majority of that up. I'll go so far as to call it absolute bullshit. It saddens me that you seem to actually believe it.
No, I'm not making it up. (Okay, the "strip club" thing wasn't really serious; there is such a thread but the person making the comment was joking. Still, it's interesting to see what stereotypes other peoples have about us.) But yes, English Canadians do tend to see (francophone) Quebecers as racist and intolerant, and tend to blame that on "separatism", demagogic politicians, or on the fundamental values of French-speaking peoples as compared with English-speaking peoples. Take this post by English Canadian (and generally a good poster) KarlGauss as an example. And they do so without really understanding the context (sometimes it just isn't racism or intolerance, though of course it may be) and they have trouble seeing intolerance in themselves. It's human nature, of course, to see the straw in your neighbour's eye but not in yours, but it should be mentioned.

If you want, I can check English Canadian news media (and reader comments), find examples of such accusations and post them here so we discuss them. It shouldn't be too hard to do.

As far as the government bureaucracy, I'd consider it a scandal if you weren't able to walk into the Federal building here and get served in French.
A scandal? I wouldn't. In Ottawa, maybe, but in Calgary, we all know you won't find people who speak French but not English.

Sounds like a great test, in fact. The Ottawa newspaper Le Droit used to do this, send undercover journalists in public offices or private businesses to see how easy it was to be served in French in Ottawa and in English in Gatineau. I don't read it anymore, so I don't know when was the last time they did it, but suffice to say that being served in English in Gatineau was extremely easy, while being served in French in Ottawa wasn't all that easy. Though I want to address something else...

You pretty well can't get a job in customer service in a government office unless you're bilingual. (I take it you haven't been on jobs.gc.ca recently). You can't even get a customer service job in the private sector, because if it requires telephone answering duties, they're looking for someone bilingual.
I know this is the theory, but it is the practice? I think I'm starting to see a pattern emerge here. I've heard before English Canada criticizing Quebec for rejecting English (by being officially unilingual, and not opening public English-language schools to whoever wants to send their kids there, etc.) while patting themselves on the back for embracing French and bilingualism. But despite this, for some reason, the proportion of Quebec francophones who are fluent in English is much higher than the proportion of anglophones from other provinces who are fluent in French, the anglophone minority of Quebec is in much better shape than the francophone minorities in other provinces, and it's much easier to communicate in English in Quebec than in French in other provinces, especially if we consider the provinces with very little francophones. As a francophone I've heard a lot about how bilingualism isn't all it's cracked up to be, many unilingual anglophones get into officially bilingual positions and stay there for 20 years without learning French, managing to always postpone taking the test, or passing the test without actually speaking the language. But you anglophones might not have heard of this. These things are scandals for francophones (and only a subset of them; as I've said I'm not really in favour of blanket official bilingualism), not for you.

So when you say that of course I could go to a federal government office in Calgary and be served in French, I'm sure you believe it. To you, that's Canada. But to me that's theoretical Canada. So I'm suspecting that there is a part of ignorance here. You haven't questioned the official line because you've never had to. You've never had to be served in French, so you assume that of course it can be done from coast to coast without problem. We're in Canada and Canada is a proudly bilingual country! I may be too cynical (hey, I've never had to fish for service in French anyway since I can just switch to English) but I like to think that I'm closer to the truth. It may behoove you to read some of the Official Languages Commissioner's books. (Not that I've read them myself, but I know the gist of what he usually talks about.) It may teach you some things about your country.

Many - most - Quebecers don't do that with regards to "English Canadian" culture, and most of the ROC doesn't do that with regards to "French Canadian" culture.
True story: yesterday, just after making my post about the Bloc's history, I took out my mp3 player and turned it on, and it was on a Great Big Sea album.

I don't really care about this, you know. We don't have a duty to learn about our country's culture, especially that which comes from far away and is in a language we don't speak. What do you know about the modern-day lives of native peoples in Northern Canada? I don't know much about it, and while it's something that may be interesting to learn about, it's not really a concern for most of us. (The fact that many of them live in third world conditions is important, but then again, what are we even doing about it?) My message is this: avoid speaking from a position of ignorance. If all you know about Quebec is that people eat poutine, listen to Céline Dion and go to a carnival with a big snowman, and apparently they oppress anglophones over there, maybe you should educate yourself before speaking.

I think there's a lot of misinformation on both sides. I came across this site on Winning the United States to Quebec Separatism (http://www.expansionistparty.org/ForQCsep.html), and it made me laugh out loud in places, it was so out of touch with reality. I don't think that site is typical of a separatist site (or maybe it is, I don't know), but there's plenty of misinformation to go around.
That's the Expansionist Party of the United States' website. Not a good source of information about anything. Check the rest of the website if you want to see what I mean.

You mean Americans? {Muffin ducks and runs after making an unfounded cheap shot.}
No. As I've heard someone describe it, Americans who come to Quebec, or to Canada in general, are aware that they're in a foreign country. So they fully expect that things might not be exactly like they are at home. There will be differences, they may even have some problems with communication. That's all part of being abroad.

Canadians from other provinces who come to Quebec know that they're still in Canada. It's not a foreign country, they didn't even have to get their passport to go there. So they sometimes lack the sense that things may be different and that they may run into communication issues. It's Canada, people should be speaking English, and if they don't, well, it's because the separatists are making it so that people don't learn it. But no. It's actually that you are, not in a foreign country, but not "home" either.

I am a Montreal-born Anglophone Canadian (a Quebecker, even!) I grew up speaking French and English until my parents decided that the Quebec political climate was becoming hostile to English speakers and not a great place to raise children.
And in your case, your parents decided that Quebec's political climate was becoming "hostile" to English speakers. I don't know if that's your own opinion as well, but that's pretty much an accusation of something there, xenophobia or intolerance or whatever. Despite the fact that objectively speaking, it's much easier to be an English speaker in Quebec than a French speaker in, well, even Ontario probably. So clearly there is a matter of perception at play, and perception that's not completely based on facts.

But I think you need to get out and expereince the rest of Canada, Hypnogogic Jerk.
I come from Gatineau and go to Ottawa every time I see my parents and friends. I've been to New Brunswick in 2006 and 2007, and in Alberta and BC in 2006 as well. In Toronto probably twice as well. When I finish my Ph.D., I want to embark on a road trip across Canada. So I don't think I'm as ignorant of this country as you seem to believe.

And it's another thing that's tiresome: the assumption that if a francophone Quebecer finds something infuriating about English Canada, it's probably because he's isolated (probably from "rural Quebec"), doesn't know much about anglophones and probably doesn't speak English. While people who know anglophones (Montrealers, for example) love them and are all about the Canadian experience. The facts show that it's usually when different ethnic/linguistic groups live close by that they can't stand each other, and Canada is no exception.

I'm wishing I could learn French again.
And you can, especially if you used to know some of it. I know you claim it's not some amorphous guilt, but I think that for a certain number of English Canadians, saying "I wish I spoke French" is a way to both look like you're embracing bilingualism (which is supposed to be a Canadian value) while actually not having to work at it. Not saying that's your case, since in your case it seems to be for very practical reasons.

Now I swear I didn't want to hijack this thread away from the election. At first I was just responding to Polycarp's question about the Bloc's platform with an explanation of how a sovereigntist party can actually work entirely within the context of the Canadian federal system. But I guess the discussion moved somewhere else.

[Malthus]

And it's another thing that's tiresome: the assumption that if a francophone Quebecer finds something infuriating about English Canada, it's probably because he's isolated (probably from "rural Quebec"), doesn't know much about anglophones and probably doesn't speak English. While people who know anglophones (Montrealers, for example) love them and are all about the Canadian experience. The facts show that it's usually when different ethnic/linguistic groups live close by that they can't stand each other, and Canada is no exception.


I don't think that the "facts" show anything of the sort. If they did, surely Toronto would be simply seething with ethnic hatreds, right? It's one of the most ethnically diverse places on earth ...

[the Lady]

This said, I know that Albertans in particular feel that bilingualism is a terrible waste of money, and they project this annoyance on the French language, and on Quebec which they view as the source of all those wasteful projects.




So when you say that of course I could go to a federal government office in Calgary and be served in French, I'm sure you believe it. To you, that's Canada. But to me that's theoretical Canada.


And you can, especially if you used to know some of it. I know you claim it's not some amorphous guilt, but I think that for a certain number of English Canadians, saying "I wish I spoke French" is a way to both look like you're embracing bilingualism (which is supposed to be a Canadian value) while actually not having to work at it. Not saying that's your case, since in your case it seems to be for very practical reasons.



Alright - I looked it up. If you wish to be served in French, you do have to go to the main Service Canada centre in Calgary. There are four of them, and three offer service only in English. There is also a fifth one that offers all sorts of languages.

And I DO speak French. I'm also an Albertan.

I'm really not sure where you are getting your info that "Albertans think bilingualism is a waste of money"
I've never in my life heard that here. I went to French immersion school. I considered sending my kids to French immersion school (they're going to go to Spanish school instead) You are saying that the rest of Canada needs to stop assuming things about Quebec and francophones - you could do the same about Albertans.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

I don't think that the "facts" show anything of the sort. If they did, surely Toronto would be simply seething with ethnic hatreds, right? It's one of the most ethnically diverse places on earth ...
Toronto's not at all what I'm describing here. (And of course it's also not exempt from ethnic tensions.) Let me express myself better: in countries where two or more major ethnic or linguistic groups coexist, it's usually at the border where both of them are present that tensions between them are the highest. You yourself talked about "small town bigots in Ontario near the Quebec border": I don't think it's quite as simple as you put it (we can also find those small town bigots in Sault Ste. Marie which is nowhere near the Quebec border), but surely you realise that it's at the language border that we find most problems.

Toronto isn't anything of the sort, since it features many ethnic/linguistic groups living in a place where there is nonetheless one dominant culture.

Alright - I looked it up. If you wish to be served in French, you do have to go to the main Service Canada centre in Calgary. There are four of them, and three offer service only in English. There is also a fifth one that offers all sorts of languages.
Fair enough, I suppose that if there is one particular centre where we can be served in many different languages, French has got to be one of them. Note that I have no problem with guaranteeing multilingual service in only a portion of the service centres.

I'm really not sure where you are getting your info that "Albertans think bilingualism is a waste of money"
I've never in my life heard that here.
Well you may not think so. But ask Cat Whisperer what she thinks about official bilingualism. Or Uzi. Or Sam Stone. I'm having trouble finding actual survey results, since after all you can get wildly divergent opinions about bilingualism depending on what question you actually ask. Anyway, from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_bilingualism_in_Canada#Support_and_opposition), describing results from a 2004 report by André Turcotte and Andrew Parkin:
According to Turcotte and Parkin, other poll data reveal that “in contrast to Francophones, Anglophones, in general, have resisted putting more government effort and resources into promoting bilingualism …. What is revealing, however, is that only 11% of those outside Quebec said they disagreed with bilingualism in any form. Opposition seems to be directed to the actions of the federal government, rather than to bilingualism itself …. [T]his distinction is key to understanding public opinion on the issue.” This helps to explain results that would otherwise seem contradictory, such as a 1994 poll in which 56% of Canadians outside Quebec indicated that they either strongly or moderately supported official bilingualism, but 50% agreed with a statement that "the current official bilingualism policy should be scrapped because it's expensive and inefficient."

In English Canada, there is some regional variation in attitudes towards federal bilingualism policy, but it is relatively modest when compared to the divergence between the views expressed by Quebecers and those expressed in the rest of the country. For example, in a poll conducted in 2000, only 22% of Quebecers agreed with the statement, “We have gone too far in pushing bilingualism,” while positive response rates in English Canada ranged from a low of 50% in the Atlantic to a high of 65% in the Prairies.
So from what I can see English Canadians seem to support official bilingualism in the abstract, but tend to view the current policy as expensive and inefficient, and the question of whether Canada has gone too far in pushing bilingualism reaches a high of 65% of positive responses in the Prairies. I think this jibes with my affirmation that Albertans tend to view bilingualism as expensive and not really useful. Whether it causes them to get resentful (and especially resentful of Quebec) is of course another question.

[Leaffan]

This is the kind of thing that rankles some anglophones, in anglophone-only communities.

Jeanne Barr found out Friday Canada Post had apparently reversed its decision of two weeks ago to allow her to stay in her current role even though she doesn’t speak any French — officially required of Crown corporation staff who deal with the public within the national capital region.

The Sun has learned staff in Metcalfe, Almonte and Stittsville who deal with the public, commonly as acting postmistresses or postmasters, will have their roles reduced if they don’t speak both official languages.

The acting postmistress in Almonte for the past four years found out her shifts were being reduced to 2.5 hours per week from 40. In addition, she will be relegated to a back-room assignment.

Barb Mulligan, who works at the Almonte Post Office, says she’s been affected as well, but has been asked not to speak about it to the media.

Yes, these are communities in "the National Capital Region" but if you've ever been to them, and I have many, many times, there is practically zero chance of anyone in the town being a francophone, and if you are I mean how hard is it to order stamps in a different language. English Canada sees stories like this from time to time and starts frothing at the mouth. [/hijack]

[RickJay]

theory, but it is the practice? I think I'm starting to see a pattern emerge here. I've heard before English Canada criticizing Quebec for rejecting English (by being officially unilingual, and not opening public English-language schools to whoever wants to send their kids there, etc.) while patting themselves on the back for embracing French and bilingualism. But despite this, for some reason, the proportion of Quebec francophones who are fluent in English is much higher than the proportion of anglophones from other provinces who are fluent in French, the anglophone minority of Quebec is in much better shape than the francophone minorities in other provinces, and it's much easier to communicate in English in Quebec than in French in other provinces, especially if we consider the provinces with very little francophones.
You're conflating two completely different concepts.

Criticism of Quebec for some of the provisions of Bill 101 is based on concepts of civil rights and what the proper role of government is. It's abhorrent to a lot of people - including me - that the goverment would use coercion to order people what language they can use on their own time and on their own property. To my mind, and the minds of many people, if you own a store you should be able to put up a sign in any language you please, and it is not the place of government to tell you otherwise. The issue with schools is a bit murkier, though; after all, that's not strictly a matter of allowing people to do as they please. It's a state-provided service.

Conversely, the reason more Francophones speak English than the reverse is simply demographics and convenience. It is useful to many Francophones to speak English, so they learn to speak it. The proportion of Anglophones who derive equivalent value from learning French is lower; after all, most of us live near the US border, and Americans don't speak a lot of French. Expressing surprise at that is kind of like expressing surprise that more anglos in Arizona have learned to speak a little Spanish than have anglos in New Hampshire.

Criticism of Quebec's government is just that; it's criticism of GOVERNMENT POLICY. It's not criticism of Quebecois or the French language. If the Province of Alberta were to ban non-English words on commercial signs I would be positively outraged, as would most decent Canadians. I'm anglophone and not even Albertan, but I'd consider it a gross offense against civil rights and common decency. That doesn't mean I'd hate Albertans or the English language; it means I don't like laws that impinge upon what I feel are basic human rights.

Surely you see the distinction?

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

It's funny that we end up focusing on the polarity of Alberta and Québec - my family has its Canadian roots in both provinces. Yes, there are extremists in both places and it's much easier to toss out the anecdotes that back up our assumptions than it is to research what's really going on but it's not going to give us an accurate picture of the range of opinions and ideas in either place.

Alberta does tend to be more socially conservative than many of the other provinces, but it still has a gay scene, it still has environmentalists, and it still has a 38.7% group that does not intend to vote conservative.

Alberta is not known for its cultural scene, and yet ...in 2008, Albertans’ per capita cultural spending was $963 – down from the $971 recorded in 2005, but 15-per-cent higher than the 2008 national per capita average of $841.

Calgary, in fact, is the country’s most cultural city by expenditures. from the following article in the Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/alberta-has-canadas-biggest-appetite-for-culture-again/article1803231/). Calgary Opera has produced more world premieres of Canadian works than any other company in Canada. That doesn't seem to jibe with the image of Alberta as having a less active culture than Québec, but it's a fact - "Over the past nine seasons, Calgary Opera has presented four world premieres, with a fifth in this upcoming season, three Canadian premieres, and many company premieres." - from the Calgary Opera (http://www.calgaryopera.com/about/development.php) website.

Alberta has the smallest francophone population of any of the Canadian provinces, but that population exists - I've worked with him. (That was a joke.) My uncle was who introduced me to his friends, the Alberta separatists. We had an extremely firey debate...

Anyway, I would not presume to say 'Albertans think this' or 'Quebeckers agree that...'. The plurality of opinion that actually exists just makes that seem like a really foolish, untenable assertion.

BTW, I am one of those Anglos who does say "I wish I spoke better French.", for the same reason that I say "I wish I could play the piano better." I continue to practice and improve because I find it rewarding, both the piano and the language.

[Malthus]

Toronto's not at all what I'm describing here. (And of course it's also not exempt from ethnic tensions.) Let me express myself better: in countries where two or more major ethnic or linguistic groups coexist, it's usually at the border where both of them are present that tensions between them are the highest. You yourself talked about "small town bigots in Ontario near the Quebec border": I don't think it's quite as simple as you put it (we can also find those small town bigots in Sault Ste. Marie which is nowhere near the Quebec border), but surely you realise that it's at the language border that we find most problems.

Again, not so; again, Canada provides strong counter-examples. What about New Brunswick? It's the only constitutionally bilingual province in Canada, and has a large French minority (with, it may be pointed out, a far more tragic history than that of Quebec itself) - yet is not known as a hotbed of ethnic hatreds.

Of course, nowhere is free from ethnic tensions. But I dispute your contention that living with "major ethnic or linguistic groups" is to blame for them. On the contrary, I think distorted and abused ethno-nationalism is to blame, quite irrespective of who one's neighbours actually are - and that can happen anywhere, including where everyone is more or less of the same nationality.

Toronto isn't anything of the sort, since it features many ethnic/linguistic groups living in a place where there is nonetheless one dominant culture.

I disagree. What is the "one dominant culture" in Toronto? Certainly not Anglos - an absolute minority here. Visible minorities make up half the population, and of the other half, very high percentages are Ukranian, Italian, Jewish etc. In fact, 44% of the population is not Canadian born!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

Yes, these are communities in "the National Capital Region" but if you've ever been to them, and I have many, many times, there is practically zero chance of anyone in the town being a francophone, and if you are I mean how hard is it to order stamps in a different language. English Canada sees stories like this from time to time and starts frothing at the mouth. [/hijack]
Ah, Southern Pontiac, what would we do without this wonderful place. ;) But you're telling us that what causes you to froth at the mouth is the government declaring districts as bilingual and then actually enforcing this decision? Do you think public servants in Masson should be able to speak English? It's also part of the National Capital Region. If not, then your problem is with the concept of a National Capital Region itself.

But I must say that in terms of things that cause an entire population to start frothing at the mouth, that's pretty small beans.

Criticism of Quebec for some of the provisions of Bill 101 is based on concepts of civil rights and what the proper role of government is. It's abhorrent to a lot of people - including me - that the goverment would use coercion to order people what language they can use on their own time and on their own property. To my mind, and the minds of many people, if you own a store you should be able to put up a sign in any language you please, and it is not the place of government to tell you otherwise. The issue with schools is a bit murkier, though; after all, that's not strictly a matter of allowing people to do as they please. It's a state-provided service.
So you're splitting the provisions of the Charter of the French Language in two: the dispositions on commercial signage and the dispositions on education. That's good, because so do I, and you're the first anglophone I've ever seen who does that distinction. And honestly the dispositions on education are the most important; the signage laws I'd be practically willing to do away with. But it's not true that business owners are always allowed to use whatever language they want. In Canada, there are laws about food products being required to show ingredient lists and nutrition information, if not on the packaging then at least somewhere else obvious, and I believe in both official languages. Do you oppose such laws? We could argue that the signage dispositions of the Charter fulfill the same goal: protecting consumers' right to be informed.

Expressing surprise at that is kind of like expressing surprise that more anglos in Arizona have learned to speak a little Spanish than have anglos in New Hampshire.
Did I express surprise? No. What I said is that the English-language minority of Quebec, despite all the talk about how oppressed they are (just witness Baffle's parents), is in a better shape than French-language minorities in the rest of Canada. To me this puts all English Canadians' complaints about how Quebec treats its minorities in perspective.

Criticism of Quebec's government is just that; it's criticism of GOVERNMENT POLICY. It's not criticism of Quebecois or the French language. If the Province of Alberta were to ban non-English words on commercial signs I would be positively outraged, as would most decent Canadians. I'm anglophone and not even Albertan, but I'd consider it a gross offense against civil rights and common decency.
Your example doesn't parallel Quebec's case: non-French words on commercial signs are definitely not banned in Quebec. I see your point, but keep in mind that most francophone Quebecers support the Charter of the French Language and see it as an important factor in their continued existence as a people. So if you oppose bill 101, they may see that as akin to supporting assimilation. Unless you can explain why it isn't so.

BTW, I am one of those Anglos who does say "I wish I spoke better French.", for the same reason that I say "I wish I could play the piano better." I continue to practice and improve because I find it rewarding, both the piano and the language.
Well, you're an opera singer; knowing a few languages, especially French and Italian, is an asset to you. :)

Again, not so; again, Canada provides strong counter-examples. What about New Brunswick? It's the only constitutionally bilingual province in Canada, and has a large French minority (with, it may be pointed out, a far more tragic history than that of Quebec itself) - yet is not known as a hotbed of ethnic hatreds.
Hatreds, maybe not. But I do notice that the 1991 New Brunswick election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Brunswick_general_election,_1991) led to a party whose platform was basically "opposition to bilingualism" forming the official opposition. And I seem to remember that Moncton didn't become a bilingual city without people objecting. New Brunswick certainly isn't a place subject to excessive inter-community strife, but even there we can find some.

But I dispute your contention that living with "major ethnic or linguistic groups" is to blame for them. On the contrary, I think distorted and abused ethno-nationalism is to blame, quite irrespective of who one's neighbours actually are - and that can happen anywhere, including where everyone is more or less of the same nationality.

You may be confusing cause and effect here. I'm not sure what "distorted and abused ethno-nationalism" is exactly, but certainly it doesn't appear out of the void. Very uniform populations see little in the way of inter-community strife; how can it be otherwise? Places where many nationalities coexist are more interesting, no doubt, but historically they're where problems arise.

I disagree. What is the "one dominant culture" in Toronto? Certainly not Anglos - an absolute minority here.
Why, Canadian culture of course, what else? :D Regardless of where they're from, Torontonians watch the Leafs on CBC Saturday night (ok, maybe not right now :p) and talk about how proud they are of being Canadian. And of course they use English as their common language of communication, even though it's quite possible that less than 50% of them actually speak it natively. Torontonians can have different origins, but they are one people. Do you see the distinction?

[Ibanez]

Well the Québec debate last night was pretty disappointing. Sorry I meant to say French debates, but the way the questions were geared they totally neglected the 2. something million Francophones that don't live in Québec.

More of the same Duceppe saying he wan'ts nothing to do with Canada wants to seperate but give us as much money as possible until then.

One part of a question I found particularly offensive.

"Many of the values promoted in Canada seem to come straight from the Republican party in the United States....”

Really ? Out of all the questions gathered they went with this one ? If this is popular opinion people in Québec are way more out of touch than I thought.

[mnemosyne]

Criticism of Quebec for some of the provisions of Bill 101 is based on concepts of civil rights and what the proper role of government is. It's abhorrent to a lot of people - including me - that the goverment would use coercion to order people what language they can use on their own time and on their own property. To my mind, and the minds of many people, if you own a store you should be able to put up a sign in any language you please, and it is not the place of government to tell you otherwise.

You misunderstand Bill 101 when it comes to the workplace. You can speak whatever damn language you want at work, provided that francophones can also be served in French (which makes sense, in a place where 90% of the population is francophone). Paperwork can be in any language you want, provided it's also available in French, and that French is prominent in signage (which in many examples reduces down to "comes first").

Hardly oppressive, and really, what kind of business would choose to alienate 90% of it's potential clientele anyways?

The issue with schools is a bit murkier, though; after all, that's not strictly a matter of allowing people to do as they please. It's a state-provided service.

Note, of course, that the restriction on education applies to the majority population in Québec, not to the minority. It is francophones (and new immigrants) who are required to attend school in French; anglophones can go anywhere they please and have no limitations whatsoever to access to education in English, from K through the Cégep program and university. A lot of people don't understand that and think it's the other way around. Anglophones are hardly oppressed here. FWIW, I support Bill 101 in almost every instance - there are the odd cases where I think it could be a bit more flexible, but overall, I think it's a reasonable law that makes perfect sense given the realities of Québec.

[RickJay]

But it's not true that business owners are always allowed to use whatever language they want. In Canada, there are laws about food products being required to show ingredient lists and nutrition information, if not on the packaging then at least somewhere else obvious, and I believe in both official languages. Do you oppose such laws?
Not at all, but those laws are

1. Specifically aimed at ensuring public safety. You're going to have trouble convincing me that calling my restaurant "Rick's Place" instead of "Chez Rick" somehow makes my customers less safe or denies them valid information, and

2. Not in any way prohibiting me from saying other things I want to say in the language of my choice. Even if I put ingredient lists on my cereal box in both official languages, I could still adorn the box in German, Chinese, or any other language I felt like.

Did I express surprise? No. What I said is that the English-language minority of Quebec, despite all the talk about how oppressed they are (just witness Baffle's parents), is in a better shape than French-language minorities in the rest of Canada.
What does "in better shape" mean? It's a wholly meaningless phrase. Under such vague terms you could argue exactly the opposite by simply applying different criteria.

Your example doesn't parallel Quebec's case: non-French words on commercial signs are definitely not banned in Quebec.
Well, sure, as long as they're accompanied by larger French text. So just construct the opposite case; Ontario orders that all commerical signage must be in English and the English words must be bigger than any other. Would you be okay with that? I'd picket the Legislature and would donate for, and volunteer for, the campaign of any party that promised to reverse that law.

I see your point, but keep in mind that most francophone Quebecers support the Charter of the French Language and see it as an important factor in their continued existence as a people.
I'm not a populist.

[Frank]

Did anyone get to watch the French debate? I just got home from rehearsal - missed the whole thing.
I did not. Despite being told at least twice in this thread when it was, and that it was not the 15th, I did not change my calendar. Some days I'm just stupid; some days I'm just really stupid.

[Frank]

You misunderstand Bill 101 when it comes to the workplace. You can speak whatever damn language you want at work, provided that francophones can also be served in French (which makes sense, in a place where 90% of the population is francophone).
When I was looking for a job in Canada in general, I found that every job advertisement in Quebec for which my professional qualifications suited me, I was unqualified for. Because I do not speak French. Every single job ad required French. Not even a "learn it when you get here", but fluency as a requirement to apply.

(To be fair, it's a bit of sour grapes, because they were also all in Montreal, which I wouldn't want to move to anyway. It's far too big a city for my taste.)