Monday, November 18, 2013

The Trouble with Sovereignty, Part 1.. A Deal is a Deal.

Deception...part of the PQ's sovereignty plan
I am going to write a series of blogs pieces concerning some very basic principles relating to the sovereignty debate, ones that I hope will provoke debate. I won't get into the tiny details, because to do so would trigger the  automatic naysayer debate that always bogs down the discussion. I will try to limit the use of statistics and numbers, to the best of my ability.

Sovereigntists, as we see in our comments sections, are adept at denial, twisting and spinning and use the minutest of facts to confound the debate.

So what I'll write is simple and to the point, and I appreciate comments that pertain only to the subject at hand, because we have many more pieces of this sort in the future, covering all aspects of the sovereignty issue.

It's funny how sovereigntists constantly militate for an independent Quebec while continuing to ignore, consider or  publicly debate the actual modalities or repercussions, as if the consequences are no matter, akin to the Rapture, where all that matters is the actual event itself.

Not since the last referendum have sovereigntists considered the realities of leaving Canada and when then PQ minister Richard le Hir conducted some internal studies about the economic ramifications of sovereignty, the results were so unfavourable that the whole thing was downplayed and in fact trivialized by Lucien Bouchard, who when questioned about  the studies in the middle of the referendum campaign disavowed their legitimacy by saying;
"They aren't mine, they belong to Richard LeHir. It's in the past, part of an old campaign"
It has been the narrow policy of sovereigntists to discuss ad nauseam the road to sovereignty without ever discussing, speculation or assessing the effects, the day after, the year after or the decade after.

Where have you seen any reasonable attempt to describe Quebec after Canada, both socially, politically or economically? You'd think separatists would wax eloquently over the subject on the pages of, but 99% of the conversations are about achieving the Holy Grail of sovereignty and getting out of the rat-trap that Canada is perceived to be.
The future of an independent Quebec after Canada according to sovereigntists is, as Doris Day sang.. 'Que Sera Sera!'

Let us start by broaching a few uncomfortable subjects, starting with the right of Quebecers to determine for themselves the prerogative to secede from Canada.

So today we'll discus the prepostebrous notion that it is up to Quebec to decide its future and whether that decision is Quebec's alone.

A very quick review of history, before we proceed.
After the referendum loss in 1995, the federal government tabled a law called the Clarity Act that set forth conditions and rules that could lead to Quebec sovereignty following a successful referendum.
"The Clarity Act is legislation passed by the Parliament of Canada that established the conditions under which the Government of Canada would enter into negotiations that might lead to secession following such a vote by one of the provinces.
Although the law could theoretically be applied to any province, the Clarity Act was created in response to the 1995 Quebec referendum and ongoing independence movement in that province. The content of the Clarity Act was based on the 1998 secession reference to the Supreme Court of Canada made by the federal government of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.
Two days after the Clarity Act had been introduced in the Canadian House of Commons, the Parti Québécois government passed Bill 99 an act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State in the National Assembly of Quebec." Wikipedia
In essence, Quebec's Bill 99 thumbed its nose at the Clarity Act declaring that Quebec wouldn't necessarily abide by its provision, (not quite, but close enough)

My friend Brent Tyler is contesting the validity of Bill 99 and will have his day in court next year. You might recall that Ottawa recently decided to get involved in that case as an intervenor on the side led by Tyler opposing the law.
This freaked out the Quebec government because they've been advised by their own lawyers that the law is a dog and will be struck down, and  the fact is that Ottawa's involvement will make the loss more painful.
In response the Quebec National Assembly passed a unanimous motion (yes our useful idiot Anglo MPs voted for the motion) denouncing Ottawa's participation. Link
"The parties in Quebec's legislature all voted in favour of a motion Wednesday to denounce the federal government's court challenge of a 13-year-old provincial law known as Bill 99 on the rules for Quebec sovereignty.
The legislature called on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government to withdraw its participation in a legal challenge, filed in Quebec Superior Court last week.
The motion tabled by Premier Pauline Marois "condemns the intrusion by the Government of Canada into Quebec democracy." Link
All right, enough with the boring historical stuff, it all comes down to this question.
Can Quebecers decide on their own whether to secede from Canada and under what conditions that decision would be based on?

Canada's position.....NO.
Quebec's position...YES.

You can easily imagine how seductive to Quebecers the idea is, that they alone can decide their future.
But unfortunately our society doesn't work like that, we can't always get what we want and seldom do.
We don't decide on what we pay for products or services and if Quebecers voted unanimously in a referendum for $1 gas at the pumps, they wouldn't get that neither.
Our society operates on the holy principle that a deal is a deal and that no party can modify that deal without the consent of the other, or by another clearly defined process clearly outlined in law.

Quebec has been a party to the BNA act that binds it to Canada for over 140 years and while there are those who would argue that the people of Quebec were forced into the union, it is a little too late to complain.

For 147 years Quebec has benefited from its inclusion in Canada and has been a willing partner in the social, economic and political fabric of Canada. Quebec on two occasions has reaffirmed this commitment, so there is no pretending that the province isn't bound by the terms of the agreement of union. In fact the referendum rejections actually undermine completely any attempt by sovereigntists to assert that they are in confederation under duress.

So Quebec is intrinsically part of Canada and bound by the terms of union.  Extricating itself from Canada is not as easy as saying 'I want out' because there is a contract that cannot be abrogated without consent of the other party or parties.
It is the same for the other nine provinces who cannot kick Quebec out of Canada without Quebec's consent, even if a majority of those in the ROC vote to do so via a referendum.
You can't change a contract without the other party's agreement. Period. End of discussion.

Try telling Rogers that you no longer want to use their services or the bank that you no longer feel bound by the mortgage agreement and that the decision is yours and your's alone to make. Think they'll agree?
Perhaps you are an obnoxious tenant in your apartment building and the majority of the other residents vote to kick you out. Do you think that the vote would have legal standing?

It is easy for Quebecers to believe that they and they alone may modify the terms of union, it just seems so right that if a majority of Quebecers want out, their will should prevail.
But it doesn't work that way...

Imagine the people of Newfoundland holding a referendum deciding whether they should withdraw from the terms of the contract agreement for power with Hydro-Quebec.
I imagine that 95% of the Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans would vote to abrogate the deal.

But I also I imagine Quebec would object, telling the Newfies that a deal is a deal and that no referendum can modify the terms of a contract, not without Hydro-Quebec's consent.
Just because the Newfoundlanders vote to cut ties with Hydro-Quebec, they plainly can't do it.
In fact the Supreme Court has already told Newfoundland the exact same thing.
 Tough noogies, a deal's a deal.

The Clarity Act is actually a godsend to Quebec separatists, because it is a legal road map to achieving independence.

Ask a clear and unambiguous question and get a clear majority. Voila!

The only issue to be decided is what that clear majority might be and that issue should represent the entire debate.
Quebec telling the rest of the country that it is their decision alone to decide on the terms of divorce is patently ludicrous.

Stephane Dion made known these facts known to Quebec through a series of three professorial letters directed at Quebec leaders in person and the public in general. While the message and the messenger were not to the liking of separatists, Dion was indeed pointing out the stark reality of Quebec succession. I'm reprinting this analysis because it is worthy of our respect.
"In the first open letter, Dion challenged three assertions that Bouchard had made: that a unilateral declaration of independence is supported by international law, that a majority of "50% plus one" was a sufficient threshold for secession, and that international law would protect the territorial integrity of Quebec following a secession. Against the first assertion, Dion argued that the vast majority of international law experts "believe that the right to declare secession unilaterally does not belong to constituent entities of a democratic country such as Canada." In regard to the simple majority argument, Dion argues that due to the momentous changes to Quebecers' lives that would result from secession, a simple majority that could disappear in the face of difficulties would be insufficient to ensure the political legitimacy of the sovereigntist project. In regard to the territorial integrity of Quebec, Dion retorts that "there is neither a paragraph nor a line in international law that protects Quebec's territory but not Canada's. International experience demonstrates that the borders of the entity seeking independence can be called into question, sometimes for reasons based on democracy."
In Dion's second open letter to Jacques Brassard, Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister, Dion expands upon his earlier arguments against the territorial integrity of Quebec following secession by highlighting the inconsistency in the argument that Canada is divisible but Quebec is not. Secondly, Dion underscores that without recognition by the Government of Canada and when opposed by a strong minority of citizens, a unilateral declaration of independence faces much difficulty in gaining international recognition.
In Dion's third open letter to Lucien Bouchard, he criticizes the Quebec premier for accepting some aspects of the Supreme Court ruling on Secession (such as the political obligation for the Government of Canada to negotiate secession following a clear expression of will from the people of Quebec) and not other sections of the ruling (such as the need for a clear majority on a clear question and the unconstitutionality of a unilateral declaration of independence). In regard to the ruling, Dion makes three claims: that the federal government has a role in the selection of the question and the level of support required for it to pass, that secession can only be achieved through negotiation rather than a "unilateral declaration of independence", and that the terms of negotiation could not be decided solely by the Government of Quebec. Wikipedia
Quebec needs Canada's approval to separate, because a deal's a deal.
The only other path is a unilateral declaration of independence, whereby Quebec tells Canada that it is independent without permission, a scenario that even Quebecers would reject, because those situations lead to partition and possibly armed conflict.

Leading up to the legal challenge over Bill 99 next year and Mr. Tyler's contention that Quebec cannot decide its future unilaterally, what is important to remember is that a 'deal is a deal'....just ask the Newfies.


  1. FROM ED
    EDITOR, it ould be nice o kno hoe the Francos feel about separation. An indepedndant poll woul;d be helpful to know from them instead of from the mouth of marois. How many French people still actually want separation?. Ed

    1. it's around half the francophones. and i'd say roughly 75% of the other half don't want it because they believe quebec is poor, they are the weaker part onto which propaganda works. you're left with a quarter of the no vote, or 12.5% of francos who are proud canadians nationalists: dudes that are almost fully assimilated.

    2. If a deal is a deal ....then the entire country should have a say and If quebec ever has a third referendum, it is only fair and just the ROC should hold one as well in parallel asking them if quebec should remain or not. This being said, I am more afraid of the ROC's response than quebec's. I am almost convinced la belle province has outstayed its welcome and the ROC is quite ready to give it the boot.

    3. @anectote

      "it is only fair and just the ROC should hold one as well in parallel asking them if quebec should remain or not."

      a likely outcome is quebec votes for separation and canada votes for quebec to remain. then what?


    5. @sauga

      i dare you to try and explain to our community the troll aspect of my comment above. then, and i admit readily it will be much easier for me, i'll explain what's trollish about yours.

    6. My money is on quebec voting to stay, LIKE THE OTHER TWO TIMES, (and Canada for ousting it), cause you know what they say...3-time's a hey...dare to dream pinstripes...dare to dream. Lol

      The rest of us live.... in Reality & Truth ! Try is sometime.

    7. Mr. need to go read my previous post to you ...look in previous.

      I thought I'd made myself clear...u hard of hearing? pls give it up...cause, YOU....I will ignore.

    8. FROM ED
      Anectote, these are the EDITOR"S word."Sovereigntists, as we see in our comments sections, are adept at denial, twisting and spinning and use the minutest of facts to confound the debate.So what I'll write is simple and to the point, and I appreciate comments that pertain only to the subject at hand, because we have many more pieces of this sort in the future,
      He is making it clear. No trolls.
      You know last month I was speaking to the Managing Director at my sons college. She sits on the board of three mining companies and has a PHD. I invited her to look in on OUR blog.I asked her yesterday if she had checkedn us out. She asked me, "Why is that teenager trying to educate trolls that are obviously smarter than he is ." I asked her to post her opinion on separatism." She said, "From what I see they wouldn't understand it."
      Read the EDITOR"S words above. NO TROLLS> ED
      her opinion on separatiwsm.

    9. @anectote

      from ed's latest bad comment: "Why is that teenager trying to educate trolls that are obviously smarter than he is ."

      ed's phd friend thinks that you are a teenager and that i'm smarter than you. and we have to assume it's ed's position too. what's your opinion on this?

  2. FROM ED
    Questions to be asked;
    1. Do you actually want to leave Canada.?
    2. Are you willing to give up the $18 billion per year that Canada gives Quebec?
    3. Do you think Quebec can survive on it's own financially. ?

    I do agree with Couillard and his cherubim telling harper to stay out of it.The bill is dying on it's own. This only tells people that as long as they are in Canada the Feds will run their lives, not the government they voted in.. If that doesn't give Marois the ammunition she needs I don't know what will. Ed

    1. UN GARS BIEN SYMPATHIQUE DE FRANKFORTMonday, November 18, 2013 at 8:54:00 PM EST


      1. No. The quebec elite need Canada. However blackmail is good for quebec $$$.
      2. Laughable as quebecois were indoctrinated in thinking that quebec gets shortchanged by Ottawa. Most quebecois believe that more money goes from quebec to Ottawa than back.
      3. Unlikely to survive unless an independant quebekistan exploits its resources.
      My week in the USA was great. Rob Ford was a big topic down there. Not so much back "home" in Frankfurt.
      Booking flights for xmas in Calgary & Montreal. 10 days off. Can't wait.

    2. first question is very blurry. it could mean do you want to take off for a holiday. very bad suggestion ed.
      second question includes an unverified number, also a very bad question to ask.
      third one is also bad because it's not the point at all. one can think quebec can survive and still be against separation. and vice versa. very bad question too.
      perfect score ed.

    3. @ ED: I disagree with your assertion that "This only tells people that as long as they are in Canada the Feds will run their lives, not the government they voted in." The federal government has a say in the lives of Quebec residents just as it has a say in the lives of every Canadian in every other province or territory, no matter how someone voted. The PQ is a minority government that gained power despite receiving the votes of a minority of the electorate in the province. The precept that only the Quebec government represents Quebeckers is false.


    5. @sauga

      the most irrelevant comment up to now is un gars bs de frankfort's. the most naive one is ed's. ex-mtler1642 has the most boring comment. the most irrefutable one is mine. but the most trollish comment is definitely yours: screaming, totally off subject and likely destined to have the conversation derail towards an argument on trolls.

    6. Ed: Three well-posed questions. My answers to them are ja, da and sí. Surprised by my answer to the third one? Actually, my son said something very interesting to me on Sunday when I was visiting with him.

      He doesn't want Quebec to separate. I asked him why, and he mentioned how Quebec is very rich in natural resources. I had to explain to him that while this is true, the Québécois de souche don't seem all that motivated to extract them. He said "Anglophone Canada" is doing it. Without getting into a debate about it, I was more fascinated at his insight.

      I figure, based on his answer, we absolutely should grind the equalization payments to Quebec to a halt. Quebec has a cheap source of clean hydro power, yet they never properly exploited it. I remember during my adolescent years working at the defunct Pascal Hardware chain at their biggest store of all, in Carrefour Laval, the seppies were all saying how the LG projects would produce kazillions of kilowatt hours to be sold to the power-hungry Americans in the Northeast.

      What happened?

      I'm hearing all kinds of stories about Quebec having kazillions of gallons of shale oil to frack.

      What happened?

      When I took geography back in high school decades ago, I heard about Quebec's millions of ounces of gold and silver being mined and even more to get to in the ground, not to mention tons of other resources waiting to be extracted.

      Why aren't they being extracted?

      The Great John James "Goldilocks" Charest came up with this master «Plan de Nord.»

      Where is it? Why did it take him until his third mandate to come up with such a plan with this abundant supply of ounces and tons of valuable stuff in the ground?

      Why should Quebec bother to get busy and harvest these supposed riches out of the ground? Why indeed? Why should they when the federal government ridiculously has, for over six decades, been giving Quebec free and easy money courtesy of, as my son called it, "Anglophone Canada"?

      I'm hoping someone from Harper's staff in the PMO is watching what is written by the Editor, and those who constructively comment.


    7. FROM ED
      EXMTL, We all know what you say is true but we have to see it the way the separatists will see it. Of course the government has the right but flaunting it is harmful to our cause. Anything the Feds do is ammo for marois to push her bullshit. "See they think you can't think for yourselves. WE'll never be free until we're aw-ay from them."To understand the enemym trying thinking how the enemy thinks.

    8. Ed: The feds have exercised passive resistance for the last 40 years and it hasn't worked. Name one time the feds came to the aid of the minorities in Quebec over the language B.S. The answer: NEVER!

      So based on what the Editor is saying, Quebec can't separate, even if we choke off their equalization payments. $18 billion saved. WOW! SUPER WOW! That would eliminate the federal deficit in one fell swoop. BONUS!


    9. UN GARS BIEN SYMPATHIQUE DE FRANKFORTTuesday, November 19, 2013 at 7:52:00 AM EST

      "the most irrelevant comment up to now is un gars bs de frankfort's."

      Why mate? I don't drink from your Kool-Aid, mate?

      BTW I really like Mr. Sauga the troll. He left quebec decades ago but still hangs in here to bash quebec. Nice hatred from you sauce man.

    10. @un gars bs de frankfort

      "Why mate?"

      you win for most irrelevant because i don't care about your plane tickets.

  3. @Editor,

    I know you said you don't want to drag statistics into the conversation, but no one to date has actually demonstrated what the cost and financial implications will be should a yes vote go through. HOW MUCH will it cost ..??,,,in black and white, what can we expect, economically?? Present the entire picture...a roadmap of what will follow.

    This is something no one has ever really talked about. Canada should issue a official document defining and explaining exactly what quebec can expect should it choose to opt out. It would be greatly beneficial for all concerned.

    1. A really wonderful question....
      I'm going to get into what you suggested a little later into the year but understand, once facts and figures are proffered, the naysayers and spin artists will go into high gear to discredit those numbers based on fantasy.

      In the short term, I'm going to keep the argument simple and deal with the patently obvious.

      My next piece in this debate.:
      "How many Quebecers will flee Quebec in the event of sovereignty?"

    2. Editor, to answer your question "How many Quebecers will flee Quebec in the event of sovereignty?" The answer is every minority who feasibly can leave, will leave, so I'd say that's about 80% of the minorities. My guess re Francophones leaving would be at least as many as the minorities, not in percentages, just the number of Francophone bodies leaving.

      This action would certainly force the Quebeckers left behind to have to get mining those riches in the ground or starve, and there really is no reason they should starve, but their welfare state will most certainly be sliced to ribbons. With Quebec's declining birth rate, especially among the Francophones who abandoned «La revanche des berceaux» when they abandoned their church.

      Books have been written on the costs of separation, so what was written above about there being no literature is untrue.

      Quebec can try to separate unilaterally, but Canada can block Quebec from joining NAFTA, Canada's deal with the EEC, and potentially what I see coming down the pike eventually a free trade deal between all the Americas. Normally for a country to join a free trade bloc, all the countries are independent parties to the action, and agreeing to admit a country as a member must be unanimous.

      Near the end of this commentary, Editor, you wrote "The only other path is a unilateral declaration of independence, whereby Quebec tells Canada that it is independent without permission, a scenario that even Quebecers would reject, because those situations lead to partition and possibly armed conflict.


      Québécois de souche were dead set against conscription, weren't they? The enlisted personnel will form a union and strike against the officers demanding a war with weekends off, maximum 7 hour days with hour lunches and five 15-minute breaks per day and unlimited free beer. Many others will jump their back fences when the draft board heads up their walk to the front door.

      *IPCF is a holding company owned by the Loblaw Group of Companies. When the company was formed back in the 1980s, the IPCF stood for "If Pigs Could Fly". Now you know.


    3. Editor: Re Stéphane Dion's trilogy of business letters:

      Is this the same Stéphane Dion who once called Bill 101 a "great Canadian law?"

      Is this the same Stéphane Dion whose father once said a long time ago that the best way for Quebec to get all it can from Canada is to hold a knife to Canada's throat?

      Hmmmm...make one think.

      Fellow readers, please bear in mind:: IF YOU DON'T GIVE THE TROLLS A WALL, THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO BOUNCE THEIR BALL!

    4. @Editor,

      Denis Codere's team looks good, nice to see greater diversity now prevails at Montreal's City Hall, finally more reflective of what Montreal exemplifies. I was so impressed he invited Marcel Côté, to be a Consultant, just what the doctor ordered. Going forward, Codere's will have to push Montreal's agenda where the whole sovereignty issue is concerned and convey to the present powers that be in quebec city that Montreal is the financial engine of this province and it is a force to be reckoned with.

    5. Right on AnecTOTE - I've been saying this forever. The federal government must lay out, in plain English and French, the cost of quebec leaving Canada - the disadvantages and, if any, the advantages. I do not agree with Ed at all; the propaganda of the separatists is now way out of proportion to common sense and, when you read their comments on line, they think all that will change is that they will pay all their taxes to the crazy people they elect to head up their government instead of paying federal taxes. As long as they think that this is all that will change in their lives, they will go on believing this BS and the federal government, as our Canadian representatives, have a responsibility and duty to inform all citizens of Quebec exactly what will happen to them as a result of leaving confederation. 40 years and holding - it's time to put a stop to kissing their asses and remaining silent. The cost, and not just monetary, should be laid bare for all to see. There are many separatists that think there is no real cost to separation from Canada.

    6. Most people will not leave the new state of quebec. Why would they? They'll still have the same life as before. The anglos will officially be minorities and quebec will be forced to give them more rights and freedoms.

    7. @mark

      "Most people will not leave the new state of quebec. Why would they?"

      but some will. most of them will have found a good opportunity elsewhere and will just blame quebec for good measure even though they'd have gladly stayed. the very few that will leave to avoid doomsday as routinely described by fearmongers anectote and others on this blog will end up like sauga: bitter and gnawed by the remorse that comes with a very bad decision on a fundamental matter.

    8. OMG - have people really lost all common sense? Why would they leave? Let me think - hateful, racist, bigoted, malcontents, can't get along with anyone besides those of their own ilk, no more social programs because all of Canada contribute to our social network and we would no longer have the advantage of having those programs, highest taxes in North America, infrastructure and health care system that sucks, no way of making this province even remotely attractive to anyone but pur lain francophones that have already left and have no intention of coming back, worthless real estate (because no one is coming back), piss poor attitude by francophones about EVERYTHING - time for bed but I can continue this list with thousands of other things next time.

      By the way, there is no "remorse" leaving this toxic environment, it's called "anger" and it lasts for a long time - don't ever forget you idiot seppies.

  4. Bombshell...SCOOP
    Quebec crown prosecutors poised to charge 2 MMA executives with criminal charges in relation to Lac Megantic disaster
    No! The head honcho,of MMA, Ed Burkhardt , is not is not one of those to be charged, according to Crown Prosectuors.

  5. adski wrote about my position below some time ago and I want to expand it.

    There is another illusion that after independence New Canada (that is Canada today minus Quebec) and New Quebec will enter negotiation amicably to divide assets and debts and after that life goes on with the only difference is that there is no longer Canadian government in New Quebec.

    These are some of what the New Canada government could do unilaterally.

    1. Secure the border.
    2. Revise citizenship laws. There will be strict criteria to allow those with Quebec citizenship to be New Canadian citizen.
    3. Actively undermine New Quebec position in international treaties or organizations.
    4. Create monetary and fiscal policies that would create disadvantages for New Quebec using the CAD.
    5. Require companies to declare their domicile. Companies based in New Quebec would be treated as foreign companies.
    6. Impose tariffs and duties for New Quebec products.
    7. Rescind the Official Languages Act.

    Sure, New Quebec can also retaliate. However, so far I see that New Quebec's leverage is its geographical location. New Canada would surely need to concede something to connect Ontario with New Brunswick and for access to the Lower St.Lawrence, including the Seaway. Having written that, I think New Canada would have more of bargaining power that New Quebec.

    1. fFROM ED
      Troy, The waters in Canada are Federally owned. The seaway is 50 /50 American and Canadian. Ed.

    2. FROM ED
      A further thought on the StLaawrence river and seaway situation.
      The sparatists probably think Quebec owns it but in the sixties when Seaway workers here in Quebec went on strike, President Johnson told Mike Pearson, "That strike better end fast. It was our money that built that thing and if I have to send troops in to open it up, I will." It was over immediately. I could see Pauline pulling an indian tactic blocking the seaway. She'd get a hell of a surprise when Apache and Panther gunships are flopping overhead. Ed

    3. Right U R, Ed! Maybe the Real Canada will pussyfoot with Quebec, but the Americans won't. I'm sure LBJ would have blown the Seaway strikers into the St. Lawrence if worse came to worst; besides, if there is armed conflict, certainly a possibility, the Americans are unlikely to tolerate instability on their northern border for too long a time, esp. if it interferes with commerce between the two countries (Canada and the U.S., that is!)

      You can be sure the liklihood of partition in Quebec is a certaintly, just like death, taxes, and the sun rising the day after if separation takes place. I don't see the First Nations people wanting to be part of an independent Quebec. They held plebicites back in 1995 voting about 94% against separation.

      I've mentioned before that Quebec's probability of maintaining the Canadian dollar is zero beyond about a month. Separatists, like Celine Dion who to the best of my knowledge sold her island estate just off Montreal, are dreaming of freedom from Canada, so why would they want their monetary policy directed by a foreign power? The Czech Republic and Slovakia separated amicably about 20 years ago agreeing to a common currency, but after 39 days, the Slovakians realized the jig was up and they had to produce their own currency. Slovakia has suffered something awful ever since.

      As stated previously, Quebec can probably survive separation if their lazy-assed society finally accepts the fact their welfare state is shot to hell and they'll actually have to work and harvest their natural resources out of the ground. The party would be over, and if they want to maintain their population, they'll have to get into the bedroom and get VERY busy! They'll finally have to make sacrifices if they hope to maintain a FRACTION of what they've had up to now.


    4. Mississauga,

      A bit of netiquette, you do not have to shout at us.

    5. Troy: Sorry that somebody made some kind of rule that upper case lettering is to be construed as shouting. I took advantage of upper case lettering and bold print to be conspicuous. Sadly, too often our worthwhile contributors end up jousting with the trolls. They're trying to goad me, but I just don't bite anymore, and even if I'm constantly asking for everybody to ignore the trolls. The Editor has himself blamed us contributors for getting goaded into these jousts and they end up devolving into jibborish that is way off the topic and wasting time of constructive debate.

      To all our worthwhile readers and contributors: Please forgive any misconstruction with respect to my using upper case lettering.

    6. FrOM ED
      TROY, your post about post war settlement has many good facts but it sounds like we would be trying to get even rather than working out a settleement. I would hope all partiers would work amicably to put an end to what we've been going ythrough. vengeance would attain nothing but continuation of hard feelings. Ed

    7. I want vengeance and pay back for all the years of misery. Make no mistake about it. I'm sure many of us feel the same! Being nice, understanding and helping them keep their culture and language has resulted in the creation of a mindset that is not fit to live with the rest of us any longer. I'm damned if I'm having tea and crumpets with any of them following the breakup of our country and the misery they are bound to cause to everyone else! Hard feelings will be the norm for many years to come and I will retain this anger without a second thought!

    8. @cutie003

      vengeance and anger?!? nice values. how can you write with such fury and not realize you are an obstacle to the common good?

      you'll die miserable mate. you should check out siddharta's teachings before the reaper shows up.

    9. Je crois qu'elle regrette que Wolfe ne nous ai pas totalement exterminé suite à sa victoire sur les plaines d'Abraham...Une vraie tigresse.

    10. "Vengeful and angry" very aptly describes the mindset of Quebec nationalists/separatists during the past 40 years.

    11. Vous devriez savoir pourquoi...Durham.

    This man is for the charter. I think that he has an interesting point of view.


  8. Port de signes religieux: le PLQ change d'orientation

    Les "liberals" s'approchent lentement mais sûrement des valeurs de notre futur pays concernant la laïcité.

    1. our fellow contributors can go months against the parti québécois for a thing and be totally mute about the liberals doing the same. zero comment about what you bring forward this time and zero comment about the related houda-pepin affair. fascinating.

      but apart from this totally laughable behavior of thatguy, anectote, ed and company, i think the pile of contradiction that accumulates on couillard's back trickles down from his leadership issues.

    2. Je me demande bien pour qui cutie007 va voter aux prochaines élections.

      Au fait,est-ce que " Equality Party 2.0 " représente toujours une option?

    3. @s.r

      if she's true to herself she'll vote conservative: federalist, lower taxes, less programs, low iq. if she decides to contribute positively to the society she lives in she'll vote for pq or option nationale. but the forces that will pull her back in the herd will be strong and she may end up voting for the money laundering machine that will shear her back once again.

    4. @student

      C'est aussi ce que je crois...Niveau de moralité = zéro.

  9. Ford vient de péter les plombs...

    Comment un obèse peut-il se déplacer si rapidement?

    1. We choose food, housing and employment.

      At least a crack head is mostly only destroying their own life (self important Torontonians beating their chest aside).

      Should we be so lucky to have a crack head running somethign in Quebec. At least they wouldn;t have time to come up with all these society destroying ideas like the PQ.

      Always better off with a crack head then a psychopath.

      The crack head only has his next "hit" in his crosshairs. Psychopathic PQ members are always looking for ways of destroying the social peace and stirring up ethnic tensions.

    2. Careful cebeuq! Tut tut! The individual you are responding to has clearly been identified as a troll, and responses like yours give them fuel for tasteless rebuttal!

      I suppose what the troll wrote is not offensive, but you know he and his fellow trolls will devolve a thread into a cesspool of a debate. Watch out for the rebuttal and what is written!

    3. If you ask for it...

    4. "I suppose what the troll wrote is not offensive"

      What didn't you understand?

    5. "We choose food..."

      Je crois que cette vidéo le souligne de façon éloquente.

    6. Sorry I forgot that I shouldn;t feed the trolls.

      Besides now that Tania Longpre is running in an election she doesn;t have as much time to hang out here and troll.

    7. So student = Tania Longpré?

      If true, lol

    8. What happened today in Toronto's city hall was a coup d'etat perpetrated by Toronto's elitist interests with the help of the media which these interests control.

    9. @adski

      you seem to disapprove of what is happening in toronto. what would have been a fair outcome in your humble opinion?

    10. Don't waste your time with this troll Tania!

    11. UN GARS BIEN SYMPATHIQUE DE FRANKFORTWednesday, November 20, 2013 at 6:43:00 AM EST

      @ S.R.
      "Comment un obèse (Ford) peut-il se déplacer si rapidement?
      Il a prit des cours par Denis Coderre...

    12. UN GARS BIEN SYMPATHIQUE DE FRANKFORTWednesday, November 20, 2013 at 6:46:00 AM EST

      "What happened today in Toronto's city hall was a coup d'etat perpetrated by Toronto's elitist interests with the help of the media which these interests control."
      I concur. However those lefties/socialists David Miller groupies must have been totally angered that a drunk crackhead could be fiscally responsible and successfully reduce expenses and financially revitalize that city. Proves that socialism (Are you reading this Pauline Marois & others) is a failure.

    13. I don't know about any lefties/socialists David Miller groupies. Even if these "groupies" had a bone to pick with Ford, they would not have been able to rally the media to hound Ford for days on end.

      When the mainstream media hounds are out to get you, that can only mean that you got in the way of some powerful corporate interests. That's when things like photos of you smoking crack or your unpaid rents start emerging, get airplay every day, and get blown out of proportion. If you don't step out of line and obey the orders of corporate overlords, all the skeletons stay in the closet and the media leave you alone.

  10. FROM ED
    EDITOR, your words "All right, enough with the boring historical stuff, it all comes down to this question.
    Can Quebecers decide on their own whether to secede from Canada and under what conditions that decision would be based on?

    Canada's position.....NO.
    Quebec's position...YES.

    You can easily imagine how seductive to Quebecers the idea is, that they alone can decide their future. "
    Yes, it's easy to imagine how seductive this could be to a separatist mind.
    "What conditions?" They have stated that they will call a referendum when 'conditions are right.' (Their words)
    Federal imnterference into antyjing gets separatist backs up and they bristle at heraing the word Canada. This is what Pauline has created and what she wants more of.. Harper's unnecessarry interference in the bill 90 matter iis going directly against what Couillard and the Liberals need to get Francophones behind them..
    Quebec's future will be decided in the mind of the ignorant people living in communities, knowing nothing about the true situation of Quebec. They don't need to know nor do they want to know, they will vote on what they're told. Marois will tell them Federal interference is detriment to their well being politically.. Couillard and the Liberals understand this thinking and now have to fight harper before they can get to the people we need to reach.
    You're right EDITOR, they alone will decide OUR future . Ed

  11. Keeping the people ignorant has not worked in over 40 years. Time to stop the ignorance and lay it on the line - the tactics that are being used by the federalists is lacking any backup and now is the time for Plan B to be unveiled. Why do you think that the separatists keep saying "Canada is not a country"? Because they are too meek and scared to speak up - no more of this! There is a Plan B, we all know it, let's get it out into the open or the PQ may win a majority next time with their Charter and Bill 14 which appeals to the ignorant in the back woods of quebec. Saying the federalists are stopping them from getting their majority is working with these small minded people and, as they sway the votes, let the see the real truth! Appeasement and being reasonable is not working so let's get on with the brass tacks of the matters! These people aren't stupid - let them see what they are voting for! No more of living for every election - time to move past the whole subject before the province sinks below recovery if not already there.

    And Mr. Tyler and Mr. Henderson should not have to carry this burden of Bill 99 alone - this concerns all of us including the federal government and it's time they stepped in and assisted both these gentlemen with getting Bill 99 struck down and the faster the better!

  12. Speaking of trolls... looks evident that Mr. Sauga is one.
    @ED: what is a "Panther gunship"? (your 11:32 am post).

    Thank you.

    1. FROM ED
      FTR< A Panther gunship is one of the three powerful helicopters used in Viet Nam. The others were 'Apache' and 'Blackhawk" These were loaded with firepower and have become an essential part of groundwar tactics. Mr Sauga means well. Ed

    2. Mr. Brown,

      I know that you served the country honorable as a soldier. However, the information you give is totally wrong. All three helicopters, AS565 Panther, AH-64 Apache and UH-60 Black Hawk did not exist in the Viet Nam War. The Panther entered service in the French Navy in 1984, the Apache and the Black Hawk entered U.S. Army service in 1986 and 1979, respectively. In fact, UH-60 Black Hawk was commissioned specifically to replace UH-1 Iroquois ("Huey"), the helicopter identified with the Viet Nam War.

    3. FROM ED
      he Grumman Panther was Marine Corps’ first widely used jet aircraft. Although outclassed by the Air Force’s F-86 Sabre or the Soviet MiG-15bis, the F9F-2 was an excellent ground attack aircraft and earned the admiration of the ground troops it supported in Korea and Viet Nam. The Museum’s F9F-2B is one of two VMF-311 Panthers that flew the Marine’s first ever jet combat mission – an attack mission in support of beleaguered U.S. Army soldiers
      Showing results for apache helicopter vietnam war

      Search instead for apache helicopter viet nam war
      Search Results

      Attack helicopter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia‎
      Above, a U.S Army's Boeing AH-64 Apache (attack helicopter) and below, a scout ... Based on this realization, and with the growing involvement in Vietnam, the U.S. ... Apaches fired the first shots of the war, destroying enemy early warning ...
      Really Troy, I nver post anything that is not factual. If I'm not sure I look it up. I don't want to gt into this, it's totally off topic

    4. FROM ED
      Troy, thanks for your kind words but I did not serve honorably according to Princess Pat's Commanding Officer. I was disonorably discvhrged after six months when they found out I was underage. Apparently lying on enlistment paprs is a major Crime. Ed

    5. Ed,

      You initially said that the Panther gunship was one of the three powerful helicopters used in Vietnam. That's not factual. Troy is correct in this case.

      As far as "Apaches firing the first shots of the war, destroying enemy early warning," this occurred during the first Gulf war, not the Vietnam war.

    6. @ed

      "I don't want to gt into this, it's totally off topic."

      dude today's subject is quebec sovereignty's plausibility.

      and cutie003's on about the couillard's latest flunk, sauga's raving on your illness and on charest's pityful legacy, anectote shares her positive view on crook coderre, un gars bs de frankfort is posting his holiday schedule, adski is analysing the toronto city hall coup and anonymous coward is drifting away on some histerical troll hunt.

      so i wouldn't worry too much about being off topic. only michel patrice seems to be respectful of the editor enough to address his editorial.

    7. That's golden coming from you, student. You rarely post comments regarding the Editor's main topic. He just wrote the following: "Sovereigntists, as we see in our comments sections, are adept at denial, twisting and spinning and use the minutest of facts to confound the debate." He was undoubtedly referring to you, as well as S.R.


    Good to see the Liberals standing strong on the moral high ground. NOT!

    Usual Quebec politics. If the crazy hinterland francophones don;t support you, change your policies until they do.

    Nothing changes with these clowns.

    Is there any policy position that the Liberals woulnd;t immediately change around and sell out for a few possible "seppie light" voters?

    Disgusting. Note to Liberal brain trust, we already have a CAQ for this!

    1. God - and Ed wonders why we get so disgusted with the liberals. If they would make a stand, give the reason for the stand and stop trying to please the hard line separatists (which will never happen), they would gain the support of the soft nationalists. This way they're always liable to lose votes from both sides. It's no wonder quebec is a political nightmare for federalists!

    2. People who deserve respect usually get respect - our provincial representatives and our federal representatives don't get that - silence and appeasement makes them all look weak and ineffective - surely they can see that by now!

    3. Cutie: Ohh....GOSH-DARN-SHUCKS! (Troy: now I'm shouting!) You stole my thunder! I so wanted to give Ed the "I-told-you-so" that Couillard has now committed. Ah, what th' hell. Ed: What Cutie wrote above. Another fallen idol, Ed, to go along with John Turner and John James "Goldilocks" Charest. Haven't you learned anything about idols in your 77 years of life? You, of all people.

      This is why it is against Jewish law to believe in, or bow down to idols.

      You're supposed to become a crotchety old man where you know the ways of the world inside out, but are just too old and weak to do anything about it. Don't you know how to grow old properly?

    4. Principles and integrity got thrown out a long time ago in Quebec.

      Normally political parties that blow in the wind like the PQ, CAQ and the Liberals would never be elected. Their position on any policy depends on where they are standing when they answer the question.

      How do they expect us to vote for them when they are constantly changing opinions.

      One week they will "study" the charter, next week they don;t like it, and the week after that they are proposing their own.

      Thinking with your heart. It's like walking on your hands and knee's. What's truly scary is Quebecers seem surprised at the results.

      It's like all the stuff in the Charbonneau, broken bridges etc all happened on their own. Quebecers can;t take responsibility for their own province.

      Quebec is doomed to repeat the same mistakes forever it appears. The majority of the population is incapable of learning from their mistakes.

      After how many years/generations does something become cultural?

      We have rampant fraud for 100 years, that makes a cultural value? We need 200 years so people can accept it's a cultural value?

      How many years is it where the same things are expressed in Quebec society over and over and over before we can call them what they are? Part of the culture.

    5. A culture they are proud of - sickening - glad I will never have their mentality - like a group of hillbillies that don't know better.

    6. FROM ED
      Ceneuq, one has to consider the sepratist mindset. There is no use trying to inform these people. They are so ingrained in hate forr Federalists they want to hear nothing about Canada. Cebeuq I am tghe only Liberal on thi street all my neighbours are separatists. They are fed up with Marois but they see Couillard as a Canadian. He has to convince them that as a Canadian he is still on their side.
      I am freindly with all my neighbours and they are aware the economy is bad. They also don't like her charter idea. They are hoping for someone better than Pauline and if an election were held today, I know she'd lose. Couillard is looking better to them every day except when Harper talks like they are errant children. Basically they are errant
      vacuouus robots waiting for a simple answer that seems right to them.
      Here's an example of what we're up against. They say , " If Canada wants to fight a court case against our laws, let them do it in Canada.". They don't want to hear anything Canada. Funding for Mr.Fraser, I would give him a boot back to Ottawa. Like the separatists, right now I see him as an enemy. Ed

    7. Let me second that "HAH - TOLD YOU SO" to Ed, or anyone else for that matter who naively thinks the Quebec Liberals mean change. Or thinks, for a even second, that they would offer basic fundamental concept one might expect from a democratic government, such as equality and basic human rights. I've said it countless times before, but all we have are three flavors of the Parti Quebecois: Classic PQ, BBQ PQ, and Lite PQ. Pick whomever you want, it will make no damn difference for this hopeless province. If you think otherwise, you are seriously delusional.

      Wow, what can I say. This has to be the final nail in the coffin for Quebec. At least there had been SOME one spark of reason within the government, the official opposition completely and utterly opposing this hate poison. Now the Liberal are suddenly open to parts of it?!

      Never mind if the charter passes or not, just merely prepossessing it has already created irreparable damaging consequences. The government is the proverbial parent of the state, the it's citizens their children. So now we have all three parties OK with the charter of hate, what kind of influence does that have on the average joe out there? I'm actually surprised the Liberals haven't come out saying sovereignty is not a bad idea too. Oh wait, that will come soon enough, if they think it will grab them votes.

      Well that's it, no one in the provincial government has the foresight to even see what the hell is wrong with this province. So be it, let them drive the final nails in.

    8. You're right Apple - all the provincial parties are separatists and it's no wonder we are on our final leg of this trip into chaos. Not one provincial party to vote for that will tell it as it really is to the delusional idiots that truly believe that breaking up a country is as simple as a handshake and friendly trip to the local bar. When they have people like Ed giving their undying love and vote no matter what they do, no wonder they jump from pillar to post on every damn agenda item that comes up. The end result is this country will be broken up and no one is here to stop it. Just a slower process with the liberals in power; that's the only difference.

    9. "Well that's it, no one in the provincial government has the foresight to even see what the hell is wrong with this province. So be it, let them drive the final nails in."

      They see it, problem with politicians going to power these days is not to bring about change, safeguard values and principles and behave as "Parent" to the state they govern, and perhaps when necessary administering Tough Love. Today's politician is the Parent who panders to the spoilt kid ( i.e. The State), if it means he gets to keep his job. The current Liberal Party Leader for Quebec isn't interested in doing the right thing. He's interested in keeping his newly attained position so that he has half a chance at maybe winning an election and becoming Premier, a notch on his belt...or maybe it's on his bucket list. That's the extent of his political ambition, it has nothing to do with..The People

      And yes, the 3 main stream provincial parties lean toward sovereignty to varying degrees. I believe that 98% of French Canadians are Nationalist, (closet seppies), I will bet you hard cash that all 3 Leaders of same main stream parties, when the Bloc was the official opposition in Ottawa, voted for it. They are all your garden variety seppies. THERE ARE NO FEDERALISTS LEFT IN QUEBEC, Get with the Program, except for whoever lives on the island of Montreal and this is why we should kiss the rest of the ROQ goodbye, IF we understand what the dire Financial repercussions will be.

      Quite frankly, everyone should be working on a back-up to get the hell out of here, in the least painful way....should Montreal City-State never see the light of day.

      For those with no back-up plan, my suggestion to you is, should there be another provincial election, vote for the PQ, so they get elected majority, allow them to have a 3rd Referendum, by g-d's grace, hopefully they win...once that happens, it'll sure be easier for the entire pie to crumble AND THEN you can make off like bandits in the night with your little piece of the province. Then we shall have a Montreal City-State.

      Don't vote for sovereignty for their sake, vote for it for your sake. Otherwise, you will rock this terminally ill child for eternity.

    10. FROM ED
      Apple, you and Cutie are really something else. You're sore because the Liberals will not release their plans whch means you know nothing about what they are going to do. So admitting that you don't know you are campaigning against them anyway, instead of waiting for them to get their act together you prefer to announce that they are not going to change anything. You don't fucking knoe what they are going to do. They might be planning something that would make us all happy. But you don't want to give tghem that chance.You prefer to follow Cutie's assumption that they are doing everything to antagonize her. Good luck kid, following her blindness will lead you right into a wal You and Cutie can call me what you want, I'll just take it where it comes from. Edl.

    11. ♪E-e-e-d-d-i-eeeeee...oh...E-e-e-d♫, YOU FORGOT ME! (That was shouting, Troy!) Then again, I suppose you're ignoring me, but with our love-hate relationship, I guess it's not so bad not getting admonished and lumped in with your other detractors.

      Ed, these are the certainties of life:

      1. Death
      2. Taxes (and even more taxes in Quebec)
      3. The sun will rise tomorrow and every tomorrow after that
      4. Any and every Quebec government from now to eternity will quell every language within its geographic
      jurisdiction, with far greater emphasis on English than any other language and strenuously push immigrants
      to integrate to be facimilies of their majority self, with the devolution that has taken place for the last half
      century will continue to put Quebec continually deeper into the grave.

      C'mon Ed, get real! Bourassa: Bill 22 + Bill 178 = 200, i.e., Bourassa screwed the English 100% x 2. John James "Goldilocks" Charest gets elected, said he won't change a comma of Bill 101 after being in the federal caucus for 14 years, then comes takes the PQ's Bill 104 plugging the loophole for immigrants and others not entitled to English schooling per Bill 101 with Bill 104.1, hires a zealot to head the OQLF and permits her to hire 26 language police under his tutelage.

      Like most sitcoms, what the PLQ will do is as predictable as the aforementioned certainties. Ed, if you want to believe in fairies, who's going to stop you?

    12. Ed - The so-called "Quebec Charter of Values" ranks right up there with the racial segregation laws of the old American South of the 1950's. THERE IS NO DEBATING SUCH RACIST DOCTRINES, ANYTHING TO DO WITH REVOKING HUMAN RIGHTS BASED ON RACE OR ETHNICITY ARE PLAIN AND CLEARLY WRONG. PERIOD. NO DEBATE.

      The only thing that Liberals can or should do as far as the charter is concerned is to CONDEMNING IT!

      You do not even SPEAK OR OPEN YOUR DAMN MOUTH in supporting such laws, I don't give a fuck if they're serious or not about helping it pass. Do you understand the damage they are doing in not condemning it? Saying they are open to parts of it that may have merit?? No, of course you do not! I'm sure if the Liberals began debating the "good points" of Mein Kampf, you'd be OK with that, wouldn't you.

      You said it all Ed. About letting someone fix your roof, that you don't want to know the details or how they do it. Just blindly trust them and let them take care of it. Seems that's your stance with the Liberals as government. They'll "fix" Quebec, while you put on your blind fold, turn your back and stick your fingers in your ears.

      If the Liberals supporting something as BLACK AND WHITE RACIST AND DANGEROUS as the Charter of Values doesn't finally light up a bulb in your head about what the Quebec Liberals are all about, then you're a lost cause. A fool.

    13. @Apple and Sauga - You guys may have put it "out there" more than I (and probably did) but I can't condemn Ed too much because there are many like him out there that are willing to "trade" and "bargain" for what is obviously our rights and freedoms in the name of "peace" within this province's obviously hostile environment towards anglophones/allophones. I have no idea why these people feel it's OK to bargain away our rights and freedoms in the name of "peace" where we should be fighting like hell to retain what it took hundreds of years and thousands of lives to get where we are today. If the people of quebec would read the "real" history of Canada and understand how precious every right we have under the Canadian Constitution has been earned, we would not be in the mess we are in today. Only the politicians are reaping any rewards from the hate and destruction they are promoting within the population of this province.

  14. And where is some funding Mr. Fraser? If the provincial government can sponsor groups like IF and the SJBS, we need some funding for the battle we are fighting. Kick in with some money and do it properly. We know that the provincial governments are going to give us any help:

    1. "aren't going to give us any help" - so wish the other were true! Freudian slip I guess.

    2. FROM ED
      EDITOR, when I posed the three questions in my post at 8:29 (second post somehow became number ten) I was referring to what separatists should ask themselves. Curiously others are answering for them.
      My questions still stand; - Questions to be asked;
      1. Do you actually want to leave Canada.?
      2. Are you willing to give up the $18 billion per year that Canada gives Quebec?
      3. Do you think Quebec can survive on it's own financially.
      I know if I were a separatist, these are the questins I would ask myself before making a decision.
      Unfortunately, the majority of Francophones living in the backwaters of Quebec don't want to think about it. They will vvote whichever way their next door neighbour is voting. They have the same low mentality as trolls, so we are dealing with blocs of people, not individuals. Couillard understands the franco mindset and will change positions
      as often as it takes to enroll them. His goal is a Liberal government . He understands the one track minds like Cutie but has to ignore them so we don't end up with a PQ majority.
      Mr.Sauga, I have to ignore your posts. This is too important to get sidetracked on your hatred of Charest. An honest man who did the best for his electors (* million French) and does not deserve such slurs. I will argue with you when it's all over. Ed

    3. Yes, Ed, you're speaking of the John James Charest who got his Quislings to vote for Bill 99 and support hiring a seppie zealot to the OQLF (who paradoxically was thrown under the bus by the PQ over Pastagate) and then 26 new language cops to go around harassing small businesses for the pettiest, most minute violations of the fascist language law.

      You want to ignore my posts, that's your prerogative. Now go back to idolizing Dr. Couillard and John Turner.

    4. FROM ED
      Mr. sauga, if you weren't so wrapped up in arguing about the past, you'd be able to see that the EDITOR is trying to accomplish somethingb special here. He has asked for our cooperation and especially to stay on the subject at hand..Ed

    5. The liberal government in quebec has no principles whatsoever and are as guilty of breaking up Canada as the separatists. This has become very clear now that they are backing down on the charter and playing up to the separatists AGAINST Canadian values yet again. What a bunch of jackasses.

    6. FROM ED
      So far the Liberal party has said THEY ARE GOING TO LOOK at the charter. They have not said they will change anything. THEY ARE GOING TO LOOK. at it. You guys are like the old west judges, "We'll give hime a fair trial then we'll hang him." You all follow Cutie who like Madame DesFarge is ready to guillotine anybody who disagrees with her.
      She has worked herself up from the normal person she used to be into a hatefilled English troll. I can feel her venom in her posts. Ed
      I'm beginning to hope that Marois wins a majority because if she does you guys would leave the province and those of us that stay could work to make changes for the better. Ed

    7. Then vote PQ next time Ed - you do anyway. You still will not get it through your head that the liberals are NOT AND I REPEAT NOT STANDING UP FOR CANADIAN VALUES - THEY KISS THE ASSES OF THE SEPARATISTS CONSTANTLY. When are you going to wise up that when you vote for them you are voting AGAINST CANADIAN VALUES and refuse to damn well admit it! You totally can hear the venom in my posts because there is no damn CANADIAN PARTY IN THIS PROVINCE TO VOTE FOR. You are a crazy man that cannot see where the liberals are taking this province and it is the same course as the separatists! There is not one other person on this blog and will disagree with that statement - If there is, please someone speak up and give your reasons for supporting the liberals any longer. I fully realize that there is no one else to vote for at the present time but I would like to hear someone with common sense support what the liberals are doing. So far, no one has presented any facts that support the liberals stance of the Charter of Values and the reason they want to deviate from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way whatsoever. And because I do not support your blind opinion of the liberals does not make one a "troll" - that is a stupid assumption and a stupid statement.


      Je me demande bien pourquoi d'ailleurs...Comment est-ce même possible?

    9. "If there is, please someone speak up and give your reasons for supporting the liberals any longer"

      Parce que vous n'avez aucun choix?

    10. Cutie, My God you are exaspirating . Listen to yourself.
      "f there is, please someone speak up and give your reasons for supporting the liberals any longer. I fully realize that there is no one else to vote for at the present time"
      That has to be the most blind , single minded statement I have ever heard. you know why but your hate for the Liberals over rides common sense.
      Get them elected the PQ is gone.
      Get them elected the pQ is gone
      Get them elected the PQ is gone.
      How many times does it have to be said.
      When the man comes to repair my roof, I don't ask him to explain details on how he does it. Just so he stops the the water and snow from coming in. Ed

    11. I'm exasperating! - Goddammit Ed, listen to yourself defending the indefensible! NO - WE HAVE NO ONE ELSE TO VOTE FOR - Fuck I know that but it doesn't mean I'm going to sit back and watch the liberals walk all over the rights and freedoms of everyone in this GD province without speaking out! Only you do that! Even if Couillard or Charest walked over and kissed Miss Piggy's ass on TV, you would still defend them. As a voter in this province, I have a right and a duty to point out what I feel is wrong with our political system and I will do so until I croak. Even if I did not live here like Mr. Sauga, I would still point out what the hell is going on in this province to anyone and everyone that will listen because it is my responsibility to do so as a Canadian citizen! Couillard could shit right in your face and you would still say "think like the separatists" - Stop thinking like the GD separatists and think like a Canadian for once in your damn life. Wow - to say that you're a stuck in a time loop is a compliment. Couillard, as the rest of the monkeys that run this zoo - will strip you of every right and freedom you are entitled to as a Canadian and you, unlike the rest of us, will run up and fall to your knees in front of him. You're a sick man Ed and as brainwashed as every troll that visits this blog! Wise to hell up.

    12. @ed

      "When the man comes to repair my roof, I don't ask him to explain details on how he does it."

      better a gangster than a separatist right? you are so wrong ed. may you one day become wise.

    13. Cutie - Try and understand Ed's logic...

      Let's say tomorrow morning the Liberals and the PQ played musical chairs in the National Assembly.
      Marois and every one of her caucus members cross over to the other side and **officially** become the Liberal Party, and visa-versa for Couillard, so and he and his caucus officially become the Parti Quebecois.

      Then an snapped election called. Who do you think Ed would vote for? How about it Ed, tell us...

    14. @apple iigs

      i don't understand your question mate. ed would vote for liberals no matter what games they played. he's an anglo-supremacist who was raised to frown upon his french neighbor.

      opposing quebec's independance is his mission. he doesn't know why, but he thinks if he's been convinced of something for 75 years it must be true. can you imagine how difficult it is for an old dude to go back on his opinions? it would be crushing to have to disavow his whole credance on top of his father's teachings. he figures he'd better finish it off this way: wrong but faithful. all the way. so he's remembered as a real man and not some wuss who softened up towards the end and veered towards alternate and better conceptions. it's double wrong, but you're right there's some logic to it.

    15. FROM ED
      Apple, why are you playing tyroll with such a stupid question, that is beneath you.
      What you and Cutie can't seem to understand is this has nothing to do with voting. We know that all the English including myself are goint to vote Lib. It's whether the Liberals will have a chance when the time comes. They lost the last election because false accusations and careless tongues destroyed their chances. Cutie is leading the fight to do that again. She admits she's aware of this but does it any way. She attacks the Libs every chance she gets.Statement like, "Maybe the Liberals are corrupt but they're all we've got." are not helping but doing the opposite in people's minds.
      I realize that she cannot understand the separatist mindset from her enclave of Anglos out west, but Mr. Couillard does and so do I. I live amongst them. I chat with my separatist neighbours every day. and they have come to see me as an Anglo who does not want to change them and are very open to me.. She cannot grasp the concept that no politician or warriior can expose his plan of attack if he wants to win. So whatever he does he cannot publish it and lose the race just to make her happy So because he won't lose just to please her she attacks every chance she gets. .She attacks me because I point out to her that she is doing tthe same thing to our only hope of getting rid of the PQ is the thing she strives to destroy. She calls me sick and brainwashed instead of trying to see the reason in what I'm saying. My mind young man is as clear as it was 70 years ago and I can remember clearly everything that happened back then. Ed

    16. Being a two faced, deceptive politician (as most of them are) does nothing to forward the cause for our movement to remain within Canada. That's what you don't get Ed - The majority of quebecers do not want to leave Canada, as proven in two referendums, but what do they have to vote for that stands for the integrity of Canada? A liberal party that plays footsies with separatists to gain their votes instead of standing up for what they are supposed to believe in.

      The quebecers have no respect for Canada and it's because of these political GAMES that they play with our lives. If they stood up for honesty and respect, they would gain the trust, respect and therefore votes from the majority of quebecers. Voters in this province flip back and forth between parties because they are all dishonest, deceitful and think they are fooling the public. That's what you will never get - people will vote for whom they respect and who offers the best deal which is within Canada. The liberals should be shouting the advantages of being Canadian from the rooftops of the houses in quebec but are too stupid to do the right thing. And, as the Charbonneau Commission investigates, it is very apparent they are all guilty of many criminal offences. You arguing the opposite and standing up for the liberals every time they make a boneheaded move only makes you look like another brainwashed blind leading the blind voter.

  15. Though I do not usually agree with Sauga, he's been nonetheless right about getting away from the trolls.

    As the Editor wrote in this very column, they will NOT comment on his pieces - they're here only to bait.

    Since this present piece has gone live Student has merely attempted to engage the others in trolling - she has nothing to say about the Editor's work.

    If only Vigile and Ameribec afforded their opponents the same courtesy.

    Folks, I'm not your boss.

    Neither is Sauga for that matter (praise the lawd!)

    But if I could please urge you, let the trolls die.

    Do not answer them.

    The Editors of their own racist platforms would never dream of hearing us out, so why should we give them the impression that their juvenile scripting has its place here?

    We don't owe them any explanation.

    We don't owe them an olive branch.

    Direct passport eligibility stretches to grandparents, so if our seps don't like Quebec, let them exercise their right to their ancestral passports and move back to the motherland.

    1. Coward: My intention was never to be anyone's "boss". At least I see where you agree with me that occasional reminders need to be put in that the best way to keep the trolling down is to totally ignore whatever they write. Editor has made it clear on numerous occasions that if contributors to this blog get taken in by the very intentional goading of the trolls, then it is we who are causing the problem. I, like others, was getting fed up with the threads of jousting between worthwhile contributors and the trolls. At one point I was guilty of responding, but no more.

      A few weeks ago, some troll threw in a blatantly anti-Semitic crack about Israel which had zero to do with the topic. He made it blatantly obvious what he was trying to do, so I advised the Editor, and he promptly removed the instigator's post right off the page as if it never was written. I didn't respond to the instigator and thankfully neither did anyone else.

    2. FROM ED
      Anonymous Coward and Mr.Sauga, Suddenly you guys come to life. Where were your voices over the past weeks when I was screaming at the trolls . When I was counting posts and showing that the trolls took up more than the serious posts.
      I even had to censure Anectote this thread by pointing out to her the EDITOR"S words. No trolls. Ed

    3. @anonymous coward

      "Though I do not usually agree with Sauga..."

      that's odd because you never contradicted him before. what are you here for if not to confront your "ideas" with other contributor's ideas?

    4. Ed, to answer your question, I thought you stated your case eloquently and succinctly back then so anything I would have said would just be redundant. Sadly, people forget the lessons too soon, and I decided to bring it back to the fore, with some reinforcement.

      I figured I did you a favour yielding to your sensibilities, but over time, some people forgot.

  16. "Rosul Khalique

    I've noticed that over the years a lot of people feel like they no longer belong here or they feel like a foreigner in the own home.

    But it is wrong to give up in what you believe in, especially letting people make you think you dont belong here, or that you are a foreigner in your own home.

    Let me remind all of us that this is still Canada. Not Quebec but Canada.

    Repeat after: Quebec is JUST a province.

    One more time: Quebec is just a province

    If you repeat this phrase at least 10 times per day.

    You will be undoing the brainwashing the media has done to you over the years."

    À force de le répéter 10 fois par jour,certains angryphones vont finir par le croire...Pathétique.


    Canada still needs to hold back housing prices. The problem? Quebec is already at the bottom. Anyone notice who is goign to be the cause of the next major crisis in Montreal.

    Well it's out good friends at city hall, construction, FTQ and the mob.

    The next crash is real estate. After being beaten off public contacts for the last few years they all shifted to condo development downtown Montreal.

    We don;t have an economy to support half these buildings even if the bridge does collapse before the new one is built.

    The developers and construction crews are gorging themselves on a buffet of badly build residential condo buildings. All the latent problems that the buildings have (same guys that made the roads etc) will come out.

    They sell them on the premise of a "warranty" with the APCHQ. Yea, the condo builders association is there to "help you". Yea with 20 year lawsuits where they settle nothing!

    The entire system is structured for fraud. The builders legal liability is transferred to a legally seperate (can you say fannie mae, freddy mac) entity that can tank like the Titanic.

    Manwhile all the crooked builders and developers, construction crews can walk away counting their cash.

    The politicians loved rezoning shit for cash payments. Hello Applebaum and friends.

    It's the same group of people already perpetuating the next disaster.

    The rhetoric is laughable. The city talks about "keeping families on the island" as a priority etc. Yea right. Thats why we have rules that say for every 50 parking spaces you need 1 handicapped spot etc.

    The minutiae of the Quebec burocrate knows no rule is too small. Yet they ignore rules where they are truly needed? Incompetence when legally pressed. Corrupt to the core. Bribed to keep the rules off the table.

    Meanwhile the "urban planners" are building 500 unit condo buildings where every apartment is a 500 sq bachelor pad or a 2 bedroom.

    Don;t they realize some citizens strive for the same housing allowance as Pauline?

    The city is allowing buildings to be built with far too little parking or road infrastructure under the guise of environmentalism, when it's just pure greed about saving on underground digging costs for the builders and the STM rubbing their fingers together at the though of people using the bus.

    Meanwhile the leeches have all forgotten that the citizens they feed off actually need to live and work in this city in globally competitive businesses.

    The rhetoric of Quebec has obscured it's reality to pay for anything. When the citizens cupboards are bare, there isn;t anything left for to steal to feed itself. It' doesn't matter what nonsense the politicians try to spin.

    Eventually the math does catch up. The accountability of money is the only thing we can count on killing the insanity of Quebec.

    Montreal can hopefully emerge as part of Canada as a first choice. A good second choice is a city state.

    The important thing is Canada NEEDS to get rid of the rest of Quebec. Cut them loose to pursue their doomed social engineering experiment. Watch them revert to an agrarian economy from the outside.

  18. @cebeuq

    About your comment above:

    "The city is allowing buildings to be built with far too little parking or road infrastructure under the guise of environmentalism, when it's just pure greed about saving on underground digging costs for the builders and the STM rubbing their fingers together at the though of people using the bus."

    Someone at work was telling me how at the cote vertu bus terminal, it is impossible to be dropped off by car. There is no designated drop-off for commuters arriving by car to take the subway. They force you to arrive by bus...ON PURPOSE. I wasn't surprised to hear this, after all seppies take care of seppies and they have to keep an stm blue collar sitting on his ass driving a bus earning 80k. A yr.
    at this point, I think we all know It's cheaper to to take your cars folks.

    1. "Montreal can hopefully emerge as part of Canada as a first choice. A good second choice is a city state."

      Montreal City-State needs to start thinking about itself, if it stands half a chance of surviving the catastrophic economic climate fast approaching in this province.

    2. As far as I'm concerned, the Quebec situation was expressed very well several weeks, maybe months ago, when the Editor wrote about how a new bridge to replace the crumbling Champlain Bridge is scheduled to take TEN years to build. That's absolutely absurd! The fact the Champlain itself took seven years (1955-62) is equally absurd, and the thing isn't going to last a human lifetime. The Victoria Bridge was built over one hundred years earlier and even without the technology we have today, it took about six years to build, and it's still standing! The Mercier took just TWO years to build. What do builders do, throw a pair of dice to determine how long it will take to build a bridge? Equally important, how long with the next bridge, with all kinds of technology never before available, last? Ten to build and ten to collapse?

      Cebeuq isn't wrong about what he wrote above, and was also very clever in coming with his alias--a backward name for a backward place!

    3. FROM ED
      The champlain bridge was built in a little over 3 years.. From the planning stage in 1955 to the grand official opening
      in 1960 Itv was opened by Bryce Mackasey who was Transport and Employment Minister . I drove him and Gordie Shute to the ceremony in Gordy's brand new Oldsmobile Super 88 blue and white convertible hardtop. Gordy and Bryce were friends for many years. I worked for Gordy and worked with Bryce in sports for kids.
      Dominion Bridge , who also made the Jacques Cartier bridge also brought it in under cost. The approaces were added over the next two years If intructions to paint every two years had not been cancelled by the PQ it would not need replacemenet today. The difference is evident in the J.C. bridge which is kept protected by the National Harbours board. Have to admit though the Champlain was never intended for today's traffic.

    4. This mistakes on the new bridge that will cost us 10x the original estimates and double the time it takes to built to 20 years.

      There is already some "think group of proud montrealers" agitating (supported by unions, construction etc) about how Montreal needs a bridge to be "proud of". We need a competition to choose the most innovative design bla bla bla.

      The important thing is for the construction, politicians and mob to steer us into buying some new fancy design.

      The MOST IMPORTANT thing they can do is to saddle us with a bridge where we are unable to *compare* costs.

      We need to be building FUNCTIONAL bridges not SHOWPIECES. There are dozens of standard bridge designs that can be used that will result in easy to build, cheap to maintain etc.

      What the public citizens see as a solution our overlords see as the problem.

      How can the unions drag out the projects with the corrupt companies if the costs can be compared to other cities.

      The most important part of the scam is "convincing montreal" that it needs some idiotic sculputure to itself as a bridge.

      The entire system of Quebec construction and politics cannot continue if the Federal govt builds a $200 million dollar bridge in 3 years that lasts for 100 years.

      Quebec works on the "road model". We build a $1 billion dollar bridge over 10 years that will only last for 50 years at best due to the poorly thought out new design.

      Citizens see this as a failure. The govt of Quebec, unions, politicians see this as a win for Quebec construction industry and long term employment.

      What people fail to grasp is the citizens goal of affordable bridge that lasts forever and is super efficient is totally against the Quebec model.

      The other upside of massive construction and congestion is the STM and all the new bus drivers.

      To the political elite of Quebec this is some of the best things that have ever happened to Quebec. From the citizens side,
      we need to start with civil disobedience.

      When every level of the Quebec "state" is as distanced from the population and as totally self service to the "Quebec model" it's the duty of all citizens to fight back.


      This is exactly the kind of thing we see in Montreal. They spent all the money on fraud so we end up with hospitals without proper access to public transportation.

      A brand new hospital without proper wheelchair access.

      The unfortunate thing is these Monty Python moments in Quebec are just accepted part of living in a city where we are "shaken down" by the govt constantly.

      It just highlights the goal of the super hospital. Give a major construction project to SNC and the construction unions that would last for a decade.

      Serving patients afterwards? Who gives a shit about that. We are more interested in enforcing the "laws" that the nurse speaks french only and never has to show an ounce of compassion to elderly people form other cultures and backgrounds.

      It's a total mystery how Quebec can keep patting itself on the back about being a "progressive society". Oh wait. We call a student boycott a strike.

      Orwellian (y, he's not French, but some might consider it important to an education, google it, he's like a smart intelligent male "Marie May") double speak is another Quebec cultural value.

    6. Just for the sake of accuracy:
      The Champlain Bridge opened on June 28, 1962, not 1960. Construction had begun in 1957. I don't doubt that ED drove Bryce Mackasey to the opening ceremony, but Mackasey had been elected a Liberal MP only 10 days before the bridge opened, and definitely was not a cabinet minister at the time. Mackasey wasn't appointed to cabinet until 1968.

    7. FROM ED
      You're right EXMTL. Bryce was not cabinet Minister at the time. he was representing Verdun as an A;lderman who was very well liked. Bryce fought to have the bridge named Verdun Bridge and for a while it was known as that locally. The bridge was opened to traffic in 1960. I was there at the opening. There was probably another affair after the approaches were completed in 1962 but traffic flowed across the bridge from 1960.
      Bryce was bigger than Verdun and the bridge. He sponsored hockey, baseball and football teams from his sporting goods store on Verdun avenue. When someone called on him for help he was there. When All Saints Church ousted the Crawford Park Youth Association because they were not all Anglcvans, I went to him and got uis the hall over the oldd city hall where firemen used to sleep Eventually, I moved them to the Vedun laSalle YMCA where they went on for fifteen years. My daughter who wasn't born when I founded the group became the last President before the building was sold and they disbanded..Ed

    8. FROM ED
      Anothher note about Bryce Mackasey.. When my son's good buddy got laid off he tried to collect unemployment the Verdun office which was on Galt street at that time and is now the welfare ofice. The office was infamous for red tape being impossible to reach even by phone. I called Bryce who was in Ottawa and his wife told me he's coming home for the weekend to night, I'll get him to call you. He called the moment he got in the door he said I've still got my coat on so if you need me I'll come.
      I had worked hard to get him elected as Crawford Park. After the baby boom of the fourties Verdun was overflowing with teenage boiys and I organized hockey and baseball leagues in Crawford Park where sports had been neglected by the Verddun Recreation Director. I was always present at the games to fill in for referees or umpires who didn't show up.I umpired.using comical movements and quips. The crowd watching loved it.
      When I heard Bryce was running for alderman I went to the homes of all the parents getting their votes.I heard he was sports minded and did not want george Brown who didn't live in the Park to get in. When Bryce approached them, he was told, :"You're getting my vote, Ed Brown already talked to me.". he never forgot that.
      Bryce arranged to meet me on the Monday morning before he returned to Ottawa. On monday he. picked up myself and Steve's good buddy.. At the office the RCMP officer parked the Limousine and looked ta the line of about 50 bedraggled looking people waiting in the light rain falling. I heard him utter, "Good God" As we went inside the Corps de commisionaire at the door tried to stop us but the Fed cop brushed him aside. People were talking on phones evrywhere in an open office with no dividers and it was obvious from their laughter they were not talking business. Bryce weent from desk to desk taking the phone out of people's hands and hanging them up. The young lad got his application and filled it out. he was given a check before he left the building. The fourty or so inside were served before I left and the line outside was now inside. Bryce went across Canada touring Federal works offices and changed the picture nationally..
      He also straightened out the Stevedores on Montreal's waterfront who were tying up shipping with strikes and problems. He set a standard which worked in ports from Vancouver to Haliax.
      As a Cabinet Minister he didn't send assistant's to investigate a problem, he went there him self and got the job done right. Ed

    9. Ed,

      I used to live in Verdun too. I was very young at the time but I'll never forget driving past Bryce Mackasey's home with my father during the October Crisis. Mr. Mackasey had Canadian soldiers patrolling his property and guarding his house. It was a wise deployment because as an Anglophone politician he would have been a prime target for attack by FLQ terrorists.

  19. "You can't change a contract without the other party's agreement. Period. End of discussion.

    Try telling [...]the bank that you no longer feel bound by the mortgage agreement and that the decision is yours and your's alone to make. Think they'll agree?"

    If I stop paying the bank, what will they do? They will use the state' judicature to force me to pay. The state will use force to impose its order. It will work because no one will lift a finger in my defense. The state can use force when it has the conscent of the majority.

    States cannot use force when they longer have the conscent of the majority. Use of force against the majority is conter-productive and inefficient and it cannot be sustained for a long period.

    In India, Gandhi defied the law, the state used force and sent him to jail. The state had the conscent of the majority. When thousands followed Gandhi, the state could no longer effectively use force. And the almighty british empire negociated with Gandhi.

    So, if Québec votes for independence, the question will be what are you going to do? Sue me?

    The question will be do you prefer to negociate the terms of Québec's independence or do you prefer to wreck the place for everyone? It is not about the law or about a deal being a deal.

    Your disgust with the idea of Québec's independence keeps you from seeing this. Let's put it in another way that will be easier for you : if Canada voted to kick Québec out of the federation, what would we do? Sue Canada? Complain in Supreme Court? Could we just say "hey, we had a deal!"

    1. M. Patrice,

      Let us play with your logic a little bit.

      States cannot use force when they longer have the conscent of the majority. Use of force against the majority is conter-productive and inefficient and it cannot be sustained for a long period.

      In the case of Quebec independence, how do you know that it gets the consent of the majority of Canadians? Please note that the Province of Quebec is one integral part of Canada. How is it that a small-minority group of people can impose their will on the majority to fundamentally change the country?

      In India, Gandhi defied the law, the state used force and sent him to jail. The state had the conscent of the majority. When thousands followed Gandhi, the state could no longer effectively use force. And the almighty british empire negociated with Gandhi.

      Now you are talking about Gandhi, a person who was willing to sacrifice his own welfare for a cause that he believes in. Gandhi suffered great deal of hardship in his life. He went to prison, he lived very modestly and he led his movement with his action. Name me one, just ONE figure in Quebec independence movement who will to leave his or her material wealth to fight for Quebec independence cause. Name me ONE figure who goes to jail for the cause he or she believes in, and not just because the person commit crime.

      Another thing, now that you mention Gandhi, do you really think pro-independent Quebecers are ready to embrace Satyagraha principles?

    2. "Name me one, just ONE figure in Quebec independence movement who will to leave his or her material wealth to fight for Quebec independence cause."

      M.Paul Rose

    3. @Troy

      "In the case of Quebec independence, how do you know that it gets the consent of the majority of Canadians? Please note that the Province of Quebec is one integral part of Canada. How is it that a small-minority group of people can impose their will on the majority to fundamentally change the country?"

      In fact, I have stated that a simultaneous Referendum should be held in the ROC, except (and again I have stated this), I am a lot more afraid that the ROC votes to toss out quebec than quebec itself voting to leave.

      Objectively speaking however, the ROC should hold it's own, regardless of whether this province ever holds a 3rd one. It'll be a revelation...and then...not so much. But the real reason they should hold their own is because in quebec it will be a never-ending issue. There have been 2 Referendums already and the response both times was a NO. I guess the strategy is to keep holding one till they get a yes. For the sake of argument once they get a Yes, does that mean it is over? I don't think so, until fairly we hold another one and then another one again, 2 out of three won't settle it since we would have 2 out of 3 on the NO side....see where I'm going with this?

    4. "How is it that a small-minority group of people can impose their will on the majority to fundamentally change the country?"

      Ce n'est pas la quantité qui est importante,c'est la qualité :)

    5. "Your disgust with the idea of Québec's independence keeps you from seeing this. Let's put it in another way that will be easier for you : if Canada voted to kick Québec out of the federation, what would we do? Sue Canada? Complain in Supreme Court? Could we just say "hey, we had a deal!"

      If you are over 18 and live with your parents and they decide to throw you out of the house, you can't sue them since it is their house and they can bloody to what they want, you have no legal recourse, except GET A JOB! Canada can throw out anyone with the agreement of a majority (of its provinces), a flick of the pen on some para-constitutional doc, and away u go, since of course, Canada is in charge of the house...though this hasn't quite dawned on quebec, they are but a Tenant, and a bloody Leech of a tenant at that.

      Here's how to solve your dilemma in 2 seconds, you really want out of this country? Here is the formula: (and hopefully the minister for Anglo Montreal tunes in, since he can read English)

      You initiate/propose to Ottawa (or Lobby them somehow), to have a nation-wide Referendum on the question of quebec independence, now you're talkin' cause the ROC is just stompin' at the bits to let u have it, and u should play this card. THAT'S how u get what u want, and spare me the lame excuse u always hide behind that Quebec's will SELF-DETERMINE and only IT will have a say on the question of Independence bla the whole idea is beneath you. Roll-up your sleeves, put some muscle into it and finally..ACT LIKE YOU MEAN IT, stop wasting everyone's time with fake threats like u have for the past 40 yrs.

      Again, I will bet ANYONE big bucks none will heed this advise, because at the end of the day, the Elite of the province know it will be the end of them, and it suits them fine to play the ignorant populace, not to mention, the bonus of keeping the entire country hostage ...yes...for another 40 yrs.

      If you are serious about getting the f...out....That's the roadmap, let's see what you do with it, WE DARE YOU.

      Ps, I wants expect to be mentioned in quebec future history books, lol.

    6. Ooppps, minus "wants"... But I do expect it...Cheerio!

    7. "How is it that a small-minority group of people can impose their will on the majority to fundamentally change the country?"

      This small minority group of people would be a majority of quebeckers.

      About Gandhi. I believe that you get the point about the use of force and the conscent of the majority.

      (And indeed Paul Rose, Francis Simard and co went to jail for the cause... :) )

    8. There is no similarity between Gandhi and Paul Rose or Francis Simard. Gandhi was a pacifist who practiced civil disobedience. Rose and Simard were kidnappers and murderers.

    9. M. Patrice,

      It is very strange that you wrote about the point of using force on one line and then wrote about Paul Rose and Francis Simard on the very next line. This is the kind of response I would expect from S.R or student, but honestly, not from you.

      And strange still that you think by label the minority group as "quebeckers" would mean that their aspiration shall be granted by the majority of their fellow citizens who do not agree with them.

    10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    11. Goes to show about Michel Patrice. The thought of Anglos and federalists being strangled or blown up by FLQ members brings out a little smiley icon in him... :-)

      But at the same time I can understand.

      The sight of a conquered (fake nation) of a Bougon-esque peuple à genoux drinking Pepsi for a living brings a smiley to my post... :-)

    12. Troy,

      I don't get your last sentence. By fellow citizens, do you mean fellow canadian citizens? or fellow citizens of Québec? (By majority of quebeckers, I mean majority of people living in Québec and allowed to vote, regardless of language, color, born here or elsewhere.)

      The sentence is still confusing, should "label" be "labeling"?

    13. M. Patrice,

      One thing that you seem to pretend to forget is that all Quebecers are Canadians. The Province of Quebec is a part of Canada. Therefore, minority of Canadians can not impose their will on the majority to disband the country. Again, this follows your logic about the consent of majority.

      States cannot use force when they longer have the conscent of the majority. Use of force against the majority is conter-productive and inefficient and it cannot be sustained for a long period.

      "Label" is a verb means "to name or describe (someone or something) in a specified way". Besides that, are you nitpicking my post based on the grammar?

    14. You get easily get offended. I don't nitpick on your grammar. English not being my native language, I will much more easily stumbled on a misconstructed sentence, or if one writes "your" instead of "you're", I will tend to see at first a possesive that doesn't fit right instead of a misspelled "you're". "Label" could be a noun or a verb, If it was a noun, the sentence did not make sense, if it was a verb it was misspelled, So it was unclear to me, probably abvious for a native english speaker, so I asked what you meant. That's all.

      "Therefore, minority of Canadians can not impose their will on the majority to disband the country."

      Your wife leaves you. One person imposes her will to disband the family. A key employee leaves your four employee business. He imposes his will and maybe puts the business in jeopardy.

      Yes, it is the will of one that wrecks the plan of the majority. So what are you going to do? Sue them? Keep them by force?

      Of course, you disagree with me, but you understand what I mean.

      (I have to go. Maybe later.)

    15. (I have to go. Maybe later.)


      Why am I not surprised? On a second thought, why did I bother...? But I will just need to state the obvious, let the readers be the judge. These sentence:

      States cannot use force when they longer have the conscent of the majority. Use of force against the majority is conter-productive and inefficient and it cannot be sustained for a long period.

      and these sentence:

      Yes, it is the will of one that wrecks the plan of the majority. So what are you going to do? Sue them? Keep them by force?

      logically contradict each other.

    16. I am now seeing the contradiction that you are seeing.

      States can no longer use force when they no longer have the conscent of the majority. States also can no longer use force when they no longer have the conscent of a significant yet non majoritary part of the population,
      especially when this part of the population is concentrated on a territory where they have a government and institutions in wich they are the majority and in wich they have signicant political power.

    17. Sure they can use force. For example, the United States federal government enforced desegregation in the Deep South despite the fact that the majority of white southerners - who had their own governments, institutions and laws - were opposed to it.

  20. So you'd be fine with Newfoundland holding referendum tomorrow abrogating the deal with Hydro-Quebec, because it is the 'will of the people' and you'd be fine with the natives voting themselves and their territory out of Quebec and for that matter, the same for partition.
    It's hard to suck and blow at the same time.
    If Quebec can break the rules because it has the backing of a majority, so can Natives and Montrealers.

    To paraphrase, ...So, if Montreal votes for independence from Quebec, the question will be what are you going to do? Sue me?

    1. Your wisdom was lost on him the moment you started typing, Editor.

      We all know that seppie logic dictates that Quebec is fully divisible from Canada, but that under no conditions is Montreal divisible from Quebec.

      On another note, we all see what direction Quebec's economy is headed what are people going to do when the CF contract expires in 2041?

      Chose certaine, NFLD will never sign with Quebec, so though it's 30 years in the future, that's just another point of pain added to Quebec's economic infrastructure.

    2. Mr. Berlach,

      I believe that S.R comment above is derogatory against the population of Newfoundland. Will you do anything about it?

    3. Et que faites-vous de la "Seppie logic" Troy?

    4. FROM ED
      Troy, the EDITOR is trying to ignore the tyrolls. Why do you even read them? Ed

    5. "Why do you even read them?"

      Parce qu'il est curieux ? Ce qui est un signe d'intelligence,Eddie.

    6. "'d be fine with the natives voting themselves and their territory out of Quebec and for that matter, the same for partition."

      I would not be my choice, I would not like this to happen, but if the natives vote the independence of their territories and if Montréal votes for partition, there is not much that we could do about it. We would have to deal with it.

      This being said, for various reasons, I don't think that Montreal could soon become a city state. For different reasons, one of them being the following : The question nationale is divided along language lines. Québec is 80% franco 20% anglo-allo, and it is still difficult to achieve a majority for independence. Montreal is more or less 50% franco and 50% anglo-allo. We have a 20% minority group that is unwilling to leave Canada. Montreal might have a huge minority (probably not the full 50% of francos) unwilling to leave Québec.

      Would Montreal become a city state anyway, a large part of the franco population, unwilling to see Montreal become english (or bilingual), would soon become a problem for the political dynamics of Montreal.

      Yet, it could happen. And it is interesting to try to think of what would come out of this.

      Anyway. Perhaps you should write a post about Montreal as a City State, that would be a very interesting topic. I tought a little about it when browsing through Tony Kondak's essay.

      Of course, the native issue would be an interesting topic too.

    7. Don't be so sure of yourself, Patrice

      Here is the Non vs. Oui vote in Montreal in 1995:

      Another reason Montreal would have a good chance of staying federal is that we won't forget the past: In May 2005, former PQ cabinet minister Richard Le Hir said that the PQ government tried to sway the vote by sending "scrutineer shock troops" drawn from pro-sovereignty labour unions into polling stations in areas with large concentrations of Anglophone and allophone voters. He said the scrutineers (known as Deputy Returning Officers) were to reject valid "No" votes in order to "neutralize the adversary". Le Hir said the strategy was based on a belief in the PQ that the citizenships of recent immigrants had been "fast-tracked" in order to increase the "No" vote.


      You guys tried to fuck us, and we'll make sure to fuck you right back.

  21. Sweet dreams to the sovereignist movement:

    Not only do they stab their leaders in the back when an election doesn't work out, they constantly fight amongst themselves.

    Really can't be easy being a born loser.

  22. Pour qui allez-vous voter coward aux prochaines élections ?Choix difficile n'est-ce pas?


  23. Investissement de 246 millions à l'îlot Voyageur

    And we'll be glad and proud to serve our dear English friends in their own language :)

  24. And here is a letter stating the obvious:

    1. Cutie003: I figured you'd dropped the .html from the end of the URL. I stuck it on and voila/presto:

    2. Sorry Ex - I should always check them when I put them up but sometimes things are in a rush. Thank you. Of course because they're usually from the Gazette, people can find them quite easily.

    3. @cutie003

      "...sometimes things are in a rush."

      what do you mean? what else do you have to do?!? copying a link properly doesn't take longer than botching it.

  25. Vu à Verdun

    Pas croyable!

    1. that's ed's neighborhood. what do you think ed?

      are you happy that couillard made a first step forward with regards to the quebec charter of values? he's shy, cause he doesn't want to lose the bigot vote, but he'll come along.

    2. Baignades pour femmes seulement

      Et bien oui...Ça se passe ici,au Québec en 2013

    3. Gyms pour femmes seulement... et oui, au QC en 2013...

    4. Les premières n'ont pas le choix...Voilà ce qui fait toute la différence.

  26. A Question for true Quebec Separatists

    Back in 1980, we needed to separate in order to complete the emancipation process.

    In 1995 we needed to separate because we were pissed off at Canada for neither signing Meech lake nor Charlottetown. It was also because we would be better off financially.

    Now I am not sure why we need to separate. So I went to the PQ website to get the latest. I am told we need to achieve sovereignty because...we just need to. Just because (see La souverainté pour tous )

    So here is my question to any true separatist reading this blog: Why do we need to separate form Canada? Let's please let the separatists answer.

    1. "Why do we need to separate form Canada?"

      it's for the quebec population to adopt laws that fit their will. it's for the quebec population to have control over where to invest their tax money. it's to get a seat at the un and have a say on international issues. it's also to reset the political debate over left vs right issues rather than deadlocked current province vs country axis. it's also for quebec to get out of multiculturalism, an ideology that's meant to diminish the importance of french culture to just another one along many others. it's also meant to give quebec population more control over its unique destiny in an environment that is at times hostile.

      all from the page you pointed. can't you read mtl1973?

    2. Hey student?

      Do you have any idea how racist, how bigoted, how xenophobic, how ignorant you are? Wow!!!

    3. Très original votre commentaire anonymus...À part ça,quoi de neuf ?

    4. student - Do you really want to give Quebec total control of our tax money??? Look at how poorly they have managed just the provincial share over the past 50 years. We have the highest debt and taxes in the country and among the worst could a government do any worse?? And did you forge the 10-15 billion dollars of net money that Quebec is getting each year by being part of Canada..tell me how they will make up that especially when their record is so poor?? And if Quebec seperates then it should be pretty clear that most anglophones and many francophones will leave..and it will be the best brightest and wealthiest which do so taking even more money with them.

      The whole seperation issue is a great dream but you need a strong Quebec before you can even contemplate doing this. Catalonia is the richest part of makes sense for them to seperate..they could do it. Quebec is the 9th or 10th poorest province with the highest debt and taxes..we are in no shape or form capable of standing on our own. But if all you really care about is having 100 percent of your citizens speaking french then seperation is great..but all people whether french english or other need to have their basic economic needs met. If you look at the latest poll of Quebecers from L'actualite the top three issues are health, jobs and taxes. These are all economic involves money..a seperate Quebec will clearly be even poorer. And the talk of seperation has made Quebec one of the poorer provinces. If I am operating a company why would I want to invest in Quebec..constant political uncertainty..overbearing and corrupt unions..corrupt and mismanage municipal and provincial affairs..high taxes..high debt.

      The bottom line student is that in the real world you need to pay your bills at some point. The Quebec government is walking on thin ice with a 250 billion debt..interest rates will rise within a few years and they will have a very difficult time managing this and it will result in big cuts. You cant keep borrowing increasing amount of money from the banks forever..payback time is coming soon.

    5. MTL 1973: I supposed I fit into this category. I see student has provided his answer, and I'm usually ignoring what he writes because it's trollish, but his answer on this occasion is fairly clear and very cogent. Quebec right now collects ALL its own taxes, one of three provinces to collect its own corporate taxes (along with Ontario and Alberta) and the only jurisdiction to collect its own personal income taxes since 1955. All other jurisdictions are represented by the federal government and have been since WWII.

      The will to represent itself in the UN and other international bodies is OK. I'll build on student's remarks. I want Quebec out of Canada because they have been given a pretty free right of passage by the federal government to snub their noses at Canadian values (diversity and pluralism) and legislate the forbidden use of one of Canada's official languages as some kind of foreign language.

      I have grown completely indifferent to a "united Canada", especially because I think a separated Quebec will get exactly what it deserves. Its debt is crippling, and partition will likely take place. I don't want to in any way, shape or form be forced to support it through equalization or by any other means. Because Quebeckers still contribute to the federal coffers, I see them as entitled to get back in services what they put in, but no more and no less.

      It was René Lévesque who had a more tolerant, balanced approach to separation through his founding of the PQ. Unfortunately, those who followed him did not. Most of them had a visceral hatred for everything not of their ilk, but Lévesque's cabinet throughout his years as leader were his appointees so he's still responsible for the vindictive objectives of Bill 101 and the false entitlements created by no scab labour laws during strikes and a rent review board that clearly favours tenants over landlords all perceived as tyrants. I can accept a rent review board as an equalizer, but how long has it been since rental properties have been built? It's almost all condos now.

      My ancestors, who mark next year as 100 years in Quebec (88 years on my father's side), came to Quebec dirt poor, but through their own hard work provided for themselves and later on provided some jobs to help other families, especially throught hard times where they otherwise may have had no work. It is primarily in contemplation for this thankless, ungratefulness after how my ancestors were model citizens that I want Quebec out of Canada, and yes, living outside of Quebec now makes it much easier for me to feel this way. I don't apologize for leaving Quebec, and I furthermore don't apologize for my views.

    6. Mr.Sauga -

      I often wonder why people like you and un gars de frankfort come on here all the time since you live outside of Quebec. In a way you are the lucky have escaped and have better more worries about Quebec. Why do you really care whats going on here anymore? The rest of Canada is doing better economically and has a bright future so why not be happy where you are? Why so much lingering resentment and anger? Yes we know your family worked hard and all that..but it payed are doing well in Ontario. I grew up out west and my grandparents also were immigrants from europe who worked their butts off and even so were pretty poor much of their lives. But their successive generations have done well.

      I work in a very specialized field and I studied and worked hard to get to where I am today..there are very few opportunities at my level in this country..and it happens that Montreal is the major centre in this field. So what do I my country Canada going to protect my rights if Quebec keeps stripping them away from me..are they going to pay my losses if Quebec does seperate or has another referendum. Do you expect that all anglophones should just quit their jobs and leave..and only francophone quebecers should work in these positions?? Keep in mind that many of these companies and federal institutions are receivng a lot of money from canadian taxpayers.

      Again the anglos stuck here in Quebec..we are the ones who are really in trouble and often to no fault of our own. I guess I hope when the crisis starts here that we are not just cast away and told "you should have know this would happen and well tough luck". Unfortunately I think thats exactly what would happen..would we have support from other Canadians if we proposed partition..not so sure. If the Quebec government adopts new laws making it even more unbearable living here as an anglophone will the Canadian government do anything..not so sure.

    7. Complicated,

      Your culture is a melting pot of ideas, people and traditions. You are impure. You are a traitor to pure bloodlines. Don;t you understand how important that is?

      Just like all non-francophones, obsessing about jobs/employement/economic prosperity.

      You have lived here for how long and have not internally changed your values to realize that things that help citizens are not good healthcare, emplyment, prosperity and jobs. That does not satisfy the soul of a PQ Quebecer.

      Only by listening to Francophone music, eating poutine, harassing immigrants and anglophones, and talking in french without exception can true happiness be achieved.

      The order can change. The truely small minded like the trolls on this board and OLQF employee's, harassing other citizens is at the top of the list. Like a school yard bully harassing people that don;t follow "their rules".

      These are the things Quebec needs to be happy and prosperous.

    8. Actually I think most francophones also obsess about jobs, money and the economy. Its the small percentage of franco-extremists who obsess about their identity and language. These extremists also conveniently ignore the huge negative economic impacts that the seperation movement has had on this province.

      If the francophones had played their card smartly they would have done as follows. They could have passed a Bill 101 which did not require french to be larger than english..a clear violation of anglophone rights in Canada. They could have also given special status to Montreal..less strict version of Bill 101 since so many anglophones lived here. They could have taken a much more moderate approach which would have maintained many of the top companies in Montreal and hence well paying jobs and money. They then could have access to a bigger pot of gold right in their own backyard. This would have maintained Montreal as a real powerhouse in Canada..the debt in Quebec would be lower..we would have a truly bilingual city which is a huge asset..francophones and anglos would have access to better jobs and live in a vibrant and thriving city. Instead we have a gutted out relic of a city where everything is falling to pieces and the welfare state reigns supreme with an even bleaker outlook for the future..bravo..well done Bill 101 proponents..

      Instead they drove away many large companies..helped transform Toronto clearly into the dominant city of Canada..massively increase the debt and tax load in Quebec. So many talented and well educated people left and greatly contributed to the growth of many other cities across this continent..and what was their sin..they were anglos or allos. This has resulted in a chronically weaker economy for the past 30-40 years. They also dramatically increased the tensions between the anglos and francophones which still exists today. A really great plan. And lets not all forget one important thing..the PQ..people such as Pauline Marois will never suffer no matter what happens in Quebec because they are among the privilged franco elite. Hence they want to bring their sheep to the slaughter by promising all sorts of things that they know are pure fantasy so that they can run their own kingdom entirely.

    9. +10 complicated. So very seldom we agree but as to what could have been vs what has happened, you have done a great job summing it all up. Thank you. Let's hope some of the "followers" can have a different vision of the future than what seems to be in store for all of us.

  27. Ces temps-ci,je vous dirais que le "melting pot" canayen commence à nous tomber sur les nerfs.

  28. Didn't read the news article (I wouldn't understand it anyway) but this is not the type of picture I like to see.

    1. It&#39;s better for me to stay anonymousThursday, November 21, 2013 at 6:48:00 AM EST

      @John : Seems like you have some trouble understanding how internet works! Here is a direct link to your article

  29. Replies
    1. FROM ED
      it's, God, your name is hard to pronounce. I see these children all the time pasing my window with the Islamic l;adies leading them. I love the way they all chatter and sometimes the patient ladies lead them in song. They are so cute when they smile and wve at me it makes my day. Ed.

    2. UN GARS BIEN SYMPATHIQUE DE FRANKFORTThursday, November 21, 2013 at 5:29:00 PM EST

      ED wrote "They are so cute when they smile and wve at me it makes my day. Ed."
      Sure, ED, sure. They're so real cute aren't they?
      Fast forward 20 years and that's how cute they'll get:

  30. First time commenting on this website:
    I admire the sincerity of the Editor and he is to be applauded for the enormous personal sacrifice it takes to create and maintain this website. However, and with all due respect, the Editor is in way over his head on this one. To begin, there was never a "deal" with Quebec because one was not needed. Next, quoting anything from Wikipedia on the subject of Quebec is reckless and obviously the Editor is not aware of the reality there. To discuss "legality" the way the Editor did here is a disservice and I suggest he ask for input from others before going further. This is a subject where the people in the Province of Quebec and the other provinces deserve to hear real facts.

    1. FROM ED
      That's what the blog is about. that's what we're here for. Go ahead, we want to hear from you. Ed

    2. FROM ED
      RHYME, who arte these others the EDITOR is supposed to ask . Is his opinion not as valuablev as their's. What bhas he said about legality that you feel is wrong? We value your input. Ed

  31. Et le coup de la burqa, on ne vous l'avait jamais encore fait ?

  32. Nous somme dû pour un très grand ménage dans notre province,avant que ça dégénère.

    1. Et ca implique quoi exactment "un très grand ménage"?

    2. Special camps with very special "showers."

    3. Called "seppie camps" lol and yes, the will be sleep-over camps...deep sleep over camps, lol. Not funny at all actually.

  33. B.Willis

    gotta leave... Too many racists here for my liking. It's not just a French thing, it appears to be a Quebec thing.

  34. 280 juifs hassidiques ultraorthodoxes ont fui Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts

    Et l'ontario va les acccuellir sans problème ?


    Thought I would share this with everyone and especially visitors to the blog from parts unknown.


    I had forgotten this one. Montreal City-State!!!!!!! Oh yeahhhhhh!