Friday, May 4, 2018

Alt-Sovereigntists Decry English Leaders Debate

Credit: Aislin, Montreal Gazette

Let me be the first to coin the term alt-separatist, or the gentler 'alt-sovereigntist,' those who take the most extreme view of Quebec society and independence, who believe in the total elimination of English and Anglophones in Quebec and this whether or not Quebec achieves independence.
Alt-separatists come in right-wing, left-wing and centrist versions, their overriding shared philosophy is that English and Anglophones pose a dire threat to the future of a French-speaking Quebec society which can brook no language other than French within a nativist Quebecois culture.
Is the term 'alt-sovereigntist,' an over-reach?...I think not.
The alt-sovereigntists are more radical and dogmatic than the mainstream sovereigntist Parti Quebecois and Quebec Solidaire. They remain the strident and radical minority within the movement. I use the term 'alt-' not as a pejorative, but rather in the literal sense of 'alternative.'

Ever since the Parti Quebecois was formed, successive leaders from René Levesque to Lucien Bouchard and now Jean-François Lisée have re-affirmed an official policy of respecting historic English-language rights, even in an independent Quebec.
Those, like Bloc Quebecois leader Martine Ouellet and many separatist journalists, maintain that an independent Quebec would eliminate English from all public life in an effort to francisize Quebec 100%. Former leader of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste and now federal Blocist(maybe) member of Parliament, Mario Beaulieu is infamous for demanding that no English representations be made at the annual Fete St. Jean celebration, Quebec's national holiday.
These and others of the same ilk are the definition of 'alt-sovereigntists.'

Now alt-sovereigntism represents a legitimate political point of view and like the so-called alt-right movement in the United States, the alt-sovereigntist movement in Quebec is a rainbow coalition of different degrees of militancy and opinion.
At one end you have mainstream journalists like Mathieu Bock-Coté of the Journal de Montreal, who take the scholarly view and argument for the elimination of English from public life to those like Jean-Paul Perreault of Impératif Français, who share a visceral hatred of Anglos and English.

One or two common traits are shared by all alt-sovereigntists, the first being that they act as if Quebec is already an independent country and base their policies and opinions on that false premise. Another is the fact that they all purport that French is the only official language of Quebec, another nose-stretcher that is belied by the BNA Act. Of course, English is an official language (along with French) of the courts and of the legislature, something they purposely ignore.
The famous Bill 101 stepped lightly when it declared French as the official language of Quebec, careful not to use the word 'only' which would invite a court challenge that would ultimately destroy that myth.
By the way, much to the chagrin of alt-separatists, the Quebec Bar Association is now taking the Quebec government to court because (according to them) English is not being implemented in the drafting and passing of legislation as is required.
"The Quebec Bar Association has called on the Quebec Superior Court to declare all of the province’s laws, regulations and decrees unconstitutional.
The provincial bar, joined by the Montreal bar, argues in a 21-page brief that the Quebec National Assembly does not respect the requirement in the Canadian Constitution that all Quebec laws must be adopted in French and English." Link
YIKES!!!
Of course, alt-sovereigntists are easily recognized by their jargon where nary a political discussion can occur without the infamous catchphrases of 'colony' and 'colonialists' being bandied about in describing Quebec and Canada. Alt-sovereigntists are wont to describe ad nauseam all manner of humiliation that Quebec francophones suffer at the hands of the dastardly English.
Alt-sovereigntists have an over-riding disdain for immigrants not only because many adopt English as their second language instead of French, but also because they are prone to remain religiously observant instead of adopting the national religion of francophone Quebec, which is of course, lapsed Catholicism. Alt-sovereigntists whinge continually that immigrants are bad citizens because they don't readily assimilate and adopt so-called 'Quebec values,' the infamous ''poutine and maple syrup" argument.

At any rate, one of the less admirable human traits is taking a measure of pleasure in other peoples pain. The Germans actually coined the phrase 'schadenfreude' to describe the peculiar phenomenon whereby we actually derive pleasure from other peoples suffering.
I confess that I'm not immune to the effect and admit with a small level of shame that when Quebec ultra-nationalists and alt-sovereigntists suffer a humiliating defeat or a particularly devastating set of circumstances, I garner a healthy dose of guilty satisfaction.

The current meltdown of the Bloc Québécois and their doomed bloc-head (yes!) dear leader, Martine Ouellet, is a prime example of the phenomenon.
For some reason, I cannot help but cross my fingers that the pain and suffering of those involved in the current imbroglio is as painful as possible, for as long as possible.
As the blond says in the shampoo commercial says....  "Does that make me a bad person?"

I've been reading several outraged articles written by various alt-sovereigntists concerning the upcoming English debate by the leaders of the various Quebec provincial parties in the runup to the election, with that same feeling of smug satisfaction as the writers vent and fulminate over the imagined slight to the Francophone majority.
Horror of Horrors!!!!

For alt-sovereigntist, the idea of a debate in English violates the tenet that Quebec is French and French alone. For them, conducting a debate in English validates the notion that Anglophones are a legitimate partner in Quebec society, something that is an anathema to the true-believers.
As I said, I take particular pleasure in reading the screeds of frustrated and dejected alt-separatists and French language defenders who spew their particular version of painful venom.

"The symbolic significance of this debate should not be underestimated. The leaders' debate is the moment when political leaders openly debate the future of our nation. It is an essential ritual. For over fifty years, Quebec has sought to build itself around a strong principle: French is our only official language. It is on this condition that French will not only survive but assert itself in North America. Here, French cannot be one of two languages"-Mathieu Bock-Coté,

" Since 1974, the only official language in Quebec is French. For those who govern it or aspire to do so, respecting this fundamental principle should go without saying."  Josée Legault

"In Quebec, French is the common language of public use, the common language of diversity, the national language, the language of social cohesion, the language of work, the official language, the language that everyone must speak and to learn, the language that includes everyone and is for everyone ...

So why a
"leaders" debate in English!

It's a portrait made with hints of occupation and colonialism: the four leaders of Quebec's political parties, moreover francophones, will debate in English!

A powerful message! By participating in a debate in English, all the leaders convey strongly that in Quebec it is useless to speak French! It's not surprising, therefore, that many allophones do not enroll in French classes and that those who do so, abandon them and that English-speaking universities and CEGEPs continue to award degrees to students who are unable to master French or speak it at all."
These "leaders" tell them that they are right! Impératif-français
Thus the alt-sovereigntists have spoken, whilst the leaders of all the political parties ignore the entreaties.

At any rate, the English language debate begs the question; What will the leaders actually debate?
Will this be a rehash of the French language debate or will it be a debate over the place of anglos and minorities in Quebec?

If it's a debate about Anglophone rights, they may as well skip it. In consideration of Anglophones and allophones, the positions of all the parties are remarkably consistent.
All the parties have pretty much the same position that the English population has a right to exist in Quebec but none of the parties are particularly interested in enacting programs to see the community flourish and expand.
If they say different in the debate, they are conning us.
Never forget that the National Assembly voted unanimously to humiliate Anglophones by demanding that clerks stop using the familiar Bonjour/Hi greeting. Even the Anglophone quislings in the Liberal party voted for this obnoxious insult. Had they had any intestinal fortitude they could have run to the bathroom during the vote, but all decided that their job within the party was more important than defending their community.

The debate will be interesting only to see how good each of the leaders are at spinning the lie that they actually care about the English community. It is an effort at seduction worthy of a Casanova scammer where feigned romantic intentions are proffered in an effort at gaining affection and thus winning English electoral support fraudulently.

Pardon my cynicism....

Wednesday, April 25, 2018

Terrorist or Nut-bar... Let's Get Things Straight.


ter·ror·ist
  1. 1.
    a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

    "four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"



adjective
adjective: terrorist
  1. 1.
    unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

    "a terrorist organization"
It's important to differentiate between those who fit the label of terrorist and those who murder because of a sad mental defect. When these wanton type of killing events unfold, our definitions are often shaped by our political views.

When Alexandre Bissonnette killed six Muslims in a Quebec City church, many in the rest of Canada were quick to define him as a terrorist and many laid the blame for his supposed radicalization on what they perceived as a racist and Islamophobic Quebec society.

But as it turns out Bissonnette was not a terrorist, just your garden variety mental case.
"The man who murdered six Muslim men in a Quebec City mosque in January 2017 had been suffering with mental illness for years and wanted to kill, a psychologist who evaluated the gunman said in court Monday....
...Lamontagne said Bissonnette harboured violent and hostile thoughts for years – sentiments that were initially directed toward his peers at school who bullied him, as well as toward former teachers.

His hostility eventually became more generalized, Lamontagne said.

Over the last few years, Bissonnette came close to killing himself numerous times, Lamontagne said. He would write goodbye letters and put the barrel of his gun in his mouth.

The killer also lied about his past psychological problems in order to obtain a gun permit, Lamontagne said.
Lamontagne said Bissonnette told him that six weeks before the mosque shooting, he considered murdering people in a Quebec City shopping centre." Globe & Mai
On the other hand, the attempted murder of Premier Pauline Marois by Anglophone Richard Bain which resulted in the death of an innocent bystander was largely described as an act of terrorism by the French media because it played into their narrative of the big bad Anglo.
"It is indisputable that Richard Bain committed an act of terrorism, by any definition of the term," prosecutor Dennis Galiatsatos writes in a summary of the arguments he intends to make before the Quebec Court of Appeal." Montreal Gazette
 Even though the crown prosecutor wants to define Bain as a terrorist for political reasons, Bain was never charged with terrorism, just plain second-degree murder.
"A forensic psychiatrist who interviewed Richard Henry Bain when he fatally shot a man after a provincial election told the jury she doesn't think he's faking a mental illness." Montreal Gazette
Richard Bain isn't a terrorist, sadly just another deranged 'done me wrong' mental case who cracked rather tragically.
So defining whether a murderous act is terrorism seems to have a lot to do with our political views.

The tragic truck-ramming event in Toronto has us all screaming terrorism until we were informed that the perpetrator was, in fact, an Armenian Christian, which had us immediately changing hypothesis that the act was in fact that of an unhinged nutbar.
If that same nut-bar was in fact, Muslim, the label of terrorist would have stuck.

The same goes for the two so-called terrorist acts which took the lives of two Canadian soldiers in two separate incidents, one in Ontario and one in Quebec. Both perpetrators were actually just mentally unhinged.

In Canada, we are lucky in that we haven't had a serious terrorist incident since 1985 when horrifically, 329 people were killed, including 280 Canadians. The flight originated in Toronto, bound for India with stops in Montreal and London. The 747 exploded off the coast of Ireland courtesy of a bomb placed by a group of Canadian Sikh separatists from British Columbia led by Talwinder Singh Parmar. 
Those people define the word 'terrorist.'

Next time you hear of a so-called terrorism act, ask yourself this question ..."Nut-bar or Terrorist?"

These random acts of violence have us frightened because we believe that there's nothing to be done to prevent getting injured or killed, and in most cases that is so.
But two recent incidents during two stressful situations reminded me that to a large degree we are responsible for our own safety and unfortunately some of those who died in the truck-ramming incident might have survived had they paid attention to what was going on around them.

First is a picture of the Southwest airline airplane where one woman died when an engine exploded.


Look at these three idiots wearing their masks improperly, not covering their mouth and nose as is explained by the cabin crew in every pre-flight demonstration. Unbelievable!

Next, I want to talk about situational awareness, taking note of your surroundings and understanding when a situation becomes dangerous.

We've all seen the video of the brave Toronto police officer who stared down the truck-rammer and made the arrest without a shot being fired.


Not many of you noticed the three idiots strolling by what was a most dangerous confrontation.
They casually walk by as if there is no danger when clearly there is a good chance bullets will be flying.

It is called 'Normalcy Bias,'
"When disaster strikes, some people lose their heads, some people become cool and effective, but by far most people act as if they've suddenly forgotten the disaster. They behave in surprisingly mundane ways, right up until it's too late."
 The trio of pedestrians strolling right by the confrontation define 'normalcy bias,'  and unfortunately, some of those mowed down by the truck-rammer failed to act in their own self-interest, freezing instead of fleeing.

I remember shopping in Montreal's tony Rockland Shopping centre when I was surprised by two policemen hugging the wall and slinking around a corner with guns drawn. It didn't take me long to understand that a silent alarm had been triggered. I immediately turned and hurried in the opposite direction but to my amazement, all the shoppers who also saw the cops kept right on doing what they were doing without any reaction!
It taught me a valuable lesson in 'situational awareness' and I have practised staying away from trouble my whole life.

If there is one piece of advice that I can offer it is to PAY ATTENTION to your surroundings and situation and understand that things can be dangerous even if all the others around you don't react.

Don't be afraid to err on the side of caution and more importantly recognize when you need to act.

Monday, April 16, 2018

Quebec Government Fails Families Dealing with Autism

As the grandfather of a sweet and lovable four-year-old who just happens to be autistic, I read with profound disappointment and sadness of the ongoing crisis in the autism community whereby a group of parents announced that they are reluctantly planning to sue the government of Quebec in an effort to get funding for much-needed services.

First let me say that these parents already have their hands full caring for their autistic children, trying their darnedest to cope with the challenges of everyday life and the special needs of a child on the spectrum. The proposed lawsuit is not frivolous, but a necessary step to somehow get the government to live up to its responsibility.
At a press conference on Sunday, parents were at wit’s end and left with no other choice but to take legal action.
They now plan to file multiple civil rights complaints to the Commission of Human Rights.
“We want respect, we want that their rights for education, for living, for dignity are respected,” Taboada said, “and we’re going to go all the way. All the way.”
The Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations (CRARR) believes the province’s failure to provide proper services and education is a clear display of discrimination based on disability — and that violates children’s rights.
Together, the parents and the centre are also looking to launch a class action lawsuit against school boards. Global News
There is a special strain that parents of autistic children endure and while the situation of every child on the spectrum may be different, some things are shared among all.
First is the pain and guilt of having an autistic child and the overwhelming frustration. Then there is the constant humiliation that parents endure when their child is asked to leave a restaurant or another parent in the playground tells you to do a better job bringing up your bratty child because of an outburst. 
I myself witnessed a bitter old bag sipping her free McDonald's coffee in the Cavendish mall food court, chastise my daughter for my grandson's outburst, telling her to be a better parent and control her child. 
People can be cruel.

Some children on the spectrum can't deal with crowds or noise or bright lights. Some can't talk and expression is difficult. Some have difficulty showing affection and perhaps some don't have affection, every case is different.
Some autistic children on the high end of the scale do well and with therapy can attend regular schools. Some cannot and need a special school and intense behavioural therapy. 

But autistic children, whatever their situation, need therapy and they need therapy as early in life as possible.

It is here that our Quebec government fails horrifically. Our politicians are indifferent to the financial plight of these families because they are hitherto easy to ignore.
The aid provided is laughable. The government only offers a minimum of services between the ages of five and twenty-one. 
What happens before and after?
Therapy must begin as soon as autism is diagnosed, usually at two or three years old
Last year the government announced with great fanfare an investment of a paltry $29 million dollars of which none of the autistic families have seen a penny as of yet. 
In order to get some financial aid of up to $3,000 families must fill out form after form and do hoops to get aid with most families rejected.
As for those limited services and resources that the government does provide, funding is so restrictive that children in need are forced onto waiting lists where they can linger for years without getting any treatment. Families are faced with the burden of funding these treatments that can cost hundreds of dollars a week, or paying for private schools with tuitions upwards of $25,000 a year.
How many Quebec families can realistically sustain that kind of financial burden?
In the meantime, foreign trespassers who breach our border illegally are welcomed with open arms and are immediately provided with a $600 a month stipend until their case is heard, which of course may be years.

How out of touch are politicians?
They spend our money mindlessly on fantasy and vanity projects like lighting up the Jacques Cartier bridge for $40 million dollars or car races that nobody wants to see that cost $30 million dollars.
What taxpayer in their right mind would choose to fund these idiot projects instead of helping families with real problems?

My grandson is doing fine because he has loving parents, grandparents and family who work tirelessly as a team to make sure he gets the treatment he deserves and the daily support he requires.
Our situation is different in that we can afford the tuition to his special needs school and therapists on the weekend.
It is an expense that the vast majority of parents can't afford and I can only imagine the desperation families endure when money or the lack thereof hinders treatment.

Although autism is what this article is about, I have the same concerns for parents dealing with children with severe physical handicaps or illness.
Last year my son-in-law and I drove to a stable in the Laurentians that provided therapeutic interaction with horses for special needs children. 
Some children had difficulty controlling their muscles, some children had difficulty with autism and some were wheelchair bound.
What they all had in common were parents who were trying to give them the best life they could, parents who could use a little help from their friends.

Instead of embracing its responsibility to help these families, the government of Quebec is looking to get away cheap. It's shameful.
If anything the proposed lawsuit will embarrass the government into paying up. 
It should never have come to this.

Friday, April 13, 2018

Rampant Discrimination Alive & Well in 'Modern' Quebec

Only in Quebec can politicians and journalists unload unashamedly with impunity on religious minorities with vicious and vitriolic outbursts that boggles the mind. This week reminds us once again as to how exactly many franco-Quebecers feel about minorities who don't look or act as they are supposed to in the eyes of the great unwashed.

There remains in Quebec a serious conundrum, a situation whereby immigrants are needed to shore up the population because of the anemic birth rate amongst Quebec francophones.
These immigrants are selected first and foremost on their ability to speak French and so many of those chosen are Muslims from the former French-speaking colonies of the Maghreb.

But most of these above-mentioned immigrants are observant and many of the women wear the hijab, something that is an anathema to franco-Quebecers who are not only largely areligious, but virulently anti-religion as well.
The hijab is seen as a symbol of enslavement, an anti-feminist sign that women are either forced to wear by their dominant male or foolishly embrace on their own.

But the hijab is also a symbol that those who wear it will never embrace the current political anti-religiosity of mainstream Quebec, something that is unforgivable in the present political climate.

Last week, the Jewish member of the Quebec National Assembly David Birnbaum, wore a kippa on the day Jews choose to commemorate the Holacaust. Birnbaum doesn't wear the kippa regularly but decided to pay tribute, a symbolic gesture, perhaps like those of you who put out a hockey stick at your front door to commemorate the victims of the Humboldt tragedy.

But for the PQ leader Jean-François Lisée, it was a provocation too good to pass up, the sight of the cursed kippa in the hallowed halls of the National Assembly. Deciding to make political hay out of the religious symbol it was an opportunity to rail over the unfairness of it all. Lisée complained loudly that if Birnbaum wore the kippa in the National Assembly as a symbol then he too should be permitted to wear a PQ lapel pin, something he was asked to remove by the speaker because of the rule against partisan symbols in the National Assembly.
He complained to the Press that he wasn't against the kippa, but rather the fact that he could not wear his PQ pin, an argument without equivalency.
But Lisée does not see himself as a racist, or at least an overt one, he is like many franco-Quebecers who see complaining about minorities as fair, with the reality being that they continue to hold onto the idea that until minorities like Jews and Muslims give up their faith, they cannot be 'good' Quebecers.
Mr. Lisée's comparison of the Holacaust to a PQ lapel pin was petty and stupid but unfortunately might play well in 'Hérouxville' where the so-called foreign barbarians at the gate are perceived as a clear and present danger to the ethnic purity of Quebec. While Lisée cleverly said that he was in favour of the kippa, he was in fact knowingly sowing the seeds of fear and hate.
He has done so before in the nasty Bonjour/Hi debate where he crowed that he had sprung a trap for the government that precipitated a pathetic nasty linguistic debate over how merchants greet customers.

The second nasty incident was over one ambitious seventeen-year-old Muslim named Sondos Lamrhari, who is studying towards her goal of becoming a police officer.
The problem being of course that she wears a hijab.
Sensitive to the political climate around her and determined to avoid confrontation, Lamrhani (as you can see in the photo) trimmed the Hijab as best she could, in order to be less 'offensive.'
How very sad...

You would think by the vicious outcries against her by the media and politicians that she was an Islamic terrorist. The idea that a police officer might be allowed to wear a turban or hijab evinced an outpouring of hate by journalists and politicians.
Francois Legault, leader of the FAQ wants to make the seventeen-year-old teen an election issue.
People will have a choice on October 1st. If they want authority figures like the police to be allowed to wear religious symbols, they should vote for the Liberals. If they are against, they can vote for Coalition avenir Québec !
Agnes Maltais-- Not on Quebec!
Then there is Agnes Maltais, a PQ stalwart who is incidentally a lesbian and at 61 years old, someone who likely lived through a homophobic period of time in her life, no doubt suffering the slings and arrows of discrimination.
You'd think that someone like her would be sensitive to discrimination against those who are different, but alas it just seems to have sharpened the venomous attack and utter contempt she directed towards the student.
She told reporters nastily that the student had no place in a Quebec police force and should consider a job in the RCMP because unlike Canada, Quebec doesn't accept multi-culturalism. Yikes!

This very morning I read a disgusting story in the Journal du Montreal written by an ex-employee of a temp agency who was told by his boss that for a certain job posting for several employees, the employer stipulated that no Blacks were to be considered because the unionized shop didn't want any.  Really?....

I remain haunted by the statuesque Black African immigrant who told the Bouchard-Taylor commision in perfect, but differently accented French that to be accepted in Quebec she is being forced to eat poutine and maple syrup, a wonderful metaphor for the reality that new Quebecers face.

If this is modern Quebec, it looks pretty much like the old racist and xenophobic Quebec of yore.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Why Anglos Should Welcome CAQ Victory

For most of us in the Anglo community, English rights and the issue of sovereignty was the overriding and ultimate issue driving our voting choice over the last forty years.
Truth be told, if the Mafia led a federalist party that promised unlimited English rights, but as a trade-off mob style corruption, we would have voted for them in droves.

Come to think of it, we did!

But the war over English language rights and Quebec sovereignty is over, both suffering an ignominious and lasting defeat, raising the question as to whether we should continue to support the aging Liberals or bolt to the CAQ.

So let's take stock of where we are.

It seems to me, that vis-a-vis Anglo rights, we have sunk as low as we can go.
No party is willing to increase those rights and none, even the PQ is looking to further erode our community. It is a question of kicking the proverbial dead horse when it's down, and where retribution against the Anglo community for real or imagined slights is no longer a driving voter issue.
In fact, gratuitously picking on the Anglo community is probably viewed by the majority of francophone voters as a bit mean-spirited and certainly uncalled for given the circumstances, and like a dominant sports team pummelling the opposition, running up the score is viewed as poor sportsmanship.

Sadly for us, Anglos no longer matter in Quebec, neutralized as a political or economic force over the last forty years that saw Anglo companies and Anglo children driven out of the province to the point where we are today, like the PQ, an irrelevant and spent political force.

If as a voter you are asking yourself which party will better represent Anglo interests, don't bother.
Even the dead-in-the-water PQ represent no further threat to English language rights and even if the party theoretically came to power, it's policy about the French language would probably target the francophone community where the last fight that the PQ can mount would be an effort to limit Francophones learning English.  Just about the only idea left to the moribund PQ is perhaps extending Bill 101 to English cegeps, restricting francophone access, which honestly would just open up places for Anglophones who don't have the astronomical marks needed to gain entrance as today's heightened standards are directly related to the pressure of French enrolment.

But paradoxically, accepting the reality of our Anglo situation in Quebec, that is, that the present situation is as good as it gets, can be liberating.
We can choose to leave or choose to stay in Quebec under these conditions, but if we stay we'll be free to look at other issues when choosing between the CAQ or the Liberals.

So the following critique is sadly devoid of any discussion of the different party's position on Anglo rights because they are essentially the same.

It is hard to fault the Couillard Liberals over good government, but nonetheless, they are doomed to lose the next election.
The overriding job off the government is to manage the public purse as responsibly as possible and on this account the Liberals have done a pretty good job, in fact, better than any other provincial government, eliminating the deficit and making a dent in Quebec's massive debt.
I know it's an unpopular concept for voters who don't see the benefits of austerity, but nonetheless, those tangible benefits are real.
Balancing the budget and reducing debt has a twofold effect which we should all understand and consider.
First is that when government balances the budget, the interest on the debt over time becomes less onerous.
Let me explain by way of example.
Consider a family who twenty-five years ago bought a home for $250,000 with a $50,000 down and a mortgage of $200,000 with fixed monthly payment of say $1,3000 a month. Over the years, the mortgage payment is fixed, but the family income perhaps doubles, making the mortgage payment half as painful as when first assumed.
It is the same for government debt.
If we can just freeze the amount of debt, inflation will reduce the impact of carrying that debt over the years.
Now paying government debt is an added bonus, somewhat like making an extra payment on your mortgage which some banks allow, which has the effect of paying off the debt sooner.

In the case of governments paying off debt, one can assume that every billion dollars paid down, represents an annual interest saving of about $50 million dollars, money that can be redirected into government spending programs.
Over the last two budgets, Quebec has paid off $7 billion in debt, freeing up an additional $350 million in money that it saves on interest, money that can be spent otherwise. According to projections, the Quebec government will pay off another $14 billion in debt over the next four years, freeing up another $700 million in recovered money that would otherwise be spent on interest.
While it isn't sexy, it is what good government is about and on this account, full marks for the Liberals.
“S&P Global last week raised Quebec’s rating to AA-minus from A-plus, citing “strong budget surpluses and declining debt burden.” That put Quebec’s S&P rating above Ontario’s, which is Canada’s most populous province, for the first time since 2006.”  Link
Austerity is controversial because it reduces government services across the board and so it's biggest opponents are those who are penalized, those who pay little or no tax, but receive benefits. For them, the free ride on the back of real taxpayers is a gravy train that they don't want to see pulling out of the station. Although most of the pain of austerity has been borne by middle-class public employees who have seen their contracts rolled back, it is the vocal non-payers who bellyache the loudest.

All this good news must be tempered by the fact that other Canadians are subsidizing this new found fiscal responsibility.
Good as the Liberal effort is in paying down the debt and balancing the budget, the elephant in the room remains the equalization payment made to Quebec by Ottawa on behalf of Canadian taxpayers. Out of the annual $11 billion equalization gift from Ottawa, other Canadian taxpayers pay $8.7 billion of that amount (the other part is paid by Quebec taxpayers.)  This gift from other Canadians represents about 10% of the Quebec budget, something nobody in Quebec is willing to admit.

Nobody except Francois Legault, leader of the CAQ who said this;
 “What I want to tell Quebecers is that a CAQ government will aim for zero equalization. A CAQ government will eliminate the wealth gap with the rest of Canada. A CAQ government will have ambition, will aim high for Quebec.”
Them's fighting words!

With the language war over, it is perhaps time to get down to sound, responsible government and working towards prosperity that will provide the government with the funds needed to help those who need help the most.

A new government, unburdened by responsibility for policies created in the past can look at each problem with fresh eyes, unencumbered by history... a veritable fresh start.

There are many things that could be changed, that should be changed.
  • The antiquated and failed CEGEP system.
  • A bureaucratic and overburdened health care system.
  • A bloated and inefficient public service, which also goes for the school board system.
  • A new approach to protection and expansion of French in Quebec without placing the burden of change on the Anglophone community.
  • A new approach towards entrepreneurship and business.
  • Abandoning 'grand' schemes and costly white elephant programs
  • A realistic approach to costly 'green' energy projects that waste billions.  
A CAQ government won't be any worse for the Anglos, perhaps better, with a deeper respect towards our community than the phony Liberals pretended to have.

Given the conservative roots of the CAQ and the abandonment of nationalist policies, I'm ready to give them their shot.

And so Canada's two largest provinces, making up more than half of Canada's population are turning towards conservative governments and it remains to be seen what they will accomplish.

But one thing I know for sure is that if I were Justin, I'd be very anxious.