www.politiquebec.com

[Delenda]

Winnipeg Sun

Bloc party here
Separatists cannot hold balance of power in Ottawa
By TOM BRODBECK


I never thought I'd see the day when the cancer that threatens the future of Canada would gain a real foothold in our Parliament.

Until now, the Bloc Quebecois -- whose only real goal is to break up the country -- has been relegated to the opposition benches of the House of Commons.

It's been troubling enough watching separatists get sworn into Parliament, occupying seats that should be the exclusive domain of people who swear their allegiance to Canada.

But we're now faced with the real possibility that the Bloc Quebecois could have a seat around the cabinet table if opposition members topple the Conservative government next week and replace it with a coalition that includes Quebec separatists.

Even former prime minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau must be spinning in his grave at the thought of separatists -- the very people he dedicated his political career to defeat -- having a say in Canada's national government.

It would be, if it happens, a historical turning point for Canada -- separatists calling the shots on how our country should be run and ultimately scheming to break it up.

It would be a major victory for Quebec separatists too, who have been plotting the demise of Canada since the 1960s and who have trampled on the rights of non-French speaking people for three decades.

What better way to fight for the independence of Quebec than to be in power in the very Parliament they seek to destroy?

And who is making it possible for separatists to invade the federal cabinet room?

Liberals and New Democrats.

So desperate are they to be in power that they would put the future of Canada at risk by inviting the Bloc Quebecois to play a role in their proposed coalition government.

RECESSION

These are the very people who purport to stand up for the unity of Canada. But now, in exchange for a short stint in government, they are willing to sell the Dominion of Canada down the St. Lawrence River.

The pretext for the move is that the Conservatives are refusing to open the spending taps further than they already have.

The Liberals and NDP claim that because Prime Minister Stephen Harper is not willing to spend as much as they believe is necessary to help Canadians through a possible recession, that government should be toppled and replaced with a coalition that includes separatists.

It's a red herring, an excuse for Liberal Leader Stephane Dion to make a final, desperate bid for the prime minister's chair and for the NDP -- who could never form government on their own -- to finally have representation around the cabinet table.

So what could the Bloc do if they played a role in a proposed coalition?

They could begin by demanding that Quebec get a substantially larger share of Canada's fiscal pie.

They could demand that Quebec's provincial government take over certain federal functions, those which fall under shared responsibility under the Constitution.

The Bloc could demand that the Clarity Act, which ensures that a clear question and a clear majority is necessary for any province to separate from Canada, be amended.

They could demand it be scrapped altogether.

The political manoeuvrings, schemes and strategies by the Bloc to advance their agenda to break up Canada would be endless should they ever get the foothold of power they seek through a coalition government.

And the NDP and Liberals should be ashamed of themselves for what they are about to do to Canada.

[El Kabong]

Il est donc permis dans les journeaux du ROC d'écrire régulièrement de la littérature haineuse et ce en toute impunité.

Disgusting!

Le crime "d'incitation à la haine" ne s'applique qu'aux colons, pas aux maîtres.

CANADA!!!

[Pèreplexe]

Heureusement pour eux que la bêtise ne tue pas .

[Jobserve]

Heureusement pour eux que la bêtise ne tue pas .

Heureusement pour eux que le nombre de députés des 4 autre partie NDP, Conservateur, Libéraux et le partie Vert ne soit pas a égalité et que le bloc ayant obtenu le plus de députer soit appeler a former un gouvernement minoritaire... Ca pourrait arriver. La on la verrait la crise d'hystérie et surement une coalition contre nature entre conservateur et Liébraux...

[Delenda]

Winnipeg Sun

Tom BrodbeckTue, December 2, 2008

A deal with the devil

Alliance with treasonists puts nation in peril
By TOM BRODBECK


If there was any doubt that the separatist Bloc Quebecois would have a substantial role to play in a new, proposed coalition government in Ottawa, it was put to rest yesterday.

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe -- whose chief objective is to break up Canada -- sat on a stage with Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and NDP boss Jack Layton yesterday and signed the unholiest pact in Canadian political history, an agreement described by the group as "an accord among the three parties."

They stood, shook hands, smiled for the cameras and set off what could be one of the greatest threats to our country since the Fathers of Confederation gave us the Dominion of Canada 141 years ago.

"I trust him," Dion said of his new political ally, Gilles Duceppe, who told reporters he will be working in the best interest of the "Quebec nation."

Not only would we have a prime minister who was not elected by the people and whose platform was categorically rejected by Canadian voters just six weeks ago, we would for the first time in history have separatists in Parliament with their hands on the levers of power.

We could see separatists appointed to the Senate, campaigns to reopen the Clarity Act and efforts to give Quebec even more power than it already has.

The only difference now is that the Bloc would advance their sovereignty agenda from within government, rather than from a benign position on the opposition benches.

Yesterday's signing ceremony made that abundantly clear.

This was not an agreement inked between the NDP and the Liberals. This was a pact signed by all three parties, who will each work to advance their own self-serving interests.

It has also been confirmed that the planned takeover has nothing to do with the fiscal policies of the current government.

Leaked tapes of a conference call between Layton and his MPs last week reveal that talks with the Bloc about forming a coalition government have been ongoing for some time.

"This whole thing would not have happened if the moves hadn't been made with the Bloc to lock them in early," Layton told his MPs. "The first part was done a long time ago -- I won't go into details."

Layton was coaching his MPs during the conversation, giving them talking points and urging them not to feel "defensive" about signing a deal with the separatists.

"Nothing could be better for our country than to have the 50 members who've been elected out of 75 in Quebec actually helping to make Canada a better place," Layton said.

That might make sense if those 50 MPs were federalists. But they're not. They're treasonists. They seek to destroy Canada, not improve it.

Layton says he couldn't think of anything better for Canada than to invite separatists into government. I can.

Having a federalist party in power committed to a unified Canada would be a good start.

It's something Winnipeg NDP MP Pat Martin -- one of the most outspoken critics of the separatist movement -- has always understood.

I wonder how he feels about his party signing a deal with the devil.

This pact could be one of the most dangerous developments in Canadian history if it succeeds.

It could have incalculable results.

[Delenda]

Stop sedition coalition
Winnipeg Sun
December 3, 2009
Tom Broadbeck

People often ask me what ordinary Canadians can do to stop bad things from happening in government.

I sometimes hear folks lament they're powerless to do anything, other than to vote, and that politicians don't listen to them anyway.

Not true.

Nothing scares the bejeesus out of elected officials more than getting bombarded with phone calls, e-mails and regular mail from angry constituents unhappy with something their politician is doing.

At the end of the day, they need to get re-elected. And if they believe enough voters in their riding will topple them for what they're doing, they will retreat.


Which brings us to Ottawa, where opposition parties are plotting a quick and dirty coup d'etat, made possible though an ugly alliance with a separatist party who are salivating at the thought of getting their mitts on the levers of power in Parliament for the first time in history.

It's an extraordinarily dangerous move for the unity of Canada.

Traditionally, one of the Bloc's greatest limitations has been their inability to form government, or to even participate in government.

There aren't enough Quebec seats in the House of Commons for that to happen. The only way it could occur is if other parties invite the separatist into their camp to form a government. Which is what the Liberals and NDP have done by entering into a formal, signed accord with the Bloc.

If this thing goes through, it will give the separatists more legitimacy in Parliament than anyone could ever have imagined.

Bloc candidates will now be able to tell voters at the door that yes, vote for me and I can be part of a government. It would change the entire dynamic of Parliament.

The vast majority of reaction I'm getting from people on this coalition of sedition is disgust, disbelief and disillusionment that this could happen in a democratic country.

The question now is, what are people prepared to do about it?

Call your MP, especially if he/she is part of this separatist coalition and tell them what you think. Believe me, they'll listen.

If they get enough calls and e-mails, I guarantee you they will think twice about selling Canada down the river.

But don't stop at calling or e-mailing your MP.

Contact the party leaders, too. Give them a piece of your mind.

Write letters to the editor. Start a petition. Petitions are great. Get as many people to sign as possible and present it to your MP at his/her office.

Better still, organize a demonstration outside their offices. Invite the media, hand out pamphlets and let your voice be heard.

The more political pressure Canadians put on these clowns, the better.

The coalition of sedition requires 155 votes to topple the government. Right now combined, including the separatist, they have 163 seats in the House of Commons. All we need to do is shame nine Liberal and/or NDP MPs into voting against this accord and it's dead in the water.

But it's up to Canadians to do it.

The biggest joke about this whole coalition is that even between the NDP and the Liberals, they still have nowhere near the number of seats the current government has. They claim that between them, they represent Canada even though they have only 113 seats compared with the Conservative's 143.

It's only when you add in the 50 seats from the separatists that they would have a majority, which makes a mockery of their argument the Bloc would not really be part of the coalition.

It's time to say no to the separatists. Let your voice be heard.

[Pèreplexe]

De 2 maux , on choisit le moindre .

Si le Bloc ne se range pas du côté de la coalition , il devient automatiquement du côté de Harper , je ne sais pas s'il serait alors moins séparatisseà leurs yeux .

[Polémix]

Winnipeg Sun, TOM BRODBECK.

Je me souviens !

Je me souviens que dans le Canada des anglos-impérialistes, un Québécois qui ne pense pas comme les anglos est un être inférieur et que ses représentants n'ont pas la légitimité requise pour faire partie d'un gouvernement.

[Polémix]

Winnipeg Sun, Tom Brodbeck .

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe -- whose chief objective is to break up Canada.. .

Quand j'ai quitté la maison de mes parents, ça n'a pas détruit notre famille.

[Delenda]

Why kingmaker Duceppe can't stop laughing
WILLIAM JOHNSON

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

December 4, 2008 at 3:06 AM EST

There is a Quebec political syndrome. It inspired the decision of Stéphane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe to seize power, dumping the Conservatives.

Is it coincidence that all three are from Quebec? Even Mr. Layton was born and bred there, graduating from McGill University. His father was a Quebec MP in the Mulroney government.

The Quebec political syndrome includes a permanent resentment over past wrongs and past humiliations. It's premised on being under existential threat in North America, where its language is different and outnumbered. It displays a fortress mentality. And the syndrome assumes that, whatever Quebec wants, it must get. Or it's aggrieved. Quebec doesn't accept give and take, just take. Reciprocity's out, unilateralism's in.

So Quebec elected a majority of Bloc Québécois MPs in six elections since 1993. The Bloc's bare-faced principle is to be guided by Quebec's interests and Quebec's interests alone. "I'm here to act for the Quebec nation," Mr. Duceppe said on Monday as the three signed their agreement. And Quebec is hypersensitive to insult. Nationalists burned the Canadian flags routinely. But when expatriate Anglos trampled the Quebec flag in Brockville, all of Quebec was aroused. It was added to Quebec's carefully tended list of historic slights.

So what precipitated the triumvirate's power grab? The casus belli was Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's announcement that he was ending the $1.95 subsidy to parties for each vote they receive. It was a provocation, most unwise. The strong negative reaction from opposition parties, press and public caused Stephen Harper to recant.

But our Quebec trio couldn't forgive or forget. Mr. Harper must be destroyed. The revenge of the nerd for all past indignities would be terrible: Mr. Dion must become prime minister.

Mr. Duceppe understood that the measure was aimed at the separatist movement. The Bloc gets the same money per vote as the other parties, though it campaigns only in Quebec and buys TV advertising only in one language. The Bloc is the rich sister of the Parti Québécois; in Quebec, the parties get only 50 cents a vote. So the Bloc does almost no fundraising, letting the PQ collect from separatist supporters. And the Bloc uses its financial power to spread the PQ's message. The two parties are joined at the hip, and Ottawa finances separatism.

Mr. Duceppe wants Mr. Harper gone. In 2005, support for secession soared so high that the confident PQ adopted its most radical program: unilateral secession, no association. But Mr. Harper cajoled Quebeckers, even recognizing the Québécois as "a nation within a united Canada." Separatism vanished as an issue in Quebec's election of 2007 and the one on Monday - until this week.

Now Pauline Marois, who won the PQ leadership on a promise to drop the commitment to a referendum, points to the turmoil in Ottawa and the outrage in Western Canada: "We are [now] more sovereigntist because we see that that country doesn't function. That federation denies the reality of Quebec. ... The reactions in the rest of Canada are demonstrating that, deep down, they have not much respect for Quebec and don't want really to recognize us as a nation."

True, there is outrage west of Ottawa. People voted for a leader and a party, not a three-headed bait-and-switch substitute. The Conservatives won more seats than the combined opposition in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick. In Ontario, the Conservatives won 13 more seats than the Liberals, 34 more than the NDP. Now the people see their victory snatched from them under obscure rules that supposedly justify an illegitimate outcome.

The country is polarized between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Mr. Dion claims "the Bloc accepted to have 18 months of political stability in Canada." The 18 months have only just started. Mr. Duceppe, the kingmaker, must be happy.

William Johnson is an author and a former president of Alliance Quebec.

[auto-o-tik]

There is a Quebec political syndrome. It inspired the decision of Stéphane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe to seize power, dumping the Conservatives.

Is it coincidence that all three are from Quebec? Even Mr. Layton was born and bred there, graduating from McGill University. His father was a Quebec MP in the Mulroney government.

The Quebec political syndrome includes a permanent resentment over past wrongs and past humiliations. It's premised on being under existential threat in North America, where its language is different and outnumbered. It displays a fortress mentality. And the syndrome assumes that, whatever Quebec wants, it must get. Or it's aggrieved. Quebec doesn't accept give and take, just take. Reciprocity's out, unilateralism's in.

Va donc chier mon crisse.

Un fédéraliste du forum me dira surement qu'il ne s'agit que de l'opinion d'une seule personne et que ca ne représente pas l'opinion du ROC et qu'ici aussi il y a des gens qui sont débiles/méprisants/hargneux envers les Canadians.

Par contre, est-ce qu'il pourrait me dire s'il existe des commentaires aussi insultants envers les Canadians dans les plus grands journaux québécois ? Aucune chance que cela se retrouve dans LaPresse, par exemple...

Quel est le journal du ROC le plus sympathique à la nation québécoise ?

[Delenda]

A historically rare event amidst an already strained relationship
MICHAEL VALPY

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

December 4, 2008 at 5:10 AM EST

History has echoes. In February, 2006, Stephen Harper, the country's new leader, met with officials to plan the transition of power from the just-defeated Liberal administration.

Ottawa's senior public servant, Alex Himelfarb, looked across the table at him and said, "Prime Minister, your biggest problem is in Rideau Hall."

Thirty-four months later, Mr. Harper's immediate biggest problem may well be in Rideau Hall, the residence of Governor-General Michaëlle Jean, who could use her constitutional powers to prevent him from avoiding a parliamentary no-confidence vote that could terminate his government.

In 2006, Mr. Himelfarb, then-clerk of the Privy Council, was suggesting that Ms. Jean and her husband, Quebec filmmaker Jean-Daniel Lafond, were turning out to be a pain in the behind to the federal bureaucracy.


Ms. Jean had forced one chief of staff out of her job. A second had quit in anger. Mr. Lafond was involving himself in at least one sensitive issue - the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec - in which the Governor-General's office was not welcome.

While the Prime Minister's inner circle considered Ms. Jean too young at 48, too politically naive, too meshed with her former career as a journalist to be the Queen's representative and de facto head of state, the bureaucracy saw her as someone with an imperfect understanding of both the governor-general's role and of the country itself. There also were reports that Mr. Lafond was too close to Quebec separatists.

Respect for how she does the job has grown over time, but the suspicion has never left the Prime Minister's Office that she is a somewhat unpredictable loose cannon.

Now she may determine the future direction of Mr. Harper's government.

Virtually nothing is known about the relationships governors-general have with their prime ministers and whether it matters.

Ms. Jean's predecessor, Adrienne Clarkson, has provided a notable exception: She made clear in her autobiography that she didn't like former prime minister Paul Martin and the people around him.

Moreover, it is known that if Mr. Martin had requested Ms. Clarkson to dissolve Parliament and call an election in 2004 in the event that his minority government fell on a no-confidence vote, she had received legal advice to tell him no.

What little else is known is little removed from gossip.

The Earl of Dufferin, governor-general for Canada's first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, was appalled by Macdonald's drinking and political morality, but was loyal to him - the opposition thought him too loyal - through the scandals he faced.

Prime minister W. L. Mackenzie King was known for halitosis, which wouldn't have appealed to his governor-general, the fastidious Lord Byng. But few people would have concluded that halitosis played a part in Lord Byng denying Mr. King a dissolution, igniting the King-Byng crisis of 1926.

Pierre Trudeau liked all of his governors-general, especially Roland Michener. Jean Chrétien went on trips with one of his governors-general, Romeo LeBlanc. Vincent Massey, the first Canadian-born governor-general, had a reputation for arrogance. But it didn't matter, said historian Michael Bliss. "Ninety-nine per cent of what governors-general do is cheerleading for Canada. He didn't have to do anything [that involved government]."

Michaëlle Jean is in the 1-per-cent zone.

My 2 cents: Michaêlle Jean will meet every Harper demand, her lavish lifestyle depends on it...(whores are not always in bordellos)

[Delenda]

Kelly McParland: Dion stumbles, Duceppe says it all -- coalition is good for separatists
Posted: December 03, 2008, 8:00 PM by Kelly McParland

Stephen Harper, heavily made up and trying his best not to erupt, had barely finished speaking on national TV when the TV commentators started debating trivialities.

Did he use the same words in French as he did in English? Why does he talk about a “coalition with separatists” when the separatists are just supporting the coalition, they aren’t part of it? Why didn’t he give us something new to talk about?

Did it matter? Not to Stephen Harper, who was speaking over the heads of the pundits to the Canadian people. Pundits have a hard time appreciating that most Canadians don’t spend their day riveted to the TV, soaking up Question Period and the arcane little battles that result from it.

Harper didn’t want his case put to Canadians by the pundits any more. He wanted to make it himself, and from his point of view. He wanted to lay out just what’s been happening all week in Ottawa, what’s at stake, what all the fighting is about.

So he did, quite simply.

We won the election, he said. You gave us your votes. We formed the government because you gave us the mandate.

We’ve been spending our time preparing for a crisis. We’ve introduced programs to deal with it. We’re planning more: there’s to be a budget in January, to be introduced after we know what the Americans are doing and the situation is more clear. We’re meeting with the premiers, we’re cooperating with the G20, were consulting with the opposition.

“We hope they bring forward specific proposals; we have invited them to do so,” he said of his opponents. In fact, he said, the government has already modified some of its plans due to opposition input.

All this he delivered in a careful, moderate tone. Much different from the angry Harper of Question Period, or from the spiteful Harper behind the proposal to end taxpayer subsidies to political parties. This was Stephen Harper trying to halt a runaway train, one headed straight for his government, and perhaps for the unity of the country.

Mr. Harper’s point, which he has been hammering at all week, is that -- however foolish the error of his attack on party funding -- it does not justify the constitutional and unity crisis the opposition is threatening to visit on the nation.

“Canada cannot enter into a power-sharing coalition with a separatist party,” he said. “At times like these a coalition with separatists cannot help Canada.”

“The Opposition is attempting to impose this deal without your say, without your consent, and without your vote. This is no time for backroom deals with the separatists; it is the time for Canada’s government to focus on the economy and specifically on measures for the upcoming budget. This is a pivotal moment in our history.”

It was a straightforward message, easy to understand. Stephane Dion-- after a lengthy delay that got the TV pundits all agitated -- didn’t touch it. Separatism? What’s that? Other than a passing mention, the Bloc was absent from his reply.

Instead he dwelt at length on happy thoughts.

“Within one week, a new direction will be established, a tone and focus will be set,” he said. “We will gather with leaders of industry and labour to work, unlike the Conservatives, in a collaborative, but urgent manner to protect jobs.”

What kind of stimulus will there be? Good stimulus, not bad stimulus: “Investing in our rural communities so that cherished ways of life are protected for future generations. We can stimulate our economy through investments in clean energy, water and our gateways.”

Political parties in other countries get along, he said, why can’t Canada? It’s not clear what countries he meant, Republicans and Democrats not being known for embracing in spontaneous hugs on the floor of Congress. But nevertheless.

It wasn’t a great reply. Mr. Dion looked nervous, harried. The video looked like it had been shot on a cellphone. It took him three tries to say “significantly”. And then Gilles Duceppe got on the air immediately afterwards and started listing all the concessions he’d extracted from the coalition in return for his support. He’d signed on, he said, because there were “very significant benefits” for Quebec. He’d only agreed to stick around for 18 months, during which he could continue to work solely on Quebec’s interests. The government, he said, would be trying to deal with the economic situation, “based on an agreement that meets the needs of Quebec.”

If you’re Michaelle Jean and you’re watching this, you have to wonder. Do you want to risk a constitutional crisis by handing the government to two parties that have bought their fling at power by offering goodies to the leader of the separatists? Is it safe? Is it good for Canada?

If I was the Governor-General I'd pay a lot of attention to what Gilles Duceppe had to say. He was the only one with no reason to sell his spin. The deal is attractive to him because it's good for his cause: To strengthen the cause of separatism and increase our chances of breaking up the country. Which means it's not good for Canada.



National Post

[Delenda]

Edmonton Sun

Dion should read his own book
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

Turn in your cape, Captain Canada.

There was a time when the last thing Prime Minister Five Months Stephane Dion would have done is to lie down with separatists.

But that was before he sold his political soul by signing a deal giving the Bloc Quebecois a "permanent consultation mechanism" at the seat of power inside the Liberal/NDP government he will briefly head if his deal with BQ Leader Gilles Duceppe and the NDP's Jack Layton succeeds.

So while Duceppe and Quebec's always-lovable former premier Jacques "money and the ethnic vote" Parizeau publicly gloat over the huge gains they say separatists are poised to make, let's review some of Prime Minister Five Months' greatest hits from the past.

What he used to say when he was Jean Chretien's point man on national unity following the near-disastrous Quebec referendum in 1995, the reason Dion says he entered politics.

Back when he used to warn about the dangers of appeasing separatists.

(1) Dion, April 4, 1997: "We are a federation threatened with break-up, and faced with a separatist ideology which promotes suspicion, divisions and envy between citizens. When one group of MPs arrives in Ottawa with the sole mandate of promoting the interests of their own region, this encourages other regions to elect MPs who in turn promote only their interests, and we lose any sense of a national opposition committed to the good of Canada as a whole.''

(2) Dion, Dec. 10, 1998: "Let me sum up this separatist-style politics of booty ... It consists of demanding something from the federal government; more power, more money. If the federal government says no, then you return to Quebecers and you tell them: You see how unyielding and unfair this federation is to you, we've got to get out! If the federal government says yes, the message to Quebecers becomes: You see the bargaining power you get by electing separatists, so imagine the power you'd have if you voted 'Yes' in a referendum ... So how does one thwart this logic of booty? Quite simply, by refusing to play the game. By stating very clearly that one has no intention of giving in to this kind of blackmail ... We won't improve this social union by trying to accommodate the separatists or those who might be tempted to vote for them."

(3) Dion, March 2, 1996: "In the past, as much as Liberals may have disagreed with the Conservatives and the NDP, at least we knew that we shared a common belief in Canada. Today, with the regionalist parties (like the Bloc) this is not the case. We need many leaders, not just Liberals, who will stand up again for our common Canadian values."

(4) Dion, Nov. 26, 1996: "There is a great contrast between the tolerance of Quebec society and the intolerance of the secessionist option ... That is why Quebec secession is a project which favours exclusion, and would breed intolerance and division among communities that are now living in harmony."

These are all Dion's own words, from his 1999 book, published by McGill-Queen's University Press.

Its title makes for delicious irony.

It was called: Straight Talk, Speeches and Writings on Canadian Unity.

Prime Minister Five Months, don't just turn in your Captain Canada suit. Hang your head in shame.

[Delenda]

Winnipeg Sun

Tom BrodbeckThu, December 4, 2008

Blockheads & Bloc

Separatists would have major role -- despite spin
By TOM BRODBECK


I could accept the idea of an NDP/Liberal coalition if they had enough seats in the House of Commons to do it.

But I wouldn't like it because Canadians didn't vote for an NDP/Liberal coalition.

Some people voted NDP and can't stand Liberal boss Stephane Dion. Others voted for the Liberals and abhor NDP Leader Jack Layton.

Also, there's no legitimate reason to topple the current government. The justification the government isn't providing enough "stimulus" in a budget it hasn't even tabled yet is ludicrous.

Whatever.

I would still accept an NDP/Liberal coalition as a legitimate part of our parliamentary system. When no party has a majority of seats in the House of Commons, we either have a minority government or a coalition.

I think it's a flaw in our parliamentary system but that's a discussion for another time.

However, contrary to the spin some Canadians are buying into, that's not what is happening in Ottawa at all right now.

Combined, the Liberals and the NDP have nowhere near the seats the Tories do. The Tories have 143 seats, 30 more than the 113 the NDP and Liberals have.

So when Liberal and NDP spin doctors get on the air and say an NDP/Liberal coalition represents the will of Canadians, they are factually incorrect.

It's only when you add the Bloc Quebecois to the mix that you have enough seats for a government.

And that's where the proposed coalition becomes an act of sedition and a coup d'etat.

Forming a federal government with a party whose chief objective is to undermine the existence of Canada is not a valid government. It does not have legitimacy. The Constitution Act does not contemplate breaking up Canada.

There are some who have bought into the NDP and Liberal spin the Bloc Quebecois would have no power in the coalition.

Wrong.

We can debate how much power they would have. And we could speculate on how far the Bloc would go with this power, including what pressures they would be under from their separatist constituents. But it's factually incorrect to say they would have no power in government.

This is what the accord says: "Upon its formation, the government will put in place a permanent consultation mechanism with the Bloc Quebecois."

So when they draft a budget, for example, they would have to sit down with the Bloc and consult with them on it.

The Bloc would likely want more resources for Quebec. They might propose shifting federal taxes to the provincial government to help weaken Canada and strengthen Quebec.

They could demand government re-open the Clarity Act to make it easier for Quebec to separate from Canada. And they would likely seek to change any arrangement, law or regulation that would help Quebec become a sovereign state one day.

Mostly, the Bloc would do everything in its power to keep Parliament in a state of chaos and create divisions across the country to help show soft nationalists in Quebec that Canada doesn't work anymore.

Remember, these guys are traitors. They want to break up our country. They don't work with us in good faith.

This is not an NDP/Liberal coalition. It is a separatist coalition.

And I can't believe this isn't cause for alarm for every federalist in this country.

[Delenda]

Calgary Sun

This is the last straw. Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark. We're signing up to separate. To the barricades! Oh wait ... where is everybody?


By RICK BELL

Tories at breaking point


We have total war, with the prime minister heading to the appointed representative of Her Majesty to get the time to wage it.

Harper needs the Governor General to call off Parliament until after Christmas.

Otherwise, he faces a vote firing him on Monday and a good chance the Liberals and NDP, with the backing of the separatist Bloc, will get a shot to have their hand on the wheel, because the only other choice is an election.

Harper promises to fight his ousting because, naturally, he doesn't want to get bounced. He would be in deep doo-doo with some of his own people if he loses government, no matter how it's explained. Power is power and if you don't have it, there's no explaining.

Compromise or putting the parties in the same room until they play nice just isn't happening.


Here, the majority sentiment is clear. In Calgary, Harper's Tories won every seat by a landslide so it is absolutely no shocker the fury over the prospect of the Liberal/NDP/Bloc suddenly coming to power turns many people's eyeballs inside out.

What does not follow, and is downright laughable, is the resurrection of the oldest routine in the book, bringing out and dusting off The Province Who Cried Wolf from the file titled: Ideas never getting off the ground.

Let's turn up the volume. This is it. This is too much. This straw has broken the camel's back. We'll huff and we'll puff and we'll blow the darn House of Commons down.

Yes, Alberta has had it, this is the last straw, let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark, we're signing up to separate. To the barricades! Hello, hello ... where is everybody? Oh, hi Oscar. That's Oscar Fech. Oscar goes everywhere.

This page has seen it and heard it and scribbled on separatism only to see the story dissolve because there is no wolf, big, bad or otherwise. Chatter at the coffee shop, bluster at the bar, exciting stories to fill space in the here and now. Yes, yes and yes.

But workers on the street, money in the bank and ballots in the box. Nope.

You see, don't mean to break hearts, but Quebec has a separatist movement. They have a provincial party and it's been the government there. They have a federal party and it holds most of the Quebec seats in Ottawa. In fact, their leader will have the balance of power if Harper is turfed and Dion put in his place. He speaks without any apology about how he is watching Quebec's back and Quebec's back alone.

Here, there is nothing. Even Alberta's great rebellion, the Reform party, has been swallowed up by the Tories and almost nothing of the old fire still burns. Watering down tends to do that. Just ask any of the old Reform MPs.

The only fire left here is the hot air. Alberta will do this and Alberta will do that. Blah, blah, blah. It never comes to anything but filling air time for radio rant shows when the political mercury explodes out of the thermometer.

If Harper is bounced and is replaced without an election, what exactly will Alberta do?

Even during the National Energy Program, the Liberal policy so hated it is just referred to by the letters NEP, the separatists elected one MLA in a byelection. Then, they lost the riding in the general election. "Send them a message" was the slogan.

Some message.

Show me a huge rally of separatists, the kind you could get in Quebec, and this page will write of rising separatism. Until then, save the e-mail.

Back in the unreality of the real world, it truly is total war and the Tories rev up their rallies, letter-writing campaign and the radio ads against the Liberals and the Bloc already come out of the stereos. Harper may also speak to Canadians on TV, trying to get the population onside because he knows it isn't over if he gets a reprieve.

It could be just a stay of execution. No one knows.

Harper could be voted down in January and then the Liberals and their pals could take over then.

Perhaps he will make enough moves to break up the group, since Liberals really don't want an election. They're broke. They have Stephane Dion as the leader.

Isn't that enough? They went for a coalition because the only other choice if Harper was defeated would be an election.

Talk about a hell of a rock and a very rough place.

However, if Harper survives until May, the Liberals will pick a new leader and start to recoup for their recent time behind the woodshed. But such thoughts are for the next flip of the calendar.

Total war is here.

In yesterday's question period, Dion almost loses his voice and Harper does everything short of accusing the man of treason, a tone he knows is sure to push Dion's buttons since the Liberal gets tons of grief in Quebec for defending Canada.

As early as today, the next decision is for Her Majesty's representative to make.

"The role of the Governor General is to make sure our governance is on the right path," says Her Excellency.

The only question. Whose right path?

[mariuss66]

Ce qui serait vraiment super, ce serait que tout ce ressentiment anti-québec favorise l'élection du PQ et que cela mène à l'indépendance du Québec. Les nationalistes mous sont tranquillement en train de se faire provoquer, un peu comme Harper a provoquer l'opposition. La dernière fois, lors de l'après Meech, l'appuie à la souveraineté avait atteint 77%. Je garde les doigts croisés

[Delenda]

[i]Plus ça va, plus la haine est laide...si on avait dans nos journaux québécois le 10ième du racisme ROCien, on serait traînés devant les plus hauts tribunaux /i]

NATIONAL POST

Michael Ross: It's not about language, uniqueness or separation; it's about fairness
Posted: December 05, 2008, 9:30 AM

The other day, I happened to be reading about Canada in a National Geographic magazine from the 1960s. A prairie farmer therein complained that "Canada is cow-fed out west and milked back east." His words seem strangely prophetic. Apparently that old cliche, plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose, still has some relevance in today's Canada.

While various pundits and political science professors argue that the current crisis in our Parliament was precipitated by the Prime Minister waging a "take-no-prisoners" approach to dealing with the opposition, it's already a moot point out here in the West. The televised images of Stephane Dion and Jack Layton glad-handing with the Ottawa-based leader of Quebec's secessionist movement, Gilles Duceppe, has our collective blood boiling. This may finally constitute the "enough is enough" moment in this part of the country.

Time and again, we have grudgingly had to swallow the official notion that Quebec is a special, distinct, unique, separate, special (did I say mention "special" already?) cultural entity and nation, and who knows what else besides. But the sight of a coalition of opposition parties cynically joining together with the official signed-and-sealed collaboration of the Bloc Quebecois to form a government is taking things into the realm of the absurd.

We in the West truly do not understand what the Bloc Quebecois -- essentially nothing more than a glorified special-interest group -- is doing in our federal Parliament in the first place. What's more, we have to ask why we must be compelled to subsidize this seditious band of political opportunists every time someone in Quebec gets the separation jitters. We can't vote for the Bloc, so why must we pay for them?

For too long, eastern Liberals, in their rush to keep Quebec solvent and happy, have seen the West as nothing more than a giant ATM machine ready to be plundered when Quebec feels that independence might just be the better option that morning.

The concept that all Canadians are considered equal seems to come to a screeching halt at the Ottawa River: One need only examine the disproportionate percentage of Quebecois in the highest levels of our federal civil service, or factor in the annual cost of bilingualism to Canadian taxpayers (over $1.5-billion, as estimated by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation), to understand our sense of outrage.

A quick scan of the federal public service's employment postings is especially revealing--especially when you wonder why the federal government needs a "bilingual upholsterer" or "bilingual tree and shrub maintainer lead hand."

If I move to Quebec, I promise to brush up on my rusty French, but don't for a minute think that I need someone at the passport office here in the bucolic former British colony of Victoria explaining to me in Dionesque syntax and inflection how to fill out my renewal form in English. The whole scheme constitutes wastage of Pythonesque proportions.

It's not just the cost of our irksome enforced official bilingualism that bothers me, it's the cost of continuing the "business as usual" approach to our shaky Confederation. When the coalition promises a $30-billion stimulus package to various sectors of our economy (read: the flagging industries of vote-rich Ontario and Quebec), it will be the West that bankrolls their ambitious schemes.

But of even more concern to us out here is what it will cost to keep Gilles Duceppe and his cronies happy for another 18 months as they try to turn us into North America's version of Belgium? How much wallet-emptying will we have to do when the agreement between the Liberals, NDP and BQ comes up for review? It won't be Quebec or the now have-not province of Ontario which end up paying for it, but us still-wealthy unsophisticates west of Kenora.

I should point out now, before the storm-troopers of political correctness land on my doorstep branding me a unilingual bigot, that I'm not anti-francophone and speak a couple of languages. I actually lived in France off and on for seven years, and my wife was not only a product of French immersion schooling (in Alberta no less!), she attended a French university and has a degree in French literature.

So it's not about language; it's about coming to the realization that Quebec should no longer receive special deference because it may or may not secede depending on how accommodating we anglais are.

Our message to Ottawa is that Quebec is either a province like any other or it's farewell, au revoir and good luck with that. Good luck when the money runs out and you're a former OECD country with a pile of debt. You'll find that while you may be a sovereign nation, you're no longer so distinct or special anymore.

In Western Canada, we overwhelmingly voted Conservative in the previous federal election. A scant few of us even voted Liberal and NDP. But we sure as hell didn't vote for the Bloc, and it's high time we voiced our protest loud and clear (in whatever language gets the message across) to Duceppe, Dion and Layton as they try to drag us once again to the Quebec trough asking for yet another refill.

Personally, I liked my late grandfather's reaction to Quebec's arrogant whining classes (which oddly resembled Basil Fawlty's response in the episode, The Germans) that went something like, "Who won the bloody war anyway!?"
So far Papa, it looks like Quebec.

mrossletters@gmail.com

[NickD]

Je suis très déçu de la réaction de ces individus ..

[El Kabong]

Je suis très déçu de la réaction de ces individus ..

Vous attendiez à quoi?

Quand les valeurs canadians sont l'hypocrisie et le mensonge, voilà le résultat! Quel genre "d'Hidstoire du Canada" croyez-vous qu'il est enseigné dans le ROC?
Visiblement, une chose qui n'est pas enseigné dans le ROC, c'est le respect d'autrui...

[Delenda]

How To Depress A Quebecois Reporter Friday, December 05, 2008

Howard Galganov


I received an interview request from a reporter with the Journal de Montreal Newspaper (December 3, 2008) the day before Harper’s meeting with the Governor General.

She wanted to know my reaction to the proposed Coalition between the NDP, Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois.

For those of you who don’t know much or anything about the Journal de Montreal, it is a French language daily that is the closest thing Quebec has to a ‘national newspaper’.

It is also a VERY racist Quebecois nationalist rag, to the point of being Quebec’s Separatist cheerleader.

During my QPAC days in Quebec, the Journal de Montreal liked to refer to me in their headlines as l’Anglohone Juif Galganov. In translation: Anglo Jew Galganov. Where was the Human Rights Commission then?

The Journal de Montreal can best be described as a sensationalist tabloid that mixes gossip, sports and news. It should also be noted that more than a million French Quebecers read the Journal de Montreal every day.

The reporter expected me to answer her question with a degree of outrage towards this coalition, so imagine her surprise when I told her that I was all for it?

She asked if I was kidding? How could I possibly be for a federal political union that includes the Bloc Quebecois?

She was more surprised with my answer when I told her that this coalition between Socialists and Separatists will not last beyond a month or so, and will guarantee two unexpected and unintended consequences.

The first consequence will be the end of any hopes for Leftist electoral victories for either the Liberals or the Socialist NDP for a generation or more to come, freeing Canada from the type of FREEBIE LEFTIST policies that are destroying the fabric of our country.

The next consequence really shook her when I explained that a coalition with the Quebec Separatist Bloc would hasten the departure of Quebec from Confederation, allowing Canada to finally grow without the Quebec anchor around our neck.

The interview became more of a discussion as she asked me if I thought the rest of Canada would throw Quebec out. And if they did, why would they do that now and not before?

My answer stunned her even more. And from the sound of her voice, she was more than somewhat depressed when I explained to her that Canada does not need Quebec. More to the point, Canada will be far better off without Quebec.

It is Quebec that needs Canada, since Quebec brings nothing to the table other than threats, costs and complications that hinder the growth of our country.

I also explained that the rest of Canada didn’t need our domestic and foreign policies decided upon by a beggar province. Not to mention that Canada’s official bilingualism policies are discriminating against more than 97% of the Canadian population (English speaking) living outside of Quebec.

With this proposed coalition, the Bloc will win several big concessions that will include:

MORE MONEY from the rest of Canada - But the rest of Canada is broke.

Ontario is a HAVE-NOT province. And if it isn’t yet, it certainly will be soon.

At less than $50 per barrel, and still falling like a lead balloon, Alberta is dying with the lack of demand for its petroleum products, and will not earn enough money to sustain its budgetary goals without cutting programs, raising taxes, or dipping into its Heritage Fund. All of which are akin to cancer for Albertans.

Where else will Quebec expect to get the BILLIONS of dollars their deal with the two idiots, Stephane Dion and Taliban Jack have promised?

Just imagine the outrage from the West, when Alberta has to write a check to a Separatist province that helped wipeout a government Albertans voted for near unanimously?

Just imagine the added outrage from the West when six Quebec Separatists are named to Canada’s Senate as part of the deal?

Just imagine the boiling-over outrage from the West when Quebec Separatists must first vet all of Parliaments business before it can be brought to the floor, much less implemented?

I CAN’T WAIT I TOLD HER!

Then I reminded her that certain inalienable decisions would be made the moment Quebec and Canada part company.

By federal law, Canadian Banks and Insurance companies must be headquartered within Canada. There go the banks. By law, airlines cannot pick-up and deliver passengers from one national location to another national location unless that airline is headquartered in that nation. Goodbye Air Canada.

Then there’s the Canada Export and Development Corporation that underwrites just about all of Bombardier’s sales abroad. Goodbye Bombardier along with other federally financed corporations in Quebec.

Goodbye all the federal government jobs that disproportionately employ French Quebecers. Especially those who can speak some English.

And Goodbye official bilingualism.

At this point in our conversation, her voice was quite subdued when she asked if I think Canada will push Quebec out the door?

No was my response. I think Quebec and Canada will separate from each other much like Czechoslovakia did, when the Czechs and Slovakians both decided to go their separate ways without any fanfare, great debates, referendums or anything else.

It just happened, much the way I see it just happening between Canada and Quebec where there will be no reason for Quebec to stay within Canada once the financial tap is closed.

And there will be no reason for Canada to want Quebec within Confederation when the rest of Canada finally learns that we will be far better off without Quebec dragging us down.

Even though Harper bought himself and the Conservatives 6 weeks of political peace by suspending Parliament to the end of January, much of the damage has already been done to the long-term future between Quebec and Canada by this attempted Putsch by the Coalition of Idiots.

The rest of Canada really doesn't care much for what Quebec wants anymore, since the rest of Canada is more concerned with what it needs to stay afloat.

I explained to her that I am just one political Blogger out of thousands who are spreading a similar message by asking pertinent questions while bringing demographic FACTS to the table.

And in spite of what the out-of-touch conventional media seems to think, Quebec’s future within Canada is not looking all that good. And that looks pretty good for the rest of Canada.

We owe Duceppe, Dion and Taliban Jack our gratitude for finally pushing the envelope too far.

[Polémix]

C'est bizarre; Si le JdM avait titré comme Galganov le dit, ça se aurait. Pourtant, une recherche avec ''Anglohone Juif Galganov'' dans Google Actualités ne donne rien d'autre que l'article ci-haut.

Il est toujours aussi con, le con.

[Delenda]

Canada in crisis

Ottawa Citizen
December 6, 2008

Stephen Harper's credibility has been sorely diminished, yet the prime minister is correct on one point, namely, the potential disaster of a government built on socialist and separatist principles.

When the coalition to replace Stephen Harper first emerged, there were undoubtedly Canadians who would have smiled to see him get his comeuppance. Mr. Harper's attempt to neutralize the opposition parties by cutting off their funding was an act of reckless arrogance. By presenting the move as a money-saving initiative, he was exploiting the economic downturn for personal gain.

Canadians place a premium on fair play, and Mr. Harper crossed a line. So when the Liberal and NDP parties got together this week, having first obtained the blessing of the Bloc Quebecois, and announced their intention to bring down the Harper government and replace it with their own coalition -- well, who could blame people for saying that Mr. Harper had it coming.

You can only rattle the cage so much, as Mr. Harper enjoyed doing, before the tigers reach through the bars and take a swipe. But here's the question: Even though the tigers had reason to maul their tormentor, does anyone really want them loose in the zoo?

These are not nice kitties. Apologists for the Bloc Quebecois like to say that the party has been thoroughly mainstreamed, but it's naive to pretend that it still isn't committed to the break-up of Canada.

Affable Bloc MPs have become such a familiar fixture on the federal scene that perhaps they no longer scare anyone. But look at what the hardcore separatists are doing back in Quebec. They're celebrating. The old secessionist Jacques Parizeau said yesterday that the Bloc's supporting role in a Liberal-NDP government represents an "impressive victory" for Quebec nationalism. He said that the Bloc's ascension confirms for Quebecers why it's important they continue sending separatists to Ottawa.

Meanwhile, oldtime socialists are delirious at the prospect of securing cabinet seats in the proposed coalition. Former NDP leader Ed Broadbent said this is the first step toward realizing the "dream" of his life: "a social-democratic federal government."

And then there's Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, who is supposed to hold the coalition together. This is the same man who is widely considered the weakest Liberal leader of modern times, a man who has trouble running a political campaign, never mind a country.

So when Mr. Harper suggests, as he did in his televised address, that this coalition has trouble written all over it, he's right.

The awful dilemma, however, is that the Bloc, NDP and Liberals command a majority in Parliament and are allowed to vote no-confidence in Mr. Harper's minority government. If they do, it is not a "coup d'état" or treason or whatever ridiculous description the desperate Conservatives want to apply.

The right to vote Mr. Harper off the island is the legal prerogative of the political opposition. Mr. Harper thinks he can avoid this by closing Parliament and hiding out at 24 Sussex. Apparently that's his legal prerogative too, but hardly a Churchillian act of statesmanship.

Never have Canadians been so ill-served by their political leadership.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Delenda]

Robert Fulford: Attacking separatism is not the same as attacking Quebec
Posted: December 06, 2008, 9:30 AM National Post

Whatever else results from this week’s parliamentary crisis, it has already improved the status of Quebec separatism. It’s hard to think of anything in the last decade that has contributed more to separatism’s reputation than the perverse and thoughtless decision of Liberals and New Democrats to ally themselves with the Bloc Québécois in their effort to overturn the Conservative government.

As Gilles Duceppe boasted on Tuesday, the day he appeared alongside Liberal and NDP leaders in a joint press conference, “Every gain we’re making here is good for Quebec … for a sovereign Quebec.” Jacques Parizeau, a former Parti Québécois leader, agreed that the coalition promises “huge gains” for Quebec — an independent Quebec.


That press conference, unprecedented in the four-decades-long history of the struggle against separatism, treated the BQ like just another Canadian political party. Duceppe, sitting on Stéphane Dion’s left while Jack Layton sat on his right, had every reason to rejoice over this upgrade in prestige. Liberal and NDP supporters explained that the Bloc would not hold seats in the planned coalition cabinet. But in truth they would get something better, the ability to veto the proposed Dion-Layton federal government.


Dion, who was known only recently as the most articulate critic of separatism, has spent this week proposing to lead a government that would serve at the pleasure of the BQ. That strategy made a regional party nationally significant — a symbolic triumph even if the coalition falls apart without forming a government.


Since 1968 and the birth of René Lévesque’s Parti Québécois, a surprisingly large group of Canadians have done their best to minimize the threat of the separatists and ignore their core beliefs. Not long after the PQ took power in 1976 (triggering a mass migration of English speakers westward toward Toronto), their admirers began describing the PQ as essentially a sensible and honest social democratic party, unlikely to do harm. Deep down, the PQ wanted only a better deal for Quebec. Those who believed this fiction maintained their illusions despite the devious tactics the PQ used in the 1980 and 1995 plebiscites.


Brian Mulroney, normally a shrewd politician, was spectacularly misled when he embraced Lucien Bouchard, a long-time PQ member. Apparently convinced that Bouchard was developing into a federalist, Mulroney made him ambassador to Paris and then a powerful cabinet minister. But when Mulroney’s Meech Lake constitutional proposal failed in 1990, Bouchard abruptly reverted to separatism, invented the Bloc Québécois and won 54 seats in the 1993 election. He did as much as any individual to destroy Mulroney’s Progressive Conservative Party.


Canadian journalists have usually treated separatism gently. This is not a conspiracy. It’s more a result of innocence and an expression of Canada’s passion for “inclusiveness.” Why not put political parties in the same category with ethnic and religious groups? True, separatists advocate splitting Canada, a process that would be hideously complicated and financially painful — most painful of all, probably, for the people (although not the politicians) of Quebec. But still, fair’s fair: People who want to destroy our country deserve consideration like everyone else. Naturally, these sworn enemies of the federal system receive federal tax money to run their campaigns. Just one more example of Canadian tolerance and generosity.


Along the way, separatism has become the policy that dare not speak its name. The word was precise and honest but too negative. Separatist leaders switched to positive terms, “sovereignty” and “sovereignty-association.” Even now, Stephen Harper says “les souverainistes” when speaking French where he says “separatists” in English.


Journalists continue to endorse this obfuscation. This week, Don Newman of the CBC accused Harper of “demonizing” the separatists by calling them separatists. The Toronto Star ran a subhead declaring that “Attacks on ‘separatists’ risk alienating voters,” as if there was something odd about using the word “separatist.” Graeme Hamilton in the Post on Thursday called it “inflammatory.” In this way, dangerous political notions are gradually normalized.


Naturally, many Quebecers argued that this honest talk was arousing the beast in anglophone Canadians and turning Quebeckers — once more! — into victims. Daniel Lessard of Radio-Canada said on Wednesday, “I’ve never heard so much Quebec-bashing as I’ve heard in the last few days.” Jeffrey Simpson wrote in The Globe and Mail yesterday that Harper, under threat of defeat, “whipped up anti-Quebec sentiments outside the province.”


No, he didn’t. He whipped up anti-separatist sentiments, a quite different matter — though for some people, the new eminence of the Bloc has made the distinction hard to remember.
National Post
robert.fulford@utoronto.ca

[Delenda]

Their own agenda
Bloc only want to further the separatist cause

Tom Brodbeck

Winnipeg Sun

Some people have asked me this past week why I don't like Quebec separatists. Is it because they simply want to secede from Canada?

That's only part of it.

When I see two parties such as the NDP and Liberals sign a deal with the Bloc Quebecois that would give the separatists power in government, it sends shivers up my spine for a few reasons.

I grew up in Montreal under the iron fist of the Parti Quebecois, who thought it was OK to trample on the rights of others to supposedly protect their own rights.

Not a lot of people outside of Quebec are aware of the extent to which the PQ eliminated the rights of anglophones under the guise of protecting the French language.

For example, as a kid, my parents had to get permission from the provincial government for me to attend English school. I still have the document from the department of education that "allowed" me to go to English school. Had my mother not attended English school as a child, the government would have prohibited me from getting an English education.

But that's not all. I also watched growing up in Quebec how the separatists tried to manipulate their way towards a sovereign Quebec.

They knew they didn't have enough public support to secede from Canada. So rather than ask voters in two referendums clear questions on the issue such as "Do you want Quebec to secede from Canada?" they deliberately asked ambiguous ones in an effort to drum up false support for their cause.

In 1980, then-premier Rene Levesque asked Quebecers for a mandate to "negotiate" a "sovereignty association" with Canada, whatever that meant. He was denied.

DECEITFUL

In 1995, the separatists asked voters in a referendum whether Quebec should have a new political and economic partnership with Canada before declaring independence. They were denied again, but only marginally.

Rather than ask Quebecers the direct question, "Do you want to be in Canada or not?" they would ask deceitful, weasel-word questions because they knew they couldn't get support on a clear question.

In other words, they used manipulation and duplicity to try to advance their political cause.

They do not operate in good faith with their own people, much less with those in the rest of Canada.

So when I see the federal Liberals and NDP sign an accord with the separatists, I know the separatists aren't operating in good faith.

They would use their new found power to create instability in Ottawa and to further their separatist cause for Quebec.

That's their raison d'etre.

It's naive to think the Bloc Quebecois would work in good faith with the Liberals and the NDP for all of Canada. They have no interest in a stable, prosperous and united Canada. Their motives are to create chaos within Canada to show Quebecers that Canada doesn't work anymore.

It's precisely why former Quebec separatist premier Jacques Parizeau said last week that the proposed coalition with the Bloc should "bring a smile to the face of many sovereigntists."

Parizeau knows better than most that the accord would give the Bloc substantial power through a proposed "permanent consultative mechanism." Parizeau knows very well what an effective weapon that would be for the separatists to disturb federalism and promote an independent Quebec.

It's also why Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe confirmed the accord is "good for Quebec sovereignty." Fortunately, it appears the coalition will fall apart over the next few weeks and the separatists will not gain the foothold they are seeking.

That brings a smile to my face.

[Delenda]

My team includes Quebec, pain in the butt and all

Craig McInnes, Vancouver Sun

Published: Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Let's face it: Quebec is a pain in the posterior.

In the national game we call Canada, it is the sixth player we need to ice a team, but unlike all the other kids, who really want to play and will do whatever it takes to get a chance to lace on skates, little Jean E. Quebec is always threatening to go home unless everybody else changes the rules to make him feel welcome.

Ask any coach; it's a tough way to run a team, let alone a country. It breeds resentment among the other kids and makes it hard to focus on putting the puck in the net.

But that's the way it is in Canada. We have a province that is not like the others, that has a different language, culture and legal system. The awkward and sometimes annoying business of accommodation is part of what we are as a country and who we are as Canadians.

So far it's worked for us. What we lose in efficiency, we make up in social skills. Many Canadians are fluent in both of our official languages and comfortable in either culture. The rest of us have learned how to agree to disagree in ways that don't lead to bloodshed, a significant thing in a world where internecine warfare is still all too common. Along the way we have created a land of wealth and opportunity for our children.

As we saw again this week in the provincial election, a significant percentage of Quebecers continue to believe that they would be better off without the Maple Leaf stitched to their jerseys.

I don't think it was just a coincidence that that number -- as expressed in support for the separatist Parti Quebecois -- jumped in the last few days of the campaign at the same time Prime Minister Stephen Harper was demonizing its federal counterpart, the Bloc Quebecois.

Harper wasn't aiming at sovereignists -- or separatists, take your pick -- but neither was he concerned about collateral damage in his attack on the coalition of Liberals and New Democrats that could have defeated his government with the support of the Bloc.

Conservative MPs echoed his attack, using words like "sedition" and "treason."

In his most reasonable explanation of his incendiary attack, Harper said in French that while his Canada includes Quebec, the Bloc's Quebec doesn't include Canada.

The point they all miss, whether deliberately or through wishful thinking, is that for a couple of million Quebecers, the experience of being Canadian, of being born and raised in Canada, includes the dream of a separate nation of Quebec.

That dream is expressed in Ottawa in through the election of Bloc members of Parliament. But the dream didn't start with the Bloc, anymore than shunning the Bloc will smother it.

The Bloc was formed in 1990 by Quebec MPs who had previously been Liberals and Conservatives. The Bloc founder and first leader, Lucien Bouchard, served in the cabinet of Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

Does anyone believe that those MPs only started putting the interests of Quebec first when they joined the Bloc?

How can it be unpatriotic to work with Members of Parliament who represent the views of their constituents, Canadians all?

I don't dream of a separate country called Quebec. The very notion is to me an affront on Canada's aboriginal people and Canadians who live in that province but don't share that dream.

But as the old bumper sticker says, my Canada includes Quebec, not as I would wish it to be, but as it is, however annoying that may be.

cmcinnes@vancouversun.com




© The Vancouver Sun 2008

[Delenda]

Power In Numbers

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

By Howard Galganov


I’m ”blown away” by the number of people who are signing-up for my Automatic Editorial Broadcast Email, which informs people when there is a new editorial published to Galganov.com.

If this growth continues, I will have to invest in an expanded mass email broadcast program, which in spite of the cost will be a good thing.

But, with added readers and listeners comes added criticism. It seems that people who have a visceral disdain for the things I write and say simply LOVE to HATE me.

IT DOESN’T GET BETTER THAN THAT!

That’s a real sign of success, especially from kiss-ass Leftists and the rest of the SOMETHING-FOR-NOTHING Bunch, not to forget the ethnocentric Quebecois nationalists who can’t seem to understand why I really don’t like them, just because they’re xenophobes and racists who have made the unrestricted use of the English language in Quebec against the law.

To be more precise: Because they are a major pain in the ass.

No one likes whiners, beggars and extortionists.

No one wants to be constantly threatened as Quebec incessantly threatens the rest of Canada - GIVE US OR ELSE!

No one likes bullies, especially government bullies who use the power of the State through taxpayers’ hard earned money with which to beat the people they don’t like over the head.

No one likes linguistic and cultural racists who think, that by diminishing others, they could actually lift themselves up.

Of course they don’t like me. I wouldn’t like me either if I was them, since I know who they are and what they’re all about. And I’m not afraid to say so.

More than that, as Galganov.com readership continues to grow, more people get a better understanding of Quebec’s ethnocentric nationalism and what Separatist Quebec wants from English Canada.

And EVEN MORE that, by reading and listening to Galganov.com, Canadians outside of Quebec are for the first time in many cases learning and understanding the costs in terms of dollars, cultural unfairness and missed opportunities domestically and abroad that is being paid by English Canada just to placate Quebec.

If you were an ethnocentric Quebecois nationalist, wouldn’t you be upset with me too?

I never divulge the number of people on my broadcast list or the amount of readers who visit Galganov.com other than to say that I probably have more people reading my editorials than many editorial or opinion writers who write for major Canadian newspapers.

With the incredible growth in demand from people to be signed up to receive Editorial Broadcast Email Alerts for Galganov.com editorials, those who hate me a lot will learn to hate me a lot more. GOOD!

In my last Galganov.com Radio Broadcast (December 7, 2008), I wanted to know how come the Quebec Separatist Bloc Party could only raise about $400,000 from all of their supporters, while I was able to raise about $45,000 for my campaign all by myself?

I wish to correct that statement: ALL BY MYSELF.

I did not raise all of that money all by myself. Kim McConnell of Canadians for Language Fairness helped raise a good deal of money from her very generous supporters in the Greater Ottawa area.

Beth Trudeau, who acted as my Campaign Organizer, along with her generous family and friends helped raise a good deal of money too.

As a matter of fact, there were many people who helped raise money for my candidacy as well as for the ongoing legal challenge against the Township of Russell’s FORCED bilingual sign law FROM ALL ACROSS CANADA.

Please understand that I am not making this statement because of anything anyone said to me due to my remark that I raised this money by MYSELF.

I’m writing this because I realized the significant difference between THEM and US - THEM being the SOMETHING-FOR-NOTHING Bunch, and US who ask for nothing while giving everything.

WE put our OWN hands into our OWN pockets to fight the battles WE believe in.

WE DO NOT DEMAND THAT OTHERS FIGHT OUR FIGHT.

If the other side really dislikes me, it is with good reason. They have an enormous amount to fear from YOU. Without YOU, I’m nothing more than a voice screaming in the wilderness.

With YOU, I am a voice that represents TENS of THOUSANDS of people who are willing to step up to the plate, who log onto Galganov.com every day.

If you’re a Separatist trying to squeeze Canada for every ounce that can be squeezed out, the growing number of people visiting Galganov.com is not good.

Or if you’re a Leftist who thinks INDIVIDUAL Rights is really the enemy to Community Rights. My growing Web Site numbers are not good.

Or if you’re a member of the Something-For-Nothing Group, looking for a free ride, you have plenty of reason to fear because I’m not alone.

And there are OTHERS. Galganov.com isn’t the ONLY Conservative Blog saying what I’m saying, or reaching a great many people from coast to coast.

The other side has had their day financed with taxpayer dollars. It’s now time for it to become our day. With your help, that’s exactly what’s going to happen.

There is an associated ‘Radio Broadcast’ (approximately 12 minutes) with this editorial, which can be heard simply by clicking on the Radio Button located at the top right hand side of this page.

[Delenda]

L. Ian MacDonald: Separatists successfully exploited Harper's outburst

December 11, 2008


"The Quebec Liberal war room was terrified of Quebec flag stomping or burning at anti-coalition rallies"

How do you turn a big majority into a small one? That’s easy. Just have Stephen Harper go on television and denounce “the separatist coalition.”

It worked very well for Harper last week, polarizing public opinion in English Canada against the attempted coup by the opposition coalition, including the Bloc Québécois. But in Quebec, awash in a provincial election campaign, it had an opposite effect, though this wasn’t captured by CROP and Leger polls, published on Friday and Saturday respectively, which showed Jean Charest’s Liberals leading by 16 and 13 points going into the final weekend of the election.

To all appearances, Charest was cruising to a big majority of at least 75 seats in the 125-member Quebec legislature. In the end, he won what’s called a “short majority” of 66 seats, only three more than the minimum required.

Because of their surplus votes in non-francophone ridings, the Liberals always need to win by seven points -- a converted touchdown -- to gain a majority. And Charest just covered the point spread, with the Liberals winning 42% of the vote to 35% for the PQ. (Mario Dumont’s ADQ captured 17%, resulting in just seven seats, Dumont’s resignation and the loss of recognized party status in the National Assembly.)


What happened between the weekend polls and Monday’s vote? Well, the weather for one thing -- the coldest election day since 1944 was one factor in keeping voter turnout to a shocking 57%, 14 points below last year’s vote, and the lowest turnout in Quebec history. Apathy among some voters over a dull campaign, and anger among others over the calling of an early election, were also factors. Moreover, overconfidence was clearly in evidence among Liberal voters, who stayed at home rather than braving the bitter cold because they believed a Charest majority was a slam-dunk.


But the only political factor over the last four days was the blowback from Harper’s separatist scare tactic in English Canada, which both the Bloc and PQ turned to their rhetorical advantage. Just as Gilles Duceppe portrayed cultural cuts as an attack on Québécois values during the federal campaign, so he torqued Harper’s broadsides against the separatist coalition as an attack on Quebec. PQ leader Pauline Marois gleefully jumped on the same message track. And Harper’s reference to the separatists in English, and les souverainistes, as they have long styled themselves, in French, did not pass unnoticed either.


From the moment Harper launched his fierce counterattack against the coup plotters in the House last Tuesday, through his rhetorically inappropriate address to the nation the following evening, Charest’s campaign advisers were extremely nervous. While Charest defended the legitimacy of the Bloc’s role in Ottawa, and played down Harper’s choice of words as “circumstantial,” the Liberal war room was terrified of Brockville-style Quebec flag stomping or burning at anti-coalition rallies last weekend. Such a worst-case scenario, which would have gone to YouTube in minutes and led all the French-language newscasts, might well have deprived Charest of his majority.


In the event, Charest’s short majority makes his life more difficult in dealing with Harper, just as it definitely makes Harper’s life much more difficult in Quebec.


With a reinvigorated PQ opposition newly touting the sovereignty option -- Marois addressed the issue more often in her election night speech than she did during the entire campaign -- Charest will be forced to strike a more aggressive posture as the defender of Quebec’s interests in Canada. In his speech on Monday night Charest took the high road, noting in English that serious times require serious leadership. But at next month’s first ministers’ meeting on the economy, he will be taking a firm position on what Quebec needs in the Jan. 27 budget. And Quebec’s support of the budget, or not, will be a factor in any question of confidence on it.


As for Harper, all the political capital he worked so hard to accumulate in Quebec has been squandered by the events of the last two months, first in the federal campaign, and now in the provincial election. On the Quebec issue, he’s 0-2.
National Post

[Delenda]

Fix Ottawa And We’ll Fix The Problem Of Quebec

Monday, December 15, 2008

Howard Galganov



On June 9th 1996, I organized and led a demonstration on Parliament Hill that attracted a police estimated crowd of 16,000 people.

My belief then, as it still is today, is that the problem with Quebec, and all the inherent problems that face Canada as a result of Quebec is not the fault of Quebec City, nearly as much as it is the fault of Ottawa.

A year or so later, while I was on the air in Montreal (CIQC), I, with microphone in hand, took two busloads of Montrealers to protest outside the Official Residence of Prime Minister Jean Chretien from where I did my live radio show.

My feeling was simple: If we can’t have peace in our home, he shouldn't have peace in his either.

My good friend Brent Tyler is standing before the Supreme Court of Canada today, arguing on behalf of the RIGHT of parents to send their children to PRIVATE English language schools in Quebec, that would then qualify them to attend PUBLIC English language schools in Quebec, as the law used to allow until the government of Quebec changed the law with Bill 104 to disallow this “loophole”.

Brent is arguing that this Quebec restriction violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (as virtually all of Quebec’s draconian language laws do – my comment).

Let me paint the picture facing Brent:

Brent is alone in this battle, just as he has been alone in just about all of his many battles against ethnocentric nationalism within Quebec. He has been insulted, threatened, attacked physically, attacked in the French Press, and derided in the Montreal English Press by Anglo sell-outs.

Even though He has had his office attacked and is being harassed by Revenue Quebec, and fights without the legal help of a team, he still continues to fight.

Let me ask you this simple question: How long do you think any person can keep on going under this unbearable burden?

Brent has fought for the “LITTLE GUY” and for the businessperson who can’t afford to fight the government out of his own pocket, to the point that Brent’s pockets are bare, and the Quebec government is doing everything it can to bury him financially.

I know all of this, because I know Brent. We really are friends. And as his friend, it breaks my heart to see him stand like a mountain, all by himself against the torrent of government abuse.

In the QPAC days (Quebec Political Action Committee), I was able to fund many of the cases Brent fought, but now that those days are over, I am not in the same position. But, I will send Brent money.

THIS IS A PLEDGE TO HIM AND TO YOU! I will send Brent $1000.

No one in this country should have to stand alone the way Brent is, to fight for the RIGHTS of ALL Canadians out of his own pocket with heart and soul.

No One!

I can’t even begin to tell you how much Brent has personally lost because of his selfless defense of EQUAL RIGHTS for all Canadians. And if I did, you might not want to believe me because the price he has thus far paid to defend all of us is really beyond belief.

The reason why I began this editorial by shining a light on OTTAWA as being the problem opposed to being the solution is this:

Every time Quebec’s language laws have been challenged at the Supreme Court, and even at the United Nations, Ottawa has intervened on the side of Quebec against the RIGHTS of English Canadians.

AND THEY’RE DOING IT AGAIN!

Not only does Brent have to fight Quebec and all of the allies of ethnocentric Quebec, he also has to fight our very own federal government, which has once again intervened on the side of Quebec.

We just can’t let him fight alone. It isn’t fair. I ask all of you who are reading this to PLEASE STAND WITH BRENT!

Whatever money Galganov Dot Com Inc receives within the next week, half of it will go directly to Brent, with the other half being banked for our Court Challenge against the Township of Russell’s FORCED Bilingual Sign Law which Brent will help defend along with our Ottawa attorney.

I will thank Brent with $1000. THAT IS MY PROMISE. But, it would be magnificent if Brent could receive far more than that in the holiday spirit of Chanukah and Christmas.

I don’t know anyone who is more deserving.

Instructions on how you can donate money are at the TOP RIGHT hand side of the HOME Page of Galganov.com.

[Delenda]

Threats Mean The Message Is Getting Through

Friday, December 12, 2008

I always know when one of my editorials really hits the mark by the volume of emails I receive in response. Especially emails from people who feel offended or upset at my opinions.

Yesterday evening at 11:40 (December 11, 2008), I received one particular email that can only be described to be as nasty and ugly as it gets.

If you don’t have the stomach for real racist vulgarity, I apologize in advance for what you will read in the paragraph after the next. You might want to skip it.

But, because this is the kind of thing I’ve been receiving for years, I want you to know some of the price I have to pay for my RIGHT to Freedom of Expression, and your RIGHT to read and hear what others such as myself have to write and/or say.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO SKIP THIS: “I'm going to kill you jewish bastard...You're the sad living proof that Hitler failed. You racist sick fuck, watch your ass 'cause I'm going to fucking rape you.”

What you just read is copy and paste. It is exactly as I received it. The email name was from: Jean-Nicholas Audet.

Usually, I just put hate letters into a separate file-folder for future reference, just in case some sicko decides to act on his or her anger.

BUT NOT THIS TIME.

This time, I have informed the OPP (Ontario Provincial police) who will take action. Not because Audet scares me, but to set an example for him and everyone like him, that in our society there is no room whatsoever for this type of behavior.

I can’t even begin to count the number of angry emails I receive from ethnocentric Quebecois nationalists. Or from those French speakers in Ontario who hate my opposition to their quest to coerce Ontario into adopting the French language as an official language equal to English, while denying 96% of the Ontario population (English speakers) jobs within Ontario’s civil service etc.

Or, who support French ONLY healthcare clinics, segregated French ONLY school busses, FORCED bilingual signs, and French ONLY community centers and the like.

Even social Leftists who couldn’t care in the least about my position on language and culture within Canada send me dunning emails that are very often vulgar.

But this one from Audet is over the line.

I can certainly take it. If I couldn’t, I would not be writing and saying the things that I do. Letters and threats such as these ONLY stiffen my resolve.

When we lived in the province of Quebec, and I led the battle against ethnocentric Quebecois nationalism between 1995 and 2000, I was inundated with death threats.

But that didn’t stop me.

Instead, I hired several very CAPABLE armed men who would not have hesitated to do whatever had to be done to protect my wife, our animals and our property 24 hours per day, seven days per week, for months at a time over a period of several years at a cost that well exceeded $100,000.

I look at it this way: If we have troops in Afghanistan fighting and dying in the name of Canada for the Afghani people to live in a FREE society, how could I do differently here within Canada?

My dad and two of his brothers went overseas during WWII wearing the Canadian uniform under the Red Ensign to fight in Europe for the Freedom of people they never knew.

How could I do otherwise in MY HOME COUNTRY, given that the threats against me are a joke in comparison to what our troops, past and present had to endure, and have to face today fighting in the name of FREEDOM?

This jerk Audet is seriously bothered by what I write and say, because he knows that it’s true.

He knows that there is turnaround coming from the rest of Canada against Quebec’s zeal to extort privileges and wealth from Canada that no other province would ever have the Chutzpah to request, let alone demand.

Maybe this idiot is smart enough to understand that Quebec’s gig might very well be coming to a crashing end, and that the rest of Canada no longer cares to be bothered with what Quebec wants?

Maybe he’s smart enough to see the writing on the wall, and hates people like me for writing it in HUGE BLOCK LETTERS that are easy to read and understand?

And maybe, just maybe, he’s not smart enough to understand the written word, but he’s smart enough to understand the spoken word that comes out of my mouth on RADIO at Galganov.com?

I don’t care what it was that I wrote or said that made him cross the line, other than he will pay a price for it, and that it illustrates how much of what I write and say bothers people like him.

AND THAT IS A VERY – VERY GOOD THING!

The greatest weapon FREEDOM has in its arsenal is our FREEDOM of Expression, which covers our FREEDOM of communication in all of its forms.

The moment we cower from defending this RIGHT, even from idiots like Audet, or bureaucrats like the horrible people at the Human Rights Commissions, we no longer deserve to have RIGHTS.