La supposée percée du Bloc au sein des communautés culturelles

Pour minimiser sa débâcle dans la région de Québec, le chef bloquiste se targue d'avoir fait une importante percée dans les communautés culturelles, ou ce qu'ils appellent les Québécois issus de l'immigration. C'est faux et archi-faux. Ils sont au même point qu'en 2004, un moment où aucun bloquiste ne se vantait d'une percée historique.

Ils ont gagné quelques comtés à forte concentration ethnique mais leur succès, ils ne le doivent pas à une augmentation de leur nombre de voix mais plutôt à une fonte du vote libéral au profit des conservateurs. Je soupçonne qu'un bon nombre d'électeurs fédéralistes qui ont voté pour les conservateurs où la vraie lutte se jouait entre libéraux et bloquistes doivent se mordre les doigts aujourd'hui.

Les comtés, désormais bloquistes, qui sont très ethniques sont Brossard-La Prairie, Ahunstic et Papineau. Le cas de Papineau est différent car le candidat libéral s'est livré à quelques déclarations incendiaires qui lui ont beaucoup nui.

Pour ce qui est de Brossard-La Prairie et Ahunstic, le vote bloquiste est stable à quelques centaines près. Donc, aucun gain significatif n'a été fait par le Bloc.

J'ai fait campagne dans Brossard-La Prairie, avec Jacques Saada, et j'ai eu la chance de côtoyer presque tous les leaders des communautés culturelles importantes dans notre comté. Les Chinois, malgré la candidature de May Chiu dans Lasalle-Émard, sont toujours derrière le Parti Libéral.

Je me réjouis, par contre, de la déconfiture des bloquistes dans l'Est du Québec. On ne peut que se réjouir de la défaite d'indépendantistes aux mains de fédéralistes, peu importe leur couleur. Le Parti Libéral et le Parti Conservateur doivent combattre, mains dans la main, la montée du séparatisme comme on l'a fait en 1995.

Les gens de Québec apprécieront d'avoir des députés du côté gouvernemental. À la prochaine élection, quand M. Harper aura démontré qu'il n'a pu livrer son programme, ils songeront peut-être à voter libéral et se ranger du côté gouvernemental à ce moment-là.

Bonne journée,

Alex

Core Principles

There is one underlying reason why I am a Liberal. It is not Health Care or Child Care. It is not Cities or Foreign Affairs. There is one fundamental value which Paul Martin brought up a couple of times but didn’t stick to it. It was actually a shame.

Equality of Opportunity

When you look at all the government intervention imposed by the Liberals, it has been in the interest of levelling the playing field economically, socially, and politically. As a result, the prosperity that has occurred throughout the last decade has touched more Canadians than expected. In this regard, the Liberals have done a fantastic job governing throughout all their terms.

Where do the other parties stand on the issue?

The NDP stands for equality of result, where everyone ends up at the same place in the end. While noble and slightly utopian, all attempts of imposing equality of result have resulted in society becoming poorer in the end. The innovative nature of humanity is lost. Canadians reward hard work. Those who work harder, get degrees and achieve higher paying jobs deserve it, and are duly rewarded.

The Conservatives believe in the most basic concept of equality, where everyone has the same legal rights, but the government has less right to intervene, what was called the “fend for yourself” philosophy. Conservatives believe that the economy will sort everything out in the end. While also reasonable, this philosophy is one that interferes with social programs that help so many Canadians, probably why those left leaning tories have a “red” conscience.

The Bloc does not believe in equality. They believe, as Quebeckers, they are entitled to more as individuals and as a collective province. While sounding outrageous, this is actually true. Bloc policy is actually very Liberal. But fundamentally, a party who says that a Quebecker deserves more than an Albertan in the Canadian constitution is outright unequal, no way around it. Is Quebec distinct? Are Franco-Manitobans distinct? Is the Italian-Canadian community distinct? Of course! We are all distinct. That’s the best part of being Canadian. Does me being born in Quebec entitle me to more rights as a Quebecker than my cousin in Ontario? Of course not! Quebec did not sign the Constitution because it felt it not get enough in Trudeau’s deal. How could Trudeau hammer out a fair deal without compromising the rights of the rest of Canadians?

In terms of levelling the playing field, nobody did it better than Pierre Trudeau. Equality for language rights in 1970 with bilingualism, equality of ethnic background with multiculturalism in 1971, and equality of all Canadians’ rights with the repatriation of the Charter of Rights in 1982. Equality of Opportunity is our biggest strength as a party. It is the vision the Liberals have used when they were entrusted with building this great country. It is a Liberal value, not a Canadian value. Some Canadians believe in equality of result or in simple legal equality. We must differentiate Liberal values from others as the Liberal Party. When we hold these philosophies in mind, we help society evolve in the way we believe is better. Applying these common principles to all our policy is what we need to rebuild this great party. Equality of Opportunity is the place to start.

Let's Be Frank

I got flack for my previous post saying the JLCQ would oppose someone against our values then pointing out certain positions which seemed to be landmines for Frank McKenna. I won’t lie. I dislike Frank McKenna. I am happy he is not running.

This is shaping up to be a real leadership race, one about ideas and liberal values, which frankly, McKenna did not possess. CalgaryGrit is surprised. I am not. Frank just realized that the party bought a leader last time who was anti-SSM, anti-Kyoto, Pro-Iraq, Pro-BMD without flinching, and no amount of organizational skills was gonna make the Liberal party make the same mistake twice.

Non-appui à un candidat à la direction

Chers amis,

En tant que CDR pour la Montérégie-Centre, je vous annonce que le mot a été donné aux comtés dont je suis responsable : nous n'appuierons pas Beryl Wasjman dans la course au leadership à venir.

Notre décision a été longuement mûrie. Je vous fais part des raisons qui ont motivé notre choix. Premièrement, M. Wasjman n'est plus membre du Parti Libéral du Canada depuis son éviction en novembre dernier.

Deuxièmement, M. Wasjman faisait partie du groupe parallèle qui a causé le scandale des commandites, qui a coûté si cher au Parti Libéral.

Troisièmement, M. Wasjman doit aller faire un long séjour dans une institution psychiâtrique avant de pouvoir considérer être un candidat sérieux dans une course au leadership.

M. Wasjman nous a appris qu'il était prêt à se battre jusqu'en Cour Suprême afin de récupérer son membership du PLC. Je dois lui expliquer, malgré qu'il ait complété des études en droit, que sa cause sera entendue bien après l'élection du prochain chef. Vous ne serez donc pas éligible à vous porter candidat à la chefferie du Parti Libéral du Canada.

Je vous suggère d'essayer le Parti de la Loi Naturelle. Ils n'ont plus de leader, leur dernier chef était candidat conservateur dans Notre-Dame-de-Grâces-Lachine à la dernière élection.
Oui Oui ! Le même gars qui nous expliquait que tous les problèmes du Canada seraient réglés en faisait de la méditation transcendentale. On va équilibrer le budget en faisant de la lévitation... Expliquez ça à M. Harper, peut-être serait-ce la seule façon d'équilibrer son budget avec toutes les promesses qu'il a faites...

Bonne soirée,

Alex

The L Word

Last night the JLC(Q) had their meeting discussing our future direction in the upcoming leadership race. As the most powerful youth wing in the country, our 5 000 members are a vibrant force within the party, still healing from the old leadership wars as well as the Gomery Commission. The Young Liberals are the only ones with significant recruiting power and no wounds to tend to.

So here is our position: we are sticking together.

Leaderships divide brother and sister, father and son, sometimes even husband and wife. Nobody is more vulnerable than young people. We have a President, Brigitte Legault, who has committed to have the entire exec interview each candidate. This way, we can make sure that all of us pick the candidate whose values best match those of the JLCQ.

The position taken by Brigitte is the right one, as it allows for an open process where those who do not win out are satisfied that they went through the motions and considered the right candidate.

As VP Policy of the JLCQ, I can give you some insight that absolutely no executive would ever possibly support.

First off, our leadership candidate would HAVE TO support the rights of same sex couples to get married civilly. To all those who have opposed this in the past, they will have to be accountable.

Secondly, our leadership candidate MUST be in favour of a woman’s right to choose. This is one of the most protected values amongst us liberals. We ran attack ads against candidates who opposed such rights. Why would we ever support a candidate to lead our party who had a different position?

Thirdly, our leadership candidate must be an ARDENT defender of the Kyoto Protocol. No province loves Kyoto as much as Quebec does, and we here at the JLC(Q) believe we must support a candidate who will adopt Canada’s action plan in waging a war on global warming. That war we will accept!

Those previous three statements were not directed at any potential candidate in particular. However, to all candidates who wish to garner our support, you will have to answer to all your positions. Let the fun begin!

Liberals at their Thermopylae

In 480 BC, the Greeks were overwhelmed when a Persian Army of 250 000 marched into battle against 7 000 Greek soldiers. Seeing the massacre ahead, Leonidas dismissed the non-Spartan soldiers after a few days of fighting and fought with 300.

What does this have to do with the Liberals?

This battle bares similar resemblance to our election. With barely enough warning, Athenians and Spartans were gathering forces in an attempt to defeat the Persian Navy, where they could fight them, and starve the army to hold down victory. I would say it would be similar to fight a campaign of fear when the opponent is scary. But what if the opponent struck first, making himself less scary, would the entire campaign go awry?

This strategy was adequate, but Xerxes struck first by landing early. While he wasn’t making daily policy announcements, he did catch the Greeks off guard and marched into a narrow pass called Thermopylae, or as it is referred to here, Ontario. King Leonidas of Sparta, of course, dawned in Spartan red, was preparing to hold off this invasion with the most possible force he could.

It gets better. Allies of the Greeks had sided with the Persians, endorsing the attack on their own Greek brethren, Notably DelPhi. Leonidas had to face 250 000 troops with less 300 soldiers. (Herodotus says it was 3.4 million Persians, but I think he got his numbers from Allan Gregg.)

At first, the Spartans held off the Persian onslaught, but then, Ephialtes, a Greek soldier, went and betrayed his own army, giving vital information to Xerxes, allowing him a chance to end the disastrous loss of Persian soldiers. Now that Ephialtes the mole has clearly been labelled as Douchebag of the Millenium, we should get back to the battle.

The Persians learned of a way they could attack the Spartan flank while severely damaging the Spartan resistance, it was a path around Thermopylae, which I will call Quebec. By taking Quebec, the Persians would damage the integrity of the Greek forces in Ontario. Once the damage was done, the Spartans had to fight the 250 000 strong army with all they had left. Their cities would be left defenceless, and then there would be soldiers, with spears, in our cities, in Sparta. (I’m sorry, that one was too easy)

Today is the last day of the battle. We are fighting a cause that will surely be our demise. The Persians will certainly win the battle but it is the bravery with which the Spartan soldiers fought that is most remembered. The Persian army lost 30 000 soldiers at Thermopylae, they were delayed long enough for the Greeks to be able to amass a large enough force to win the war.

Liberal soldiers will march in their ridings, knocking on door after door, getting out the vote. Giving every bit of effort, it is up to us to ensure that in the long term, Canada does not throw away the years of progress it has built. Canada will not throw away the surpluses we have amassed together. Canada will remain strong and continue to move forward. We must make sure that next time, our forces are better organized and we will have the courage and conviction to win every single time.

Today the Liberal soldiers will lose the battle but it is today where we can avert losing the war.

I am now off to battle, to support Greekwoman Eleni Bakopanos in her quest to defeat her Levantine invader Maria Mourani, of course, it’s all a coincidence.

As for King Leonidas, well, ask me about that tomorrow morning!

Reality Checks and Balances

Can the Senate keep a Harper Majority in check?
NO, the House can pass something regardless of the senate.

Can the civil service block a Harper Majority?
He can fire all of them anyway. Bureaucrats can delay things, but not prevent them.

Can the Judiciary stop a Harper Majority?
Not really, he can use the not-withstanding clause. A guy who campaigns on forcing judges to make sentences without judicial discretion saying the judiciary is a check on the government.

In fact, these institutions cannot even stop a Harper MINORITY. All decisions on foreign policy, such as US relations, the Kyoto Protocol, and the use of Canada’s Army for invading Iraq all fall in the hands of the PMO, even in a minority situation. Now why would Harper want to assure us he has checks and balances? Are people finally starting to see how scary this guy having power is?

Or has the Liberal Party cried wolf one too many times?

Mon ami Dave !

Bonjour chers amis,

L'idée des photos des membres du FJBQ est intéressante mais comme d'habitude, c'est pas eux qui ont pensé à ça. C'est une copie du concept de www.sorryeverybody.com , un site américain. Bravo pour l'originalité !

Mais le topic du post est certainement le seul vidéo sur le site. Celui de ce cher Dave. http://www.blocquebecois.org/fr_jeunesse/sections/Nous_Cest_le_Bloc/Photos/davevideobq.wmv Il a une éloquence presqu'aussi brillante que son homonyme Dave Hash (lire des vaches, des Bleu Poudre). Allez voir le vidéo. En voyant ça, je reconsidère ma décision de déménager du Québec advenant un référendum dans lequel les Québécois voteraient OUI à plus de 66% sur une question claire. Je suis convaincu qu'un éventuel Québec indépendant avec des gens aussi éloquents que Dave en sera un pays d'avant-garde et sera un leader mondial dans plusieurs domaines.

Peut-être ont-ils mis le vidéo en ligne pour démontrer qu'en plus de faire une place à ce qu'un "vrai Québécois" appelle un importé, qu'ils appellent maintenant les Québécois issus de l'immigration, ils font place aux gens avec une déficience de langage.

Autre point sur le nouveau Bloc supposément inclusif. Même si t'es né ici, mais que tes descendants sont tunisiens, haïtiens ou argentin, tu es issu de l'immigration... On a les vrais Québécois puis il y a les Québécois issus de l'immigration. Mon père est arrivé ici à l'âge de 6 ans, en 1958, mais il serait toujours issu de l'immigration. Au PLC, il est comme tous les autres, il fait partie de la mosaïque culturelle canadienne.

Bonne soirée,

Alex

Great Literary Analysis by Amy Romagnoli

It should not have to come to this. I hesitated in deciding to write this article, because in doing so, I am feeding into the argument that religion should play a role in determining the fate of a nation. I feel that no religious group, or any group for that matter, should have the right to oppress the rights and freedoms of others. The state should be secular. However, those who differ from my opinion will only play in their own field. So, it has come to the point where I must go to the argument, instead of waiting for the argument to come to me, in order to defend my fellow citizens.

I do not question one’s right to be religious. I question the assertion that the Bible forbids homosexuality. From what part of the Bible does this come from?

From the creation story in Genesis? Since God created man and women, it is only natural to believe that we can extract from this that he condemns homosexuality. An argument of silence. That is exactly how arguments should NOT be made. I suppose God condemned friendship also then, since He did not mention it in the creation story either.

From the Story of the City of Sodom in Genesis 19? Lot had visitors at his home. The men of Sodom came to the door and requested that Lot bring the men out so that they may “have relations with them”. Lot asked them not to be so “wicked”. The men would not take “no” for an answer, and stormed into Lot’s house. It turned out that these visitors were angels, who turned the men of Sodom blind, so that they could not find their way in. The angels told Lot to take his family and run, because God was going to destroy the wicked city. Lot ran and God destroyed the city. The argument is that God destroyed the city because the men desired homosexuality. Actually, God destroyed the men for their violent attempt to rape the guests, and for violating the ancient codes of hospitality. The “sin of Sodom” is clearly stated in Ezekiel 16:49: “Behold this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy”.

From Leviticus 18:22, 20:13? “Man shall not lie with man as he would a woman”. This Holiness Code is no longer binding to Christians, but only to Jews. I would suggest that those Christians who claim this to be “Biblical proof” of God’s condemnation of homosexuality purge their wardrobe of clothing made from two kinds of material (Lev 19:19), and refrain from harvesting the corners of their fields (Lev 19:9). It does not make sense to claim the right to “pick and choose” which rules to enforce upon others and which ones not.

If it is the fact that homosexual sex can not result in procreation which condemns it, then why doesn’t the Bible forbid sex with an infertile or post-menopausal woman? Why does the Bible forbid sexual relations that can result in procreation, such as sex between a man and another man’s wife? (Lev 20:10).

From Romans 1:26-27? “God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural (27), and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire for on another, men with men committing indecent acts…”. Of course it would be unnatural for a heterosexual woman to have relations with another woman, or for a heterosexual man to have relations with another man; just as unnatural as it would be for a homosexual woman to have relations with a man, or a homosexual man to have relations with a woman! To deny the natural sexuality that God has given them, whether it be homosexual or heterosexual, would be an abomination.

For Christians who rely on Leviticus to uphold their argument against homosexuality, I am sure that Community Care will gladly accept your cotton-poly clothing donations. Those who condemn same-sex marriage in the name of the Lord, I ask for your assistance in determining where, exactly, the Lord has given His opinion. I am truly at a loss. Although I believe it to be unjust and in fact unconstitutional for one group to determine the rights of others, again, I am only playing in your field: “By means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods, which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, as long as it is received with thanksgiving” (1 Tim 4:2-4).

Written by Amy Romagnoli

Endoresement from more friends of the Conservative Party!

This is a Letter to the editor from The Rose, he Provincial Letter for Alberta Pro-Life

Here’s why people should vote for Stockwell Day:

1 He honors God
2 He is Pro Life
3 He is Pro Family
4 He is Pro Canada
5 He has gone through fire and come out stronger
This is the kind of man we have been looking for.
VOTE FOR STOCKWELL DAY.

Henny van der Gugten,
Airdrie AB

Henny van der Gugten is now the President of Alberta Prolife. Their keynote speaker at the 2005 convention was Conservative MP Jason Kenney.

As for Stockwell Day, if the polls hold, he will be Canada’s next foreign affairs minister.

We didn’t make this up.

We’re not allowed to make stuff up.

This is not the Canada I grew up in. Is it yours?

This guy is gonna be in Cabinet?

“They [the architects of Canada] knew that the basis of human and civil rights was not the shifting sands of political fashion, or public opinion, or the whims of judges; but rather the inalienable dignity of every human person created in the image and likeness of God”

Jason Kenney is the Conservative Critic for Moral Outrage.

It is dated October 16th 2005.

I did not make this up.

We’re not allowed to make this stuff up.

Who decided what is the image created by God? Would it be Christian fundamentalists? I prefer to go back to the man, you know Jesus. He was all about redistributing wealth and showing compassion for everyone. Some compassion Jason shows here.

Using God to exclude people from society is shameful. What will these people do if they actually get a ministry to run? Will they hire people who only who are created in the image of God? We are all God’s children. Shame on you.

I will not CHOOSE a Conservative Canada.

This is not the Canada I have grown up in, is it yours?

Why won't Harper reveal his donors?

During the January 9th leader's debate, Stephen Harper claimed that he had
revealed all the donors to his leadership campaigns. Let's take a look at the facts:
Harper did not reveal over 99 percent of the names of the donors to his 2002 campaign to become leader of the Canadian Alliance. He revealed only 0.56 percent of the names of the donors to his 2002 leadership campaign (and only 54 out of the 64 highest donors over $1075.00). The missing donors account for 28 percent of the monetary contributions to Harper's leadership campaign. In addition, Mr. Harper was once President of the National Citizens Coalition - a group that does not reveal its donors and fights against third party advertising laws and spending limits. Harper owes his initial election as a MP in 1993 to a $50,000 advertising campaign by this same organization targeted at his opponent. Harper voted against the Liberal government's political party financing legislation that limited corporate and union donations to political parties. And finally he has been quoted as saying he will do away with all restrictions on big-money advertising during election campaigns if he becomes Prime Minister. Hopefully that day never comes. It's funny that a person who has based most of his campaign on the fight for honesty and accountability in government should have "hidden" secrets of his own.

Lester's Lies

'Let's be clear: since 1760, anybody in this country who wasn't white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant was the target of shunning, racism, and human-rights violations.'

Can we trust anyone who writes THAT quote to objectively tell us anything about federalism?The latest hullabaloo surrounding Option Canada may be a surprise to some Canadians but here in Quebec, Option Canada is old news. The fuss is over a new book coming out by Normand Lester, someone whose hatred for Canada can only be defined by the polemic he wrote against English Canadians.

I do not consider myself English-Canadian, partly because I am of Italian origin, but also because I do not wish to be associated with a language group. I am a bilingual Canadian. I am proud to speak French AND English; just as I am proud to be a Quebecker AND a Canadian. Separatists in Quebec have been operating under an US Vs. THEM attitude and Normand Lester is one of the most famous portrayers of this philosophy, attack English Canada to the point where francophones hate 'les maudits anglais' so much, they'll vote to leave.

This is the PQ vision.

After all, 60% de nous, (well not me, I'm an allophone), nous meaning francophones voted yes in 1995. This ultra nationalist vision put forward by Parizeau has been co-opted by Duceppe, and André Boisclair to include cultural communities, suddenly necessary to create a modern 21st century state. In their attempt to co-opt the same cultural communities they once blamed for their failure, zealots like Lester have turned their guns towards English Canada in an attempt to defame them to the benefit of the separatist cause.

Among other things, he says English Canada harbors racist tendencies and that the extreme racist right is 'a phenomenon which today belongs almost exclusively to English Canada.' He says Canadians, and he excludes Quebeckers, 'manifest a serene sense of moral authority towards les Quebecois'.Lester's crusade against Canada is evident. Now he claims to have found the silver bullet to how the federalists 'cheated' in 1995. The Bloc has been asking questions since 1995 on the subject of Option Canada.

An audit was conducted within the department and no evidence of impropriety was found. The auditor general Denis Desautels investigated and found absolutely nothing wrong.

The Bloc wants to hinge on something they cannot prove. Either way, can we expect a guy like Lester to objectively put the pieces of his diabolical puzzle together?

Can we trust the message if we cannot trust the messenger? A friend of Parizeau, who blamed money and ethnics for the referendum loss. A friend of Pierre Falardeau, who said we should take a chainsaw to federalists.

'Let's be clear: since 1760, anybody in this country who wasn't white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant was the target of shunning, racism, and human-rights violations.'

If Lester looked in the mirror, or around to his friends Parizeau and Falardeau, he will find out where his faction lies. While Lester lambastes Canada for events that took place before Confederation, his friends have used the ethnic communities of Quebec as a scapegoat for their crushing defeat a mere 10 years ago.

The crusade ends here. Canadians, ALL Canadians will not stand for this new hypocrisy. We have had enough of the web of hate Lester has tried to spin. We'll never stand for it; not once, not ever.

Adil Charkaoui et le Bloc

C'est avec une certaine stupéfaction que j'ai appris, en lisant des "vieilles nouvelles" qu'Adil Charkaoui, ce ressortissant algérien liéa à Al-Qaeda, faisait campagne pour le Bloc Québécois...

Un certificat de sécurité a été émis contre Charkaoui. Le Ministère de l'Immigration, de concert avec le SCRS et la GRC, n'émettent de tels certificats qu'avec parcimonie. Un juge doit examiner la preuve et donner son aval à l'émission d'un tel certificat. Il faut que le "récipiendaire" du certificat soit une véritable menace pour la sécurité du pays. Comment est-ce que le Bloc peut s'associer avec un terroriste ?

Puisque le candidat bloquiste de Bourassa a accepté avec plaisir le support d'Adil Charkaoui et qu'il a affirmé qu'il fera du porte-à-porte en sa compagnie, je propose donc à notre chef, M. Martin, de faire campagne avec une photo d'Ousama Ben Laden sur l'autobus, ou peut-être devrait-il avoir Karla Homolka à ses côtés lors du prochain ralliement.

On peut se demander si les frères Rose seront candidats dans la prochaine élection. Comment un parti politique peut être associé à des criminels comme Charkaoui et Jean-Yves Pantaloni et continue de faire campagne sur l'intégrité ???

Je suis dégoûté.

Alex

La stratégie du PC : de l'HYPOCRISIE

J'ai eu l'occasion de discuter, au cours d'une tribune téléphonique, avec Lawrence Cannon, candidat conservateur dans Pontiac. Il est d'une grande malhonnêteté intellectuelle. Le Parti Conservateur propose de donner un siège au Québec à l'UNESCO. Je lui ai rappelé que c'était impossible car les seuls les pays peuvent participer à l'UNESCO. Il a maintenu sa position tout en insistant qu'il ne voulait pas changer la charte de l'UNESCO. Tout un tour de force... C'est comme refuser le droit au mariage aux gais sans invoquer la clause nonobstant.

Il m'a servi l'argument de l'OIF (Organisaiton Internationale de la Francophonie) qui a accepté le Nouveau-Brunswick et le Québec dans les années 70. On compare des pommes et des oranges, la charte de l'UNESCO est claire...

De plus, M. Cannon est fort impoli, il ne me laissait pas m'exprimer, il me coupait constamment la parole. Je lui souhaite une solide défaite le 23 janvier prochain.

Je tiens à rappeler qu'il est un vire-capot. En 1990, il était l'organisateur de Sheila Copps (et certains diront son amant). L'approche de Sheila Copps était beaucoup plus près du fédéralisme de Jean Chrétien et de Paul Martin que le "je m'en foutisme" face au fédéralisme que Stephen Harper a souvent démontré en disant qu'il n'avait rien à cirer s'il y avait 1, 2 ou 10 pays dans le Canada...

Bonne journée,

Alex

Michel "la terreur" Gauthier

Chers lecteurs,

Hier soir, j'ai accompagné Jacques Saada lors de son débat à la Part des Choses. C'était avec mon bloquiste préféré, ce cher Michel Gauthier. J'ai adoré le débat, Jacques a fait paraître ce pauvre Gauthier pour un imbécile.

Il l'a constamment mis en face de ses contradictions. Sur C-9, ce fut très drôle. Michel Gauthier et ses troupes se sont opposés au Développement régional. Il a supposément voté contre le projet car un seul de ses amendements a été rejeté par le gouvernement. L'amendement en question avait été jugé inconstitutionnel, donc irrecevable, car il limitait le pouvoir de dépenser du gouvernement.

Quant aux propos de Marc Garneau sur le fait qu'une bonne partie des indépendantistes québécois soient mal informés, je suis totalement d'accord avec lui. Nous avons également un allié de taille dans cette affirmation, l'appui de nul autre que Jacques Parizeau. Je m'explique. Rappelez-vous le commentaire de M. Parizeau sur les cages à homard. L'indépendance est un piège et les Québécois ne pourront en sortir. Comparer les Québécois à des homards est, selon moi, bien pire que de dire qu'ils comprennent mal les enjeux.

Jacques a su garder son calme face à un Michel Gauthier sur le bord de la crise de nerfs. Il était énervé, coupait la parole de Jacques et n'arrivait plus à garder le cap. Jacques a su garder son calme, rappeler à M. Gauthier que c'était à son tour de parler, le tout avec un sourire en coin.

M. Gauthier, avouez-le, vous vous opposez au développement régional. Vous avez voté CONTRE les intérêts du Québec et de ses régions.

Dans le comté, la vibe est vraiment bonne. On lançait la campagne dans Brossard-La Prairie ce soir, il y avait pas moins de 400 personnes, des jeunes, des moins jeunes, des francophones, beaucoup de francophones et des gens issus de communautés culturelles. WOW ! C'était réussi.

Vous pouvez voir l'entrevue de Jacques et Michel Gauthier à http://www.radio-canada.ca/actualite/v2/lapartdeschoses/ cliquez sur le 4 janvier

Bonne soirée,

Alex

December 23, 2005 More chatter of separation By BRAEDEN CALEY

After a long, busy year in politics, Christmas is finally here. While I am sure this will be a welcome break for many of us, I hope it will also be a time for reflection on all this country provides and affords us, and unfortunately, just how fragile Canada has become. In the week since the televised English leaders' debate, it seems the issue of Canadian unity has seized centre stage in the fast and uproarious way it often does. Support for separation from Canada seems to be on the rise in Quebec and we can no longer ignore its presence. Many Canadians thought seeing Gilles Duceppe in the English debate was a waste of time, because they could not vote for his party even if they wanted to. But in reality, his presence was probably more of a wakeup call. Quebec separatism is back, and without strong leadership from a determined federal government, Canada will be a country that is never truly able to move forward. This situation is not sustainable for our country and the values it represents. We claim to stand for multiculturalism and respect diversity, but an entire province rejecting our ability to fully accept and embrace their role and who they are would clearly be a major black eye to Canada's international reputation, not to mention our collective prosperity, and most importantly, our national identity. So where and who is the "white knight" of federalism to inspire Canadians and especially Quebecers that ours is indeed a nation to be celebrated, treasured, and loved? Well, Prime Minister Martin demonstrated in Friday's debate that he was clearly up to the task. Directly challenging Duceppe, Martin earned his Prime Ministerial paycheque with an intense and passionate defense of Canada. Meanwhile, instead of trying to build a stronger Canada, Stephen Harper has proposed to weaken and divide us, allowing Quebec to attend UNESCO meetings for instance, a right usually reserved for independent countries and small dependent colonies. It is not clear which of these two options is Harper's vision for Quebec, but it is clear that a Conservative-Separatist tag-team government would have disastrous consequences for the Canada we know, love, and want to make stronger. So as you sip eggnog with your family and friends this holiday season, take a moment to reflect on the country that provides and protects the freedoms to think and believe what we want, celebrate whichever holidays we want, and vote for whomever we want. And remember the importance of a government and a Prime Minister willing to stand up to separatists and defend our national values across Canada and around the world. E-mail Braeden at braeden.caley@24hrs.ca "Quebec separatism is back, and without strong leadership ... Canada will be a country that is never truly able to move forward. - Caley

Separation? NO! UNIFICATION

Belinda Stronach’s Prime Minister Essay contests provide us with yet another fun tidbit of information from a Conservative Candidate, Derek Zeisman, in Southern Interior, (It’s near Grand Forks, BC)

"My blueprint for improving Canada's prosperity and unity in the 21st century and beyond is innovative, ambitious, and even radical in certain respects," he wrote in the contest. He has since disavowed himself from that essay and most of its recommendations. (I love he disavows only when other people find out)

Well I’m happy he saw the light. He also called for the abolition of corporate taxes and monetary union with the US, when our dollar was at $0.64.

But the kicker is this guy also called for the abolition of the Charter of Rights. WHOA! Support for the Charter isn’t a switch you turn on and off there buddy. Either you support protecting individual rights...or you don't!

Note: It has come to my attention that Mr. Zeisman was involved in a car accident and will be spending his time recovering from the injuries. We wish him the fastest recovery. But Derek, don’t be offended if we still want Bill Profili to win!

Separation? Again?

Blogs have become an election story as the media digs up dirt on what have been squeaky clean campaigns from the leaders. First came Olivia, then Jumpin jack, but now a Tory has said something rather interesting, WHAT?

SOUND THE ALARM

I’m not gonna say that Stephen Harper supports Albertan Separation (just cuz the borders are on fire doesn’t mean they leave!) Here is the quote from “psycho” (I did not make that up, this guy posts under that name)

"I honestly see no benefit for Alberta to remain part of Canada. Seriously, there is absolutely nothing that Canada as a nation offers me."

This is an organizer for an Edmonton candidate (well was, the douchebag resigned (as has become the thing bloggers do when they are dumbasses)) and nobody is saying the Tories support this kind of stuff. Well if Conservatives are not responsible for what individual members write on blogs, why would Liberals be responsible for theirs?

Long live Freedom of Speech

I don’t resign….yet!