• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Canada Poligaf - The Wrath of Harperland

Status
Not open for further replies.

Loofy

Member
Ridiculously early? They close at 9 or 10pm (depending on location) M-Sat and at 5pm on Sunday. I've never had a need to buy booze any later than that and wouldn't want the kind of person that would need to buy booze later than that being able to buy booze later than that.
Wow thats terrible. Are those cause of unions?
Some liquor stores here close at 2 am.
and wouldn't want the kind of person that would need to buy booze later than that being able to buy booze later than that.
Thats fine. But most (free)people dont like having an alcohol curfew placed on them. This 2am deal is even ridiculous. Take a look at a list of cities around the world that dont have curfews. What makes new york city, australia, china, or italy etc. so special that they can handle their liquor at all hours of the night?
 

sikkinixx

Member
Reading this thread makes me think our country is just too big. I honestly feel so little towards anything in Eastern Canada, all this shit about Quebec and separtatist parties and blah blah you might as well be in Europe or China for how relevan the issues are to me, actually Chinese issues feel more pressing here in Vancouver than Quebec issues do.

I feel like a shitty Canadian when I feel more comfortable being in Washington state or Oregon than I do when I visit Ontario.
 
I didn't dodge your question, both links I pasted cover this issue. Two hours of Aussant explaining the economic benefits to two idiots from the PLQ who could only come up with a ridiculous "well a Canadian passport sounds much better! HA!" argument: http://www.assnat.qc.ca/fr/video-audio/AudioVideo-42301.html?support=video

25 minutes of parliamentary jibber jabber? that is your argument?

what kidn of partisan pandering crap is this trying to convince me of anything?

I asked you directly, what are your arguments to convince a non-separatist to vote for a separtist party and you post a 25 minute long parliamentary video of hackery

what are your arguments? still dodging and just drowning
 

Llyranor

Member
I'd like any government to pull of at least one of those. Just doing no. 1 would be great.

They have Dr. Barette on board. i assume they put that list through him. he has been on the Board of director of the RAMQ so it's not only wishfull thinking of their part but it's an election and the CAQ are prone to shoot themselves on the foot although i don't think they are so right wing a previous poster seem to assume.
Well, a family doctor for every person isn't far-fetched. ON has the same proposition. Just by finalizing the digitization of the national healthcare system, 25% of the population will be added to it which represents the number of people missing a family doctor.

That and also being more stern with the Medical Lobby which most parties are afraid of.

Let's look at their list, though. 7 days/week clinics until 10PM? "No plans for major new hiring"? "Family doctors will be paid the same amount as specialists in Quebec"? With what budget? Making family doctors work longer hours and then making money pop out of nowhere? Great!

Being the least-paid doctors in North America already (and still heavily-taxed), there's quite an easy solution for the docs if they wanted higher salaries: leave the province. Ontario is quite inviting; higher pay, less restrictions (Quebec right now has major restrictions re: which regions you can work, and also with some mandatory requirements re: type of practice you can do. For example, if you don't get a permit to work (which are arbitrarily assigned, btw; there's no real criteria for why one doc gets one and why one doesn't) in Montreal but want to work there (for family reasons or whatever) = 30% pay cut for 5 yrs. That's not insignificant. Can you imagine just getting a degree, and having the government trying to force you to work in a faraway region? (by restrictive measure, rather than bonuses to encourage volunteers)

25 visits a day? Sure, that'll help most people get family docs. Most healthy children/adults don't *need* a family (in an ideal world, sure, but right now the government is trying to prioritize vulnerable patients). Now, granted, this is *doable* on paper - when you deal mainly with patients who are healthy who have minor issues here and there (contraception, hypertension, for example). Geriatric patient that just spent 6 months in hospital and is now in 20 meds? Mental health patients (who the government is already pushing into primary care, so most of them are NOT followed by psychiatrists)? Forget quality of care right (I know some docs will prescribe antidepressants after talking to a patient after 10 min - that does not mean this is the standard of care) there. This is a disgusting 'solution' to the problem. I'm sure it appeals to voters because of its utopic promise, but there is nothing realistic about it, and making it a reality would be very worrisome (and the patients who would most need the care would suffer from it the most). There is something extremely worrisome about implementing a business-like schedule to primary care (which granted, works for something like dermatology where you can usually make the diagnosis in a minute) - "sorry, your 10 minutes are up, you'll have to deal with your knee pain until next appointment in 6 months - good luck!" vs "ok, just take these pills" (without taking the time to take a proper history and exam). I'm afraid this would have major implications on quality of care.

Also, Barette being a doc doesn't necessarily mean competence in administration/logistics of healthcare. Would you trust the ministry of transportation to a truck-driver?

Barette is a radiologist. He does not even see patients. He also probably makes three times the salary of the average GP. Is he going to triple all GPs' salaries?
 

percephone

Neo Member
Let's look at their list, though. 7 days/week clinics until 10PM? "No plans for major new hiring"? "Family doctors will be paid the same amount as specialists in Quebec"? With what budget? Making family doctors work longer hours and then making money pop out of nowhere? Great!


Now, granted, this is *doable* on paper - when you deal mainly with patients who are healthy who have minor issues here and there (contraception, hypertension, for example). Geriatric patient that just spent 6 months in hospital and is now in 20 meds? Mental health patients (who the government is already pushing into primary care, so most of them are NOT followed by psychiatrists)? Forget quality of care right (I know some docs will prescribe antidepressants after talking to a patient after 10 min - that does not mean this is the standard of care) there. This is a disgusting 'solution' to the problem. I'm sure it appeals to voters because of its utopic promise, but there is nothing realistic about it, and making it a reality would be very worrisome (and the patients who would most need the care would suffer from it the most). There is something extremely worrisome about implementing a business-like schedule to primary care (which granted, works for something like dermatology where you can usually make the diagnosis in a minute) - "sorry, your 10 minutes are up, you'll have to deal with your knee pain until next appointment in 6 months - good luck!" vs "ok, just take these pills" (without taking the time to take a proper history and exam). I'm afraid this would have major implications on quality of care.

It's already this way at the clinics. GP rush through patients. I went recently for a work accident. They go through 5 patients an hour already. I know because i was 21st in line and waited a bit more than 4 hours.

Having more familly doctor will reduce the need to go to the clinic for renewal or other problems. I had to go to the clinic to get myself officially diagnosticed(sp?) for my diabetes. If i had a familly doctor that would do like my dentist and optometrist do every 2 years to call me for a checkup. Maybe i would have less health problems related to diabetes.

Also, Barette being a doc doesn't necessarily mean competence in administration/logistics of healthcare. Would you trust the ministry of transportation to a truck-driver?

Barette is a radiologist. He does not even see patients. He also probably makes three times the salary of the average GP. Is he going to triple all GPs' salaries?

Barette has been/is a member of the board at the regie so i think he knows a bit about the administration/logistic side of Quebec health care.
 

Kurdel

Banned
Legault has a candidate that is a Geomancer.

I feel like a shitty Canadian when I feel more comfortable being in Washington state or Oregon than I do when I visit Ontario.

Forgive my ignorance, but is this a general sentiment in BC? Also, how do you feel about the Harper government nation building BS Iike the 1812 war?
 

Slavik81

Member
Ridiculously early? They close at 9 or 10pm (depending on location) M-Sat and at 5pm on Sunday. I've never had a need to buy booze any later than that and wouldn't want the kind of person that would need to buy booze later than that being able to buy booze later than that.
Some people have different schedules than you, myself included. I like that some businesses here are allowed to cater to them.

When I had Mondays off, having such short hours on Sunday was a pain. The others weren't so bad, but still an occasional annoyance for a night owl like me. I did a decent chunk of my grocery shopping after midnight.
 

Giard

Member
all this talk of family doctors, remember that it was the Parti Quebecois with Pauline Marois as Health Minister that sent 1500 doctors to early retirement

http://elections.radio-canada.ca/elections/quebec2008/2008/11/16/012-PQ-marois-pas-regrets.shtml
That's the reason why I don't want to vote PQ. The big salary cut for the teachers was during the same term of office, if I remember correctly.

I also really don't like Marois as a leader. Even Boisclair seemed better.
 
As a BC > Montreal transplant, yes, the doctor situation is pretty bad. I haven't had a family doc for more than 20 years now but if I had any interest in one now it wouldn't happen. Even Vancouver didn't have 3+ hour waits at a clinic unless it was a particularly bad day. Not really sure how I'd even go about getting a checkup. Maybe at a hospital clinic?

Kurdel, I wouldn't say that is general sentiment (Washington State is nice but not quite Canada) but BC is definitely in a different sociopolitical sphere than the east coast. And that shouldn't be surprising. Canada is not a single-culture majority country like you might see in Europe. Seperatists (hell, any Canadian) should try travelling around. See what somebody on the other side of the country has to say about politics and culture. I would never confuse Vancouver for Edmonton for Winnipeg for Toronto for Montreal. But at the same time most of us have similar complaints. We all think we are being singled out when the feds pass the coin jar around.

Our true identity is this variety, this alliance of culture. Combined, we are Voltron Canada.

The Liberals are a mess for any number of reasons, but if there's one thing I'd like to think they understand (historically) it's the fabric of how our country sticks together. They should probably figure out a real solution to the student situation, though...
 

Vamphuntr

Member
No one saw the controversy with Dr. Barette today? I think it's been overblown way too much but it's nonetheless hilarious. Basically a reporter asked Marois if she thought that a Minister of Health should be an example and she said yes and that he should have an healthy lifestyle to have some credibility. She was dumb and fell into a trap and indirectly attacked the Dr. and his weight. At the very least she wasn't mean but It wasn't a good decision of her to go all offensive on this point.

The funny thing is that the good doctor is now whinning on Twitter that she directly attacked all obese people and that these people should vote for him. The thing is that she didn't mock his weight, she simply said that someone in charge of that Minister should be an example for the citizens.

She does have a point though, an obese shouldn't be in charge of health as he would have no credibility. Can you imagine him giving a speech on healthy food and exercise? It would be like our federal Minister of Science that is a creationist....
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
25 minutes of parliamentary jibber jabber? that is your argument?

what kidn of partisan pandering crap is this trying to convince me of anything?

I asked you directly, what are your arguments to convince a non-separatist to vote for a separtist party and you post a 25 minute long parliamentary video of hackery

what are your arguments? still dodging and just drowning

Go get your blood pressure checked. It's a TWO HOUR parliamentary debate between two federalists (PLQ) and two independentists (PQ+ON) on the subject of "the economic impacts of Quebec remaining a Canadian province".

My arguments are the same the later two make.

That's the reason why I don't want to vote PQ. The big salary cut for the teachers was during the same term of office, if I remember correctly.

I also really don't like Marois as a leader. Even Boisclair seemed better.

Boisclair??? The guy is a sellout, he's a mercenary for hire, usually hired by corporatists. I don't think Marois is the ideal PQ leader, but she has shown that she can go through difficult time and has major leadership qualities to drive the party as one boat. She built a really strong team, the best in a long time, during a time of relative schism within the party. She's quite combative. I like that. I'm not worried about having her and the party in government, at least we'll have people who have Quebec at heart in power.

No one saw the controversy with Dr. Barette today? I think it's been overblown way too much but it's nonetheless hilarious. Basically a reporter asked Marois if she thought that a Minister of Health should be an example and she said yes and that he should have an healthy lifestyle to have some credibility. She was dumb and fell into a trap and indirectly attacked the Dr. and his weight. At the very least she wasn't mean but It wasn't a good decision of her to go all offensive on this point.

The funny thing is that the good doctor is now whinning on Twitter that she directly attacked all obese people and that these people should vote for him. The thing is that she didn't mock his weight, she simply said that someone in charge of that Minister should be an example for the citizens.

She does have a point though, an obese shouldn't be in charge of health as he would have no credibility. Can you imagine him giving a speech on healthy food and exercise? It would be like our federal Minister of Science that is a creationist....

I don't see the problem. Who can be against the claim that yes, a minister of health should have an healthy lifestyle? So to me there's no issue with her comment, only Barette's reaction.
 
No one saw the controversy with Dr. Barette today? I think it's been overblown way too much but it's nonetheless hilarious. Basically a reporter asked Marois if she thought that a Minister of Health should be an example and she said yes and that he should have an healthy lifestyle to have some credibility. She was dumb and fell into a trap and indirectly attacked the Dr. and his weight. At the very least she wasn't mean but It wasn't a good decision of her to go all offensive on this point.

The funny thing is that the good doctor is now whinning on Twitter that she directly attacked all obese people and that these people should vote for him. The thing is that she didn't mock his weight, she simply said that someone in charge of that Minister should be an example for the citizens.

She does have a point though, an obese shouldn't be in charge of health as he would have no credibility. Can you imagine him giving a speech on healthy food and exercise? It would be like our federal Minister of Science that is a creationist....

That's the first thing I thought when I saw him. An obese man responsible for health in a party is a really bad choice.
 
No one saw the controversy with Dr. Barette today? I think it's been overblown way too much but it's nonetheless hilarious. Basically a reporter asked Marois if she thought that a Minister of Health should be an example and she said yes and that he should have an healthy lifestyle to have some credibility. She was dumb and fell into a trap and indirectly attacked the Dr. and his weight. At the very least she wasn't mean but It wasn't a good decision of her to go all offensive on this point.

The funny thing is that the good doctor is now whinning on Twitter that she directly attacked all obese people and that these people should vote for him. The thing is that she didn't mock his weight, she simply said that someone in charge of that Minister should be an example for the citizens.

She does have a point though, an obese shouldn't be in charge of health as he would have no credibility. Can you imagine him giving a speech on healthy food and exercise? It would be like our federal Minister of Science that is a creationist....

Makes sense to me, would you go see a nutritionist who was obese, or a fitness trainer that couldn't lift 10 pounds? Then why select a health minister who doesn't have a healthy lifestyle.
 

Guesong

Member
Should the Minister of Education be a teacher, the Minister of Immigration an immigrant, and so on and so forth?

The guy likes to eat, so what? Doesn't make him any less knowledgeable. As Jean Charest himself put it this morning, if you want to attack the guy, attack his ideas, I'm sure there's plenty of stuff to argue about there. No need to get stupid here.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Should the Minister of Education be a teacher, the Minister of Immigration an immigrant, and so on and so forth?

The guy likes to eat, so what? Doesn't make him any less knowledgeable. As Jean Charest himself put it this morning, if you want to attack the guy, attack his ideas, I'm sure there's plenty of stuff to argue about there. No need to get stupid here.

A minister of education should be someone who exemplifies and understands the importance of education more than the average minister, YES.

Marois just answered a journalist's question, she didn't make a press conference to tell everyone that the guy is fat.
 

Guesong

Member
As much as it was clearly a stupid trap by the journalist only to try and create a news, she still fell in it, though. It's a shame she did though.

The current problem(s) with the health system has nothing to do with being a fit person or not. I mean, Bolduc is a fit and healthy man and the system is sluggier than ever so if it takes a fat dude to at least get even remotely close to unclug the system, I'll take it any day. Of all the criterions to elect someone, physical image should be the absolute last.
 

Vamphuntr

Member
Should the Minister of Education be a teacher, the Minister of Immigration an immigrant, and so on and so forth?

The guy likes to eat, so what? Doesn't make him any less knowledgeable. As Jean Charest himself put it this morning, if you want to attack the guy, attack his ideas, I'm sure there's plenty of stuff to argue about there. No need to get stupid here.

Well the Minister of Education should have a career related to education. Maybe he/she's a teacher, maybe he has a univeristy degree, maybe he worked in a schoolboard but he should know about the field. Likewise, someone in charge of immigration should know about the laws and the procedures to welcome new immigrants. As such a lawyer specialized in immigrations, a social worker or someone working in help and ressource center for immigrant would be ideal.

Like wise for the minister of Science. Would you put someone with no Science degree for that position or someone with no knowledge of that industry?

I mean the issue is that as a health minister you have to show the good example. How is he going to promote a healthy lifestyle while clearly he doesn't follow one?

I sure agree that you shouldn't attack him for is physique but no one did that all here. Replying that the Minister of Health should be an example doesn't attack his qualifications or skills at all. What I'm disappointed in is that she's an experienced politician, she should have known what would have happened. Either she's plain stupid or she has something up her sleeve :S
 

maharg

idspispopd
So you guys know for absolute fact that he doesn't live a healthy lifestyle? Are you there watching him eat his meals? Do you know how much exercise he gets?
 

Vamphuntr

Member
So you guys know for absolute fact that he doesn't live a healthy lifestyle? Are you there watching him eat his meals? Do you know how much exercise he gets?

Hum he said it himself many times? You can read about it here in french. He basically says he doesn't really care about what he eats «Je ne fais pas attention à ce que je mange.» . On the radio yesterday he also said that he tried many diets but couldn't complete them because he's always hungry and must eat all the time.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
The CAQ and PLQ are running this campaign like Harper: daily tiny clear promises revealed in the morning that people can quickly "understand". PQ is covering a much broader spectrum as one would expect from a government that has higher aspirations for the governance of Quebec and doesn't seek to keep important points hidden until after the election. PQ is trying to build something better, PLQ and CAQ are using think-tank-developed strategies just to win the election. That's why independentists parties like PQ and ON are better: they aim higher, and have a vested interest in improving Quebec, unlike PLQ and CAQ that are there for power and providing kickbacks to the same people the conservatives always seek to please. It's the George Bush "everyone gets 100$ with my tax cuts!" strategy.

http://translate.google.com/transla...-harper?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

This is called "micro-campaigns": unveiling the early morning (to enforce the theme of the day) a clear measure that addresses a specific part of the electorate. In spring 2011, Harper and chained ads targeted tax credit (sports activities, piano lessons, volunteer firefighters ...) or renewals of programs. Always simple, always clear, always easy to summarize in less than 140 characters. The goal? Get votes from an electorate identified in advance through detailed strategic studies - an art in which the Conservatives are masters.

And what we see campaigns Jean Charest and François Legault since August 1, similar to this, notes Eric Montigny, a political scientist at Laval University. "Mario Dumont had just used this strategy in 2007 and 2008 [especially with the $ 100 per week for parents of young children who do not care], but it is much stronger this year, he said. It offers something concrete, easy to understand. "

Examples abound in caravans and liberal caquistes. Among liberals, Jean Charest on Monday pledged $ 100 to parents of primary school to purchase equipment. Tuesday, it was $ 3,000 in tax credits to homeowners who will make "green renovations" to their house. On Wednesday, he indicated a desire to expand coverage dental free to all young people under 16 years (RAMQ protection stops at 10 years now). Through this, some broader measures, such as maintaining the employment of experienced workers and help for young welfare recipients to enter the labor market.

Toward the future Coalition (CAQ), Francois Legault has promised Tuesday to reduce the tax burden on middle class families $ 1,000 ($ 200 per year). Wednesday, he promised five days of paid leave to enable parents to meet their parental obligations. Thursday, five hours more per week in high school. There were also promises to ensure a family physician in every Quebecer, and 50 million to allow students of primary and secondary school to go to four art shows a year. The concrete, the precise.

Conversely, the Parti Quebecois currently opted for larger-scale commitments, related to some national affirmation. Creating a strategic investment fund of 10 billion, repatriation of employment insurance system in Quebec, creating an Economic Development Bank of Quebec, "revolutionary changes to ensure better care for seniors' new regime mining royalties. "We're not in the same register as the other two," said Montigny.

"From a communicational strategy Advertisements and is very effective, says Frederic Bastien, a researcher at the Research Group on Political Communication. People like that are specific commitments rather than large ads that remain somewhat vague. "But ... there is a but.

"I see a setback in terms of governance, said Bastien. A party that aspires to power will have to manage large numbers of files. We can not reduce a term to some specific points, as the Conservatives did in 2011 with their five-point plan. A party that chooses - in the manner of PQ - to present a program that is more macro than micro has a greater challenge in terms of communication, but it provides more information about what he will do once in power. It could be more reassuring for voters. "

This is a more 'traditional', but that has proved its virtues, adds Maioni, political science professor at McGill University. "It depends on one's perception of the voter, she said. Does anyone believe that it will hang at a particular promise? Or it is believed he wants an overview of the project presented to give reassurance about the future government's ability to govern well in all folders? "

By focusing their message on well-defined measures, François Legault and Jean Charest "have the advantage of running a little more coverage and control the message," says Maioni. But she recalls that "make a campaign on promises sharp makes you not talking about everything." In 2011, for example, Stephen Harper has never mentioned the rising age for admission to the benefits of Old Age Security from 65 to 67 years. "The promises we made are accurate, but the rest remains very unclear," says Maioni.

"Voters must also feel that the ads are part of a real road map, says Eric Montigny. Do not want it to look like a collage, it takes an overall consistency - consistency and budget. People need to see the thread. We will see later in the campaign if Mr. Charest and Mr. Legault did it, or if Ms. Marois fared better with his approach. "Above all, he says, that Mr. Charest" failed for now to impose the theme of the day as generally succeeded Mr. Harper. But without it, the promises are lost quickly targeted.

Only the PQ and ON have an actual roadmap for Quebec, because they care about Quebec's future. They are not there to sell the house.
 
ahhahahahahahashahahahahahahaha
oh my, what a laugh Ether

marois_castafiore.jpg
 

Azih

Member
You know, the very recent history of my people involved a Seperation/Partition that's only one generation past (South Asia) and I can tell you that any sort of political segregation based on language/culture/religion/whatever else bullshit is a horrendous thing and leaves the separated parts weaker than the whole was.
 
Ridiculously early? They close at 9 or 10pm (depending on location) M-Sat and at 5pm on Sunday. I've never had a need to buy booze any later than that and wouldn't want the kind of person that would need to buy booze later than that being able to buy booze later than that.

Besides, looking at the price of everything that convenience stores sell compared to everywhere else I wouldn't want them selling booze any way.

Wow spoken like someone who has never worked a split shift or in any type of trades in their life.

You do realize people work more than 40 hour work weeks and work nights and weekends right?
 
instead of speaking about the economy, the PQ wants to restrict rights.

They want to extend Bill 101 to CEGEPs that would take way the choice of non-anglophones to attend English CEGEPs.
It is well known that some francophones wish to go to an English CEGEP after high school to improve their English. Marois wants to take away this choice.

They want to re-open the can of worms of banning religious clothing articles in the public sector. Anyone in Vancouver and Toronto would be LOL wut at the PQ's stance on this.
The hilarious paradox of religious items is that the PQ wants more french speaking immigrants but many french speaking immigrants come from North Africa which have many Muslims. So it's like a chicken-n-egg with the PQ.

Liberty and Freedoms? yeah right, taking away rights and limiting them is what the PQ asks.


The PQ campaigns as ''progressives'' but they hold ethnocentric nationalist ideologies that are far-right on questions of what consists a ''citizen''.
This is why ''ethnic votes'' identify more with Canada and vote NO on Referendums. In Trudeau's ''Just Society'', every citizen is Canadian.
 

Vamphuntr

Member
instead of speaking about the economy, the PQ wants to restrict rights.

They want to extend Bill 101 to CEGEPs that would take way the choice of non-anglophones to attend English CEGEPs.
It is well known that some francophones wish to go to an English CEGEP after high school to improve their English. Marois wants to take away this choice.

They want to re-open the can of worms of banning religious clothing articles in the public sector. Anyone in Vancouver and Toronto would be LOL wut at the PQ's stance on this.
The hilarious paradox of religious items is that the PQ wants more french speaking immigrants but many french speaking immigrants come from North Africa which have many Muslims. So it's like a chicken-n-egg with the PQ.

Liberty and Freedoms? yeah right, taking away rights and limiting them is what the PQ asks.


The PQ campaigns as ''progressives'' but they hold ethnocentric nationalist ideologies that are far-right on questions of what consists a ''citizen''.
This is why ''ethnic votes'' identify more with Canada and vote NO on Referendums. In Trudeau's ''Just Society'', every citizen is Canadian.

To be fair the religious aspect is also part of the CAQ's program. If you read it they also want to set a up a secularity charter (charte de laïcité) but they have yet to discuss it in their campaign. Both the language and religion issue are born from the same problem we've had for years in the province unfortunately.

The whole "accommodements raisonnables" debacle we had recently once again showed this issue. People here are very patriotic and somewhat ethnocentric because of the francophone/anglophone rivalry and it doesn't go well when they feel their rights are threatened. I don't think most Quebecers are racist. We have our fair shair of bigots like everywhere else but media here know this is a hot topic for people so they try to show a lot of extreme cases that put people on the defensive. For example, during Christmas we had many cases on TV of retailers or business owners that had to remove Christmas trees and ornaments from their store because of pressure from religious groups. Just add situations like these to conflicts regarding languages and you will have an explosive situation that lead people believing that their own rights are being baffled.

I think they are aiming to do a lot like France is doing with their own secularity concept for their state. I think what you said about Toronto speaks volume about the difference between the two province. Like you said, these kind of practices would be mocked in Toronto but they wouldn't be mocked as much in France. And to be fair, some part of this charter would be useful especially for people of all religion to acknowledge and recongnize the equity between men and of women.

It also doesn't help when some immigrants arrive in the province and complain about the main language being French. This usually lead to rubbing people the wrong way and contribute to people adopting a defensive stance on the matter. Thankfully most immigrants are amazing people but they have their special case like we have our bigots.

François Legault and his CAQ have been exploiting the same point both similarly and differently. While they say in his program that they welcome diversity, they also say that the state and public places should be secular and based around the french language.

CAQ Program said:
Les valeurs communes qui
forment l’armature de la société québécoise et qui en constituent les repères essentiels sont
claires et incluent notamment la primauté de la langue française, le respect des valeurs démocratiques
et l’égalité entre les hommes et les femmes.

CAQ Program said:
La Coalition Avenir Québec croit que la laïcité des institutions
québécoises constitue le dénominateur commun essentiel sur lequel doit être établi
l’espace public où les Québécois seront appelés à interagir.

CAQ Program said:
Cette démarche culminera avec
l’adoption d‘une Charte québécoise de la laïcité qui établira les balises d’un État laïc tout en
reconnaissant l’histoire et le patrimoine québécois.

He also wants a charter similar to Marois about religion and strengthen law 101 and to get rid of "passerelles" schools and wants to limit immigration to 45k in the province for the next two years so he can define better ways to naturalize and integrate them. Legault is also saying he might also reopen the sovereignty debate but not in the near future as he wants to reorganize the state's finance first. So yeah, on the cultural/identity front he's offereing something quite similar to the PQ.

People will agree with that for the same reason that they agreed with law 78/12. They want peace of mind and protect themselves even if it infringes on the rights of others. It all depends what you think is the lesser evil on your moral compass.

For this election, I fear there are no "good" solution. No matter who you will vote for you will also vote for terrible propositions you don't agree with. I know for sure I'm not voting liberal but I have yet to decide for whom I will vote. I see interesting ideas in both CAQ and PQ but they also have their fair share of terrible plans. I also think that both Marois and Legault wouldn't be good PM but as of lately Charest has been awful too. I'll have to see who will convince me that he is the "best" lesser evil.
 
the PQ's strategy is clear:

-start California style ballot box initiatives, mostly on wrestling powers away from the Federal gov.

-create a ''fight'' against the Federal government because support for separation never comes from positive energy but only from negative energy.
(There is nothing more negative then a fight)

-then make a Referendum on secession while Harper is still in Ottawa before Oct. 2015. (Because Harper is considered to be more polarizing than Thomas Mulcair) (If the NDP wins in 2015, than the PQ's hopes of winning a Referendum thins out)
 

Vamphuntr

Member
the PQ's strategy is clear:

-start California style ballot box initiatives, mostly on wrestling powers away from the Federal gov.

-create a ''fight'' against the Federal government because support for separation never comes from positive energy but only from negative energy.
(There is nothing more negative then a fight)

-then make a Referendum on secession while Harper is still in Ottawa before Oct. 2015. (Because Harper is considered to be more polarizing than Thomas Mulcair) (If the NDP wins in 2015, than the PQ's hopes of winning a Referendum thins out)

I don't really think Marois would try a referendum now because she wouldn't be able to win it. I mean there is an hardcore base in the party that will want to make one at all cost (they are even trying to prepare one as we speak according to La Presse) and will try to pressure her into doing one but I think they will realize the opportunity isn't there financially and morally.

To win she will need to show people it will be to our advantage financially to become a country and with a second recession around the corner and our debt growing this will take some major planning and groundwork for this to happen.

As for the whole Harper thing, people don't like him at all here but it's not enough of a driving force to make people change their opinion. The reason the vote tied in 1995 was that the climate was becoming quite toxic. Meech Accord had failed, Charlottetown Accord had failed and tensions between QC and the rest of Canada where so high that people were openly attacking and insulting each other about the issue. There was a build up that lead people to believe that it seemed it wasn't in their best interest to stay somewhere they weren't welcomed.

This build up isn't there anymore so far. Ignatieff pretty much said so after the campaign that lead to his demise. Quebec and Canada are still "disconneted" from each other but they don't feel anything about the issue anymore.

She would need a "window" to exploit again. The sponsorship scandal would have been useful to her cause but she wasn't on the throne back then.

I'm not sure anyone believe it's a certainty that she will be elected on the 4th either. Nothing has been decided so far as the 3 are really close in the polls. She's leading so far but she was also leading in 2007 midway through the campaign and didn't win so anything can happen.

I guess you could say that you are right about the negativity part as it's pretty much what governs politics nowadays. Charest is struggling because people are dissatisfied with his mandate just like Obama is struggling because he wasn't able to restructurate the country like the savior people expected him to be.

But yeah, this fight will go on over and over and the last two pages of this thread show why. Francophone will vote for PQ, CAQ or QS because they feel their culture and language are threatened since they are a minority in the country and anglophones in the province will vote for the liberals because as a minority in the province they don't want the francophone majority to infringe on their rights, the liberals being federalists and much more lax on the language issue. I mean you can say both sides are racist or dumb all you want but at the core it's the very same fight to protect their own identity and rights so I have problem taking part in the bickering about this in the thread.

This is pretty much the global issue in a nutshell. I think it will take about as much time to solve as it will take time for our neighbors in the south to get rid of religion in their politics.
 
you forget that Marois is not intelligent.

Bouchard and Landry were very intelligent, Marois is not.

Her ego and emotions drive her first and the PQ knows that Oct. 2015 is the deadline for a Referendum.

If Thomas Mulcair becomes PM, the PQ can kiss their Referendum goobye.
 

lacinius

Member
As for the whole Harper thing, people don't like him at all here but it's not enough of a driving force to make people change their opinion. The reason the vote tied in 1995 was that the climate was becoming quite toxic. Meech Accord had failed, Charlottetown Accord had failed and tensions between QC and the rest of Canada where so high that people were openly attacking and insulting each other about the issue. There was a build up that lead people to believe that it seemed it wasn't in their best interest to stay somewhere they weren't welcomed.

The toxicity was a direct result of JP and LB whipping their supporters into a blind frenzy of nationalism, the likes of which had not been seen for many years. For those not easily swayed they were also trying to pitch a bullshit question that was "sold" to most as anything but a vote for direct and immediate separation (at least that is how it was presented out west), and the ignorant deception was only revealed after the vote counting had started when Parazeau said if they win, then they will have their own country... hence the Clarity Act.

But it was the blatent nationalism that really had me realing... I recall this one rally in the Quebec arena with the Quebec flags draped like banners as the crowd started feverishly chanting and revealed the true nature of their agenda, "Le Quebec au Quebecois!" over and over again. That level of ignorance is difficult to combat, especially when they are so blind as to not remember a certain other chant from not all that long ago, "Deutschland den Deutschen, ausländer raus!"

There it was for all to see... starting again (pure laine my ass) so easily... and this time in the least likely of places like Canada. That's how the PQ like to spread fear, ignorance, and a toxic climate. That "Le Quebec..." chant was not even original, thinking themselves quite clever like nobody would know it was first heard in 1969 by the New Left Caucus in Toronto.
 

TimeKillr

Member
you forget that Marois is not intelligent.

Bouchard and Landry were very intelligent, Marois is not.

Her ego and emotions drive her first and the PQ knows that Oct. 2015 is the deadline for a Referendum.

If Thomas Mulcair becomes PM, the PQ can kiss their Referendum goobye.

Dude, you're hilarious.

If you ever think *any* party besides ON will ACTUALLY actively go for a referendum on separation, you're really, REALLY misguided.

It's been said, time and time again, that the PQ has no actual want to separate. It's in their program so to not alienate part of their electorate, but they don't want to try it again, because they know full well it would fail. It would fail because the only people who would really vote for it are the boomers; very few people under the age of 40 still want to separate from Canada.

I used to be a hardcore separatist, then I realized that it wasn't fully needed for both Quebec and Canada to achieve good things. I still am very much a leftist, however: with any of those political barometer things, I'm further left than QS. The problem right now is that all the leftist parties have to include a separation thing in their program, because otherwise they lose the separatist vote. Every separatist is a leftist, but not every leftist is a separatist, and they (separatists) are dwindling in numbers. Most people I know around my age used to be separatists until they grew up and saw it was a pointless debate.

The PQ might not be the single best choice for governing a province, but it sure as hell is better than the PLQ and the CAQ. I don't like some of their policies, like the shit about small businesses having to conform to the Loi 101, and not letting people choose to go to english CEGEPs, but I would much rather have THAT than suffering god damn Charest again.

I think the fear of the english is greatly overstated, and is only a "problem" in Montreal, where it really isn't a problem. There are english-speaking neighborhoods and there are french-speaking neighborhoods, but nobody gives a shit. People are still afraid of being assimilated when there's no real danger anymore.

Regardless of that shit, the PQ is still LEAGUES above what the PLQ and the laughable CAQ are bringing to the table.
 

SRG01

Member
It's been said, time and time again, that the PQ has no actual want to separate. It's in their program so to not alienate part of their electorate, but they don't want to try it again, because they know full well it would fail. It would fail because the only people who would really vote for it are the boomers; very few people under the age of 40 still want to separate from Canada.

I'd just like to add some comments from some of my Montreal friends. Before the last federal election, many of them were commenting that they voted Bloc not because they were separatists, but they were "very useful" for the Quebecois. It gave them clout, bargaining chips, and so on. All roads went through Quebec, until Harper won his majority without them of course.

I see the same, but opposite effect, with the PQ momentum. It's not so much that people are voting for separatists, but rather a party that can effectively pursue Quebecois interests. As much as my Anglo friends love Charest, I have to disagree with them in that he has clearly outlived his usefulness. It's no longer a guarantee that Charest will win simply because he's the federalist vote.
 

Vamphuntr

Member
I'm excited for the debate tomorrow night. I wonder which card will Charest play. It seems he doesn't have much choice but to aim for the throat. On the other hand, the other two big players at the table can also go for the kill as everyone on the panel will have some important weaknesses. I guess Françoise David will have fun tearing them apart as she has nothing to lose. As long as Marois and Legault don't make a mistake or start being too agressive they should perform well.

It's a bit funny that there'salso debates (well 1 vs 1) on mon-thu-wed. They are bound to stlip on a banana peel or a step mine during those four days and everything could change.

This will probably help me make my choice between PQ and CAQ.

I like the fact that Legault wants to stop the exportation of asbestos as I think it more less equate to exporting cancer abroad. He's also probably in the best position to clean up the government and get rid of corruption since his party his new. On the other hand, firing 4000 people at HQ, eliminating schoolboards and restructurating the governement will lead to many people losing their jobs which isn't the smartest thing to do right now. I mean there are engineers, specialized technicians and high government officials that would probably be unable to find a job after this. I'm also weary of his flip flops to be honest. It's hard to take him seriously when his opinion shifts drastically so "often". Moreover his team don't have much experienced politicians or MNAs.

I think the PQ has the best idea for the Plan Nord. Mineral ressources are non renewable and as such you should really tax more companies that are exploiting them. Trained and specialized employees can be found worldwide but natural ressources are localized and gone once you mine them they are gone. I also prefer their plan for universities. As someone that attended university as an undergrad, grad student, researcher and instructor I feel that a summit on the state and future of the system is required. Simply raising fees isn't a viable solution when there are management issues. Statu Quo until the summit would help maintain peace and calm too. Tactics wise, Marois is probably the best to stand up against Charest too. I also approve her plan to get rid of the regressive health tax and to replace it by a progressive one. On the other hand, I'm not really fond of their plans for Cégeps and I think their secularity charter needs a bit more work. Benhabib's idea is actually the best one regarding this and I actually found interesting what Chantal Hébert had to say about that on her blog. State should be completely neutral. I sure don't like how Marois has a tendency to commit mistake or step on mines too.

Let see how both will perform in the next 4 days :O
 

Vamphuntr

Member
The debate is really awful so far. It's really hard to follow them because they don't answer the questions but instead attack each others with the topic at hand. They've calmed down a bit but man at some point they all looked like a bunch of monkeys. Disappointed that Françoise David is doing the same.
 
The debate is really awful so far. It's really hard to follow them because they don't answer the questions but instead attack each others with the topic at hand. They've calmed down a bit but man at some point they all looked like a bunch of monkeys. Disappointed that Françoise David is doing the same.

That's why you don't watch the debates to get answers. You watch the debates to play Debate Bingo.

It's the same in every federal election...
 

SRG01

Member
That's why you don't watch the debates to get answers. You watch the debates to play Debate Bingo.

It's the same in every federal election...

Yep, no one watches debates to determine who they're going to vote for. Most have already solidified their choice prior to the event.

It's like what empty vessel said in another thread: political interviews are toxic to the system.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Yep, no one watches debates to determine who they're going to vote for. Most have already solidified their choice prior to the event.

It's like what empty vessel said in another thread: political interviews are toxic to the system.

Eh, I don't think that's true at all. People do, in part, use personality and how a politician interacts with others to decide who to vote for, and for most people debates are their main opportunity to see those traits in a relatively unfiltered way. I don't think politics would be better off without them at all.

Occasionally you get someone like Harper who can manage to sound like a reasonable human being for 2 hours every couple of years while being an autocratic dickhead most of the rest of the time, but most politicians aren't that good at it.
 

Kurdel

Banned
I already have read the published plotical platforms. Unless something big goes down at the debate, I am still undecided.

Except for CAQ platform. Won't waste my time, considering I don't agree with their fundamental proposition. Plus, waaaaay to long.

another+didnt+read+.gif+_972be63db9e3c24191d4d3b663164905.gif
 

SRG01

Member
Eh, I don't think that's true at all. People do, in part, use personality and how a politician interacts with others to decide who to vote for, and for most people debates are their main opportunity to see those traits in a relatively unfiltered way. I don't think politics would be better off without them at all.

Occasionally you get someone like Harper who can manage to sound like a reasonable human being for 2 hours every couple of years while being an autocratic dickhead most of the rest of the time, but most politicians aren't that good at it.

But... isn't personal interaction better served by the summer barbeque circuit and town halls?
 

Vamphuntr

Member
I feel dizzy just listening to it. The 4 of them are completely unbearable but I have to say Françoise David annoy me less but I won't vote for her though.

There are some good punches in there from everyone though.

Everyone are repeating the same thing:

Charest: boo hoo Marois and Legault were together before and failed. I'm so good at the economy (negative job growth this month).

Marois : We have to take care of our old people our poor old people but don't ask me anything about finances.

Legault : Oh we need to clean up the government. Did I say anything about getting rid of corruption, yet (said he would do it 6 times already). I'm going to help the government and the economy by making 7k-10k lose their job.

David : This debate isn't good. I'll try to answer the questions. I have nothing to lose so I'll attack all 3 and sell my dream for the province as I will never have the power.
 

Kifimbo

Member
I feel dizzy just listening to it. The 4 of them are completely unbearable but I have to say Françoise David annoy me less but I won't vote for her though.

There are some good punches in there from everyone though.

Everyone are repeating the same thing:

Charest: boo hoo Marois and Legault were together before and failed. I'm so good at the economy (negative job growth this month).

Marois : We have to take care of our old people our poor old people but don't ask me anything about finances.

Legault : Oh we need to clean up the government. Did I say anything about getting rid of corruption, yet (said he would do it 6 times already). I'm going to help the government and the economy by making 7k-10k lose their job.

David : This debate isn't good. I'll try to answer the questions. I have nothing to lose so I'll attack all 3 and sell my dream for the province as I will never have the power.

The only grown-up discussions are between Legault and David. Respectul, sometimes even insightful.

The only impact I'm seeing after tonight: David will steal some votes from Marois. The latter is weak tonight. Could change after the three one-on-one debates.
 

Vamphuntr

Member
The only grown-up discussions are between Legault and David. Respectul, sometimes even insightful.

The only impact I'm seeing after tonight: David will steal some votes from Marois. Could change after the three one-on-one debates.

I can't say I agree with the discussions being good being the two. Halfway through the debate Legault was talking about Marois to David and she had to say that she wasn't Marois lol.

All 3 big party leaders sucked from my point of view. I wonder what the analysts will say after the debate as they all got KOed. many times.
 

Kifimbo

Member
I can't say I agree with the discussions being good being the two. Halfway through the debate Legault was talking about Marois to David and she had to say that she wasn't Marois lol.

I think that was really smart by Legault. He knows David can steal votes from Marois, and he often gave David the opportunity to explain her policies and tell the viewers why they are different (and better) then Marois.

Journal de Montréal online poll - Who lost the debate ?

Jean Charest (23%)
Pauline Marois (55%)
François Legault (17%)
Françoise David (5%)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom