The Liberal government of PM Paul Martin has just been defeated on a motion of no confidence in the House of Commons (171 to 133). Tomorrow the Prime Minister will visit the Governor General to officially request an election that will be held sometime around 23 January. Canadians will decide between a Liberal government that has been in power too long and a very conservative Conservative Party that Canadians are not too sure they trust, at least not their leader who sometimes appears to be a Bush wannabe. Polls indicate it will be another minority government but its not clear which party will form it. So we will have a holiday season mixed with Christmas Carols and Election advertisements. eek!

[ November 28, 2005, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: swiminbuff ]

Oh! Those wild and crazy Canadians!

The election will be on January 23. If it becomes about issues, then I'm quite certain that the Liberals will win another minority, perhaps even a small majority. If, however, it just becomes a poll on the sponsorship scandal, I expect a Conservative minority.

Other than the scandal, few people can find major fault in how the Liberals have governed in the last decade. The economy is strong. Most Canadians agree with not going into Iraq. Health care is a concern, but most Canadians feel that the the Conservatives will allow more private health care rather than incease funding for public health care. Most Canadians agree with Canada implementing the Kyoto Protocol rather than scrapping it like Stephen Harper wants. Canadians in general either support gay marriage or don't care, only the Conservative's core want it abolished. While the Liberals can be blamed for bringing the Quebec separatist movement back to the front burner, they still have more credibility in Quebec than the Conservatives who alienate Quebecers with their hard line approach.

So, all I expect to hear from Stephen Harper is Gomery, Gomery, Gomery.

I just hope that the Canadian public demands that the issues facing the country be discussed rather than past misdeeds be rehashed and vote with their heads and not with their tempers.

Rex

[ November 29, 2005, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: REX ]

Vote for Svend in Vancouver Centre!

I saw today that Harvard Kennedy School professor Michael Ignatieff will be resigning his post there to run as a Liberal for one of the posts in the Toronto area. He wants to reform the Liberals, and according to this New York Observer piece, he has good odds not only of winning, but of joining the Liberal leadership. Do Canadians think Harper has any chance of taking over? Would canning Martin, who's supposedly up in the polls, actually help the Liberals?

sounds like he's another Bush apologist

would Canadians elect someone who is pro-Iraqi war

He is a Bush wanna be and no Canadians want no part of Iraq, but it will be a long election campaign with lots of opportunities for all the party leaders to screw up. Most polls show Harper is not personally popular or really trusted so a lot will depend on the campaign and how important the sponsorship scandal is seen by election day. It appears that no matter who wins it will be another minority government as neither Martin or Harper are extremely popular. Today Harper talked about re-opening the same sex marriage debate if elected and that did not win him much praise. Its done and over with and hell did not freeze over is the opinion of most Canadians. It was probably said in order to continue receiving donations from American Family Assoc and similar groups.

I hope the Conservatives do not come into power in the upcoming election. I hope Canadians see the mess American conservaties have created in this country. You do not want your country run by neo-conservative greedy morally bankrupt politicians like we have here.

There is no possibility the Conservatives will come into power. They are a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT party than the Progressive Conservatives who have held power in the past. Different people, different corporate entity. The creatures that call themselves Conservatives now are basically a Western Separatist party of lily-white evangelical nutbars, (and no, I don't have anything against PROGRESSIVE Conservatives, christians, or white people.)

The balance of power in Canada is such that no party can win power without a lot of seats in Quebec and the Conservatives, as such, have never won a seat there. Their obvious contempt of Quebec hasn't helped.

Thanks for the information. I am going to try and keep up with what is going on up there.

A Conservative win would be the death of Canada.

The Liberal party announced Marc Garneau, former astronaut (the first Canadian in space), as a candidate in Quebec, an attempt to bolster their flagging support in Quebec.

I don't see any majority happening in this election, and may even throw my vote the Liberal way (I usually vote NDP) just to retain the current balance of power. That Layton allied himself with his antithesis Stephen Harper in bringing down the gov't and inciting this premature election, is enough to make me lose faith in that party.

[ November 30, 2005, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: canmark ]

Wow! Is Svend running again?! And no longer in Burnaby!

Although he went through that weird episode with the stolen ring, I still have a soft spot for Svend...

In 1987, I was a teenager attending a forum for young Canadians in Ottawa and the the very handsome Member of Parliament took the time to say a few words of encouragement to me. Although I did not know it at the time, it must have been my gaydar ringing!... A year later, he became Canada's first openly gay MP. No wonder I liked him!

Maybe his gaydar was pinging, too?

Just out of curiosity, how much tactical voting goes during Canadian elections?

Seems like it would be a good idea this time for NDP supporters to vote Liberal in many Ontario ridings, Conservatives to vote PQ in Quebec, and for Liberal voters to throw their support to the NDP when the Tory/NDP margin is less than 5%. Probably not a good idea for anyone in the 3-way marginals of course.

Edit to add: Since I'm going to be in Vancouver this weekend, do you think anyone will notice if I start stealing candidate lawn signs?? eek!

[ December 01, 2005, 08:02 AM: Message edited by: BPT-336 ]

The bloc should gain 1 or 2 seats in Québec, but that's about it. Last time they came real close to beating Pettigrew and Frulla, and they might do it this time.

Unfortunately, i do not see the "hoped" breakthrough here in the Outaouais. I hope it will happen, but i do not think so.

Once again the corrupt liberals will get in power, because most NDP supporters will throw their votes to the Liberals in order for the Conservatives NOT to get in.

IMO, the Conservatives have no chance in hell of winning.. their popularity has peaked at 30% (even during the heat of the sponsorship scandal). I do love reading other users' opinions on here though, because they seem to see things TOTALLY different as how we see them here in Québec

Okay, I'm curious about the weight that Quebec has in the voting. Is it solely because of population (and has Quebec's population growth kept pace with the rest of Canada) or is it because of other considerations written into Canada's Constitution? Also, do the maritime provinces have any say? Is Alberta the main Western province that goes its own way, or do Manitoba and Saskatchewan also operate like this? Also, what sort of influence does British Columbia have? Is it the third most populous after Ontario and Quebec? Just wondering.

(Actually I just checked and found out that Quebec is the second most populous province, with 24% of the population, but I also was surprised that both Calgary and Edmonton are larger cities than Vancouver! I always thought of Vancouver as the third major city in Canada.)

[ December 01, 2005, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

It's the arbitrariness of city boundaries which makes Calgary and Edmonton larger than Vancouver. Unlike the Alberta cities which have annexed their most of their suburbs to them, Vancouver remains surrounded by satellite cities.
They're bigger than Vancouver in the same sense that Jacksonville is bigger than San Francisco. Vancouver has a healthy lead in metro area population. Calgary is growing insanely fast, though.

BC is the third most populous province, Alberta fourth. 85% of Canada's population is in those four provinces and over half of it in the Golden Horseshoe (Toronto & environs), Montreal, Vancouver and Calgary metro areas. In recent years, all the western provinces have been a largely Conservative block, though you have typically seen scattered NDP's in the west, other than Alberta.

Nice of Stephen Harper to announce his party would revisit the Same sex marraige debate. And the timing! He makes his announcement on the very same day one of the pukes who beat Aaron Webster to death gets out of jail after serving his oh so stiff 2 year sentence.

I phoned the constituency offices of my MP (Lee Richardson) as well as that of Stephen Harper this week to express my displeasure at the Tories' attempt to re-ignite the same-sex marriage debate. Enough already! I think even many Conservative supporters don't want to go down that road again. I was pleased to read this Calgary Sun column criticizing Harper's position.

Re: Svend Robinson, politics is in the man's blood, so I wasn't surprised when he announced his intention to run again. But instead of running in Burnaby isn't he going up against Liberal incumbent Hedy Fry, who herself has proven to be a strong supporter of gay rights?

I think we are headed for another Grit minority, albeit an even smaller one. Even though I have voted for the Liberals in the past, I can't bring myself to do that again. Sure they gave us same-sex marriage, but that is not the only issue that matters. Obviously the sponsorship scandal has made me lose faith in them, but so have other issues such as their poor handling of the case of Canadians being tortured in Syria and a journalist being murdered in Iran. On principle I will not vote for the Conservatives, and the Bloc is not an option outside Quebec. That leaves the NDP and Green Party, and I've really started to warm up to Jack Layton over the past year or so. There is no such thing as 'strategic voting' in Alberta, the result in most ridings is a foregone conclusion (Conservative), so unlike Ontario I don't need to worry about my NDP vote helping the Conservatives win federally.

Re: city size, as JC said (hello fellow Calgary resident, by the way ) the population figures are distorted by the boundaries used. Although Calgary and Edmonton have recently passed the one-million figure, I think most people still regard Vancouver as Canada's third largest metropolitan area, with over two million inhabitants.

BPT, be advised that stealing or defacing candidate signs is highly illegal and you will face the full wrath of Canadian law...a beating from Todd Bertuzzi and immediate deportation to the country of your origin!

Well we (Québec) have not elected a prime minister in a while because we keep voting Bloc and there's no way the Bloc can ever win majority because they only have MP's here in Québec. This year we have 53 MP's in Ottawa, and with the upcoming election we are hoping to go up to 57-58, but realistically we are thinking about 54-55. It would be a big deception if they got less, but we'll see. The rest of the people in Québec elect Liberal MP's (like here in my riding in the Outaouais region, which has always been liberal because everyone has jobs in ottawa and are scared of losing their job).

Whether people like to admit it or not, the Bloc has a great leader in Gilles Duceppe. The guy is a bit of a geek, but he's a huge sports fan (really knows his baseball apparently) and is respected by all, even though he's the leader of a seperatist party.

Quebec is an important spot for the liberals because they know the Conservatives do not get seats here (they are so outdated) and the liberals have a few strongholds here (outaouais and Westmount in Montreal most notably).

Ontario is the liberals' fortress, and the west is the Conservatives'.

It should be a very interesting election.

The conservatives are morons. Total total morons. It's like they are always asking to lose. They KNOW they will get the religious extremists' vote, so why even go there? They bring out an issue which has already been resolved and say they are going to make a free vote on it. f**k them.

Seriously, they just lost a percentage of the population's vote, and it's only the second day of the elections.

They peeked at 30% a few months ago, and have never been able to go over that 30%.. and they will not.

My prediction: liberal minority.

eek! eek! Ok, I'll behave!!! eek! eek!

I thought a former assistant of his ran and won his old seat and that he didn't want to challenge the former assistant

The latest plot twist sees PM Martin suggesting a Liberal-NDP alliance, with Buzz Hargrove, head of the Canadian Auto Workers, endorsing the Libs. Toronto Star article.

After former US ambassador Paul Cellucci's comments a couple years ago, the Bush administration's displeasure with Canada became evident again when current ambassador David Wilkins waded into our election campaign by blasting Paul Martin for comments he made about US environmental policy last week in Montreal. Of course the differences go a lot deeper than that (Iraq, softwood lumber, social policy, etc). Wilkins basically told Canada to 'mind its Ps and Qs', or else we will be next on the invasion list (OK, I made up that last part ).

Wilkins' comments don't seem to have damaged the Liberals' election chances, if that was what the Bush administration had hoped to achieve. In fact, even Stephen Harper, the Conservative leader who the Republicans would clearly prefer to have as the new PM here, seems to have wakened up to the reality that aligning himself too closely with the US could cost him a lot of votes in the January 23 election.

In this Toronto Star article, Harper tries to distance himself from the praise heaped on him by the conservative Cato Institute in Washington, even trying to show he is more moderate on the same-sex marriage issue than many US politicans.

[ December 14, 2005, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Marc ]

Harper got NAILED in both the French and english "debates" this week on the same sex marriage question.

He wants to reopen the debate and let the Canadians vote freely to determine if gays should be allowed to marry, and all 3 other parties are totally opposed to this and say the debate has been resolved already and we should move on to others things. Now the funny is that Harper would have already married gay people keep their status as married, but not allow other gay marriages. Ridiculous.

In the french debate, a question from a guy in Montréal was: "what would be your reaction if one of your children come out and tell you he or she is gay". Harper did anything but answer the question.. he just said he loves his children.

I do wish him that. Unfortunately, i don't wish THEM that.

I agree Leph, this comment from Harper was bizarre. Under his plan, there would be two 'classes' of gay citizens. I suppose it was his way of trying to appear conciliatory to those who have already married. Equally strange was his claim that he could somehow restore the 'traditional definition' of marriage without using the 'notwithstanding clause' when nearly every legal scholar has said would be virtually impossible. Even some who have opposed same-sex marriage in the recent past (which by the way, includes some Liberals, not just Conservatives) are now saying it's time to move on and not revive this divisive issue.

well everything is up in the air now.. it's crazy.. i love elections so much.

The first debates went by, no one cared.. they weren't even debates as candidates could not interact with each other. Everyone wanted it that way except Gilles Duceppe (Bloc).

Then this week, Harper is scoring major points in Québec by actually saying he recognizes Québec as distinct and they should have a voice in the world, and he bashes the liberal system and the fiscal imbalances.

Then Duceppe challenges Martin to a Debate one on one.. knowing fully well that if Martin accepts, Paul Martin and the Liberals are dead meat.. Then what happens? Harper challenges DUCEPPE to a debate.. and Duceppe says it's not necessary, looking bad in the process. WHY? i admit i'm a Bloc and PQ voter, but i did not understand why Duceppe would refuse a french debate with Harper (who didn't even understand 2 questions in french in the last debate).. it makes himself look real bad.

I don't get it.

I'm starting to hope for a Conservative minority government with a STRONG ndp and bloc representation.

Not exactly related to the election, but one of the top stories on the news tonight: Supreme Court OKs sex clubs. What will Harper and the Conservatives response to this be, I wonder? The cases in question involved hetero swingers clubs in Montreal. Now it's predicted that sex clubs will be popping up all over the country.



[ December 21, 2005, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: canmark ]

in a new poll, the bloc is now at 60% in Québec.. if an election was held today, they would sweep and liberals would hold only 7 or 8 seats. Even PAUL MARTIN would be in danger of losing his seat.

eek!

Leph75 posted:

Could you explain your reason for this. Other than a purely franco-centric point of view I can't imagine how this would be a good thing for Canada as a whole. Granted I am not fully knowlegable of the parliamentary form of government so maybe there is an angle that I am missing. It's my understanding that the ruling party decides what legislation is presented. Even if they presided as a minority in coalition with the Bloc and/or NDP, who seem to have diametrically oposing social opinions with the Tories, they would still control what legislation is presented and the direction of the country. From what I've seen of Stephen Harper's platform, gay marriage repeal is one of the least worrisome planks of his party. Not being a Quebecer or even a Canadian (unfortunately) I may not understand the issues fully, but I can't imagine that a conservative government could be a positive thing for Quebec considering the Tory's previous hostility toward the province.

I would like to hear the Canadian arguement for a Conservative/Bloc/NDP coalition government. Since it is a very real posibility that I may become a Canuk at some point in the future, it's the very least I can do to understand the politics.

Leph is a separatist, therefore he couldn't give 2 shits about Canada.

As for a Conservative/Bloc coalition gov't? It might work short term, but Harper will get creamed in the next election, as the rest of Canada will see him as consorting with traitors.

And yes, I said traitors. That doesn't mean that my opinion is that strong, but the majority of Canadians see it that way.

Conservative minority, with strong NDP and Bloc?

Yeah, that'd work! eek! Like for 3 and a half seconds. The sight of Stephen Harper in bed with Gilles Duceppe is exactly the type of sicko porn shot that shouldn't make it over any border!

Of course, did anyone see the photoshop picture of Jack Layton in a leather cap and harness, looking like a 1980's calendar boy?

If I may add something here, from a western Canada perspective I think that the best thing that could happen for the seperatist movement in Quebec would be the election of the Conservatives into government and Stephen Harper as Prime Minister. And most seperatists know this. A party who has a membership made up of people who are "tired of Quebec's whining" (their own words) and believe a tough policy on Quebec is better than compromise, can only help the seperatist movement.

I personally love Quebec and believe that they are a "Distinct Society" within Canada (even though many out west would disagree) and this country is greater because of it. If Quebec were to seperate, it would be disastrous for Quebec and Canada as well. Eventually both countries would recover and years later even prosper.

However, it would be two good countries at the expense of one great country.

Any of you interested in Harpers "vision" should read his speech to the U.S. Council for National Policy in 1997. Enlightening. I'd provide a link to it but I'm technologically illiterate. Just go to the CTV News website and do a search.

Any of you down south want to adopt him and take him off our hands? I'm sure he'll play real nice with Bush and his buddies...

Rex

What was particularly odd about that wasn't that he said that he loved his children, but that he had a DUTY to love his children. A very odd answer. I hope that my folks never felt that way about me only because they felt duty-bound to do so....

No f*ckin thanks Rex. We have more than our share of village idiots already, but thanks for the offer.

Those of us who live WAY down south in the land of Jeb (Florida) are living under a two-tier Bush regime. We're so deep in shit that we have to look up to see f*cked!

Now I would consider a trade. I think WE'D come out on the good side of that deal!

why thank you for thinking for me
Lksimcoe.

Your emotions in this matter of seperation makes you not even listen to what people have to say. You don't really seem to know my position in all this.

First off, yes i'm a seperatist, but does that mean that i hate canada or want Canada to go to hell? NO.
I love Canada. It's a great country to live in, and the people are great.

That being said, i think having the Conservatives in the minority would do what is desperately needed right now and that's a change in government. Only 1 party other than the Liberals can realistically win in the upcoming elections and that's the Conservatives.

The Conservatives have 1 thing in common with the bloc, and that's that they want to de-centralize and get the money OUT of ottawa and back to the provinces. The fiscal imbalance is ridiculous right now and the Liberals are clinging to it.
They are overtaxing Canadians and keeping the money in Ottawa. Changing that would be good for all provinces. We have to get the liberals' noses out of everyone elses businesses. They are impieding on the competency of provinces.

Getting them out, and having a strong NDP and Bloc representation would ensure that the Conservatives' social policies (like re-opening the gay marriage issue, WITHOUT using the not-withstanding clause, which won't happen) would not pass. This is why the Bloc and NDP are a key in having a strong representation. Those 2 parties voted in BIG part FOR gay marriage, in fact i think that only 4 Bloc MP's voted against and no NDP MP's voted against.

It's interesting to note that a LOT of liberal MP's still went against party line and voted against gay marriage.. and without the NDP and Bloc the motion would NOT have passed.

You all know where i will put my vote on January 23rd, and never would i personally vote for the Conservatives, BUT they are the only alternative right now and the liberals have to be put out of their misery. They have stolen enough money from the taxpayers, and are irresponsable.

BTW, for the Seperatist movement, i think the Liberals staying would be the best thing. I disagree with the other poster who said that Conservatives would help the seperatist cause.
Québecers will grow increasingly mad if the liberals continue to rule the country like they are right now. Conservatives would at least help Québec by decentralizing and giving back the competencies to the provinces (like health care and education). BTW, even the LIBERAL provincial premier Jean Charest is on the record saying that this cannot continue, and this week he was quoted as saying that he really likes Harper's plan for Québec.

Voila, hope i didn't piss off more people wink

[ December 22, 2005, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Leph75 ]

Why, do you think the sight of the Liberals stealing Taxpayers' money, of the prime minister investing his company's money OUTSIDE the country, of a sponsorship scandal.. a firearms scandal.. among many more.. is better?

I'm sorry if i disagree, but if there's one party destroying Canada, it's not the Bloc.. it's the Liberals. Right now, i'd rather see ANYONE but them in power.
ANYONE.

I won't comment right now as I would probably be very rude, and get banned.

Suffice to say that I am not in favour of the bloc-heads. Or Harper. Perhaps when I can type without saying what I want to say, un-edited, then I will.

I know how you will be voting, and I know how I will be voting.

Great! We'll be sending you Bush, Cheney, Rove, DeLay, Frist, Santorum, Drier and the rest of the Hee Haw gang just as soon as we can get them all together in a box! We'll even cover the postage!

You heard him gentlemen. Don't try to back out either Leph75! We have your statement recorded in writing and according to Judge Judy that's legal and binding!

I suppose, Leph, from a B.C. point of view, we're used to being stolen from and crapped on by the Federal Government as a matter of course. Liberal, Conservative, that part of it is virtually the same, and a lot of it is done under the guise of propping up Federalism and paying off Quebec. That's exactly what the sponsoship scandal was about: theft and pay-offs to Jean Cretiens's friends under the guise of national unity. It's an old song. Heard it before ( and no, I'm not blaming the people of Quebec for it.) If you think the real Conservatives (Progressive Conservatives) were any better, then think again. Mulroney (another one of yours. And how many of these Prime ministers have come from your province?) managed to sell out the RAILROAD, which is the only reason we got into Confederation in the first place. Shit, the election is decided before we even get to vote.

No, B.C. can't find the energy for the outrage over the sponsorship scandal that Quebec can. Good for you to get indignant over it: I commend your energy and convictions. But after over a hundred years of this sort of crap, I don't think we have the energy. It was a scuzzy political play, from politicians from your province (like it or not) playing with their scuzzy friends and paying off scuzzy Quebec business interests. Seen it before. Paid for it before. I don't blame the people of Quebec for it. But don't ask the west to vote for somebody who'd have had us in Iraq right now, somebody who thinks human rights are "special rights," somebody who embraces wingnut values, and somebody who would sell Canada right down the garden path to American business interests even before you get your precious independant country.

Nope, Leph, respectfully, if you want the creatures calling themselves Conservatives, you vote for them. I won't be.

[ December 23, 2005, 02:57 AM: Message edited by: chuckvanc ]

Oh, and I'm going to vote tomorrow. Did you know you can go down to your local Election Canada office and vote whenever you want to? You don't have to wait until the election, which is good, since I'm going on vacation!

Dont' even think it, UMrebel/Bucfan, we'll send them back, COD, return to sender, address unknown!

chuckvanc:

I know the scandal is not making waves outside of Québec like i think it should. The liberals have been trying since the beginning of the 90's to buy Québecers votes, and have spent a huge amount Canadian taxpayers' money to achieve this. All in the name of national unity.
Every move they make seems to be a strategy with Québec in mind. Look at the new Governor General.. she's from a visible minority and from Québec.

BTW, i'm surprised the West hasn't talked of seperation themselves. The system in place now, just doesn't work. Everyone BUT the liberals realize this.

As i said in my earlier post, i would never vote Conservative.. never. BUT, i want the liberals out at any cost, so the best thing i guess would be a Conservative MINORITY government with strong representation from the NDP and Bloc (who both have values similar to ours when it comes to gay marriage, war in irak, etc..). I think the Liberals come out looking way better on those issues than they really are. They say what people want to hear, but just take a glance at how many of them voted AGAINST gay marriage last time.

On January 23rd, my vote will not be for the Conservatives, it will be for the Bloc. A few of my friends who live across the river (in Ottawa) and cannot vote Bloc (and would if there was a candidate there) have all chosen NDP.
I must say that with the alternatives, i'm very happy to have the Bloc in Québec. I would not know what to vote for otherwise. And realistically, only the Liberals or Conservatives can form the new government.. which is terrible news once again.

There is plenty of talk and it's damn annoying. Alberta's annoying enough as is but it's kinda nullified with the 9 other provinces and 3 territories and all. But if it was just one half of a country? Aaaahhh!

And frankly, this NDP'er likes Canada as is and doesn't want to see any break-ups whatsoever. A country with a disatisfied government? Nah, never happens anywhere else.

even though the campaign has been slow these past few weeks, the winds have been turning against the liberals. In a poll this morning, it now looks like the Conservatives have a few points lead in the race, and in Québec (of all places), the Conservatives have now apparently TIED the liberals This is a shock, but not when you see the PERFECT campaign Harper has been leading here. The total opposite of Martin.

Martin and his minions (Lapierre, Pettigrew, Dion, Garneau) have been bashing seperatists non stop and people (even non seperatists) are clearly getting tired of their act. They are running a very bad train right now and it's about to miss the station.

So if Harper were to win, what would this mean for Canada? I did read somewhere that if the Liberals pulled out a win, that Alberta separatists would start banging their tin cans again.

Why can't the NDP ever win an election? Are they just too weak a party?

Do most of the people in Québec REALLY want to separate from Canada? What aren't they getting that they have to have short of independence? Do they really think they'd flourish as a small country with fewer people than the Dominican Republic and surrounded by two much larger English-speaking countries, one of which is considerably more conservative politically and the other quite angry at Québec's shenanigans? Who'd be the chief trading partner after Canada and the US? France? Vermont (which also has people who want to secede from the US)? Just wondering.

Well if Harper is to win, it most likely will be a minority government.. meaning that he will be under a leash. I would not personally want a MAJORITY Conservative government, but will take a minority conservative government if it means the liberals are taken out of power. As for the Alberta seperatists, the movement is still too small, but others living closer to it would probably be able to tell you more about it

yes.. they are 3rd in the race and not yet close enough to the top 2 to make an impact. A lot of people won't vote for them because they have no chance of winning.. it's like a vicious circle.

in the 95 referendum, it was 51.4% NO and 49.6% YES for seperation. Numbers vary, but i'd say that right now, they must be close to 50%. It seems like there are 40-45% DEFINITE yes and the rest just varies depending on what happens in politics. Those numbers are 60%+ for the YES when you take into account only francophone speaking Quebecers. The PQ still has a couple of years to talk to Quebecers about it and to plan it all out. They are not in power yet.

There might be a few years of turbulence at first (after seperation), but i sincerely believe that Québec would do fine on its own. Europe has tons of small countries, and we can take example on a country like Finland, who is as small as we would be. Québec also has the ressources. In terms of exports and finance, it's predicted they would be about 20th in the world.

Of course, there are lots of scare tactics used by those who do not want Québec to seperate, but i do think that 5-10 years down the road, the country would do fine and prosper.

I would certainly hope that it would require more than a simple majority to inact such a monumental decision as secession from a federal union. I can't imagine that it would be wise to make a move with such profound possible consequences because 50.1% of the province wanted to. Especially considering the fluctuation of opinion. I don't know what the requirements are, but it seems to me that it should require a super-majority approval from at least 2 provincial parliamentary sessions (separated by elections) and then a popular vote which I would think should also require a super-majority of possibly 60%. After all, we're not talking about voting for homecoming queen here we are talking about a country losing a valuable province as well as a province becoming a sovereign state.

How would this affect Quebec's place in the Commonwealth? Would they still owe allegiance to the British Crown? Their franco history, language and culture, separate from Canada, has virtually no connection to the crown so I can't imagine why they would want to.

Just one of the many questions that this American has about his possible future home.

[ January 06, 2006, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: UMRebel/Bucfan ]

Thank you!!! If a Canadian who wishes Canada to remain united were to say that 50 percent plus 1 isn't enough to separate, they would be accused of being anti-democratic by the separatists. It is obvious that in order to legally, morally, wisely separate you need a convincing, preferably massive majority to do so. That number is debateable ... excuse my spelling ... The mechanics of separation are not clearly stated (if at all) in our constitution and that fight promises to be almost uglier than actual separation.

What I mean by that is if a massive majority (say 75% give or take) voted for separation, then the will of the people is pretty clear. The two sides would then negotiate the details (ie. national debt, currency, the armed forces, use of passports etc.) and a new nation would be born.

As a son of parents from Hungary, I fully understand the desire of national independence and pride in ones culture. Hungary for most of its 1000 years has been a "province" of one empire or another. It has been an independent country for very short periods of time, yet has always kept its culture totally distinct from any of its occupiers (not that I'm suggesting that Quebec is being occupied). When the Iron Wall fell and Hungary became truely independent it was awesome and the feeling (even for me) was indescribable. In Quebec the feelings of national, ethnic, cultural (or whatever) pride are very similar.

So with a clear majority they have the moral authority to divide a great nation and create their own country, which as I said in an earlier post would eventually prosper.

However, if that majority is thin, then chaos. Any reasonable person can see this.

I don't believe that a massive majority of Quebecers want to separate, and neither do the separatists which is why they will never agree on a reasonable minimum standard to separate. They always have said, and seemingly always will say that 50% plus 1 is all they need.

If however, I'm wrong and the vast majority of Quebecers desire their own country, then the birth of a new country would be a great thing (despite the difficulties Canada would face in the process).

Hope this rant makes sense !

Rex