Quebec Debate Thread

[Pierre the Great]

I'm watching it on cpac english translation.

I'm interested in this.

[Pierre the Great]

First topic Health care

[Pierre the Great]

Next topic Environment

[Pierre the Great]

Economy

[Jean]

I was starting to have doubts about the ADQ and this debate confirmed them. Dumont rocks as a leader but they're is too many holes in his program. You,re not ready to govern yet Mario, come back in 4 years.

Boisclair wasnt as bad as I expected him to be but I just CANT stand his arrogant, prick attitude. The guy love himself and he had no respect for his opponents

Charest did a good job staying positive amd defending his governement. I'm not 100% satisfied with him but I prefer the status quo to the unknown (Dumont) or another ***ing referendum

[Pierre the Great]

Yeah Boisclair looked arrogant to me. When did the PQ become this way? lol I thought it was the party of the middle class, anyway. Charest reminded me of a fat cat trying to talk. I don't know what it is but I got that impression. Maybe its the lack of his neck, he talks very stiffly and when he was talking he it looked like it was just his mouth moving, no emotion.

Dumont and Boisclair I swear are long lost cousins or something. Can't tell them apart.

[Cataclaw]

I could go into pages and pages of detail, but here's a summary if you missed it:

ADQ

----

1. Dumont looked like a total clown. Boisclair *dismantled* him on many occasions. Dumont was totally humiliated... it was sad to see. I felt sorry for the guy. Lacked confidence and some of his more "passionate" moments seemed fake and artificial. I've seen better public speakers in high school. It's a pity because i was kind of rooting for the guy, you know, the underdog and all that..

2. The ADQ plan seems very sketchy. It seems full of ideas but no actual substance, as Boisclair and Charest were quick to point out.

PQ

----

1. Boisclair is a total a!$hole. Seriously, i wanted to get up and punch the man through the TV. Always cutting others off, being overly presumptious, arrogant and much too aggressive. It's like he thought he was judge, jury and executioner. Charest finally had enough of him in the second half and said "Eille, on peut tu parler icitte svp? C'est quoi votre probleme?" Funny moment, and it put Boisclair back in his place.

2. PQ's plan seems very short-term oriented, with little regard to the long term. Ripping Charest for investing in the economy instead of more social programs, ignoring the logic that long-term benefits from a strong economy allow *greater* overall gains in social areas. Sounds very similar to previous PQ gov'ts, and we all know what they did... scary stuff.

3. Credit where credit is due, he *was* quite confident and a good speaker, his annoying qualities asside.

PLQ

----

1. Charest was calm and collected, the only of the three that looked "prime ministerial".

2. Nothing amazing, but no blatant mistakes.

My ratings:

Charest: B+

Boisclair: C-

Dumont: F

Edited March 14, 2007 by Cataclaw

[Pierre the Great]

lol no kidding about Dumont with his throwing his arms around constantly. He acted like he was on a sugar high. He should have given whatever he drank to Charest because he looked like was falling asleep.

Funny about environmental issues they really never had any sort of congestion plan i.e. more transit etc.

[Cataclaw]

Lol, yes.

Dumont's hand gestures were something to behold.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Cataclaw

[JoeLassister]

I totally disagree with you Cataclaw. If only Charest and Dumont would have give some LITTLE answers to Boiclair on ANY questions he asked, maybe he wouldn't have cut them off all the time. Boiclair was the only one to face the questions and answer all the time.

Charest and Dumont were both walking around the question and wasting time by not responding it.

When you ask Jean Charest the simple question "Will you raise the day-care centers costs during a second mandate?" and you're not even able to get a "yes/no" answer or any kind of information, I think you're allowed to re ask the question and cut Charest pathetic answer.

Boiclair A-

Charest B

Dumont disqualified for being such a clown all debate long and throwing a cheap shot with the viaduc thing

I would be happy if the ADQ stop existing after march 26, this is just ridiculous how they look

The way I see it, students and syndicated workers, specially nurses, will not vote for Charest, only fools will vote for ADQ and Dumont, so Boiclair and the Parti québécois will be elected as a minotiry government.

Edited March 14, 2007 by JoeLassister

[Pierre the Great]

I never understood the three guys arguing on who could get more money from Ottawa. Can Quebec not be self sufficient? For all the sovereignty talk, how would Quebec survive on it's own when they can't support themselves without billions of dollars from the 'Rest of Canada'. Seems a little spoiled to me. I've never seen a debate like that, 3 guys arguing who can get the most money from the federal government.

[simonus]

I never understood the three guys arguing on who could get more money from Ottawa. Can Quebec not be self sufficient? For all the sovereignty talk, how would Quebec survive on it's own when they can't support themselves without billions of dollars from the 'Rest of Canada'. Seems a little spoiled to me. I've never seen a debate like that, 3 guys arguing who can get the most money from the federal government.

i'm not as up to date on canadian politics as I used to be... but there's an element to the equation that you are not allowing for, pierre. Quebec does pay money into the federal government. I don't know if QC is a net subsidizer or net subsidizee, but it is not illogical for a separatist politician to want to get federal appropriation dollars until such time that Quebec no longer pays intothe federal system

[Pierre the Great]

I just don't get it I guess. They want billions and billions yet they've never asked what are they going to do on their own. Maybe it's just the american in me, for some reason the logic just doesn't make sense. And to top that off they politicians seemed to be very proud of that fact. Again never understood why you would want to be proud of something like that. To me it comes off as a spoiled needy kid who after high school hasn't learned to live on his own so he or she instead lives off their parents.

Now I'm saying all provinces are guilty of this not just Quebec, but to pride oneself in saying I got the most money is bizarre. Freeloading is not responsible governance.

[Bacchus]

I just don't get it I guess. They want billions and billions yet they've never asked what are they going to do on their own. Maybe it's just the american in me, for some reason the logic just doesn't make sense. And to top that off they politicians seemed to be very proud of that fact. Again never understood why you would want to be proud of something like that. To me it comes off as a spoiled needy kid who after high school hasn't learned to live on his own so he or she instead lives off their parents.

Now I'm saying all provinces are guilty of this not just Quebec, but to pride oneself in saying I got the most money is bizarre. Freeloading is not responsible governance.

Like simonus said, Quebec pays a lot in to the pot. Now they are trying to get back as much as possible. Quebec, for the most part, puts more in the pot than it gets back. Ontario, Alberta, Quebec and BC are the big provinces in terms of how much they put in. Others take out way more than they put in.

Another aspect of this debate is that the provinces want to be big boys and decide for themselves how they spend their dough, and the federal government wants to continue deciding for them. So part of the debate is about pulling out as much as possible: meaning, taking power back from the federalist government.

The US political system is way different from the Canadian system. There is a lot of subtelties ... you'd have to study for quite a while to figure out most of it. I've followed it my whole life and I still don't know most of what goes on.

BTW, Syndica is UNION on English. I hope that the unions continue to take a serious ass kicking in Quebec. Les Invasion de Barbars had it right on when it compared the unions to gansters in Quebec. Also, students need to have their asses kicked a bit too. They always want things for cheap, but they don't care about the watering down of the entire education system. You pay for what you get is not alwasy completely wrong. A little more paying would go a lond way to making things better.

Also, I think more aggressive stances need to be taken on students. Too many students reep the rewards of a cheap education system in Quebec, and then leave to greener pastures. Students should be held accountable for this. If they get a cheap education they should continue to work in the province for 5 out of 10 years, or something like that.

[/rant]

[Pierre the Great]

Yes I know I have a lot studying to do. I'm not denying the fact. But from my schooling on the american system, we were taught that a confederation is doomed to fail. People don't realize that the US was a confederation before it was what it is now.

Now what I'm proposing would be to completely change the constitution. What was going on in the US before we ditched the confederation was that the individual states were acting like little countries. States were even printing their own money. Laws were completely different from one state to another.

The founding fathers and the country in general knew that the US wasn't going to survive as a nation.

So they made a mix system of state and federal rights.

Heck we even had a mass rebellion.

We were in trouble.

Without a strong federal centralized government Canada will splinter and fall apart.

[Bacchus]

Agreed ... but the point is "how strong". When decisions are made on how to educate our youth, when Quebec has some cultural differences, it risks being to invasive, and not being sensitive to particular needs. Balance is very important.

Furthermore, Canada is way more centralist that the US. The states have way more power than the provinces. In Canada, the cities have the least amount of power. Very problematic.

Also, unions can work ... at least they are working in Europe for the time being. Only time will tell the rest.

[Pierre the Great]

Yes Quebec is the question.

Canada has to be more centralized because its in a confederation. In a confederation the federal government has to be a drill sargent. The weaker the central government in a Confederation the more the provinces have power and the more they act like a mini-nation within a nation. That's what the problem was in the US. We had a federal government but they were completely powerless.

[Bacchus]

I don't like drill sargents. Don't like military life either. Most Canadians agree. Most Canadians do want the provinces to be so neutered as to be mere figureheads. The best way to get what you need is to have the people neer contral some power. Not people 2000 kms away who do not share or know your concerns.

Buddhe says, middle path is the way to enlightenment.

[Jean]

The 2 only net contributor to Canada $$$ speaking are Ontario and Alberta. Only those 2 dont get equalisation payments. All the other provinces get more cash back than they put in

[Dirty Harry]

The 2 only net contributor to Canada $$$ speaking are Ontario and Alberta. Only those 2 dont get equalisation payments. All the other provinces get more cash back than they put in

Equalisation is a big problem because it just encourages crappy provinces to keep making dumb decisions and run up deficits because they know ottawa will loot the other provinces and bail them out.

Our whole budget is based around this 20 billion $ payment.

We are a bunch of pathetic beggers and despite all that, are doing terribly economically. God forbid someone shows some restraint and cuts down on spending and taxes so the economy could grow well and we grow the wealth of the province that way, instead of nagging and whining at ottawa/alberta.