Languish.org

The Judean People's Front!

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/19/graeme-hamilton-pq-is-the-gift-that-keeps-giving-to-jean-charest/#more-51117

Quote
Graeme Hamilton: PQ is the gift that keeps giving to Jean Charest
Dario Ayala / MONTREAL GAZETTE

Graeme Hamilton  Sep 19, 2011 – 1:50 PM ET | Last Updated: Sep 19, 2011 11:02 PM ET

Anyone wondering how Quebec Premier Jean Charest manages to maintain his smile while the bad news piles up around him need look no further than the National Assembly's opposition benches.

Just when Mr. Charest seems to be on the ropes, the sovereigntists decide that their time would be best spent pummelling one another.

Last week was a disastrous one for Mr. Charest as the issue of corruption and organized crime in the provincial construction industry resurfaced with a vengeance. A leaked report from the Liberal government's own anti-collusion squad detailed how bikers and the Mafia had infiltrated the province's highway construction industry. Transport Department employees were ill-equipped to confront elaborate schemes aimed at defrauding the government, the report found. In some cases, civil servants were actually complicit in construction firms' collusion.

Yet Mr. Charest seemed remarkably unconcerned by the findings. At a news conference Friday, two days after they were first reported, he said he had not got around to reading the report in detail.

With the legislature resuming sitting this week, it looked like the Liberals were in for a rough ride. Parti Québécois leader Pauline Marois gave a foretaste Friday when she urged Mr. Charest to resign. His refusal to call a public inquiry was evidence that he was protecting his party, she said. "And in protecting the Liberal Party, Mr. Charest is protecting the mafia, he is protecting organized crime."

Fast-forward to Monday, and it is Ms. Marois who finds herself under attack — from within the separatist ranks.

Jean-Martin Aussant, a Member of the National Assembly who quit the PQ to sit as an independent in June, announced the birth of a new separatist party. He plans to call it "Option nationale" and promises it will not pussyfoot around the sovereignty question as he accuses Ms. Marois of doing. He unveiled his plans in his Nicolet-Yamaska riding, where the PQ riding executive up and quit to join his cause.

Mr. Aussant said he would offer "a sincere and committed" push to sovereignty, implying that the PQ's effort is anything but. "We need a new party that has a clearer message about sovereignty and, above all, is not afraid to lose an election because it is talking about sovereignty," he said. He accused the PQ of avoiding discussion of sovereignty in a bid to attract a broad cross-section of the electorate.

"Sovereignty is not a playful dream," he said. "It is really a fact that Quebec is going to develop better if it controls all its decisions and all its tools for development, as all countries in the world do, without ever regretting their sovereignty."

Granted, "Don't be afraid to lose" is not the most persuasive rallying call for a new political party. And for a trained economist, Mr. Aussant's economic arguments are a little porous. He complained that the federal government use Quebecers' taxes to subsidize Ontario's auto industry, Alberta's oil sands, "war jets" and "war frigates," but never mentioned the nearly $8-billion Quebec stands to receive from Ottawa this year in equalization payments.

Mr. Aussant's Option nationale remains a party of one for now, but one is plenty to inflict damage on Ms. Marois' already wobbly leadership. Four other dissidents have quit the PQ caucus since May, and she is unable to shake the complaints from hardliners like Mr. Aussant that she is not sufficiently committed to achieving Quebec's independence. Mr. Aussant's party will become the third separatist party with representation in the National Assembly, contributing to the impression of a splintering movement.

At a news conference Monday, Ms. Marois tried to return attention to Mr. Charest, promising to table a bill this week to create a commission of inquiry into the corruption allegations. But she was quickly back on the defensive after a question on the initiative of Mr. Aussant, who until last spring was considered a rising PQ star. "Dividing the sovereigntist vote does not move the country closer to sovereignty," she said.

This week had offered Ms. Marois a perfect chance to shift the focus from her leadership to Mr. Charest's, but Mr. Aussant decided otherwise. The rules of etiquette governing such situations are unclear, but at the very least Mr. Charest should send the member for Nicolet-Yamaska some flowers.

Oh look, the Gazette is gloating. Colour me surprised.

Heh.

QuoteLast week was a disastrous one for Mr. Charest as the issue of corruption and organized crime in the provincial construction industry resurfaced with a vengeance. A leaked report from the Liberal government's own anti-collusion squad detailed how bikers and the Mafia had infiltrated the province's highway construction industry. Transport Department employees were ill-equipped to confront elaborate schemes aimed at defrauding the government, the report found. In some cases, civil servants were actually complicit in construction firms' collusion.

Remember how pissed off you guys were to have Quebec branded as a province with a major organized crime and corruption problem?

You know, it doesn't really surprise me that the Quebec Liberals are corrupt.  Nor does it surprise me that absent a strong, respected leader like Bouchard or Parizeau that the PQ has a lot of infighting.  Sovereignty is a very big issue that can be come at from the left and the right, as well as by moderates and radicals.  I don't get as much Quebec news as the locals, but I've never read anything about Marois that indicates that she's the sort of leader that could hold the PQ together.

Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2011, 07:31:45 AM
Remember how pissed off you guys were to have Quebec branded as a province with a major organized crime and corruption problem?

That's a slight distortion of facts.
McLeans said we were the most corrupt province in the country, without any hard evidence.
There's still no evidence that Ontario or BC aren't as corrupt.

Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2011, 07:42:11 AM
I don't get as much Quebec news as the locals, but I've never read anything about Marois that indicates that she's the sort of leader that could hold the PQ together.

She's not.  She was not from the beginning, but she's power hungry, and it was her 3rd run to take the head of the party.  It was already weakened by the time she got it, there's not much more she could have done.
One faction wants an immediate referendum, well, a promise to hold a referendum as soon as the party gets to power, no governance, just a referendum.  Some want an election to declare sovereignty, some others say the idea should be on ice for a while and concentrate on making us stronger until we're ready.
Add the the hard left, majority in this party, trying to promote their agenda, a few centrists trying to go moderate on state's spending and you've got a recipe for disaster.

I doubt the PQ will survive the next election if Legault creates his party.  With the commies of Québec Solidaire, that just makes it 3 independantist parties (PQ, Parti Indépendantiste and Option Nationale).

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2011, 08:49:40 AM

Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2011, 07:31:45 AM
Remember how pissed off you guys were to have Quebec branded as a province with a major organized crime and corruption problem?

That's a slight distortion of facts.
McLeans said we were the most corrupt province in the country, without any hard evidence.
There's still no evidence that Ontario or BC aren't as corrupt.

I dunno. Where one's own gov't issues a report claiming a high degree of corrupt practices, that would seem to support the notion, no?

Could be that the other provinces are just as corrupt - but there is no evidence at all of that. Difficult to prove a negative!  :lol:

Perhaps an approach that would satisfy you would be "all of the publicly-available evidence released to date demostrates that Quebec is the most corrupt of the major provinces" with a footnote stating that it is possible that this finding is an artifact of the greater degree of scrutiny concerning corruption in Quebec. 

We would be more satisfied if the Toronto media would never talk about us.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 20, 2011, 09:17:24 AM
We would be more satisfied if the Toronto media would never talk about us.

I would have thought an excessive level of government corruption would be of interest to people in Quebec.  :hmm: After all, it's your money they are stealing, right?












Well, except for that $8 billion in transfer payments Quebec gets.

You obviously do not read the Quebec press... It is not as if we are suddenly, and miraculously discovering these things from the G&M:

Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2011, 09:11:58 AMI dunno. Where one's own gov't issues a report claiming a high degree of corrupt practices, that would seem to support the notion, no?

We had the same for the Federal, with Gommery.  I can't imagine a serious magazine claiming Canada is the most corrupt country of the world.

Quote
Could be that the other provinces are just as corrupt - but there is no evidence at all of that. Difficult to prove a negative!  :lol:

But then, there's no evidence that Quebec is the most corrupt province.  If there's a comparative study, I want to see it :)

Quote
Perhaps an approach that would satisfy you would be "all of the publicly-available evidence released to date demostrates that Quebec is the most corrupt of the major provinces" with a footnote stating that it is possible that this finding is an artifact of the greater degree of scrutiny concerning corruption in Quebec. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/05/18/bc-rail-corruption-trial.html

Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2011, 09:24:20 AM
Well, except for that $8 billion in transfer payments Quebec gets.

It'd be interesting to see a comparative study on everything :)
How much money does Ontario gets for a bid to the Olympics (8billion$ vs 2 million$ for Quebec city), how much money does Ontario get in Federal research grant compared to other provinces, how much money does Alberta's environmental practices will cost us in the long term, how much money did Ontario and the Maritimes receives for the HST (1billion for the Maritimes in the 90s, 4.3 billion for Ontario, a few billion for B-C even if they finally rejected the proposal) vs 0$ for Quebec, how much money did Ontario get from its automotive industry since the mid-90s vs 0$ for Quebec, why is the natural resource not counted for Alberta and Newfoundland but it is for Quebec when it comes to transfer and equalization payments, why do some provinces get loan guarantees from the Feds but not Quebec, etc, etc.

I'd like very much to get a factual comparison of federal spending in Ontario, let's just say Ontario, for the last 20 years vs Federal spending in Quebec for the last 20 years, excluding these silly flags we were getting for Canada day.  Then at least, we'd get a basis for discussion.  I might even agree with you and support your point.  Heck, I want to get rid of that silly equalization payment scheme.  It's just a tool for the Feds to keep the provinces in line: shut your mouth or we'll keep your money.

As it is right now, you're taking one number, for one year, and extrapolate it for 150years.  That methodology hurts the finance guy that I am.   :cry:

Provinces should perceive 100% of their taxes, and then pay the Feds for what they get. If Ontario wants a big Federal gov taking care of everything for them, then they pay accordingly.  If Quebec wants a small Federal gov, we pay only our fair share.

Besides how is $8 billion dollars very much money?

What next?  PEI is soaking the Feds for *zoom* ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2011, 10:17:38 AM
Provinces should perceive 100% of their taxes, and then pay the Feds for what they get. If Ontario wants a big Federal gov taking care of everything for them, then they pay accordingly.  If Quebec wants a small Federal gov, we pay only our fair share.

The day the Provincial PMs put their pants on we'll discover that this is the most unifying issue Canada as ever seen.

Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 10:19:06 AM
Besides how is $8 billion dollars very much money?

It's not so much the amount as a) that it comes out of their pockets and b) that it's intended for the whiny frogs.  Haven't you followed enough threads about Canada's internal wrangling to learn how biased English Canadians are when it comes to Quebec?



G.

I wonder, how does this relates to the Balkan?

Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2011, 07:31:45 AM
Heh.

QuoteLast week was a disastrous one for Mr. Charest as the issue of corruption and organized crime in the provincial construction industry resurfaced with a vengeance. A leaked report from the Liberal government's own anti-collusion squad detailed how bikers and the Mafia had infiltrated the province's highway construction industry. Transport Department employees were ill-equipped to confront elaborate schemes aimed at defrauding the government, the report found. In some cases, civil servants were actually complicit in construction firms' collusion.

Remember how pissed off you guys were to have Quebec branded as a province with a major organized crime and corruption problem?

Yes I remember. Your point?

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 20, 2011, 09:17:24 AM
We would be more satisfied if the Toronto media would never talk about us.

Bingo. In any way, positive or negative.

Regarding the corruption - it's real and it's widespread.  That detestable little crook, Jean Charest, a man I abominate almost to the level I abominate Muslims, has been busy over the last 8 years to undermine and weaken our people's national state.

That is what federalists do in Quebec: they attack their own people, their own institutions.  They preach resignation and assimilation.  All of which is done with a zeal no doubt fueled by the sure knowledge of what would happen to the lot of them come Independence: lined up against the wall and executed for treason.  <_<

I'm day-dreaming again.  *shakes head*

-----

It's so depressing.  To think we emerged from the Great Darkness in the 60s only to sink slowly into this... fossilized, decaying immobility - all in the space of 2 generations...  And without having realized our full potential as a people.

That's what we are: a still-born people.  :(





G.

Huh. So there is some kind of rampant corruption problem in Quebec, and the victims of that corruption are angry that people are talking about it, rather than being angry that they are being stolen from?

How very...provincial. It's kind of like domestic violence almost - sure, being abused is bad, but not nearly as bad as other people knowing about it!

Oh snap out of it already Grallon. Corruption has nothing to do with federalists or sovereignists and everything to do with basic human greed and fear.

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 11:34:53 AM
Huh. So there is some kind of rampant corruption problem in Quebec, and the victims of that corruption are angry that people are talking about it, rather than being angry that they are being stolen from?

How very...provincial. It's kind of like domestic violence almost - sure, being abused is bad, but not nearly as bad as other people knowing about it!

I am not sure where you are getting that from.  Having a problem with murder in your city, and recognizing that, doesn't mean you are delighted at your town being labelled 'murdercity'.

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 11:34:53 AM
Huh. So there is some kind of rampant corruption problem in Quebec, and the victims of that corruption are angry that people are talking about it, rather than being angry that they are being stolen from?

No  :mellow:

The press and people in general are up in arms since the report was leaked last week. I mean everybody heard stories about certain southern italian folks on construction sites, but this seems to reach right into the Transports Ministry.

QuoteHow very...provincial. It's kind of like domestic violence almost - sure, being abused is bad, but not nearly as bad as other people knowing about it!

Well, I'll leave you to debate this made up point on your own.

Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 11:38:15 AM

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 11:34:53 AM
Huh. So there is some kind of rampant corruption problem in Quebec, and the victims of that corruption are angry that people are talking about it, rather than being angry that they are being stolen from?

How very...provincial. It's kind of like domestic violence almost - sure, being abused is bad, but not nearly as bad as other people knowing about it!

I am not sure where you are getting that from.  Having a problem with murder in your city, and having a problem with it, doesn't mean you are delighted at your town being labelled 'murdercity'.

Yeah, but if I am living in a town where there appears to be an inordinate amount of murders, I would not really concern myself with what other people are saying about it nearly as much as I would be concerned about being murdered.

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 11:34:53 AM
Huh. So there is some kind of rampant corruption problem in Quebec, and the victims of that corruption are angry that people are talking about it, rather than being angry that they are being stolen from?

How very...provincial. It's kind of like domestic violence almost - sure, being abused is bad, but not nearly as bad as other people knowing about it!

What are you talking about?  Everyone wants full disclosure except that maggot Prime Minister who keeps the lid on it because he knows he, his party and his government would be blown out of the water should full light be shed on the extent of the problem.  And since he's been elected for 5 years nothing can be done until 2013 at least.  That's what he's banking on of course.




G.

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 11:40:24 AM
Yeah, but if I am living in a town where there appears to be an inordinate amount of murders, I would not really concern myself with what other people are saying about it nearly as much as I would be concerned about being murdered.

Pretty sure you can be concerned with more than one thing at once.  Where are you getting that Quebec is more concerned with people talking about the corruption than the corrupton itself?

Quote from: Zoupa on September 20, 2011, 11:40:19 AM

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 11:34:53 AM
Huh. So there is some kind of rampant corruption problem in Quebec, and the victims of that corruption are angry that people are talking about it, rather than being angry that they are being stolen from?

No  :mellow:

The press and people in general are up in arms since the report was leaked last week. I mean everybody heard stories about certain southern italian folks on construction sites, but this seems to reach right into the Transports Ministry.

QuoteHow very...provincial. It's kind of like domestic violence almost - sure, being abused is bad, but not nearly as bad as other people knowing about it!

Well, I'll leave you to debate this made up point on your own.

Ahhh, I guess the posters in this thread expressing annoyance that people are talking about this must have meant something else. Or the people, who shall remain unnamed, whose response to it being mentioned was to ask that the press not talk about Quebec at all.

Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 11:41:30 AM

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 11:40:24 AM
Yeah, but if I am living in a town where there appears to be an inordinate amount of murders, I would not really concern myself with what other people are saying about it nearly as much as I would be concerned about being murdered.

Pretty sure you can be concerned with more than one thing at once.  Where are you getting that Quebec is more concerned with people talking about the corruption than the corrupton itself?

Just talking about the people in this thread. I have no idea what people in Quebec in general are concerned about.

Berkut, you often do this. Make up an argument in your head, then proceed to demolish it and be all snide about it.

Quote from: Zoupa on September 20, 2011, 11:50:02 AM
Berkut, you often do this. Make up an argument in your head, then proceed to demolish it and be all snide about it.

Jesus, being called snide by Zoupa! That can't be good.

However, the argument isn't really about me, is it? I wonder why you would immediately try to turn this into some kind of personal thing when I ask you why you care more about people talking about corruption than the corruption itself? Hmmmm......

Oh shit, was I being snide again???

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 11:34:53 AM
Huh. So there is some kind of rampant corruption problem in Quebec, and the victims of that corruption are angry that people are talking about it, rather than being angry that they are being stolen from?

How very...provincial. It's kind of like domestic violence almost - sure, being abused is bad, but not nearly as bad as other people knowing about it!

Sure we can talk about that here but it isn't entirely has fun as the current subject at hand. Plus it would give the other Canucks more reason to laugh at us & we atleast want them to find it on their own.

Sometimes I wonder where all the money the rich people hold is & wtf are they doing with it.

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 11:54:29 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on September 20, 2011, 11:50:02 AM
Berkut, you often do this. Make up an argument in your head, then proceed to demolish it and be all snide about it.

Jesus, being called snide by Zoupa! That can't be good.

However, the argument isn't really about me, is it? I wonder why you would immediately try to turn this into some kind of personal thing when I ask you why you care more about people talking about corruption than the corruption itself? Hmmmm......

Oh shit, was I being snide again???

:lol: Ok man.

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 11:34:53 AM
Huh. So there is some kind of rampant corruption problem in Quebec, and the victims of that corruption are angry that people are talking about it, rather than being angry that they are being stolen from?

How very...provincial. It's kind of like domestic violence almost - sure, being abused is bad, but not nearly as bad as other people knowing about it!

who's angry here?

Grey Fox and Zoupa. They are so upset they are asking that the press stop talking about Quebec at all.

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 11:42:21 AM
Ahhh, I guess the posters in this thread expressing annoyance that people are talking about this must have meant something else. Or the people, who shall remain unnamed, whose response to it being mentioned was to ask that the press not talk about Quebec at all.

Malthus is not from Quebec.

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2011, 12:01:11 PM

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 11:42:21 AM
Ahhh, I guess the posters in this thread expressing annoyance that people are talking about this must have meant something else. Or the people, who shall remain unnamed, whose response to it being mentioned was to ask that the press not talk about Quebec at all.

Malthus is not from Quebec.

Malthus didn't ask that the press stop talking about Quebec though. I couldn't imagine why he would, especially since he doesn't seem to be the one upset in any case. More of a patronizing bemusement, I would say...

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 20, 2011, 11:56:41 AM
Sometimes I wonder where all the money the rich people hold is & wtf are they doing with it.

there's like 5 or 6 billionaires in the entire Quebec.  It's not like there's a ton of them evading taxes and all.  Even if you were to nationalize all their assets, it wouldn't cover the deficits for more than 1 or 2 years at the rate we're spending, and then, we'd be left with nothing.

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 12:02:13 PM
Malthus didn't ask that the press stop talking about Quebec though. I couldn't imagine why he would, especially since he doesn't seem to be the one upset in any case. More of a patronizing bemusement, I would say...

You're doing the lawyer stuff, à la Malthus.  Take one incomplete piece of data and extrapolate it for a totally different situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Quebec_sentiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Quebec_sentiment)

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 12:01:07 PM
Grey Fox and Zoupa. They are so upset they are asking that the press stop talking about Quebec at all.

I said the Toronto Media.

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2011, 12:03:36 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 20, 2011, 11:56:41 AM
Sometimes I wonder where all the money the rich people hold is & wtf are they doing with it.

there's like 5 or 6 billionaires in the entire Quebec.  It's not like there's a ton of them evading taxes and all.  Even if you were to nationalize all their assets, it wouldn't cover the deficits for more than 1 or 2 years at the rate we're spending, and then, we'd be left with nothing.

I meant it more generally then the 5 Billionaires of Quebec. Nor in a Tax evading mind set. I just wonder, wtf are they doing with their money.

Are we Russia, is our only way of generating wealth is to cheat the system at every corner?

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2011, 12:04:31 PM

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 12:02:13 PM
Malthus didn't ask that the press stop talking about Quebec though. I couldn't imagine why he would, especially since he doesn't seem to be the one upset in any case. More of a patronizing bemusement, I would say...

You're doing the lawyer stuff, à la Malthus.  Take one incomplete piece of data and extrapolate it for a totally different situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Quebec_sentiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Quebec_sentiment)

It is interesting that you demanded some kind of study to "prove" that corruption in Quebec was so much more an issue than elsewhere, and then turn around and cite this:

QuoteThere is a perception among the French language media in Quebec that an unfavourable depiction of Quebec by the media became especially prevalent in the years following the 1995 Quebec referendum on Quebec independence,[3][4] although there is no study or statistical evidence provided to back this assertion.

You seem to have rather flexible requirements for when you require statistical evidence to believe something...

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 20, 2011, 12:09:09 PM

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 12:01:07 PM
Grey Fox and Zoupa. They are so upset they are asking that the press stop talking about Quebec at all.

I said the Toronto Media.

Oh...is the Toronto media somehow worse than other media when it comes to statistically non-existent un-evidenced "bias"?

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 12:13:40 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 20, 2011, 12:09:09 PM

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 12:01:07 PM
Grey Fox and Zoupa. They are so upset they are asking that the press stop talking about Quebec at all.

I said the Toronto Media.

Oh...is the Toronto media somehow worse than other media when it comes to statistically non-existent un-evidenced "bias"?

Yes. This is Canada mate, the Toronto media is annoying entitled filth. Just ask CC.

To talk about the OP's subject. How long until Marois is forced out & Duceppe becomes First Comrade of the Socialist Republic of Quebec?

I'm going to turn this thread into an all out Quebec Political thread for the day.


What do you guys think of Francois Legault & his movement? He'll lose some traction once his party is up & running but I don't see how the Libs, Marois lead PQ & dieing ADQ can survive the next election cycle.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 20, 2011, 12:11:43 PM
I just wonder, wtf are they doing with their money.

Buying more expensive houses, cars & clothes, investing it various pension funds so they receive a fair return, starting new companies, financing research, financing hospitals&schools, generally creating jobs by their high consumption rates, etc, etc.

My ex girlfriend's son was working in a Diesel store in Montreal, he used to make tons of money with what he was selling to the rich customers visiting the store.  So that's what rich people do: make more money for themselves and everyone else around.

Quote
Are we Russia, is our only way of generating wealth is to cheat the system at every corner?

it's been like that for a while, you know.

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2011, 12:20:36 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 20, 2011, 12:11:43 PM
I just wonder, wtf are they doing with their money.

Buying more expensive houses, cars & clothes, investing it various pension funds so they receive a fair return, starting new companies, financing research, financing hospitals&schools, generally creating jobs by their high consumption rates, etc, etc.

My ex girlfriend's son was working in a Diesel store in Montreal, he used to make tons of money with what he was selling to the rich customers visiting the store.  So that's what rich people do: make more money for themselves and everyone else around.

Quote
Are we Russia, is our only way of generating wealth is to cheat the system at every corner?

it's been like that for a while, you know.

1774 or so.

:(

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 12:12:21 PM

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2011, 12:04:31 PM

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 12:02:13 PM
Malthus didn't ask that the press stop talking about Quebec though. I couldn't imagine why he would, especially since he doesn't seem to be the one upset in any case. More of a patronizing bemusement, I would say...

You're doing the lawyer stuff, à la Malthus.  Take one incomplete piece of data and extrapolate it for a totally different situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Quebec_sentiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Quebec_sentiment)

It is interesting that you demanded some kind of study to "prove" that corruption in Quebec was so much more an issue than elsewhere, and then turn around and cite this:

QuoteThere is a perception among the French language media in Quebec that an unfavourable depiction of Quebec by the media became especially prevalent in the years following the 1995 Quebec referendum on Quebec independence,[3][4] although there is no study or statistical evidence provided to back this assertion.

You seem to have rather flexible requirements for when you require statistical evidence to believe something...

read further, but most of all read correctly what you're quoting.  There's no statistical evidence that shows the anti-quebec sentiment to be stronger post 1995 than it was before.  The Anti-Quebec/French sentiments haven't really changed in Canada since the time of George Brown.  It's amazing how the arguments are mostly the same.

QuoteGraham Fraser, an English Canadian journalist noted for his sympathy for Quebec, has tempered both sides. "This phenomenon (of English Canadian Francophobia) exists, I do not doubt it; I have read enough of Alberta Report to know that there are people that think bilingualism is a conspiracy against English Canadians to guarantee jobs for Quebecers — who are all bilingual, anyway.", he wrote. "I have heard enough call-in radio shows to know that these sentiments of fear and rage are not confined to the Canadian west. But, I do not think these anti-francophone prejudices dominate the Canadian culture."[106]

And you got tons of references all troughout the text.  It's only a matter of debate if it dominates Canadian culture or not, not to its existence.

And having stats to demonstrate that a province systematically receives more money than all the others is one thing, having stats to demonstrate the feeling of a population is harder.  Just like you can get reliable stats on crime, but it's hard to get viable stats on the motivation of criminals.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 20, 2011, 12:27:40 PM
1774 or so.

:(

Remember your history lessons?  How trade with the English colonies was forbidden and those who dared sell their pelts to the English got branded as traitors?  That was a full century before 1774.

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2011, 12:30:20 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 20, 2011, 12:27:40 PM
1774 or so.

:(

Remember your history lessons?  How trade with the English colonies was forbidden and those who dared sell their pelts to the English got branded as traitors?  That was a full century before 1774.

eh, I forgot that.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 20, 2011, 12:14:24 PM
Yes. This is Canada mate, the Toronto media is annoying entitled filth. Just ask CC.

Actually, I quite like the Globe and get most of my news from that source.

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2011, 12:27:59 PM

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 12:12:21 PM

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2011, 12:04:31 PM

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 12:02:13 PM
Malthus didn't ask that the press stop talking about Quebec though. I couldn't imagine why he would, especially since he doesn't seem to be the one upset in any case. More of a patronizing bemusement, I would say...

You're doing the lawyer stuff, à la Malthus.  Take one incomplete piece of data and extrapolate it for a totally different situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Quebec_sentiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Quebec_sentiment)

It is interesting that you demanded some kind of study to "prove" that corruption in Quebec was so much more an issue than elsewhere, and then turn around and cite this:

QuoteThere is a perception among the French language media in Quebec that an unfavourable depiction of Quebec by the media became especially prevalent in the years following the 1995 Quebec referendum on Quebec independence,[3][4] although there is no study or statistical evidence provided to back this assertion.

You seem to have rather flexible requirements for when you require statistical evidence to believe something...

read further, but most of all read correctly what you're quoting.  There's no statistical evidence that shows the anti-quebec sentiment to be stronger post 1995 than it was before.  The Anti-Quebec/French sentiments haven't really changed in Canada since the time of George Brown.  It's amazing how the arguments are mostly the same.

Ahhh, my fault then.

Go ahead and provide the statistical evidence to back up the assertion that there is this terribly unjust anti-Quebec sentiment in the media.

Anecdotes, of course, are not statistical evidence.

QuoteGraham Fraser, an English Canadian journalist noted for his sympathy for Quebec, has tempered both sides. "This phenomenon (of English Canadian Francophobia) exists, I do not doubt it; I have read enough of Alberta Report to know that there are people that think bilingualism is a conspiracy against English Canadians to guarantee jobs for Quebecers — who are all bilingual, anyway.", he wrote. "I have heard enough call-in radio shows to know that these sentiments of fear and rage are not confined to the Canadian west. But, I do not think these anti-francophone prejudices dominate the Canadian culture."[106]

And you got tons of references all troughout the text.  It's only a matter of debate if it dominates Canadian culture or not, not to its existence.
[/quote]

You get tons of anecdotes and supposed examples of bias. I read them. Some of them seem kind of biased, although I realize I am only seeing one side of the story. But there are lots of examples I could find of anti-Democrat or anti-Republican articles in the US press - that is not evidence that the press as a whole are one or the other.

My suspicion is that what there really is a very well developed victim complex, although I would certainly not claim that there is any "statistical evidence", just the impression I get from you guys. Perhaps it is limited to just the Languish posters.

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2011, 12:30:20 PM
Remember your history lessons?  How trade with the English colonies was forbidden and those who dared sell their pelts to the English got branded as traitors?  That was a full century before 1774.

Exclusive colonial trade was the orthodoxy of the time - in France as in British North America. Smugglers were never branded as traitors - on the contrary, they were usually seen as valuable people gone astray (while traitors were treated with spite).

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 20, 2011, 01:11:40 PM

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2011, 12:30:20 PM
Remember your history lessons?  How trade with the English colonies was forbidden and those who dared sell their pelts to the English got branded as traitors?  That was a full century before 1774.

Exclusive colonial trade was the orthodoxy of the time - in France as in British North America. Smugglers were never branded as traitors - on the contrary, they were usually seen as valuable people gone astray (while traitors were treated with spite).

Yeah, wasn't there a lot of New Englanders trading with the Brits thoughout the American Revolutionary War, which was technically illegal by both parties to that conflict? Not to mention trading with the French during the Seven Years War, trading with pirates pretty much all the time, etc., etc.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 20, 2011, 12:18:23 PM
What do you guys think of Francois Legault & his movement? He'll lose some traction once his party is up & running but I don't see how the Libs, Marois lead PQ & dieing ADQ can survive the next election cycle.

There will always be the tribal voters, and a big source of votes for the Liberals is the fact that there aren't any other real federalist choices, you know?  Where's the alternative for Anglos in Montreal, or federalist Francos?

Legault might be. He'll propose that there is more pressing matters then Separation.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 20, 2011, 01:17:46 PM
Legault might be. He'll propose that there is more pressing matters then Separation.

But not really.  Legault isn't going to separate right away, but he's still a sovereigntist.  I would imagine that'll prevent a lot of Anglos from voting for him.  I understand that there were some Anglos flirting with ADQ, but that party is pretty much adrift these days.  If Legault's a soft enough touch on the sovereigntism, he might be able to attract some of the Franco federalist vote, but I would think that it would be too risky for Anglos to vote for him.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 20, 2011, 12:18:23 PM
What do you guys think of Francois Legault & his movement?

One name comes to mind: Robert Bourassa.  Why do things the right way when you can do them half way and still get credit?

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 20, 2011, 01:11:40 PM

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2011, 12:30:20 PM
Remember your history lessons?  How trade with the English colonies was forbidden and those who dared sell their pelts to the English got branded as traitors?  That was a full century before 1774.

Exclusive colonial trade was the orthodoxy of the time - in France as in British North America. Smugglers were never branded as traitors - on the contrary, they were usually seen as valuable people gone astray (while traitors were treated with spite).

I had Degroseillers in mind, wasn't he branded a traitor before even turning over to the British?

I get the sense that for a lot of Quebecers the issue of separation is an important issue but not the most important issue.  To succeed the separatists need to build a big tent to address all those other concerns but that seems increasingly more difficult.

For example, using our very own Languish as a sample group, it is hard to imagine Viper and Grallon agreeing on anything.  I can see someone like Oex or Rex forming a reasonable centre around which such a tent could be built.  I can see people like Grey Fox supporting some reasonable middle ground.  But the challenge might be there are not enough people like Rex, GF and Oex to create the kind of support the separatist cause would need.

Interesting times for politicians in Quebec.  If I was a Quebec politician I would be sorely tempted to sit this round out and wait to see what comes out of this apparent chaos.

Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2011, 01:16:48 PM
There will always be the tribal voters, and a big source of votes for the Liberals is the fact that there aren't any other real federalist choices, you know?  Where's the alternative for Anglos in Montreal, or federalist Francos?

The ADQ would be the logical choice.

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2011, 01:45:33 PM

Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2011, 01:16:48 PM
There will always be the tribal voters, and a big source of votes for the Liberals is the fact that there aren't any other real federalist choices, you know?  Where's the alternative for Anglos in Montreal, or federalist Francos?

The ADQ would be the logical choice.

Isn't there an impression that the ADQ is fading away right now? 

Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 11:41:30 AM

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 11:40:24 AM
Yeah, but if I am living in a town where there appears to be an inordinate amount of murders, I would not really concern myself with what other people are saying about it nearly as much as I would be concerned about being murdered.

Pretty sure you can be concerned with more than one thing at once.  Where are you getting that Quebec is more concerned with people talking about the corruption than the corrupton itself?

Point here is that in this very thread when a recent leaked report demonstrating the existence of a corruption problem was brought up, the consensus from the Quebec contingent was not that corruption was a problem, but that the "Toronto media" discussing corruption was.  :lol:

I mean, do you really need me to go through the posts and show this?

I'm not pissed off at Quebec for having a corruption problem - corruption can happen anywhere and has nothing to do with soverignty/federalism, language issues, or anything else we usually talk about.

I just brought it it as yet another demonstration that our Quebec posters have a tendancy to be extremely touchy and sensitive, to take offence at having "outsiders" discuss such issues, and to deny that any such discussion could possibly be motivated by actual facts as opposed to some sort of consipiracy to defame their province - the evidence here being the giant foofarah brought up in the past when someone in a magazine published in "English Canada" (perhaps even the dreaded "Toronto media")  had the terrible audacity to publish an article on the prevelance of Quebec corruption - which later events (this leaked report) tend to demonstrate was justified.   

Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2011, 01:25:18 PM
I understand that there were some Anglos flirting with ADQ, but that party is pretty much adrift these days. 

It's more like the ADQ was flirting with some anglos.

QuoteIf Legault's a soft enough touch on the sovereigntism, he might be able to attract some of the Franco federalist vote, but I would think that it would be too risky for Anglos to vote for him.

Anglos will vote Liberals for the time being.  Any hint of nationalism, economic or otherwise is seen as bad for them.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2011, 01:35:12 PM
Interesting times for politicians in Quebec.  If I was a Quebec politician I would be sorely tempted to sit this round out and wait to see what comes out of this apparent chaos.

but by then, it'd be too late for a power grab.  Legault sees his chance of becoming PM, and he's afraid of losing it if he doesn't grab the opportunity right now.

Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2011, 02:07:41 PM
(perhaps even the dreaded "Toronto media")  had the terrible audacity to publish an article on the prevelance of Quebec corruption - which later events (this leaked report) tend to demonstrate was justified.  

Again, you're distorting the facts.  Stop being a lawyer for 5 minutes.

Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2011, 01:51:36 PM
Isn't there an impression that the ADQ is fading away right now? 

an impression?  No.  A reality, I would say.
Latest polls shows the ADQ support at 9% and 18% with Legault and without Legault's new party.  With the current political map, that means at most 5-7 MPs (out of 125, maybe 127 soon), if we're lucky.

But I meant in the previous elections.  The ADQ then could have been a logical choice for the Anglos and the Federalists, those that aren't left-wingers, actually.

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2011, 01:26:56 PM
I had Degroseillers in mind, wasn't he branded a traitor before even turning over to the British?

Not to my knowledge. He thread poorly in the factional politics of the colony (which meant chosing carefully which side to cater to), so accusations of smuggling, or being too friendly to the British, could easily have been levelled against him.

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2011, 02:08:43 PM
Anglos will vote Liberals for the time being.  Any hint of nationalism, economic or otherwise is seen as bad for them.

You really can't blame them for that though, can you?

QuoteIn 2009 Pauline Marois raised much controversy, even amongst her own party when Marois suggested the immigrants and anglophones be denied health care if they cannot speak French.

Wow.  She sounds groovy.

Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 20, 2011, 04:25:58 PM

QuoteIn 2009 Pauline Marois raised much controversy, even amongst her own party when Marois suggested the immigrants and anglophones be denied health care if they cannot speak French.

Wow.  She sounds groovy.

Appeals to the Grallonite wing of the party.

Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 20, 2011, 04:25:58 PM

QuoteIn 2009 Pauline Marois raised much controversy, even amongst her own party when Marois suggested the immigrants and anglophones be denied health care if they cannot speak French.

Wow.  She sounds groovy.

I know. I'm in love. :wub:

Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 20, 2011, 04:25:58 PM

QuoteIn 2009 Pauline Marois raised much controversy, even amongst her own party when Marois suggested the immigrants and anglophones be denied health care if they cannot speak French.

Wow.  She sounds groovy.

From Wikipedia? Source of the quote is strangely unreferenced. Haven't found the source of the quote either.

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 20, 2011, 05:11:45 PM

Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 20, 2011, 04:25:58 PM

QuoteIn 2009 Pauline Marois raised much controversy, even amongst her own party when Marois suggested the immigrants and anglophones be denied health care if they cannot speak French.

Wow.  She sounds groovy.

From Wikipedia? Source of the quote is strangely unreferenced. Haven't found the source of the quote either.

I havent heard it before.  I am pretty sure such an outrageous statement would be reported even out here.

Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2011, 12:01:07 PM
Grey Fox and Zoupa. They are so upset they are asking that the press stop talking about Quebec at all.

I think the problem they have is that they see the Anglo media as reporting only (both positive and negative stories) to reinforce a pre-existing image, or story, or vision of Quebec.  Much the same way as parts of the European press reports the US, or vice-versa.  The difference is that in Canada it's internal.

But I could be wrong.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2011, 05:18:21 PM
I think the problem they have is that they see the Anglo media as reporting only (both positive and negative stories) to reinforce a pre-existing image, or story, or vision of Quebec.  Much the same way as parts of the European press reports the US, or vice-versa.  The difference is that in Canada it's internal. But I could be wrong.

That's exactly it. With the added touch that part of that pre-existing image is that Quebec is made up of a bunch of whiners, and thus every complaint can safely be filed away as «proof».

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2011, 05:16:09 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 20, 2011, 05:11:45 PM

Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 20, 2011, 04:25:58 PM

QuoteIn 2009 Pauline Marois raised much controversy, even amongst her own party when Marois suggested the immigrants and anglophones be denied health care if they cannot speak French.

Wow.  She sounds groovy.

From Wikipedia? Source of the quote is strangely unreferenced. Haven't found the source of the quote either.

I havent heard it before.  I am pretty sure such an outrageous statement would be reported even out here.

I doubt it is accurate.

However, the PQ "Identity Act" she did champion sounds almost as outrageous:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/quebecvotes2008/story/2008/11/04/qv-leaderprofile-marois.html

QuoteThe PQ's Identity Act would prevent immigrants who fail to develop their French-language skills from running for public office, raising funds for a political party or petitioning the National Assembly with a grievance.

Quebec's francophone majority must stop feeling afraid of appearing intolerant, Marois said. Creating Quebec citizenship would send a strong message to immigrants, especially those who choose English over French when they settle in the province, she said.

See also: http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/10/30/us-quebec-idUSN3064954020071030

Just to be sure this was not faulty reporting, I looked it up.

Quote
10. The Civil Code of Québec (1991, chapter 64) is amended by inserting
the following title after article 49:
"TITLE TWO.1
"QUÉBEC CITIZENSHIP
"49.1. Québec citizenship is hereby established.
"49.2. A person is a Québec citizen if the person
(1) is a Canadian citizen and is domiciled in Québec on (insert the date of
coming into force of this Act); or
(2) was born in Québec after (insert the date of coming into force of this
Act), or was born abroad after (insert the date of coming into force of this Act)
to a parent who, at that time, was a Québec citizen.
The Minister grants citizenship to any person who
6
(1) has been a Canadian citizen for at least three months;
(2) is domiciled in Québec;
(3) has effectively resided in Québec for six months, including the three
months preceding the date of the person's application;
(4) has an appropriate knowledge of the French language; and
(5) has an appropriate knowledge of Québec and of the responsibilities and
advantages of citizenship.
"49.3. A person granted citizenship must take the following oath before
the Minister of Justice or the person designated by the Minister:
"I, (name of citizen), swear that I will be loyal to the people of Québec, that
I will faithfully observe the laws of Québec and that I will faithfully fulfill my
duties as a citizen in compliance with the Québec Constitution."
"49.4. If, on a report from the Minister of Justice, the Government is
satisfied that a person has obtained citizenship under this Title by fraud or
false representation or by knowingly concealing material facts, it may issue an
order under which the person ceases to be a citizen as of the date specified.
"49.5. The Minister of Justice issues a citizenship card to any citizen
who applies for one.
The card is valid only if the citizen is in compliance with this Code and with
the rules governing the taking of the oath of citizenship.
"49.6. A person who is a Québec citizen has the right to
(1) run in municipal, school and legislative elections;
(2) participate in the public funding of political parties; and
(3) petition the National Assembly for the redress of grievances.

From: http://www.assnat.qc.ca/en/travaux-parlementaires/projets-loi/projets-loi-38-1.html

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 20, 2011, 05:28:55 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2011, 05:18:21 PM
I think the problem they have is that they see the Anglo media as reporting only (both positive and negative stories) to reinforce a pre-existing image, or story, or vision of Quebec.  Much the same way as parts of the European press reports the US, or vice-versa.  The difference is that in Canada it's internal. But I could be wrong.

That's exactly it. With the added touch that part of that pre-existing image is that Quebec is made up of a bunch of whiners, and thus every complaint can safely be filed away as «proof».

It is this perception which effectively makes it impossible for some in Quebec to take any sort of criticism about anything from outside the province - for example, corruption - and leads to such bizzare abortions as the "Quebec Identity Act" being seriously proposed.

Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2011, 05:42:04 PM

QuoteThe PQ's Identity Act would prevent immigrants who fail to develop their French-language skills from running for public office, raising funds for a political party or petitioning the National Assembly with a grievance.

Surely that didn't pass though?  And doesn't Quebec have some sort of law that allows for the equal protection under the law?

Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2011, 07:24:19 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2011, 05:42:04 PM

QuoteThe PQ's Identity Act would prevent immigrants who fail to develop their French-language skills from running for public office, raising funds for a political party or petitioning the National Assembly with a grievance.

Surely that didn't pass though?  And doesn't Quebec have some sort of law that allows for the equal protection under the law?

Hasn't been voted on yet.  It's still in the presentation stage. It doesn't have any chance to pass but it probably does break a couple other laws.

Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2011, 02:07:41 PM
Point here is that in this very thread when a recent leaked report demonstrating the existence of a corruption problem was brought up, the consensus from the Quebec contingent was not that corruption was a problem, but that the "Toronto media" discussing corruption was.  :lol

You are so incredibly full of shit.

Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2011, 05:42:04 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2011, 05:16:09 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on September 20, 2011, 05:11:45 PM

Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 20, 2011, 04:25:58 PM

QuoteIn 2009 Pauline Marois raised much controversy, even amongst her own party when Marois suggested the immigrants and anglophones be denied health care if they cannot speak French.

Wow.  She sounds groovy.

From Wikipedia? Source of the quote is strangely unreferenced. Haven't found the source of the quote either.

I havent heard it before.  I am pretty sure such an outrageous statement would be reported even out here.

I doubt it is accurate.

However, the PQ "Identity Act" she did champion sounds almost as outrageous:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/quebecvotes2008/story/2008/11/04/qv-leaderprofile-marois.html

QuoteThe PQ's Identity Act would prevent immigrants who fail to develop their French-language skills from running for public office, raising funds for a political party or petitioning the National Assembly with a grievance.

Starts off ok. i can sort of see the french language for running for office, but then it just goes crazy.


also, what's with the spat of quebec threads lately :lol:

Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 20, 2011, 04:25:58 PM

QuoteIn 2009 Pauline Marois raised much controversy, even amongst her own party when Marois suggested the immigrants and anglophones be denied health care if they cannot speak French.

Wow.  She sounds groovy.

I do not remember that, so I tried to find it, and I ended up empty handed, so I call bullshit on this one.
The only thing I found was this (in short: you can't be a candidate in any election if you don't speak French)
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=e37f0027-75cb-41c4-81a2-31b43f5c6360
Still racist, but nowhere near as drastic.  And at the time, the PQ was the 3rd party in the parliament, so it strikes me as a desperate move to regain some support among the hardcore separatists, or the Grallonite wing as CC put it.

Although she appeared stubborned on this idea while being attacked from inside her own party, once she regain official opposition status, it never re-appeared anywhere in her program.

Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2011, 04:17:54 PM

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2011, 02:08:43 PM
Anglos will vote Liberals for the time being.  Any hint of nationalism, economic or otherwise is seen as bad for them.

You really can't blame them for that though, can you?

I can, and I do.

Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2011, 05:45:15 PM
It is this perception which effectively makes it impossible for some in Quebec to take any sort of criticism about anything from outside the province - for example, corruption - and leads to such bizzare abortions as the "Quebec Identity Act" being seriously proposed.

Again, you act as if this came out of nowhere and no one here was talking about.
It took some time, but finally the left has realized there's something wrong with the way the construction industry is working in Quebec.
Of course, the current PQ leader does not want an investigation to extend to post-2003 PQ, it should only cover pre-2003 PQ and post 2003 Liberal...  how strange ;)
Engineering firms do finance political parties, illegally, it happened before and will happen again.  Someone close to me used to tell me he received money from his boss to donate to the Liberals, and that was in the 80s.
Another person I know witnessed his former boss giving suitcases full of cash to someone prior to the construction of a new hotel in downtown Montreal, during the 80s.
In Baie-Comeau, at least one contractor had to pay no-show jobs to some union thugs in order to achieve "peace" on the construction site (such as not having your machinery blow up on startup).
On Anticosti island, I had to pay an 8000$ fine because I brought outsiders to the island, while the other contractor wasn't bothered at all.  He made a deal with the union first, and he brought his own guys.

A few years ago, one of Quebec's top construction entrepreneur crashed his plane in Northern Quebec.  Onboard was the most powerful union boss and his son.

There is a corruption problem, mainly having to do with over-reliance to the government for everything, but I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe it's worst here than elsewhere in Canada, be it BC or Ontario.  And I know for a fact Boston had quite a few problems with corruption during the Big Dig project.

Also, don't forget that in most provinces, and at the Federal level until very recently, corporate donations to political parties were allowed.  It's called corruption in Quebec because it's been illegal since 1976, but in 2002 in Ottawa, it was business as usual.

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2011, 11:08:02 PM

Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2011, 04:17:54 PM

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2011, 02:08:43 PM
Anglos will vote Liberals for the time being.  Any hint of nationalism, economic or otherwise is seen as bad for them.

You really can't blame them for that though, can you?

I can, and I do.

Nobody will vote for a party that wants to put them in concentration camps.

Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2011, 11:28:56 PM

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2011, 11:08:02 PM

Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2011, 04:17:54 PM

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2011, 02:08:43 PM
Anglos will vote Liberals for the time being.  Any hint of nationalism, economic or otherwise is seen as bad for them.

You really can't blame them for that though, can you?

I can, and I do.

Nobody will vote for a party that wants to put them in concentration camps.

Siege would.  If you did some kind of blind test and gave him a party program without saying who they are and who they wish to fight he'd vote for Hamas.

Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2011, 11:28:56 PM
Nobody will vote for a party that wants to put them in concentration camps.

Are there any like that?  Official party listed on the election ballot, I mean, not fringe movement with 3 members arming themselves for the upcoming Canadian&American invasion.

Quote from: Zoupa on September 20, 2011, 09:38:14 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2011, 02:07:41 PM
Point here is that in this very thread when a recent leaked report demonstrating the existence of a corruption problem was brought up, the consensus from the Quebec contingent was not that corruption was a problem, but that the "Toronto media" discussing corruption was.  :lol

You are so incredibly full of shit.

Yeah, same to you.

From page 1:

QuoteWe would be more satisfied if the Toronto media would never talk about us.

QuoteBingo. In any way, positive or negative.

Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2011, 07:24:19 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2011, 05:42:04 PM

QuoteThe PQ's Identity Act would prevent immigrants who fail to develop their French-language skills from running for public office, raising funds for a political party or petitioning the National Assembly with a grievance.

Surely that didn't pass though?  And doesn't Quebec have some sort of law that allows for the equal protection under the law?

I can't imagine that it could possibly pass, or that if it did, that it could survive a constitutional challenge. It is simply odd that a bill effectively creating a class of second-class citizens would even be seriously proposed. 

Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2011, 11:27:47 PM

There is a corruption problem, mainly having to do with over-reliance to the government for everything, but I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe it's worst here than elsewhere in Canada, be it BC or Ontario. 

That is a rather odd conclusion to draw. Why would you assume that because there is corruption in one place, that there is corruption in all places?

Quote
And I know for a fact Boston had quite a few problems with corruption during the Big Dig project.

This doesn't support your position though - there is not debate that there is corruption in places other than Quebec. But the issue is whether it is especially bad in Quebec in particular compared to ALL other places, not compared to places you've specifically picked out because they also have reported and exposed corruption.

You know about supposed corruption in Boston *because* it has been exposed. That doesn't mean that there is similar corruption in St. Louis. There might be, but to simply assume it so you can blithely dismiss the corruption in Boston is a bit lazy.

Given that there are apparently credible reports of serious corruption in Quebec, it is a fallacy to simply assume that means that the only difference between Quebec and any other place is that it has been exposed there.

That's a whole lot of semantics to just say that there's corruption everywhere, just at different levels.

It is indeed possible that corruption is just as bad in other places, but evidence lacks. What evidence we have appears to indicate that corruption is a more serious concern in Quebec, for whatever reason.

I suppose one could conclude that the authorities in Quebec are simply more vigilant: but the fact that the report that triggered this latest round was leaked, and the current gov't has declined to hold an inquiry, seems to strike against that. 

It isn't only Quebec provincial authorities that are affected. Latest news is that (federal) tax inspectors are implicated.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-links-found-between-tax-auditors-and-montreals-construction-industry/article2173909/

QuoteThe RCMP has found a series of new and disturbing links between auditors at the Canada Revenue Agency and officials in Montreal's construction industry, including a series of joint visits to the city's casino, a golf trip, home renovations and a stalled audit, court records show.

Quote from: viper37 on September 21, 2011, 08:08:41 AM

Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2011, 11:28:56 PM
Nobody will vote for a party that wants to put them in concentration camps.

Are there any like that?  Official party listed on the election ballot, I mean, not fringe movement with 3 members arming themselves for the upcoming Canadian&American invasion.

Who knows what the péquistes would do if they ever got their independent Quebec.  Marois certainly wants to create a class of subhumans.

Quote from: Neil on September 21, 2011, 08:33:38 AM

Quote from: viper37 on September 21, 2011, 08:08:41 AM

Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2011, 11:28:56 PM
Nobody will vote for a party that wants to put them in concentration camps.

Are there any like that?  Official party listed on the election ballot, I mean, not fringe movement with 3 members arming themselves for the upcoming Canadian&American invasion.

Who knows what the péquistes would do if they ever got their independent Quebec.  Marois certainly wants to create a class of subhumans.

Create?

Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2011, 08:19:04 AM
That is a rather odd conclusion to draw. Why would you assume that because there is corruption in one place, that there is corruption in all places?

Because it's been reported?  Because there is, at the international level, a corruption index (http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results) by Transparency International?  Because there are currently 23 RCMP investigation on corruption that we know of, and only 2 of them are in Quebec?

Quote
This doesn't support your position though - there is not debate that there is corruption in places other than Quebec. But the issue is whether it is especially bad in Quebec in particular compared to ALL other places, not compared to places you've specifically picked out because they also have reported and exposed corruption.

My point is that there's no data to support such a broad statement as "Quebec is the most corrupt place".  If there are any hard data on this, any kind of serious study, I want to see it.

Quote
You know about supposed corruption in Boston *because* it has been exposed. That doesn't mean that there is similar corruption in St. Louis. There might be, but to simply assume it so you can blithely dismiss the corruption in Boston is a bit lazy.

The thing with corruption is that it tends to be discovered after a few years, since there are noticeable signs, and people who shouldn't have a whole lot of money suddenly spends millions in a Casino.

Quote
Given that there are apparently credible reports of serious corruption in Quebec, it is a fallacy to simply assume that means that the only difference between Quebec and any other place is that it has been exposed there.

Corporate donations are legit in the US.  If Microsoft gives 1 million$ to the Republican party is that considered corruption?
Yet, if Microsoft were to give 1 million$ to the Liberal party, it would be assumed it was corruption since it's illegal (no more than 2000$ donations made by individuals only).

Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2011, 08:30:25 AM
It is indeed possible that corruption is just as bad in other places, but evidence lacks. What evidence we have appears to indicate that corruption is a more serious concern in Quebec, for whatever reason.

Maybe because we are concerned about it? :P

My theory is that it's been pushed too far & by the wrong government.  They've been in power for 8 years over 3 mandates, journalists are just starting to dig.
Their lame excuse is usually "we investigated but we didn't find anything".
I think that has changed now, that some journalists are really doing their work.  Without them, it would have been business as usual.  If it was the PQ in power, in its second mandate, nobody would hear about it.

Quote
I suppose one could conclude that the authorities in Quebec are simply more vigilant: but the fact that the report that triggered this latest round was leaked, and the current gov't has declined to hold an inquiry, seems to strike against that. 

Gommery syndrome, as I said.  They've declined an inquiry since the ADQ asked for it 2-3 years ago.

Quote
It isn't only Quebec provincial authorities that are affected. Latest news is that (federal) tax inspectors are implicated.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-links-found-between-tax-auditors-and-montreals-construction-industry/article2173909/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-links-found-between-tax-auditors-and-montreals-construction-industry/article2173909/)

Nothing new here.  One tax inspector was severly beaten in Montreal last winter, following some newsreport on corruption in the agency.

Money laundering in casinos has been done for ages.  How was Las Vegas founded?  Why do the Mohawks want their own casinos?

And there's a full news coverage on this coming out on Thursday on an Fifth-Estate equivalent tv show.

I could use the same methodology used by McLeans and declare it's an Italian problem, it's in their gene.  Not many ethnic french Québécois in the lot.  Mostly Italian construction entrepreneurs, mafiosi (some now dead), and italian tax collectors.  But that would be stupid.

Quote from: Neil on September 21, 2011, 08:33:38 AM
Who knows what the péquistes would do if they ever got their independent Quebec.  Marois certainly wants to create a class of subhumans.

Marois wants to be in the 1st seat, no matter what.  Concentration camps would not be in her best interest for maintaining power.
And I would say "sub-citizens" rather than subhumans.

Quote from: viper37 on September 21, 2011, 09:23:04 AM

Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2011, 08:30:25 AM
It is indeed possible that corruption is just as bad in other places, but evidence lacks. What evidence we have appears to indicate that corruption is a more serious concern in Quebec, for whatever reason.

Maybe because we are concerned about it? :P

My theory is that it's been pushed too far & by the wrong government.  They've been in power for 8 years over 3 mandates, journalists are just starting to dig.
Their lame excuse is usually "we investigated but we didn't find anything".
I think that has changed now, that some journalists are really doing their work.  Without them, it would have been business as usual.  If it was the PQ in power, in its second mandate, nobody would hear about it.

Quote
I suppose one could conclude that the authorities in Quebec are simply more vigilant: but the fact that the report that triggered this latest round was leaked, and the current gov't has declined to hold an inquiry, seems to strike against that. 

Gommery syndrome, as I said.  They've declined an inquiry since the ADQ asked for it 2-3 years ago.

Quote
It isn't only Quebec provincial authorities that are affected. Latest news is that (federal) tax inspectors are implicated.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-links-found-between-tax-auditors-and-montreals-construction-industry/article2173909/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-links-found-between-tax-auditors-and-montreals-construction-industry/article2173909/)

Nothing new here.  One tax inspector was severly beaten in Montreal last winter, following some newsreport on corruption in the agency.

Money laundering in casinos has been done for ages.  How was Las Vegas founded?  Why do the Mohawks want their own casinos?

And there's a full news coverage on this coming out on Thursday on an Fifth-Estate equivalent tv show.

I could use the same methodology used by McLeans and declare it's an Italian problem, it's in their gene.  Not many ethnic french Québécois in the lot.  Mostly Italian construction entrepreneurs, mafiosi (some now dead), and italian tax collectors.  But that would be stupid.

I don't think anyone is claiming that it is a unique Quebec ethnic thing. More a matter of organized crime types being cozy with government types, which *could* happen anywhere, but for whatever historical reasons seems to be more of a problem *at this time* in Quebec.

Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2011, 09:41:57 AM
I don't think anyone is claiming that it is a unique Quebec ethnic thing.

that was the core of McLeans' article, that it was the normal way to do politics for Quebecers.

Quote
More a matter of organized crime types being cozy with government types, which *could* happen anywhere, but for whatever historical reasons seems to be more of a problem *at this time* in Quebec.

Depends on how you define *at this time*.  At this time meaning today, this week?  Yeah, sure.  Meaning the decade?  I don't think so.  The century?  Certainly not.
John A. McDonald and half of his party were corrupt, they made tons of money with the Canadian confederation and selling lands to the railroad company, when it wasn't outright bribe.
So far, with the recent report on corruption, there's been no politician accused or even suspected of receiving a bribe.

Illegal financing is what mostly happens.  As I said, illegal financing is not the same in Quebec than in Ontario or the US.  What's illegal here is legal elsewhere.  Hard to tell wich is more corrupt.  If corruption was legal everywhere except one state, wich state would be the most corrupt, the one investigating corruption or the one who doesn't?

And of course, seperate from other accusations, you have the false billing business.  But it's not corruption, it's organized crime in action.  Just like credit card fraud, for wich I'm apparently the latest victim.[/quote]

Malthus, I said:

QuoteWe would be more satisfied if the Toronto media would never talk about us. In any way, positive or negative.

This is your evidence that:

Quotethe consensus from the Quebec contingent was not that corruption was a problem, but that the "Toronto media" discussing corruption was.

Nowhere was it said we didn't think corruption was a problem. Nowhere was it said the real problem was anglo media talking about it.

Your bias is showing. Ergo, you're so incredibly full of shit.

Zoupa is a foreign agent provocateur! :ultra: :P

Quote from: HVC on September 21, 2011, 11:55:51 AM
Zoupa is a foreign agent provocateur! :ultra: :P

All of Quebeci posters are.  The province is entirely inhabited by bikers and mobsters.

Quote from: viper37 on September 21, 2011, 09:25:17 AM

Quote from: Neil on September 21, 2011, 08:33:38 AM
Who knows what the péquistes would do if they ever got their independent Quebec.  Marois certainly wants to create a class of subhumans.

Marois wants to be in the 1st seat, no matter what.  Concentration camps would not be in her best interest for maintaining power.
And I would say "sub-citizens" rather than subhumans.

Surely the physical elimination of a major block of Liberal voters would secure her grip on power?

Quote from: Zoupa on September 21, 2011, 11:46:06 AM
Your bias is showing. Ergo, you're so incredibly full of shit.

The second clause doesn't flow from the first in your statement.  Someone can be biased, and yet not full of shit.  You'll have to expand your argument.

Quote from: Zoupa on September 21, 2011, 11:46:06 AM
Malthus, I said:

QuoteWe would be more satisfied if the Toronto media would never talk about us. In any way, positive or negative.

This is your evidence that:

Quotethe consensus from the Quebec contingent was not that corruption was a problem, but that the "Toronto media" discussing corruption was.

Nowhere was it said we didn't think corruption was a problem. Nowhere was it said the real problem was anglo media talking about it.

Your bias is showing. Ergo, you're so incredibly full of shit.

Your immediate reaction was to express annoyance at the "Toronto media". The obvious conclusion being, media bias was the real concern, not the corruption.

Ergo, right back at ya.

Moreover, it isn't like I'm the only person to have noticed this. Is Berkut, a non-Canadian, also "biased"? In exactly the same way?

Poor baby, everyone's biased against you. Tut tut.  :hmm:

The obvious conclusion?  :lol:

Whatever man. Believe what you choose to believe.

@Malthus.

Happy Birthday man!

Berkut's bias is even worse, since he has 2. First against Canadians & then also against Quebec.

You all hate us, admit it, god damn it.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 21, 2011, 01:48:28 PM
@Malthus.

Happy Birthday man!

Berkut's bias is even worse, since he has 2. First against Canadians & then also against Quebec.

You all hate us, admit it, god damn it.

I love you guys. :hug:

Quote from: Neil on September 21, 2011, 12:26:44 PM
Surely the physical elimination of a major block of Liberal voters would secure her grip on power?

it would expedite her removal from office.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 21, 2011, 01:48:28 PM
Berkut's bias is even worse, since he has 2. First against Canadians & then also against Quebec.

Expecting Berkut to not hate us is like expecting CdM to love a human being.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 21, 2011, 01:48:28 PM
@Malthus.

Happy Birthday man!

Berkut's bias is even worse, since he has 2. First against Canadians & then also against Quebec.

You all hate us, admit it, god damn it.

:D

Languish.

Quote from: viper37 on September 21, 2011, 02:18:35 PM

Quote from: Neil on September 21, 2011, 12:26:44 PM
Surely the physical elimination of a major block of Liberal voters would secure her grip on power?

it would expedite her removal from office.

Really?  I doubt that.

Quote from: Neil on September 21, 2011, 06:45:28 PM
Really?  I doubt that.

The Canadians would immediatly invade Quebec to free their brothers, depose Marois, install a puppet pro-Canadian government in place ;)

Quote from: viper37 on September 21, 2011, 08:09:05 PM

Quote from: Neil on September 21, 2011, 06:45:28 PM
Really?  I doubt that.

The Canadians would immediatly invade Quebec to free their brothers, depose Marois, install a puppet pro-Canadian government in place ;)

Maybe they should do that anyways.  The Anglo race needs Lebensraum in the East.

Quote from: Neil on September 21, 2011, 08:16:59 PM
Maybe they should do that anyways.  The Anglo race needs Lebensraum in the East.

You're welcome to try :)
Your soldiers won't even find their way around because every signs are in French ;)

Quote from: viper37 on September 21, 2011, 11:00:28 PM

Quote from: Neil on September 21, 2011, 08:16:59 PM
Maybe they should do that anyways.  The Anglo race needs Lebensraum in the East.

You're welcome to try :)
Your soldiers won't even find their way around because every signs are in French ;)

They're not my soldiers.  I'm an ethnic Albertan, after all.

Besides, probably about half the guys I know from the Forces are Quebecers anyways.

Quote from: Neil on September 21, 2011, 11:46:59 PM
Besides, probably about half the guys I know from the Forces are Quebecers anyways.

but they wouldn't fight against their people, they'd be part of the resistance.

Quote from: viper37 on September 22, 2011, 07:57:34 AM

Quote from: Neil on September 21, 2011, 11:46:59 PM
Besides, probably about half the guys I know from the Forces are Quebecers anyways.

but they wouldn't fight against their people, they'd be part of the resistance.

So you would say that your inspiration when it comes to the independence of Quebec is the Confederate States?  Good to know that you're a racist, you racist.

Quote from: Neil on September 21, 2011, 08:16:59 PM

Quote from: viper37 on September 21, 2011, 08:09:05 PM

Quote from: Neil on September 21, 2011, 06:45:28 PM
Really?  I doubt that.

The Canadians would immediatly invade Quebec to free their brothers, depose Marois, install a puppet pro-Canadian government in place ;)

Maybe they should do that anyways.  The Anglo race needs Lebensraum in the East.

Anglo race? :yeahright:

Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2011, 08:28:14 AM

Quote from: Neil on September 21, 2011, 08:16:59 PM

Quote from: viper37 on September 21, 2011, 08:09:05 PM

Quote from: Neil on September 21, 2011, 06:45:28 PM
Really?  I doubt that.

The Canadians would immediatly invade Quebec to free their brothers, depose Marois, install a puppet pro-Canadian government in place ;)

Maybe they should do that anyways.  The Anglo race needs Lebensraum in the East.

Anglo race? :yeahright:

No ukes allowed.

Quote from: Neil on September 22, 2011, 08:15:45 AM
So you would say that your inspiration when it comes to the independence of Quebec is the Confederate States?  Good to know that you're a racist, you racist.

I would say, seriously, that if the Canadians invade use after a peaceful and democratic declaration of independance, I would take up arms, yes.
But since I'll probably be somewhere over 100 by that time, I don't think it's gonna happen.

The scenario that Neil is talking about is not what I would call a peaceful and democratic declaration of independence.

I don't see what, in this day an age, would get Canadians up in arms.

I remember when they introduced the GST. From one day to the next, boom, your groceries and everything else went up 7%. Not one single person was in the street.

That upset the frog in me.  <_<

You don't pay GST on basic groceries.

Quote from: Neil on September 22, 2011, 01:25:28 PM
You don't pay GST on basic groceries.

:glare: True, but you know what I mean.

Quote from: Zoupa on September 22, 2011, 01:21:13 PM
I don't see what, in this day an age, would get Canadians up in arms.

I remember when they introduced the GST. From one day to the next, boom, your groceries and everything else went up 7%. Not one single person was in the street.

That upset the frog in me.  <_<

I seem to remember some massive street protests over the GST. :huh:

It was a bigger deal in Alberta, where there had been no sales tax up to that point.

Quote from: Zoupa on September 22, 2011, 01:21:13 PM
That upset the frog in me.  <_<

The frog in you was either too young or not attentitive enough to notice the large protests over the issue at the time.

Quote from: Maximus on September 22, 2011, 02:00:54 PM
It was a bigger deal in Alberta, where there had been no sales tax up to that point.

We had large protests here in Vancouver. 

Quote from: Zoupa on September 22, 2011, 01:27:40 PM

Quote from: Neil on September 22, 2011, 01:25:28 PM
You don't pay GST on basic groceries.

:glare: True, but you know what I mean.

I was furious over the increase to book prices and would have rioted, but I was just 11 when it came in.  Instead, I supported the Liberals.  In retrospect, that was a mistake as the GST wasn't really that bad.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2011, 02:04:53 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on September 22, 2011, 01:21:13 PM
That upset the frog in me.  <_<

The frog in you was either too young or not attentitive enough to notice the large protests over the issue at the time.

It single-handedly ended the Mulroney government and the Progressive Conservative party.  Sure, some people were also annoyed by Free Trade, but it was the GST that ended the PCs as a party.

Quote from: Neil on September 22, 2011, 02:31:48 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2011, 02:04:53 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on September 22, 2011, 01:21:13 PM
That upset the frog in me.  <_<

The frog in you was either too young or not attentitive enough to notice the large protests over the issue at the time.

It single-handedly ended the Mulroney government and the Progressive Conservative party.  Sure, some people were also annoyed by Free Trade, but it was the GST that ended the PCs as a party.

Chretian ran on ripping it up, the Reformers left in droves citing that as the last straw.  The PCs were destroyed in the next election.  I think you are correct.

Free trade ended as an issue when the PCs won the election fought on that issue.

Quote from: Maximus on September 22, 2011, 10:14:52 AM
The scenario that Neil is talking about is not what I would call a peaceful and democratic declaration of independence.

...therefore impossible in my lifetime.

Quote from: Zoupa on September 22, 2011, 01:21:13 PM
I don't see what, in this day an age, would get Canadians up in arms.

I remember when they introduced the GST. From one day to the next, boom, your groceries and everything else went up 7%. Not one single person was in the street.

That upset the frog in me.  <_<

Prices didn't go up 7%.
There was an hidden manufacturing tax of 11% on many products before.  This tax was removed and replaced with the GST on everything.
Globally, the prices were up, but not as much as 7%.  Gaz, alcohol and tobacco productes were the most affected. Tax increase on all of these + GST + PST.

Quote from: Neil on September 22, 2011, 02:31:48 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2011, 02:04:53 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on September 22, 2011, 01:21:13 PM
That upset the frog in me.  <_<

The frog in you was either too young or not attentitive enough to notice the large protests over the issue at the time.

It single-handedly ended the Mulroney government and the Progressive Conservative party.  Sure, some people were also annoyed by Free Trade, but it was the GST that ended the PCs as a party.

Meech & Charlottetown too.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2011, 02:38:43 PM
Chretian ran on ripping it up,

Yet Chrétien never did and abandonned his promise after the first term.  Still, he was elected twice after that.

Quote from: viper37 on September 22, 2011, 03:06:03 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2011, 02:38:43 PM
Chretian ran on ripping it up,

Yet Chrétien never did and abandonned his promise after the first term.  Still, he was elected twice after that.

By that time the anger over the GST subsided.

Quote from: viper37 on September 22, 2011, 03:06:03 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2011, 02:38:43 PM
Chretian ran on ripping it up,

Yet Chrétien never did and abandonned his promise after the first term.  Still, he was elected twice after that.

Chretien didn't run for election until 6 1/2 years after the tax had come into effect.  By that point, people were used to it.  Moreover, there wasn't a government-in-waiting that was promising to eliminate the tax and making it an issue.  Neither Reform nor the Bloc had the capacity to form a government during that period, and nobody was much interested in voting for the PCs or NDP.

Quote from: Neil on September 22, 2011, 05:20:19 PM

Quote from: viper37 on September 22, 2011, 03:06:03 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2011, 02:38:43 PM
Chretian ran on ripping it up,

Yet Chrétien never did and abandonned his promise after the first term.  Still, he was elected twice after that.

Chretien didn't run for election until 6 1/2 years after the tax had come into effect.  By that point, people were used to it.  Moreover, there wasn't a government-in-waiting that was promising to eliminate the tax and making it an issue.  Neither Reform nor the Bloc had the capacity to form a government during that period, and nobody was much interested in voting for the PCs or NDP.

The GST came in effect on January 1st 1991.  Chrétien ran for election somewhere in 1993 (fall, I think).
He promised to abolish the GST then, and in 1997 he proposed to change its name.  In 2000, he didn't even bother.  By 2004, it was Paul Martin.

Charlottetown however was in 1992.  Knowing the attention span of the average elector, it had probably more of an effect.

And the Reform was created in 1987, right when the talks for Meech began. It was always opposed to Meech, and obviously Charlottetown.
The roots of this discontent lay mainly in their belief that a package of proposed constitutional amendments, called the Meech Lake Accord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meech_Lake_Accord), failed to meet the needs of Westerners and Canadian unity overall.