No Dogs or Anglophones

Thanks for the Memories....

For over four years I've written this blog in an effort to fulfill an inner desire to share some of my thoughts and experiences with you.

From a tiny following, the blog has blossomed, giving a small voice to a not so insignificant segment of Quebec Anglo society that the mainstream media doesn't seem to address. It has been, to say the least, entirely rewarding and I've kept going far beyond where I first thought I'd go solely because of the readership.

But all things come to an end.

With the election of the Liberals and the prospect of the PQ dim for the short and immediate term, there is less of an impetus for me to continue.

Can we as Anglos and Ethnics claim victory over sovereigntist forces?

Perhaps yes, but the real problem was never sovereignty, but rather the treatment of Anglos and Ethnics by all  Quebec governments.
It is sad to see that we continue to be viewed as interlopers, a people to be controlled not appreciated, an alien nation within the legitimate body politic of French Quebec.

Too harsh?
Nope, I don't think so. I continue to believe that if Quebec chooses to remain in Canada, it is simply an economic decision, the alternative of an independent and truly French Quebec a dream too costly and unrealistic for a generation whose real values include Facebook and Nintendo.

I remain convinced that if Quebec had the wealth of Alberta's oil sands, this province would have overwhelmingly voted for independence years ago.
It's really just about the money and when Quebecers finally realized how much money Canada lavishes upon them, the independence movement withered.

Such is the reality of our Quebec society, locked into a loveless marriage of convenience, forever unhappy and unfulfilled but financially comfortable, a difficult trade off to make.

As for myself, I look forward to the summer, sipping margaritas by the backyard pool, leaving the bitching and moaning to others, God knows, I've done my share.

To those who have been faithful readers and contributors I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your interest, friendship and lively conversation.

I would never have come this far without you.

and so I fade to black....

I'll leave the comments section open for a while and the blog itself open for research purposes.

Thank you all once again.....

Read More

Posted on 1 July 2014 | 9:23 am

Justin Trudeau

Statement by Liberal Party of Canada Leader Justin Trudeau on the anniversary of the Komagata Maru incident

OTTAWA – The Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement on the 101st anniversary of the Komagata Maru incident: “On May 23, 1914, hundreds of passengers aboard the SS Komagata Maru were denied entry into Vancouver upon arrival from Hong Kong. Following a two month standoff with officials, […]

Read More

Posted on 22 May 2015 | 3:37 pm

Ezra Levant

Obama shrugs off Iran’s anti-Semitism in “terrifying” interview

When asked why he continued to try to make deals with anti-Semitic Iran, Obama told The Atlantic that, well, Europe had a history of anti-Semitism too, and… Obama is clearly just about to say something like, “And that didn’t amount to much, right?” But you’ll notice he trails off at that point, for obvious reasons. […]

Read More

Posted on 24 May 2015 | 3:28 pm

Scott's DiaTribes

Supreme Court Smackdown of Harper.. again

One would almost think the Supreme Court is getting tired of the Conservative government’s vendetta against Omar Khadr:

The country’s top court swiftly dismissed the Conservative government’s latest attempt to see former Guantanamo Bay prisoner Omar Khadr dealt with as a hardened offender deserving of more time in an adult federal penitentiary. It was a rare judgment issued from the bench that came after little more than two hours of oral argument on Thursday. And it is the third time that Ottawa has lost in matters involving Omar Khadr at the Supreme Court of Canada…At the end, the high court upheld an earlier ruling of the Alberta Court of Appeal, [...]

Read More

Posted on 15 May 2015 | 8:01 pm

Dawg's Blog

#FHRITP: Name and shame

This should have been tougher for me, an old union hand, than it proved to be. Meet Ryan Hart, on the left, who works for Cognex Corporation. On the right is Shawn Simoes, who worked for Hydro One and made...

Read More

Posted on 13 May 2015 | 8:52 pm

Saskboy's Abandoned Stuff

The Inexpensive Computer Comes With Expensive Shipping Option Only

When I read about the $9 computer on Crash Bang Labs’ Facebook page, I was ready to help kick start that CHIP. But I got to the payment screen when the shipping amount came up. How much could it cost I’d thought to ship a computer smaller than a couple of AA batteries? I braced […]

Read More

Posted on 24 May 2015 | 4:24 am

Erich the Green

Four directions on this map, but only going one way

I take pride in my sense of direction, always knowing which way is north, south, east or west, especially in a city whose streets follow a nice grid pattern, like Toronto or Windsor. This sense probably developed out of my teenage role-playing hobby: hours spent poring over and memorizing maps of medieval dungeons and cities, then creating my own versions. The geographies of the real world (modern and ancient) and of imaginary lands like Middle Earthor Hyboria came naturally to me. So I rarely get lost or turned around, which was especially handy living and teaching in South Korea, whose system of streetnames and addresses runs from idiosyncratic to downright random.
There's four directions on this map
But you're only going one way... Due South!
Living in Windsor for a couple of years, it took a while to get used to residing south of the United States’ border, Detroit directly to my north, but at least it reflected reality, unlike many places in Korea which use English direction names for their foreign-sounding cachet, not because they are accurate descriptors.
That’s why one of my pet peeves in Barrie is how so many businesses seem to use directional names like they did in Korea: by a random assignment that doesn’t match where they actually are. For years I’ve wanted to unload, so this week it’s finally going to happen.
Barrie has a very clear sense of direction and region – there is a south end, a west, north Barrie and the very social east end. But although we have two East Side Mario’s restaurants, neither is on the east side: one is in the north end and the other in the south. We have a South St. Burger Co. in the south, but also one on the northern tip of the city. Ditto for Ol’ West Wing, one of whose two locations is on the west side of town; the other lies in the south-east. Westside Furniture Warehouse began on the west side of the city, but moved to a south-end location before suddenly going bankrupt; perhaps due to confusion about where they actually were?
A tony local eatery is called The North Restaurant, which has always been located on or near Dunlop Street downtown, the traditional center (not north) of the city, although I guess they are on the north side of Dunlop, which presumably justifies the moniker. Of course, downtown added to the confusion when it tried rebranding itself as “Uptown Barrie”.
An avant-garde condominium on Kempenfelt Bay calling itself The West was planned; ironically, located to the east of downtown. Perhaps that contributed to this proposal’s collapse into recrimination and lawsuits?
The other passing Allandale Veterinary Hospital I did a double-take, because it was on Caplan Ave, way down in the south end. Surely Allandale doesn’t stretch that far?
But I must admit to some personal involvement in this problem. Barrie grew too large to be a single federal electoral district (riding), and was split in two. Before official names were established, the new ridings were referred to as “Barrie North” and “Barrie South”. And that’s where the confusion comes in, because our candidate for Barrie south is named Bonnie North. That already caused a mix-up in at least one news story, so hopefully everyone will know what’s what (and who’s where) by the time the fall election comes around!

Published as my Root Issues column in the Barrie Examiner as "Sense of direction needed to navigate Barrie"
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is a director of Living Green and the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation.

Read More

Posted on 21 May 2015 | 6:39 pm

Five Feet of Fury

Mark Steyn: ‘So don’t worry, you still have freedom of speech – until five minutes before you’re scheduled to exercise it’

Mark Steyn on the cancellation of a Canadian “Draw Mohammed” event (and more): Meanwhile, on June 14th, the New York Theatre Workshop is presenting a benefit for the National Coalition Against Censorship, under the title Playwrights For A Cause, an evening of three one-act plays. It would have been four one-act plays, but Neil LaBute‘s […]

Kathy Shaidle's NEW book, Confessions of a Failed Slut, is available HERE.

Read More

Posted on 21 May 2015 | 10:31 am

A Blog By James Curran

Happy Birthday Madiba

Nelson, the world needs more of you. We miss you kind sir. Happy Birthday!

Read More

Posted on 18 July 2014 | 4:29 am


How Stephen Harper Created the Duffy/Senate Mess ......

In a May, 2013 Buckdog post, I told you how the Duffy/Harper mess got started ...

May 20, 2013:
"When Stephen Harper decided to add Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy to Canada's unelected, undemocratic Senate, he started in motion a series of events that has ultimately become an ugly, nasty political scandal.

For starters, neither Duffy nor Wallin qualified for senate appointment as representatives of their respective native provinces.

While Ms. Wallin is originally from Saskatchewan, she has lived away for most of her adult life and Saskatchewan was no longer her principle residence. Saskatchewan's right leaning corporate MSM came running to Harper's defence and tried to murky the waters about Wallin's residency requirement.

Same with Mr. Duffy. While originally from Prince Edward Island, he has for decades made Ontario the site of his actual 'principle residence'.

In his haste to add these two high powered, Conservative fundraisers to the 'Upper House', Stephen Harper and the Senate turned a blind eye to the residency requirements for Duffy and Wallin. In fact, to try and maintain the optics of residency in their respective provinces, both Senators started to declare, in writing, that their residences were 'back home' in both PEI and Saskatchewan.

Here is where it all went wrong.

In order to be appointed to the Senate, ‘principle residence' reality had to be fabricated in order for Harper's appointments to be acknowledged under existing Senate rules. False expense claims were the only way to maintain the charade ...

Stephen Harper wanted both Duffy and Wallin in the Senate so that these well-known Canadians could crisscross  the nation and rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations for Conservative Party coffers.

Harper created this mess. It is his doing ... and hopefully, it will also be his undoing.


-Buckdog 2008: Academic Says Pamela Wallin Does NOT Meet Residency Requirements - Should NOT Be Appointed Senator 'From Saskatchewan'!

Read More

Posted on 23 April 2015 | 3:11 pm

Mark Steyn

A Se'nnight of Steyn, May 18-24

In case you missed it, here's how the last seven days looked to Mark

Read More

Posted on 24 May 2015 | 2:00 pm

Huffington Post

B.C. Election Campaign Spending Limits Are So High, They're Meaningless

When the B.C. government tabled its legislation to amend the Election Act in March, it was probably hoping no one would notice. They were in for a bit of a shock.

While much of the focus has been on the provision which would give political parties the names of each and every British Columbian who casts a ballot, the government is also proposing to do away with the pre-campaign period and the spending limits that apply to political parties within it.

The pre-campaign period -- unique to B.C. -- is the 60-days that falls before the 28-day campaign. The B.C. Court of Appeal has struck down the government's attempts to limit third-party spending in that 60-day period three times. Evidently, the government got the hint.

The bigger issue isn't what candidates and parties can spend before the campaign, it's what they can spend during it. B.C.'s limits are so high they're pretty well meaningless.

And the government isn't proposing to do anything about that.

In the 2013 B.C. election, a candidate was allowed to spend $73,218 over the pre-campaign period and another $73,218 during the campaign for a total of $146,436. On average, each B.C. riding had 37,370 voters.

In the 2011 federal election, the average spending limit was $88,097 per riding. Average number of voters, 78,758.

Federal limits are adjusted to the number of voters in each riding, with allowances for larger or remote ridings.

Not so in B.C. A candidate running in Stitkine (13,845), the riding with the fewest voters, and a candidate running in Surrey-Cloverdale (52,817), the riding with the most, had exactly the same limit: $146,436.

And both candidates could have spent $12,000 more than a candidate running in Oak Ridges-Markham, Canada's largest riding with 153,972 voters.

There's a top-up for political parties too. And B.C. isn't a slouch in that department either.

In 2013, the pre-campaign spending limit for a party was $1.15 million plus $4.6 million for the campaign itself.

Most jurisdictions tie a party's limit to the number of voters in the ridings where a party is running a candidate. In the 2011 federal election, limits ranged from $62,702 to $21 million.

Not so in B.C. A registered party that ran two candidates could have spent the full $5.715 million that a party running a full slate of 85 candidates was entitled to spend.

Since the limits are so absurdly high, neither the Liberals at $11.7 million nor the NDP at $9.4 million came anywhere close to hitting the overall cap of $18.2 million in 2013.

But they both spent at least $1.1 million more than any political party and all 125 of its candidates did in last year's Quebec election. Quebec has six million voters, nearly double the number in B.C.

The spending limit in the Quebec election was $1.37 per voter (party and candidate all in). In the Ontario election, it was $2.08 per voter. Both provinces adjust limits for northern or remote ridings and the number of candidates a party runs.

If B.C.'s spending limits are out of whack imagine the impact on the other side of the ledger for parties that want to take full advantage of them.

Last year, the B.C. Liberal party raked in $10.4 million, that's nearly $1 million more than the federal NDP raised across Canada and half of what the Conservative Party of Canada brought in.

If the pre-campaign period is done away with, the existing spending limit for the campaign itself will still be in place and it won't be too onerous for a political party to make do on $4.6 million or candidates on $73,218.

Add it all up and a party running a full slate of 87 candidates (two more seats for 2017) will have a limit of roughly $11 million or $3.43 per voter.

That's $2.7 million more than the Quebec Liberals and their 125 candidates spent in the 2014 Quebec election. And the Quebec Liberals -- like their B.C. cousins -- were tops in spending.

So what would the limit be in B.C. if the government adopted the Ontario limit? It would drop from $11 million to $6.65 million. Adopt Quebec's and it drops to $4.4 million.

Would that be such a bad thing?

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Read More

Posted on 24 May 2015 | 5:48 am

Andrew Coyne

Andrew Coyne: Bogus gaffe charge obscures legitimate debate over universal vs. targeted tax benefits

In substance, there was nothing gaffe-like about Trudeau’s comment about tax benefits. It’s just a point of view, one the Tories happen to disagree with

Read More

Posted on 23 May 2015 | 1:14 am

Blazing Cat Fur

Boat people ‘illegal labourers from Bangladesh’ not Rohingya: Indonesia

rohingya boat people 16x9Indonesia has told Australia that most of the 7000 boatpeople stranded at sea in the region are not Rohingya asylum-seekers but illegal labourers from Bangladesh. In a foreign ministers’ meeting in Seoul yesterday, Indonesian offic­ials told Foreign Minister Julie Bishop that only 30 per cent to 40 per cent of those stranded on boats and […]

Read More

Posted on 24 May 2015 | 7:00 pm

Driving The Porcelain Bus

NDP Support Pre-election 2011 Compared to 2015

Here is an interesting comparison between the NDP support 8-5 months before the election in 2011 compared to the same period now in 2015.

Back in 2011, support was in the mid teens at this time and didn't start to rise until closer to the election. But in 2015, support was in the upper teens and has gradually risen (with a jump at the end of the period) to close to 30 in the same period.

So, the NDP support this time around is much stronger, double what it was at the same time before the previous election. They are well situated to continue to grow to a position to form the government.

With the rise of the provincial NDP in Alberta, and with the federal Liberals not looking very progressive, especially with their vote to support bill C-51, progressive voters are looking more and more to the NDP as the party to support to beat the Harper Conservatives.

The following table shows a comparison of the regional support over these time periods (numbers taken from EKOS polls)



Sep. 2010 Dec. 2010 change Feb. 2015 May 2015 change
BC 31 22 -9 22 31 +9
AB 13 6 -7 10 25 +15
SK (SK&MB 2011) 16 19 +3 23 28 +5

16 20 +4
ON 15 16 +1 15 27 +12
QC 9 11 +2 23 36 +13
Atlantic 15 13 -2 18 24 +6

In the latest EKOS poll, May 6-12, 2015, The NDP are leading in Quebec and BC, are in second place in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Atlantic, and are now only 6 points off the lead in Ontario. Support in Ontario is vital for the NDP to really increase their seat total. And the gains in Alberta, which until now were totally unexpected, will be a bonus.


A Forum poll has just come out with similar numbers as the EKOS poll - Con and Lib 31% each and NDP at 30%.

Read More

Posted on 15 May 2015 | 6:08 pm

Just Right

George Jonas on Alan Borovoy

George Jonas: When my old leftist friend, Alan Borovoy, saw the light
A few days ago I reminisced about an old friend in this space, the founder and General Counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, A. Alan Borovoy, who passed away last weekend.

... I noted that he and I agreed on almost nothing, except the importance of liberty.

... Central to our debates were Canada’s human rights commissions: The laws and institutions Borovoy and like-minded civil libertarians, mostly leftwing activists, created, or at least played a major role in creating, ... Alan and his friends couldn’t imagine how civil liberties had anything to fear from laws and organizations they themselves, champions of civil liberties, were bringing to life.

... In the 1980s, with civil liberties already halfway down the throat of the voracious state, Alan was still dismissing the slippery slope as a shopworn myth. It took him another decade and a half to change his mind.

... By 1998 he did. “Ever since the government embarked on a course of trying to outlaw expressions of hatred, it’s shown that there is a slippery slope. One thing has led to another,” he said in relation to a proposed “hate speech” legislation in British Columbia. ..

... once he saw the light, Alan didn’t pull his punches. He was as outspoken in defending freedom against his own creation, the human rights bureaucracy, as he had been defending it against its traditional enemies. 

Read More

Posted on 19 May 2015 | 1:35 am

Government Procurement Failure: BC Ministry of Education Case Study

Apologies for the lack of posts. I’ve been in business mode – both helping a number of organizations I’m proud of and working on my own business. For those interested in a frightening tale of inept procurement, poor judgement and downright dirty tactics when it comes to software procurement and government, there is a wonderfully […]

Read More

Posted on 6 June 2014 | 5:46 am

Bold Colours

Arctic Apple Takes a Bite Out of Pseudo-Science

After years of research and extensive field testing, the Okanagan’s own GMO apple is going to the big leagues. Genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are routinely attacked by urban organic activists in spite of the fact that not a single ailment has ever been linked to this technology. And now, as a testament to the baselessness of such attacks, […]

Read More

Posted on 20 March 2015 | 5:08 pm

Accidental Deliberations

Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- Heather Boushey writes about the Great Gatsby Curve showing a direct correlation between equality and social mobility - and conversely, that high inequality severely limits opportunity for large numbers of people. And Vikas Bajaj discusses how high inequality also harms overall economic development.

- But of course, we'll never get policies to address those problems without a government willing to highlight the need for change and acknowledge that there are no non-controversial answers - as Sadiq Khan points out in discussing the U.K. Labour Party:
(I)nsecurity reaches right up the income scale, which is why our commitment to fair rents and secure tenancies spoke to many middle-class professionals in London. Even Tory candidates attacked the Tory’s lack of policies on housing as a factor in why they struggled in the capital.

It’s got to be a deal though: economic growth, and lower inequality will only create a better life for all if we are straight that this will require shared effort and sacrifice. We promised things to ease the pain now for the “squeezed middle” without outlining what the economy might be like if we were in charge. And we suggested these would somehow be “pain-free” – paid for by someone else. The British public just didn’t buy it.

So it allowed our opponents to use the crash as a symbol of our economic mismanagement. But this is far from the truth. Let us be clear: the deficit in 2007 did not cause the crash, and the Tories were fully signed up to our spending plans. We should not cede this ground.

There were, however, bigger issues about our economic approach. We failed to regulate the banks and financial sector. We subsidised employers who paid low wages, placing a burden on the taxpayer, rather than encouraging them to pay a living wage. We tackled the effects rather than the causes, and that made it harder for us to tackle inequality. Since 2010 we began to address that and we must not go back on that now. But we have to paint a picture of what it means for people beyond the very low-paid, and how they’ll benefit personally if we tackle this.
- Suha Diab discusses the Cons' general antipathy toward all but the wealthiest of immigrants, while the Ottawa Citizen editorial board is particularly (and rightly) critical of their attempt to dehumanize people trying to escape Burma by boat.

- Finally, Mitchell Anderson writes that just as Alberta's citizens finally built up immunity to right-wing rhetoric (if only over a period of decades), Canada's voters may be building the same strength just in time for this fall's election. And Michael Harris suggests that Stephen Harper's vanity may be his party's undoing, while Chantal Hebert argues that the Cons may be utterly oblivious to the public's demand for change.

Read More

Posted on 24 May 2015 | 2:06 pm

What Do I Know Grit

Happy Birthday Madiba

Nelson, the world needs more of you. We miss you kind sir. Happy Birthday!

Read More

Posted on 18 July 2014 | 4:29 am

Small Dead Animals

"Organic" Is The Latin Word For "Grown In Pig Shit"

Genetic Literacy Project; To use land and derivative natural resources as sustainably as possible requires using the least input to produce the most food. So, how does organic farming stack up?...

Read More

Posted on 24 February 2015 | 2:46 pm

Le blog politique de Claude Dupras

On veut un mot à dire à Ottawa pour être écouté

L’histoire du parti conservateur du Canada est particulière. Voilà un grand parti national qui n’a pas réussi à s’implanter solidement dans le cœur des Québécois. 

Tout a commencé en 1854 lorsque John A. Macdonald et Georges-Etienne Cartier fondent le parti libéral-conservateur pour faire l’union de députés conservateurs et libéraux modérés du Canada-Ouest et de députés du parti bleu du Canada-Est, les libéraux radicaux ayant refusé de joindre les rangs du parti de Macdonald. À ce moment-là, Macdonald et Cartier dirigent ensemble, comme premiers ministres conjoints, le Canada-Uni. Ce n’est que vers les années ’30 que le parti utilisera le nom « Parti conservateur ».

En 1867, la confédération canadienne est créée et Macdonald devient le premier ministre (PM) du nouveau Canada. A la surprise de tous, le chef libéral Alexander Mackenzie réussit, en 1874, à défaire le gouvernement Macdonald grâce au « scandale du Pacifique ». Mais à l’élection de 1878, Macdonald regagne le pouvoir.

Suite à la rébellion des Métis dans l’Ouest Canadien, leur leader Louis Riel est condamné à mort pour trahison et Macdonald refuse que la peine soit commuée ou rejugée. Il déclare même : « Il sera pendu, même si tous les chiens du Québec aboient en sa faveur ». Le député libéral Wilfrid Laurier exprime sa colère et prend vigoureusement la défense de Riel à la Chambre des Communes. Ce dernier est exécuté le 16 novembre 1885. Macdonald ne démissionnera qu’en 1891.

Laurier devient le premier Canadien-Français au poste de PM du Canada en 1896. Pour lui, « le Canada est le pays du 20e siècle ». Il le dirigera durant 5 ans jusqu’au moment où il est défait en 1911 par le libéral-conservateur Robert Borden.

La première guerre mondiale éclate et Borden, réalisant que le nombre de volontaires canadiens pour aller au front ne rencontre pas les quotas qu’il avait promis au Royaume-Uni, réclame la conscription obligatoire. La plupart des Canadiens-Français, menés par Henri Bourassa, ne ressentent aucune loyauté particulière envers le Royaume-Uni et la France. Bourassa s’oppose à la conscription et affirme que « les Québécois ont un pays : le Canada, tandis que les Canadiens anglais en ont deux : le Royaume-Uni et le Canada ». Cartier exprime aussi son opposition.

Afin de consolider sa position lors de l’élection de 1917, Borden accorde le droit de vote aux soldats à l'étranger, aux infirmières et aux femmes ayant des membres de leur famille à la guerre. Mais, il se donne le pouvoir de distribuer ces votes dans n'importe quelle circonscription, sans égard au lieu de résidence habituel du soldat. Des manifestations de masse sont tenues au Québec pour protester et l’armée tire sur la foule. Quatre morts.

Borden réélu, la loi du service militaire est adoptée, 125 000 individus sont conscrits, 25 000 sont envoyés au front. Heureusement, la guerre prend fin après quelques mois.

Ces évènements majeurs de la conscription et la pendaison de Riel marquent profondément les Canadiens-Français qui n’oublieront jamais ces coups-bas des conservateurs et plusieurs s’en rappelleront à chaque élection, de père en fils. Macdonald et Borden ont oublié que « Je me souviens » est la devise des Canadiens-Français.

En 1921, le parti libéral-conservateur d’Arthur Meighen est défait par le libéral Mackenzie King qui devient PM, aucun conservateur n’est élu au Québec. Mais cinq ans plus tard Meighen prend sa revanche, grâce aux misères suscitées par la grande dépression, il se présente sous le vocable « Parti conservateur » mais ne fait élire que quatre députés au Québec.

En 1930, King est surpris par le nouveau chef conservateur Richard B. Bennett qui prend le pouvoir grâce à 24 députés ruraux du Québec. Les cultivateurs aiment sa politique agricole protectionniste et votent pour ses candidats. Mais dès 1935, King, qui n’a pas dit son dernier mot, revient au pouvoir. Il y restera jusqu’à 1948 alors qu’il le cède à Louis Saint-Laurent

Entre temps, le parti conservateur devient le parti progressiste-conservateur (PPC) en 1942 lorsque le premier ministre manitobain John Bracken, longtemps chef du Parti Progressiste de sa province, pose cette condition pour accepter la chefferie. L’union des deux philosophies politiques, libérale et conservatrice, donne au nouveau parti une orientation centre-droite.

A l’élection de 1957, John Diefenbaker, chef du PPC depuis un an, remporte le pouvoir contre King. Il forme un gouvernement minoritaire n’ayant fait élire que huit députés du Québec.    

En 1958, après une alliance avec Maurice Duplessis, PM du Québec, sur la question des impôts québécois, John Diefenbaker obtient une majorité écrasante qui comprend 50 députés québécois. Un résultat impensable. Enfin, les Canadiens-Français ont un mot à dire dans le parti et le gouvernement progressiste-conservateur. Mais, Diefenbaker désappointe. Le nouveau chef libéral, Lester Pearson reprend le pouvoir à l’élection suivante alors que seulement 14 députés conservateurs du Québec (DCQ) sont réélus. Pierre-Elliott Trudeau lui succède, en 1968, seuls 4 DCQ sont élus. Il est réélu en 1972, deux DCQ sont élus. En 1979, il est défait par le progressiste-conservateur Joe Clark qui ne remporte que deux sièges au Québec. Quelques mois après, en 1980, Trudeau revient au pouvoir pour quatre ans, alors qu’un seul DCQ est élu. John Turner prendra sa succession pendant quelques mois.  

Puis, Brian Mulroney nouveau chef du parti progressiste-conservateur est élu en 1984 et réélu en 1988. En 1993, le libéral Jean Chrétien est le nouveau PM, un DCQ est élu. En 1997, il est réélu et à nouveau un DCQ est élu. Paul Martin lui succède en 2004 et encore un seul DCQ est élu.

En 2006, le nom du parti redevient le Parti Conservateur et Stephen Harper est élu PM mais ne fait élire que 10 députés au Québec. Il est réélu en 2011 mais le nombre de ses députés québécois baisse à cinq.  

En résumé, depuis les 148 ans de la Confédération, les Conservateurs de différents noms et les libéraux ont partagé le pouvoir également. Mais depuis Borden, les libéraux ont été au pouvoir durant 54 ans et les conservateurs 32 ans.  

Sauf pour les élections de Diefenbaker en 1958 (50 sièges), de Mulroney en 1984 (58 sièges) et 1988 (63 sièges), les Québécois n’ont pas voté pour les conservateurs. Depuis 1957, en 14 autres élections générales fédérales, la moyenne de DCQ élus à la Chambre des communes s’établit à moins de neuf députés sur 75 et huit en trois élections avec Harper depuis 2006.

Il est quand même remarquable que les seuls gouvernements majoritaires « non-libéral » comprenant un grand nombre de députés du Québec l’ont été lorsque le parti portait le nom Progressiste-Conservateur. Cela démontre clairement que les gens du Québec ne sont pas majoritairement de droite et que le Parti Conservateur ne correspond pas à leurs attentes.

Comment les Québécois peuvent-ils espérer avoir un mot à dire dans ce parti avec une représentation aussi faible ? Doivent-ils mettre de côté leur orientation politique pour le pouvoir politique ?

Et on se demande pourquoi il y a un fossé si profond entre le  gouvernement Harper et les Québécois. Il me semble clair, qu’avec lui, l’influence québécoise ne pèse pas sur la politique nationale. Quant aux nombreux projets particuliers que le PM Harper annonce dans la région de Québec, ils sont en réalité des gestes de patronage envers la région de la capitale qui lui a donné quelques députés. Et, en plus, Québec a un maire pragmatique qui sait être ami-ami avec le PM. Ça ça paye !  

Par contre, Montréal ne reçoit pas la même attention. Harper visite peu la métropole, sauf pour des funérailles. Il ne tient pas compte des demandes du nouveau maire Denis Coderre qui est d’allégeance libérale ayant été député et ministre du parti libéral durant de nombreuses années à Ottawa. Pour Harper, Coderre est un adversaire politique. Et Harper, qui a la mémoire longue, n’aime pas les ennemis de son parti.  

Malheureusement, Montréal n’a pas en son sein un leader PC avec suffisamment d’influence pour faire bouger le gouvernement conservateur en faveur des Montréalais. Ces derniers ont manqué une opportunité lorsque l’ex-sénateur Michael Fortier, candidat à l’élection de 2008, a été bêtement défait. Ce dernier, un homme d’action, a démontré sa capacité et son intelligence lors des négociations pour renouveler le contrat du Grand Prix du Canada à Montréal avec Bernie Ecclestone. Malheureusement, suite à sa défaite, Fortier a quitté la politique.

Nous, Québécois, avons aussi la mauvaise habitude de voter pour un chef ou un parti. La dernière élection fédérale est un exemple probant alors que nous avons élu 59 députés du NPD en raison de la sympathie que nous avons ressentie soudainement pour son chef Jack Layton. Il aurait mieux fallu que nous choisissions le meilleur candidat dans notre comté respectif. Ainsi des gens comme Fortier aurait été élu et aujourd’hui Montréal s’en porterait mieux car l’un d’eux serait le porteur influent de nos demandes et besoins à Ottawa.

Qui peut devenir ce chef de file conservateur, ce phare, à Montréal, suite à la prochaine élection, si Harper est reporté au pouvoir ?

Je soumets un nom, une candidature prometteuse. Celle d'Eric Girard dans la circonscription électorale montréalaise de Lac-Saint-Louis. Homme de conviction, il a choisi son tracé et est devenu candidat officiel du parti Conservateur du Canada pour l’élection d’octobre 2015.

Bien éduqué, il est économiste de formation et détient un « Bachelor joint honours in Economics and Finance » de l’université McGill et une maîtrise en économie de l’UQAM.

Pour devenir candidat, Éric Girard a demandé et obtenu un congé civique de son poste de trésorier de la Banque Nationale du Canada où il était responsable des liquidités, du financement et du risque de taux d’intérêt de la Banque et de ses filiales. Il était aussi président du comité de la caisse de retraite de la Banque.

Il a démontré ainsi qu’il est prêt à mettre de côté sa carrière pour servir ses concitoyens en contribuant au développement économique et social du Canada.

À tous ses futurs commettants, je suggère de le rencontrer, d’apprendre à le connaître, à partager avec lui leurs idées, d’écouter les siennes et de décider de l’appuyer dans son trajet vers les plus haut sommets de la politique canadienne.

Ainsi, Montréal sera bien servi.

Claude Dupras


Read More

Posted on 30 April 2015 | 12:56 am

Mind of Dan

Bah Humbug!

Physicists who want to protect traditional Christmas realize that the only way to keep from changing Christmas is not to observe it.

(via xkcd)

That is all.

Read More

Posted on 25 December 2014 | 12:12 am

Warren Kinsella

The sky over Dublin

Photo (and apparently untouched) by @karltims.

Read More

Posted on 23 May 2015 | 6:57 pm