The Shotgun Blog
« And If You Think That's Extraordinary | Main | Katrina, Katrina »
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Oops
The Quebec wing of the Liberal Party accidentally released a list of ridings yesterday that shows it has written off a majority of seats in the province and conceded almost all of the francophone areas to the Bloc Québécois.[...]
In an e-mail mistakenly sent to some reporters, the Liberal Party divided the province's seats into three categories:
All 14 seats in eastern Quebec that are held by the Bloc and expected to remain in the Bloc's hands;
41 other safe ridings elsewhere in the province, including 21 Bloc strongholds and 10 Liberal seats;
20 "targeted ridings" that could go either way, including nine Bloc seats that are seen as being in play and 11 Liberal seats that could swing to the Bloc.
The 10 seats the Liberals feel certain of holding are in the Montreal area, including Westmount, Mount Royal and Liberal Leader Paul Martin's riding of LaSalle- Emard.
Its 11 shaky seats are mainly in the Montreal area and in western Quebec, including the ridings of Liberal ministers Pierre Pettigrew, Liza Frulla and Jean Lapierre.
Obviously a typo.
Via Dan Cook.
Posted by Kate McMillan on December 15, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8349aad2e69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Oops:
Comments
Please, voters, kick out Pettigrew (and his chauffeur) - and Liza and Jean LaPierre. And have the guts to kick out Martin.
Posted by: ET | 2005-12-15 11:05:51 AM
perhaps - ooops again
For those who missed CPAC's telephone phone-in broadcast from Montreal this a.m. (Thurs) - Aphrodite - you may want to check it out as a re-broadcast.
One of the phone-ins was none other than Liza Frulla. She was talking on about minority rights etc.and how they must be protected. (The quuestion of the day was "what is this election about").
Asked as to whether or not this elections was about a referendum she went er, uhmmm, nnnn its more like a pre-referendum, you know .... and on she went.
Then she went on to say how a bill has just been passed, S-3, as regards the minority rights issues. According to her about (and honestly I didn't catch the fraction, but read significant) "numbers of the conservatives voted against this". Whatever vote she was referring to was not part of the conversation. Her tone was certainly unmistakeable - like how could they even do this.
It seems to be a fact that S-3 is now law. It is an amendment to the Official Languages Act. Despite what seems to have been "all party consent" to get it passed, there was a least a discussion/vote someplace, somewhere, somehow prior to or during the process to get it passed. This I find encouraging.
What does all of this mean. I really don't know but from my perspective, when the Official Languages Act is amended and it is favorable to the increased protection of minority rights (read French) then I'm more than interested. I had no idea that S-3 was even in the works, much less that it had passed - Did you?
Soooo - a Liberal Cabinet Minister, highly likely to lose her seat in the election, has played the S-3 Bill in the public domain. What if anything does all of this mean. Somebody please enlighten me.
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2005-12-15 1:29:57 PM
Bill S-3 is very bad news for all except the French in English Canada. They can now demand services etc. throughout the country regardless of their numbers and can sue, at public expense, to get them. This Bill has been tried 3 times before before and had been defeated because of the cost involved and its' complexity.
But the people to better answer your question are "Canadians for Language Fairness" in Ottawa and Language Fairness National.
Posted by: Scribe | 2005-12-15 1:59:52 PM
I think the bill also refers to the rights of the English minority- in Quebec. These rights are not respected; Quebec is adamantly unilingual, and when anglophones require federal services, they find it difficult to get service in English.
Posted by: ET | 2005-12-15 2:44:49 PM
ET - Pettigrew is my MP (hangs head). Should I strategically vote Bloc to help get rid of him? Oh the torment. It'd mean $1.75 for the Bloc.
Please discuss :)
Posted by: asdf | 2005-12-15 5:38:21 PM
asdf: better a Blochead than a blockhead (Liberal). At the very least, it's no worse.
Posted by: Scott | 2005-12-15 5:47:26 PM
asdf: I feel your pain. But from my distant Pacific vantage, I wonder if I shouldn't run as a candidate on the "Leave Already" ticket.
I'm always bemused by the separation movement: 30 years of working at it, and they've never convinced half of the voters to support them.
The killer question is why there is no vital federalist alternative to the Liberals. The fact that Quebec federalism--and I'm sure the Liberals like it this way--is tied up with that bunch means that when the Liberals self-immolate, there is no federalist option.
asdf: since Quebec has enough je ne sais quoi to have voted in the PQ and then voted against a separatist referendum (more than once!), I say they can survive one more victorious separatist party. Vote for the Bloc: the remainder of Canada needs you.
Posted by: Ryan C | 2005-12-15 5:57:01 PM
asdf - Ahh, poor guy. Of course you should vote for the Bloc. DON'T VOTE FOR PETTIGREW (and his chauffeur)!!!
Look, a vote for the Bloc isn't a vote against Canada. It's a vote for Quebec, within a decentralized federation. I still maintain that Quebec can't separate - not merely because it's whole economy has been entangled within the central economy - but, because I firmly believe that the separate nation-state era - is over.
But, I strongly support a decentralized federation, called Canada. But very different from the centralist, patriachal, Ottawa-authoritarian, top down gov't we now have. I think Canada should 'split' into five or six almost self-governing areas. End bilingualism.
So- one region would be the Maritimes. Another, quebec. Another- Ontario. Then, the West - with or without BC, And, the North. Each area is almost completely self-governing. They are 'federated' within a federation..with Ottawa having powers only over such things as defense, communications, transportation, etc. The rest - is up to those five or six regions.
So, I don't see the Bloc as equivalent to the PQ, but, as an aspect of this decentralization which I think is the only viable future of Canada.
We cannot continue as this vast geographic terrain, ruled by a patriarchal Father-Figure Centralist Ottawa govt- with its vast authority, its huge patronage powers and appointments.
So- vote Pettigrew out. Let him go sulk in his Paris apartment near rue Lepic..It has some really good Chinese take-out restaurants, and a nice cafe...
Posted by: ET | 2005-12-15 7:00:23 PM
A translated transcript of the federal election debate conducted in French.... Why French only? Why not a live English translation? Who rules Canada? Here is Martin's answer:
"I believe in a united Canada, strong with two official languages, culturally diverse where Quebec plays a leading role."
Martin said : "...where Quebec plays a leading role."
Repeat: Martin: "... where Quebec plays a leading role."
Take that Canada; Take that Alberta. Quebec rules Canada: Martin said it.>>>>
Excerpt:
Paul Martin: Canadians, this evening you will hear about very different visions of Canada. Mr. Duceppe will begin a process that will lead to another referendum, a process that will end the Canada that generations of Quebecers built with other Canadians, a country that is envied throughout the world. Mr. Harper would like us to go back in time. He is against the Quebec model of day care, Kyoto, and he would like to send our soldiers to Iraq. Mr. Layton does not realize that the fiscal capacity of the nation is limited. I believe in a united Canada, strong with two official languages, culturally diverse where Quebec plays a leading role. I believe in a Canada where economic stability means a strong economy. Canada is a world leader, and I believe in a Canada that will succeed. Thank you. >>>
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/CanadaVotes/2005/12/15/1355088-cp.html
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-12-15 7:14:16 PM
A few details:
1. maz2, just watched as much as I could stand (> 1 hour). Harper's French was miserable, painful, the moderator cut him short once or twice out of pity. He said twice "I don't think I understood the question..."
2. Pettigrew is by far the most intelligent Liberal going.
3. Last time I voted Conservative. I'd rather put my money there.
4. What's your opinion, Justin?
Posted by: asdf | 2005-12-15 7:36:06 PM
Without Prejudice
After reading all of the comments so far, no wonder our country is in such a mess.
Let`s get one thing straight everybody, Mr. P. Martin is NOT< NOR HAS HE EVER BEEN. our ELECTED PRIME MINISTER,he WAS elected as an M.P.( Shame on the people that allowed him to buy their votes) and with his party defeated in the house he returns to just that, only an elected M.P.
I personally want to reassure our good friends to the south that MISTER Paul Martin DOES NOT SPEAK FOR US TRUE CANADIANS. He is and always will be a francophone thinking that his beloved Quebec should run everything in our country. the day that we rid our country of two official languages will see our country grow into what it should be, for the WORKING LANGUAGE OF THE WORLD IS ENGLISH MISTER MARTIN wether you and your clapping clones behind you like it or not.
Wake up Canadian citizens vote them out of office they don`t deserve to be there.
Posted by: J.L.W. | 2005-12-19 12:07:44 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.