How Much Does Petsmart Charge For Teeth Cleaning

Charest and Dumont, white hat and white hat?


the past from the future

although both right on the Quebec political scene, many cases Mario Dumont divide and Jean Charest, as the fate of specialists for example. Yet on a particular topic, and no less important, the relationship between the federal and provincial (Intergovernmental Affairs), the distinction is rather subtle.

Indeed, the question of the constitutional future of Quebec, what really differentiates the ADQ PLQ? The two leaders are of allegiance federalist. Both appear as autonomous. The two leaders adopt the same behavior against Ottawa. Charest and Dumont, white hat and white hat?

Jean Charest has never hidden join federalism and he never hesitates to defend the legitimacy of Quebec's place in Canada. The party's position reflects that of the head and also rejects any ambiguity by making the backup of its federalism rationale. Thereupon I grant, clarity between the liberal clan ADQ. Dumont refuses because, for electoral reasons, to use for himself qualifier federalist. But in all likelihood it is. It will nevertheless enjoys a nationalist view of its involvement in the Yes camp in the last referendum campaign. However, 3 April 2007, the RDI, Mario Dumont says

"I campaigned for the yes in 1995, but I never believed in the separation of Quebec from Canada. "

His participation in the campaign of yes," he said, was done more to negotiate a new deal with Ottawa, for "we live in a confederation with a genuine autonomy for Quebec in Canada as a whole." We can therefore conclude that even in 1995, Dumont did not want sovereignty. These statements confirm that, despite his reluctance to show it, Dumont is indeed a supporter of federalism. Note that it was not until a few days after the election of March 26 to qualify for the confession which says a lot about the intellectual honesty of the ADQ leader.

PLQ, ADQ: Two parties, a vision

Here, both sides boast to claim the autonomy of Quebec. But the image she passes the test of reality? Are we dealing with real autonomy or opportunists, ready to applaud wildly for every crumb that falls from the table of the masters?

the PLQ, the only true autonomy was fired long ago, Yves Séguin. Autonomy for Charest must simply await the next move of opening irrelevant central government to speak as an unprecedented and historic announcement. Think of her reaction when Stephen Harper has placed in Quebec within the Canadian team at UNESCO. Always the same old tactics to stretch a bone to Charest that will show it as a trophy in honor of asymmetrical federalism. Why not? This little game seems to keep Quebec in its place in Canada. Let

for a moment things differently. Could it be that, contrary to the wishes Charest, these so-called gestures of openness are used to slow the progression of Quebec, or immobilizing it in a constitutional framework adequate for its development?

Dumont, meanwhile, relies on open federalism in Canada and said yes but not at any price. However, his attitude to the Harper government on many occasions to doubt the authenticity of his nationalism, his support for the federal budget, for example. Dumont quickly came over from lying excited to budget money Flaherty about the fiscal imbalance, ready at any meanness for a handful of changes.

It is full of praise for Stephen Harper not on the recognition of Quebec as nation within Canada, so he knows full well that Harper was trying to avoid. This is the team of the Bloc Quebecois, knowing the reluctance of conservatives on this issue, which has skillfully maneuvered to take advantage of the situation and force the debate. The image is tarnished autonomist Dumont when he praises Harper like a dog wags his tail at his master.

Reminder: In 2006, meeting in Quebec on the eve of National Day, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Quebec lieutenants have all refused to recognize the existence of the Quebec nation.

For Charest, Canada needs to take a while asymmetrical federalism Dumont research open federalism. Heavy shade. Both boast of defending Quebec in Ottawa when in truth, both defending Ottawa in Quebec. Simple slip? Willful blindness or historical mistake? What other choices offered to them? Recognize the federal government as unable to meet the desire Emancipation of Quebecers would give ammunition to the separatists. For them, it is better to truncate the demands of Quebec in the hope of any reasonable accommodation.

Mathieu