P.M. needs to stop pandering to Quebec

For the sixth consecutive federal election, Quebecers sent a majority of BQ members to the House of Commons – 49 out of 75 seats. This an outrage and totally unacceptable.

Excuses for this debacle included cuts to arts funding and a “get tough on youth crime” proposal put forth by the Conservatives. Quebecers are not federalists, nor will they ever be, and the federal government needs to recognize this.

In the first place, the federal government and specifically the prime minister need to get tough on Quebec and not pander to their every demand. As an example, the government supposedly sorted out the so-called fiscal imbalance with the provinces to the extent that next year Quebec will receive a ‘have-not province’ cheque of $8.3 billion.

Never mind that Quebec has some of the most lavish social programs in the country.

They include a daycare program where parents pay only $7 per day, per child, an expensive family allowance program, their own immigration program where they receive $100 million per year from the federal government and companies such as Bombardier receiving billions of dollars in grants and loans.

The night before the election, Premier Jean Charest stated publicly that the fiscal imbalance has not been solved to Quebec’s satisfaction.

What arrogance and audacity!

Quebec residents must understand they cannot have other Canadians paying for their lavish spending and then vote BQ members to the House of Commons, whose only goal is the separation of Quebec from Canada.

The citizens of Quebec need to understand that Canada is a community of provinces and if they are not content with their status, let them find another way.

Rather than telling Quebecers that they are a “nation within a nation” let the prime minister outline the true facts of confederation and the value in Quebec remaining a vibrant part of Canada.

H.J. Rice

Saanich

Why bail out carmakers, reader asks

A little known fact is that General Motors early in the 20th century bought lock, stock and barrel a functioning street car and tram service in Los Angeles only to let this infrastructure sit and be sold for scrap metal.

Their intent, of course, was to create demand for their product. Their chairman during the subsequent 20 years coined the phrase, “what is good for GM is good for the U.S. economy.” This statement was true to a certain extent in the early 1950s but certainly is not true today.

Both our current dependence on oil from unstable foreign governments and unsustainable urban sprawl are based on the creation of the automobile culture.

We need to return to urban planning that entails more compact communities and reverse the situation where the automobile is required for performing even basic errands or commercial activities.

Moreover, by decreasing personal automobile usage the trucking sector can utilize existing road infrastructure more efficiently.

So if we are trying to promote environmental protection, urban densification and increase transit usage, why would any government bailout the source of inefficient transportation choices?

The answer is simple, votes in Detroit, Dayton, Windsor, Oshawa, Ajax and so on.

President-elect Barack Obama has promised more environmental friendly transportation investments, but may relent to the employment impacts of letting the Big Three collapse. Fortunately, our government is a little more cautious and will only provide a limited bailout with a detailed business plan.

We should hope our respective governments let the inefficient segments of the auto industry collapse.

Avi Ickovich

Langford