Your poll really needed a fourth option: 'The UN is important, so it doesn't matter if Canada is on the Security Council now as long as the best representatives are.' I don't know much about Portugal, but at present would trust the Germans, more than Canada's Conservatives or Liberals, to push the Security Council in the right direction. Is it unpatriotic to believe in this, more than the conceits of our party leaders?

I'm not sure what the headline writer means by 'an astonishing 53 of the top 100 have rates higher than the national average'. If you rank 100 cities or people according to anything, won't about half, normally, be higher than average? Or does the writer mean that the higher-than-average break-in rates are concentrated in only 53 places (of far more than 100)?

I don't know the candidate (nor live in Ottawa) but the slogan makes perfect sense to me. I should remember it myself. Judging by this article, it sounds as though local politicians should keep it in mind, as well.

That said, I fear the 'professionalism' that stable political parties bring to city politics, and would miss the quirky individualism that pervades the system now. A lot of successful city mayors have been all the better for eschewing rigid party ties; some Montrealers may remember Peter Yeomans of Dorval, who was colourful but very competent and proper. Like many politicians in Montreal's suburbs (and former suburbs, before they were obliterated by the Montreal 'professionals'), he campaigned with a slate of like-minded candidates for council, but in many suburbs councillors elected from different slates tended to co-operate reasonably well.

Lisa, if we really think that the quebecois could be 'part of something great' by realizing they are 'just like us' (sic) , then who are full of themselves?

Further, I don't know that all governments are corrupt, or have to be. If they are, why should we be surprised at the indignation of some people in Quebec when theirs is called 'the most corrupt'?

You're quite right, Observer; Chretien first ran in by-election in a Maritime seat, after becoming Liberal leader, in 1990. It was obvious at the time (just after Meech Lake's collapse, and the founding of the Bloc) that Chretien would get creamed in most Quebec ridings, so he chose one in New Brunswick, and even there his victory was not so solid. (This even though the Tories did not field a candidate against him; ostensibly they were allowing the new opposition leader to gain a seat, but I suggest they secretly wanted to make it easier for the NDP candidate to beat him.) You're also right to point out that he owed his 1993 victory to the 'bloc ontarien' (in '93 there actually was one seat he didn't get), while the supposedly monolithic quebecois returned interesting an mix of MPs: not only the Bloc, but also 19 of Chretien's Liberals, a Tory -- Jean Charest -- and an independent. I suggest that the Liberal tradition in Quebec had already been undermined, by the time Chretien became leader, in the 1980s; under John Turner, the party did far worse there. I won't disagree that Chretien's support came mostly from anglo-federalist Canada, not least in many of the Quebec ridings he held. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the Patriquin/Coyne... tenet? I'm not suggesting that Chretien's faults (or strengths) are a reflection of the quebecois, who so disliked him.

The writer makes an admirable and welcome reference to facts, but exaggerates in asserting that Jean Chretien's government won only anglophone seats in Quebec. I'll agree that he was widely reviled among francophones; my French acquaintances in the early 1990s were at pains to point this out to me, and any anglophone who would listen. One jibed that Chretien is so stupid that the English have no choice but to vote for him. So they did, but apparently enough francophones also held their noses long enough to elect his party in several ridings with francophone majorities. In the 2000 election, Liberal and Bloc support in Quebec was about equal. I'll admit that this was scarcely thanks to people's affection for Chretien -- some say the Liberals benefitted from a protest vote in some areas against the Parti Quebecois government's plans to fuse municipalities. However, for a politician who was as unpopular in Quebec as Brian Mulroney was, concurrently, in English Canada, Chretien (whom I also rather disliked) did not so badly.

Where else on the planet can you spark a major political crisis for offending a snowman?

Interesting comments, Mr. Noel but in fact the US constitution can easily be changed even in the face of opposition from several states, even the large ones you mentioned. Mr. Dumas, you can blame English Canadians for a lot of things, but perhaps credit us with more intelligence than we have, by suggesting that we cleverly designated Pierre Trudeau as our neo-colonist proxy. After years of 'the finger' (sometimes literally) and dubious government from Mr. Trudeau, who owed his majorities to massive Quebec support, are Albertans and other westerners to be told, now, that he was somehow their invention?

You're not serious, are you ell3? You're right, in a way: Mr. Hebert expresses himself well, and deserves to be widely understood. I'm glad that French voices have joined this debate, much as I am uhappy with what some have to say.

Well said ! (I'm not sure what Jacques Nadeau is grousing about.) One reason that people in Quebec may view themselves mainly as quebecois is that the virtues of Canada are not obvious. I must differ with you, however, over Pierre Trudeau, who alienated many people in Quebec from the Canada he (often glibly) promoted.