I hope I didn't trick that comment when I first posted only the first sentence and then added the rest.

I get the sense that the opposition leaders copied bits from each other's speeches. Did you notice Harper and Duceppe use some of the same catchphrases?

eg. "He's not saving the country, he's saving the Liberal party."

eg. "This isn't a Quebec scandal/crisis, it's a Liberal scandal/crisis."

It looks like an election's looming. Anyone care to speculate when?

Hmmm... I thought the reverse. I thought Martin was bad and Harper was pretty good. I suppose there was not much Martin could have done to convince me, but I went in also expecting to be unimpressed by Harper. Martin sounded weak and desperate, whereas Harper sounded more confident and prepared to lead than I have ever heard him, I thought.

I was listening on radio and not watching on t.v. Is there a Nixon/Kennedy debate thing going on here?

Maybe but I had the TV on but not watching - teeveeo? I just find Harper sounds like he recites a bunch of lines written by snickering Bevis and Buttheads in buttondown Oxford shirts: "clinging to power - hehehehe!!! Good one, Terrence." Martin came across as personally honest if even a bit disloyal. It was all about him and not the party. It is like he is turfing the Liberals and saying he is going to take care of ensuring what should come out will come out.

I thought it was a fairly sincere apology ... but I always suspect these guys - and by that I mean "politicians" - of being sorry they got caught as opposed to being sorry they actually did this crap. So when they say "Sorry, it won't happen again ..." I kinda believe them.

Is it unfair to say that there's a cultural difference between politics in Quebec and politics in the rest of the country that directly resonates in this whole issue? I can hear the ice cracking all around me, but I honestly believe this sponsorship scandal could not have happened in BC or Ontario or Alberta or Manitoba - in the same way that the corrupt cost over-runs for the Olympic facilities in Montreal could not (and did not) happen in Calgary or other places.

I just think that - for whatever reasons - Quebec politics has more than its share of corruption. It's not the people, per se - Quebecers are every bit as honest as anybody else. So ... what is it? Is there something about the process in Quebec that tilts things? Entitlement based on a history of oppression? What?

If you for one minute believe much same thing does not happen in your dear Atlantic home on a daily basis you are a dreamer. It may happen in a different form but from what I know even that is wishful thinking. I think the only real difference is the pure dependency relationship in relation to the Feds in the East compared to Quebec's separatist ambitions of some level or another - in the East there is no higher ideal to take offence from the unethical acts of its own.<p>It is simply done and daily done. Consider Federal money coming into the jurisdiction for projects of questionable merit (PQMs), being distributed to the favoured (TFd) who in turn provide large benefit (PLB) to provincial political parties in power (Peepeepeepees) who in turn apply for Federal funding for PQMs who distrbute it to TFds who in turn donate to Peepeepeepees. Just because something is so commonplace and generally accepted does not make it less scandalous. It just means those who accept the scandal are part of the conspiracy - even when that is the majority of the population.<p>And it is in the Prairies as the Tories in Saskatchewan did the condensed version (cutting out the Peepeepeepees in exchange for the Memememes) in the 90s and a bunch went to jail - including a member of the Canadian Senate.<p>We Canadians bear a fair bit of stink when it comes to these sorts of governmental corruptions. People say "Nyeh...its just the way it is!" And so it is.