Part I
The single question on
the environment is a leading/propaganda question reinforcing unfounded
perceptions. -- something I would expect from the Big Oil lobby but not
Radio-Canada. Environmental choices do not necessarily mean spending more but
rather changing the economic paradigms which can be done via government
policies. For example wind energy is
competitive with other forms of resourced based energy.
The other important element is that the clean
tech sector is among the highest growth and highest job creation sectors in the
world. There are 3.5 million jobs in the
European green sectors, 1.2 million in renewables now, today. Investments in clean energy in China were
$61.3 billion and $67.7B in 2012 and 2013 respectively. The German clean tech
sectors employ more people than the German auto sector.
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/hedegaard/headlines/articles/2014-01-06_01_en.htm
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/germany-shows-thriving-green-economy-possible/
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/chinas-chaotic-migration-green-economy/
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/europes-big-leap-renewable-energy-climate-action/
The $1.4B spent on
Canadian subsidies for the oil and gas industry
generates 2300 jobs while the same amount invested in the green economy
would support 18000 jobs. http://bluegreencanada.ca/node/175
In short there are
basic economic questions here, a resource-based economy versus a clean tech
economy. Quebec and Canada are very much
behind in this regard and most of its people operate in total ignorance that
with each year, we fall further behind China, the European Union and the US.
If the ivory tower
university types do not understand economic paradigms then they should not be
forming questions on the subject -- which in the end reflects ignorance.
Part II
More generally, the
questionnaire is poorly designed covering a miniscule spectrum of issues in
simplistic forms, often reformulating questions in a repetitive fashion.
What the boussole does
not show, for example, is the vacuum in the political choices offered. I would like to vote for a strong team of
federalist progressives but no such party exists in Quebec at this moment. The Boussole absurdly indicates I am closest
to the PVQ and QS but I do not want to vote for single issue party with a weak
palette of candidates nor for an independentiste party that has progressive
values but is weak on progressive solutions.
If this questionnaire
was properly designed it would illustrate that a very large portion of
Québécois do not like any of the choices offered. I know more people in this category than any
other.
Relating questions
to what each party's platform offers
cannot address one of the most critical considerations, which is credibility.
The economic social
and environmental challenges are all interrelated but one gets the feeling that
those who designed the Boussole are disconnected, that is know too little about
these inter-relationships to ask meaningful questions.
Part III
The economy and job
creation, also linked with Part I, stands out for its absence. What kind of
economy do people want? Conversely, the identity matters could be covered with
one question. As well the term identity
has been simplified and hijacked by one party, the PQ and thus posing the
questions in the way done by the Boussole is a leading question. The PQ
definition of identity - relating it to religious symbols -- was not on the radar screen of Québécois
until the PQ engaged in its malicious propaganda circus.
Part IV
For several questions,
none of the answers provided applied, but "none of the above" was not
provided, thus generating misleading results.
Conclusion
The boussole 2014 is
full of leading questions and poorly thought out.
