The Final Conflict, Industry, Environment And Extinction


by André Faust (Dec 31, 2018)

Just recently a right whale calf has been spotted in the North Atlantic, so what is the big hoopla about this sighting? First, there about 450 right whales left, the decimation of the right whale in part was the result of overhunting. For the whaling industry, it was an “easy catch” because the right whale tends to be slow moving and at times comes close to the shore. Unlike the other whales when harpooned and killed the majority of them float.

Scientists from all over the world have reported an increase in the number of dead zones in the Atlantic ocean, the reason for the dead zones correlates with the warming of the Atlantic ocean. A dead zone is an area of oxygen depletion. The consequence is serious, plankton sinks to the bottom and decompose. In non-dead zones, plankton through photosynthesis produces oxygen that aquatic life needs to survive.

The right whale’s diet consists for the most part plankton, which is their primary food source.

The exodus to plankton-rich waters of the north sea is causing problems for the fishing industry. The federal has extended the no fish zone to areas where lobster fishers make their living which hasn’t been well received by the fishing industry.

Where is that balance where traditional industries can make a living yet not producing negative consequences to our environment?>

Moving away from fisheries, yet is still related, is the pipeline issue Transporting either fracked natural gas or bitumen from Alberta via supertankers to get to their destinations the risk of critical catastrophic spills increases. History has shown no matter how careful we are, and what legislation that is in place to prevent these disasters, these disasters still happen.

The problem with fossil fuel spills is that not only do they have the potential of destroying the lower end of the food chain but can close down or injure the fish industry as well.

In closing, what we do to one part of the environment causes an effect in another part of the closed system that we call our ecosystem.

To close, here is a list of animals that we have made extinct, or at minimum placed on the endangered list by hunting alone.

Woolly Mammoths
Caspian Tigers
Thylacines (Tasmanian Tigers)
Passenger Pigeons.
Polar Bears
American Crocodiles

Sooner or later we will pay if we can’t resolve the issue of Jobs, people and profits.



Manifesto of the FLQ (1970) English Translation


Manifesto of the FLQ (1970)

The Front de liberation du Québec is not a messiah, nor a modern-day Robin Hood. It is a group of Québec workers who have decided to use every means to make sure that the people of Québec take control of their destiny.

The Front de liberation du Québec wants the total independence of all Québécois, united in a free society, purged forever of the clique of voracious sharks, the patronizing “big bosses” and their henchmen who have made Québec their hunting preserve for “cheap labour” and unscrupulous exploitation.

The Front de liberation du Québec is not a movement of aggression, but is a response to the aggression organized by high finance and the puppet governments in Ottawa and Québec (the Brinks “show,” Bill 63, the electoral map, the so-called social progress tax, Power Corporation, “Doctors’ insurance,” the Lapalme guys …)

The Front de liberation du Québec finances itself by “voluntary taxes” taken from the same enterprises that exploit the workers (banks, finance companies, etc. …)

“The money power of the status quo, the majority of the traditional teachers of our people, have obtained the reaction they hoped for; a backward step rather than the change for which we have worked as never before, for which we will continue to work” ( René Lévesque, April 29, 1970) .

We believed once that perhaps it would be worth it to channel our energy and our impatience, as René Lévesque said so well, into the Parti Québecois, but the Liberal victory clearly demonstrated that that which we call democracy in Québec is nothing but the democracy of the rich. The Liberal party’s victory was nothing but the victory of the election riggers, Simard-Cotroni. As a result, the British parliamentary system is finished and the Front de liberation du Québec will never allow itself to be fooled by the pseudo-elections that the Anglo-Saxon capitalists toss to the people of Québec every four years. A number of Québecois have understood and will act. In the coming year Bourassa will have to face reality; 100,000 revolutionary workers, armed and organized.

Yes, there are reasons for the Liberal victory. Yes, there are reasons for poverty, unemployment, slums, and for the fact that you, Mr Bergeron of Visitation Street and you, Mr Legendre of Laval who earn $ 10,000 a year, will not feel free in our country of Québec.

Yes, there are reasons, and the guys at Lord know them, the fishermen of the Gaspé, the workers of the North Shore, the miners for the Iron Ore Company, Québec Cartier Mining, and Noranda, also know these reasons. And the brave workers of Cabano that you tried to screw again know lots of reasons.

Yes, there are reasons why you, Mr Tremblay of Panet Street and you Mr Cloutier, who work in construction in St Jerôme, cannot pay for “Vaisseaux d’or” with all the jazz and oom-pa-pa like Drapeau the aristocrat, who is so concerned with slums that he puts coloured billboards in front of them to hide our misery from the tourists.

Yes, there are reasons why you, Mrs Lemay of St Hyacinthe, can’t pay for little trips to Florida like our dirty judges and parliamentary members do with our money.

The brave workers for Vickers and Davie Ship, who were thrown out and not given a reason, know these reasons. And the Murdochville men, who were attacked for the simple and sole reason that they wanted to organize a union and who were forced to pay $2 million by the dirty judges simply because they tried to exercise this basic right – they know justice and they know the reasons.

Yes, there are reasons why you, Mr Lachance of St Marguerite Street, must go and drown your sorrows in a bottle of that dog’s beer, Molson. And you, Lachance’s son, with your marijuana cigarettes …

Yes, there are reasons why you, the welfare recipients, are kept from generation to generation on social welfare. Yes, there are all sorts of reasons, and the Domtar workers in East Angus and Windsor know them well. And the workers at Squibb and Ayers, and the men at the Liquor Board and those at Seven-Up and Victoria Precision, and the blue collar workers in Laval and Montreal and the Lapalme boys know those reasons well.

The Dupont of Canada workers know them as well, even if soon they will only be able to express them in English (thus assimilated they will enlarge the number of immigrants and New Quebeckers, the darlings of Bill 63 ) .

And the Montreal policemen, those strongarms of the system, should understand these reasons – they should have been able to see we live in a terrorized society because, without their force, without their violence, nothing could work on October 7.

We have had our fill of Canadian federalism which penalizes the Québec milk producers to satisfy the needs of the Anglo-Saxons of the Commonwealth; the system which keeps the gallant Montreal taxi drivers in a state of semi-slavery to shamefully protect the exclusive monopoly of the nauseating Murray Hill and its proprietor – the murderer Charles Hershorn and his son Paul, who, on the night of October 7, repeatedly grabbed the twelve-gauge shot gun from his employees hands to fire upon the taxi drivers and thereby mortally wound corporal Dumas, killed while demonstrating.

We have had our fill of a federal system which exercises a policy of heavy importation while turning out into the street the low wage-earners in the textile and shoe manufacturing trades, who are the most ill-treated in Québec, for the benefit of a clutch of damned money-makers in their Cadillacs who rate the Québec nation on the same level as other ethnic minorities in Canada.

We have had our fill, as have more and more Québecois, of a government

which performs a-thousand-and-one acrobatics to charm American millionaires into investing in Québec, La Belle Province, where thousands and thousands of square miles of forests, full of game and well-stocked lakes, are the exclusive preserve of the almighty twentieth century lords.

We have had our fill of a hypocrite like Bourassa who relies on Brinks armoured trucks, the living symbol of the foreign occupation of Québec, to keep the poor natives of Québec in the fear of misery and unemployment in which they are accustomed to living.

We have had our fill of taxes which the Ottawa representative to Québec wants to give to the Anglophone bosses to encourage them to speak French, old boy, to negotiate in French: Repeat after me: “Cheap labour means manpower in a healthy market.”

We have had our fill of promises of jobs and prosperity while we always remain the cowering servants and boot-lickers of the big shots who live in Westmount, Town of Mount Royal, Hampstead, and Outremont; all the fortresses of high finance on St James and Wall streets, while we, the Québecois, have not used all our means, including arms and dynamite, to rid ourselves of these economic and political bosses who are prepared to use every sort of sordid tactic to better screw us.

We live in a society of terrorized slaves, terrorized by the big bosses like Steinberg, Clark, Bronfman, Smith, Neaple, Timmins, Geoffrion, J. L. Levesque, Hershorn, Thompson, Nesbitt, Desmarais, Kierans. Compared to them Remi Popol the lousy no-good, Drapeau the Dog, Bourassa the lackey of the Simards, and Trudeau the fairy are peanuts.

We are terrorized by the capitalist Roman church, even though this seems less and less obvious (who owns the property on which the stock exchange stands?) ; by the payments to pay back Household Finance; by the publicity of the overlords of retail trade like Eaton, Simpson, Morgan, Steinberg, and General Motors; we are terrorized by the closed circles of science and culture which are the universities and by their bosses like Gaudry and Dorais and by the underling Robert Shaw.

The number of those who realize the oppression of this terrorist society are growing and the day will come when all the Westmounts of Québec will disappear from the map.

Production workers, miners, foresters, teachers, students, and unemployed workers, take what belong to you, your jobs, your right to decide, and your liberty. And you, workers of General Electric, it’s you who makes your factories run, only you are capable of production; without you General Electric is nothing!

Workers of Québec, start today to take back what is yours; take for yourselves what belongs to you. Only you know your factories, your machines, your hotels, your universities, your unions. Don’t wait for an organizational miracle.

Make your own revolution in your areas, in your places of work. And if you don’t do it yourselves, other usurpers, technocrats and so on will replace the handful of cigar smokers we now know, and everything will be the same again. Only you are able to build a free society.

We must fight, not singly, but together. We must fight until victory is ours with all the means at our disposal as did the patriots of 1837-38 (those whom our sacred Mother church excommunicated to sell out to the British interests) .

In the four corners of Québec, may those who have been contemptuously called lousy French and alcoholics start fighting their best against the enemies of liberty and justice and prevent all the professional swindlers and robbers, the bankers, the businessmen, the judges, and the sold-out politicators from causing harm.

We are the workers of Québec and we will continue to the bitter end. We want to replace the slave society with a free society, functioning by itself and for itself; a society open to the world.

Our struggle can only lead to victory. You cannot hold an awakening people in misery and contempt indefinitely. Long live Free Québec!

Long live our imprisoned political comrades. Long live the Québec revolution!

Long live the Front de liberation du Québec.


1999 Claude Bélanger, Marianopolis College

Blaine Higgs: Can a leopard change its spots?

Canadian or French, what are we going to be? Or “Canadians or French, who will we be?

By André Faust (Nov 21, 2018)

Blain Higgs
Premier Blain Higgs, Photo credit: Charles Leblanc

33 years ago Blaine Higgs while a member of (CoR) Confederation of Regions presented his report to the Advisory Committee on Official Languages of New Brunswick. Blain was less than complimentary to the Francophone population of New Brunswick. 33 years later is patronizing the Francophone population. L’Acadie Nouvelle received a copy of Blaine Higgs handwritten manifesto which was tabled by Official Languages of New Brunswick.

His1985 manifesto titled “Canadian or French, what are we going to be? Or “Canadians or French, who will we be? sounded more like Teddy Roosevelt’s speech on the assimilation of immigrants. If you read Roosevelt’s speech and compare it to the Higgs manifesto you will see some similarities.

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American … There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag … We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” – Theodore Roosevelt 1907

In his manifesto, Higgs was critical of the Federal Government because they were negotiating a dollar and cent settlement with Japanese Canadians to compensate Canadian residents of Japanese origin who were interned at two main camps, Camp P and Camp X, not only adults but women and children as well. The Canadian government also seized their assets, these civilians were not prisoners of war. (“Thematic Guides – Internment Camps in Canada during the First and Second World Wars – Library and Archives Canada”, 2018)

Canada was in the wrong by interning and taking away assets from Canadian residents who were of Japenese origin and not prisoners of war, yet Blaine Higgs opposed compensating the Japanese for the Canadian wrongdoing.

Throughout his manifesto Blaine Higgs, the theme was English only in New Brunswick even though the Canadian charter of rights explicitly says that New Brunswick is a bilingual province.

It is rare that a person will change their core beliefs and take the opposite position.  One has to question the motive behind Premier Higgs for his change of heart.

Here is Premier Blaine Higgs 1985 Manifesto in its entirety

Canadian or French, what are we going to be? Or “Canadians or French, who will we be?

I am native of a small English speaking village located on the Maine new Brunswick border. In this community, I grew up in constant association with American neighbours. It was through this association that I soon came to realize low supportive and proud these Americans are of their country. In an emergency situation, which is when the real test would come, it is easy to see how forcefully with a people would stand united in defence of their country under one flag, one government and one language. This is further illustrated as American, in general, continue to brag about their country and openly state that quotation nothing is as good as the united states quote. Isn’t it wonderful to be so proud of a nation and not ashamed to admit it?

Canada also has this same potential, but we must return to a rational system and get away from the unrealistic fantasies of linguistic rates in all sectors. I challenge each and every citizen in this country to consider their loyalty to Canada as a nation as being first and foremost in their personal gold. We are not and will never achieve such loyalty and unity while at the same time embarking on a course supporting two different cultures.

In our military forces, alone, we have an English and a French division. In the event of a conflict which we must stand together, we could not even communicate amongst the very power which was to defend our country. Even if all the troops were bilingual we would no doubt stand at the front and argue which language the orders were to be given then while the enemy walks over us.

We have, as was recently stated, some 80 different cultures in this fine country. Imagine the chaos if each one of them demanded services in their native tongue and of course, the government in there current accommodating fashion would endeavour to provide it. This May seem, at first glance to be ridiculous to even suggest but consider the fact the Federal government is currently negotiating monetary settlement with Japanese Canadians to compensate for alleged afflictions occurring some 50 years ago. The decision at that time was made in the interests of national defense and it should not have to be paid for by the Canadian Taxpayers generations later. The Japanese Canadian Lobby groups demand repayment monetarily and s reveal their true allegiance to Canada and that is for personal gain.

Returning, now, closer to the homefront we find the French Canadians in Quebec have now illustrated their true allegiance, to Canada as a nation, by divorcing themselves from the majority of Canadians and to alienate these English speaking Canadians in their own province. There is only one clear goal in this pursuit and that is for “French Power” at any cost.

The rest of Canada sits idly by while the Federal government pours millions of dollars into Quebec and elevates Quebec to a status unequalled by another Canadian province. This is all done in the name of keeping Quebec within confederation. We must not continue to cater to the idealist pursuit which will only divide our country. our path is one of divisiveness among our people and if this continues we would be better served to negotiate separation as an alternative which I personally hope is never required.

As stated Quebec has made their stand and that is to be French and French alone. We must recognize and be impressed by their persistence and dedication to the French cause, not the Canadian cause.

It is now time to get to the real issues in question at this time and that is the issue of bilingualism within this already poorer Canadian province of New Brunswick. At this time we are the sacrificial province for the bilingual issue across Canada, as we are the only bilingual Canadian province. It is for this very reason that we must stand and clearly demonstrate the problems which are being created.

Premier Richard Hatfield upon his initial election to office in the late sixties chose at that time to ignore the vows of the majority. Premier Lous J. Robichaud had put forward the proposal for the Official Languages Act just before he was voted out of office and this should have been indicators enough for Premier Hatfield, upon his victory that the majority of people did not support this act. His subsequent re-elections to office should not be attributed as the people supporting his policies but instead the lack of choice in the eyes of the voters for a government which could truly represent them. I feel the name Hatfield has carried him for many years.

Currently, we still have no such party which will listen to the people and take a stand for them, thus the inevitable formation of an Association dedicated solely for the preservation of the English speaking Canadians. Despite the radical image that has been portrayed by the media and the elements of bigotry that have been thrown at this association it is still well supported throughout the province. With re-organization and a clear development of the Association’s goals, we will see it’s continued rapid growth. This could eventually result in the formation of a political party will truly represent the majority.

The Poirier Bastarache Report clearly does not reflect a representative sample of the people of New Brunswick of the people of New Brunswick. It instead reflects the deeply biased viewpoint of the three French authors and the one English author, thrown is as a token gesture, who really is not part of the issue as he is an out of province resident. Many English speaking moderates feel there must be just caused to all of these demands, based on linguistic rights. because of the amount of noise that is being generated. I would like to emphasize, However, that many of these so-called spokesmen for the French minority are on a payroll of some sort to fight for this cause. In many cases, this is a government payroll which means the Canadian Taxpayers is supporting financially those activists who peruse the breakdown of our national unity. In support of this argument,, consider the thousands of dollars that have been spent by the government to finance this report. I was told at the first round of those sessions, by Bernard Poirier, one of the authors, that the cost of publishing of the reports was free of charge. Can you possibly imagine who would be too kind as to published an unlimited supply of these reports absolutely free? The whole issue reeks of below board tactics.

Another issue worthy of note, by those moderate overtaken by compassion for the cause, was on the Federal front. This was regarding the formation of the Canadian Parents for French organization. This was not started and funded by the concerned French Parents as one might tend to believe but organized and funded by the Federal government. Additionally, the Federal government provided assistance for different groups to take the Provincial government to court to face the provision of French education. Is this what unity is all about, the Federal government versus the provinces?

I dismiss the Poirier Bastarache repost as being biassed, unnecessary and not promoting the real needs of the New Brunswick People. I cannot support arguments that New Brunswick residents are suffering because they cannot get service in their mother tongue. The point is the service is being provided. According to the report, only 16% of the New Brunswick population are unilingual French. This would indicate that 84% or approximately 195,000 Francophones in this province can speak English. The existing government policies appear to support the idea that even though a person speaks fluent English they have a right to refuse services in that language. When are we going to grow up and start acting like responsible citizens in the real world?

For the 16% or 37,000 unilingual Francophones in this province, we should develop an English Immersion Program instead of the current French Immersion Program for the estimated 66% or 350,000 unilingual Anglophones. The Anglophone population Have a long-standing history of being compassionate and tolerant of the needs of others especially when these needs are justified. However, in this situation, I feel the breaking point is fast approaching.

Let us now truly examine the cultural motivation of the Acadians. As stated in the report they have a higher rate of unemployment and an average lower income than do Anglophones in the other parts of the province. If I had chosen to stay in my native village I would no doubt have had a much lower income as I would have been unemployed. I instead chose to move to where the work was. I did not feel slighted nor did I feel the government should have provided employment in my hometown. In the case of the northern part of the province, we are dealing with a greater number of people whose jobless rate is abnormally high and the government should show additional interest to stimulate the economy of this region. The private sector must be encouraged to invest in this area. It does not seem likely if industrial entrepreneurs are plagued with language restrictions they will be here to invest. It must be emphasized that the greater number of investors comes from the English speaking sector whether it is foreign or otherwise. The province can not and will not ever function effectively by the legislation of additional burdens on the investment groups.

The money spent by the government to teach everyone French and to duplicate all governmental services could be better be utilized to create jobs and improve the standard of living for the average New Brunswicker especially in the northern part of the province. The formation of a French dual government system as proposed will satisfy only those activists in pursuit of a personal power struggle. Democratically the northern part of the province can elect whomever they choose to represent them and I do not feel the Anglophone portion of the Government will oppose improvements to their economic situation. I do not feel that supply the entire north shore with government jobs is the answer to the economic woes of the region.

I would like to emphasize that I am not supporting bigotry but reality and I am sure that many of the moderates both Anglophone and Francophone will agree.

1) The Poirier Bastarache Report entitled “Towards Equality of Official Languages in New Brunswick” be dismissed in its entirety as being unnecessary and impractical.

2) The government of New Brunswick confront the people of Ne Brunswick with a referendum asking; Should New Brunswick have only one official language and should that language be English? Yes or No. Accompanying information should include the actual costs of the current and proposed duplication.

3) The educational system return to the previously higher standard than now currently being offered.

In place of the French Immersion Programs a qualified level of teaching the French language to be offere3d to all New Brunswick students equally as part of the regular school curriculum.

4) The government stress through the future policies the concept that cultures are a personal issue and in this land can be practiced as a personal basis. From this point on the government will support only once culture and that is Canadian and only the language of the vast majority and that is English.

5) A qualified educational program is set up to teach those unilingual Francophones the English language so they will be able to communicate effectively with government agencies. This does not restrict the use of their mother tongue for any other activity.

6) I urge all New Brunswickers to examine the issues at hand. Look closely at the real driving force behind the French cause and the source of the funds which support it. I do not wish to hold any prejudices toward the Francophones but I Feel our current course is one of division and conflictions. I wish only to return to the system where qualification and ability takes precedence over the language or speaks contrary to the report I do not feel that all Francophones suffer from an identity crisis. I work every day with Francophones who are well qualified and every bit as capable as any Anglophones. They do not need to rely on being hired for a job because they are French but because they are capable individuals and that is the way it should be.

Blaine M. Higgs

The Paradox Of Minimum Wage In Contemporary Society

By André Faust (11/11/2018)

In our system of economics, the minimum wage is functional in controlling for inflation and for that reason, the minimum wage will always create a class working poor and create a loss of buying power in the higher wage earners.

What happens when the minimum is raised inflation goes up? As inflation goes up the bank of Canada increases the lending rate to control the rate of inflation. The consequence is that all the industries in the system raise their prices to offset the increase of wages and interest rates.

In essence, what we have is an endless loop which each time it cycles there is a loss of buying power.

How much one makes really isn’t a good measure of prosperity. A better measure is the buying power of wages earned. As buying power diminishes workers have to work more hours to pay for goods and services.

There was a time that a worker working for the minimum wage of 75 cents or less per hour had greater power buying power than today’s worker, who in New Brunswick makes 11.25 per hour. The loss of buying power effects every wage earner, the 20.00$ per hour wage earner wage doesn’t increase yet everything else increases so his/her wages gets closer to the minimum rate.

The result of the loss of buying power is that the supply and demand are also affected. Wage earners are buying less so the demand drops, and with a drop in demand, supply decreases as well. When supply decreases the frequency of layoff also increases resulting in less money to spend. This process will continue until the entire system fails.

Our economics is a system consisting of nodes, and whatever happens in one node affects all the other nodes of the system. An example nodes are the banking institution, industry, the wage earners, investors, the stock markets, human displacement technology and so on.

Our present system of economics is not sustainable and as a result, it will eventually collapse. To avoid the eventual collapse, we have to have the social and political will to change the system. In other words, we need to have the sociological imagination to resolve the wage issue as it relates to the consumer price index. The likelihood of such a change ever happening is possible, but highly improbable. The most likely reason why changes are highly unlikely is that they are too many stakeholders working for their own interest.

In summary, not including the price of fuel minimum wage contributes to inflation and a loss of buying power for the higher wage earners. While there are other factors which contribute to rising inflation such as willfully creating a shortage to boost prices the increase in the cost of production precipitated by increased wages is the dominant factor for the increase in inflation. Our system of economics is made of nodes, and each node can affect the whole system because whatever happens in one node cascades throughout the entire system. Lastly, each business is self-centered it only looks after its own interest and doesn’t acknowledge that it is part of a system.

The cycle of inflation is always greater than the cycle of deflation and if this process is allowed to continue the likelihood of catastrophic economic failure is possible.


Do voters really know the philosophy of the party they vote for?

By André Faust (Oct 21,  2018)

An election has come and gone here in New Brunswick, but we could go into an early election if the kids cannot get their shit together.

When it comes to voting do people know or understand the philosophy of the party they are voting for? Do people just vote on the campaign marketing plan or do they really know what their chosen party stands for?

I would argue that most people don’t know what their party stands for, except for the Greens from the discussion, verbal, in the media and online it does appear that green supporters understand what green stands for.

For the two old-school parties the Liberal and Conservatives voters do not know the political differences between the two. During the last election, the common phrase was Liberals and Conservatives are one of the same. If one knew and understood the philosophy of each they would realize that there is a fundamental philosophical difference between the two.

According to (Jana, Keith, and Goldman) there are some fundamental differences between the two and in both camps there exist small l and large L for the liberal camp and for the conservatives you have small c and large C.

What Jana, Keith, and Goldman describe is more the difference between center-left liberals and center-right conservatives which pretty well describes our provincial conservative and liberals.

So what does it mean to be Liberal or conservative? Remember this is just a general description of the ideologies between the two in the province of New Brunswick. Harper’s conservative border lines extremisms.

To be a liberal is to have a core value system that believes in freedom of thought, and speech placing limitations on government, tolerance, our charter of rights and freedom is built on liberal ideologies. Liberal ideology a mixed economy between state own and private enterprises. When it comes to social order Liberals try to find that balance between individual freedoms and social order. Which when you look at the constitution and the Charter of rights is based on these fundamental values and ideology.

Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to focus on personal wealth and private ownership of business enterprises which foster self-reliance and individualism. When it comes to crime and punishment, conservatives tend to be more punitive towards offenders, rather than focusing on rehabilitation of the offender. Tolerance conservative is less tolerant and is more ethnocentric and more than often be hostile toward minority groups such as newcomers coming in either in the province or in the country.

Extreme liberalism and Conservatism are really in their own categories, while they do have the fundamental ideologies they also push the envelope at both ends.

Related to Liberal ideology or philosophy is the Green Party. The green party has a lot more in common with liberal philosophy than conservative philosophy yet they have their own philosophy.
The Greens political philosophy aka ecopolitcs core ideology encapsulates creating an ecologically sustainable society which is rooted in environmentalism, nonviolence, and social justice than the liberals, but still within the parameters of center-left. The NDP also shares Liberal ideology/philosophy or inverse can be said Liberals share NDP ideologies. While the NDP are not radical left out of the five parties they are left because the NDP has adopted socialist philosophy as their core values, for example, social democracy and democratic socialism.

The People’s Alliance of New Brunswick while different than the Progressive conservative share some of the same philosophy, but the Peoples Alliance also share Liberal values as well in terms of transparency. Both the Conservatives and the Peoples Alliance of New Brunswick financial philosophy tend to follow Hayekian economics which says that it is business that should inject money into the economy to stimulate growth, and both PC and PANB seem to favor austerity to balance the books. The Liberals and Greens, on the other hand, tend to be more Keynesian in the sense that if you want the economy to grow the states has to put money into peoples pockets.

I have just skimmed the surface of political ideologies and philosophies, that has been countless books that have been written about political philosophies.