NationStates Jolt Archive

With the sponsorship scandal in full swing, PM Paul Martin is knee deep in sh*t and it keeps getting deeper and deeper. I never really minded Paul Martin and I don't hate him even now but there are some people in that party that deserve too and will not be re-elected. I live in Finance Minister, Ralph Goodale's riding, and I have found him to be a very decent individual, although, the momentum for the Conservatives is growing and may end up overthrowing Mr. Goodale, I'll just wait and see. The 2 Liberal seats in Edmonton are both at risk; David Kilgour, who narrowly won his seat last election was kicked out of Cabinet and is toast. Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan only won her seat by 100 votes or so in the last election and she may also be in danger, although she may still have enough power to win this time. In rural Ontario, Aileen Carroll of Barrie is in danger of losing her seat, as is Ovid Jackson (Owen Sound), Paul Bonwick (Simcoe), and Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North). All of them narrowly winning their seats last time and will the Alliance and PC not splitting the vote this time, they all could be toast. The final group that is in danger is in the Maritimes, where in Kings--Hants, Scott Brison, who is openly gay, left the Conservative Party shortly after it's merger despite the fact he voted in favour of the merger. I personally believe he left because of that idiot Larry Spencer and his highly homophobic remarks. It could also be because Joe Clark, former PM and PC leader, who is a supporter of the gay community (but he isn't gay) voted against the merger and now sits as an independent in the House of Commons. Anyway, Brison's supporters seem annoyed he left the Conservatives and likely will vote against him because of loyalty to the Conservatives and not the candidate. I myself am a memember of the Conservative Party and a support of Belinda Stronach for leader of it only because I don't think Stephen Harper can get the neccessary votes in Ontario and the Maritimes to win. They'll see this party as just one for Western Canada, not the true one it is for Canada. I'd like to here feedback from other Canadians and if need be Americans :? . Also, answer my poll question, ok? I also encourage all Canadians who can to vote this election, and if you don't, don't sit on your a$$ when there is more scandal in a year and say "I wish they were out of power", because you could have done something earlier to change that. I don't expect the Conservatives to win this time, although a strong opposition, combined with a minority Liberal government would be the next best thing!

Yes, the liberals will still win. The NDP, as much as I wish they'd win, don't stand a chance.

And Primeminister Stephen Harper just sounds ridiculous. The Conservatives are way to right, and have gotten way to much bad press this year, to win.

I could just possibly see a liberal minority win, but they're still in.

I think that the Liberals will win a minority government, with the NDP the balance of power with the Bloc. :D And they won't be blending into the drapes either, not with media-savvy Jack Layton as leader.

I think that the Liberals will win a minority government, with the NDP the balance of power with the Bloc. :D And they won't be blending into the drapes either, not with media-savvy Jack Layton as leader.
If only Shiela Copps had been welcomed at the NDP
would have really gone along way in further legitamizing the party.

Yeah, the NDP should have let her in. She would have been a great asset to the NDP.

Predictions:

1) Conservatives make major gains in Ontario and win more votes elsewhere (but not necessarily seats).
2) Vote splitting will cause major problems for the NDP and Liberals (more the Liberals cuz they have more to lose)
3) Jack Layton will make a fool of himself. (they always do - the supposedly 'media-savvy' ones)

Who cares, after Mulroney, the Liberals will rule Canada forever.

P.S. his son is just as bad as him *shudder*

Predictions:

1) Conservatives make major gains in Ontario and win more votes elsewhere (but not necessarily seats).
2) Vote splitting will cause major problems for the NDP and Liberals (more the Liberals cuz they have more to lose)
3) Jack Layton will make a fool of himself. (they always do - the supposedly 'media-savvy' ones)

I agree with you on the first two points, however, I think that the NDP are gonna take a few more seats than people expect. I think they'll get a couple in Southern Ontario, and possibly a few more in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and B.C. I also think they could take a seat or two in Quebec if they're lucky.

I will go on the record to say that should their be an election this June(or July) the liberals will win a slim majority government with strong oppositions on the otherside of the house.

They're all going to get screwed.

The election is a joke. It's picking between the lease of the evils.

They're all going to get screwed.

The election is a joke. It's picking between the lease of the evils.

yes, democracy is such a joke :roll:

The elections going to be a joke because I have a sick feeling in my stomach that the liberals are going to win again, even after all the Sh*t they pulled. I mean anyone who would vote for them now has to be a couple cans short of a six pack, but oh well... :roll:

The elections going to be a joke because I have a sick feeling in my stomach that the liberals are going to win again, even after all the Sh*t they pulled. I mean anyone who would vote for them now has to be a couple cans short of a six pack, but oh well... :roll:

yeah well, who else should I vote for? the Conservatives, which really was a hostile takeover by the Canadian Alliance of the Progressive Conservatives? Or maybe the NDP, but, I think they are too left leaning for me. I would consider the Bloc(they ain't that bad really, their just slightly left of centre which works for me) but they don't run outside of Quecbec, so, I can't vote for them. I suppose I could vote for the Marijuana party or the Greens, but I might as well not vote at all if that be the case.
:?
Then there's the liberals. If they were'nt run by Martin, I wouldn't have a problem at all. But he's a devote fiscal conservative, so no. I guess I'll just have to randomly pick a party before I go into the booth I suppose. :?

Whispers . . . Whoever wins - be sure to rewrite the energy provisions of NAFTA . . . :wink:

Yeah, the NDP should have let her in. She would have been a great asset to the NDP.

The NDP *did* want Copps to to join - very badly. But she insists on staying with the Libs and battling Martin within the party - wish she'd give up on that because she's wrecking a good personal career with her own peevishness. I think the NDP would be a better home for her anyway.

Hey, I have looked over the majority of the options that Canadians vote for, and it looks like I will be voting for my local Green Party Candidate.
Check them out at www.greenparty.ca

The elections going to be a joke because I have a sick feeling in my stomach that the liberals are going to win again, even after all the Sh*t they pulled. I mean anyone who would vote for them now has to be a couple cans short of a six pack, but oh well... :roll:

I'm a Westerner who plans to vote either NDP or Liberal - I just can't vote for Conservatives no matter what.

Yes, The Liberals are tainted with scandal at the moment. But remember that compared to what goes on in most countries, this scandal is very very small potatoes. Also, it's a fact that any party wanting to gain influence in Quebec must *buy* that influence - I don't like it either but that's simply the way the system is. The Conservatives bought their Quebec influence in the past and they would do it again if they got elected this time - anyone doubting that is just kidding themselves.

Despite the Liberals' scandal-smell, over all they'll do a much better job of running things than the Conservatives ever could. Christ, have we forgotten Mulroney already? His party promised to cut our national debt and they ended up doubling it! Harper's crew would do no different. Plus a Harper win would alienate Quebec and re-start the Separation issue all over again. Do we want that?

The bottom line is that Conservatives simply disturb me - I'd even rather see the Bloc win than them. In my own riding, I'll vote for whichever NDP or Liberal is strongest against the Conservative candidate.

Let me inform some of you about Federal politics east of Quebec. If Stronach had won the (new) Conservative leadership, they may have had a chance. With Harper in charge everyone sees right through this as just another incarnation of Reform. The Tories shot themselves in the foot on this one. Reform is not welcome there, thanks to their consistent insults eastward. Reform was born a Western party, if they wanted to become a National entity they should have just dissolved and rejoined the Tories. The alleged vote splitting here will not be an issue, people who would have voted for the Tories will more likely vote Liberal than Reform. That said there are some areas where Reform had a reasonable showing before and may do well again, like Carleton county. They were the last stronghold of COR and it looks like they want to keep it up. As for the Annapolis Valley, I think it will go Red like in '93. Touching on what Terra said about Brison: Martime politics are much different than in the west. Candidates play a big role. The news may have shown clips of the vocal party loyal, but I don't think Brison is going to suffer too badly.

This election is going to be an oddball.

I wouldnt know who to vote for frankly.

The Liberals are more obviously then ever corrupt and greedy. Despite having moderate and leftist policies they waste money and give patronage to their little friends like American Republicans

The Conservatives have proven over and over that all they want to do is Bash the liberals, not come up with any decent solutions. I went to a convention Stephen Harper had in calgary a year ago, all he did was talk about the corrupt old liberal party, nothing to do with his stance. Even when asked, all he did was trace a problem back to Chretien and say how under him, things would be different. Screw em!

The Bloc is a joke as always.

And the NDP are decent. But nothing stellar. Jack Layton hasn't proven he's ready to run a country, so i doubt i'd vote for him.

I doubt i'd vote at all. No one wants to do anything, just put blame on another party.

(correcting weird multiple post issue)

I'd vote NDP in a heartbeat.

Then again, living about 160 km south of Vancouver, i just wish we had the NDP in the States, so that I could vote for an NDP candidate in my riding. They're also polling at near-record highs, according to the numbers CBC released today.

Just be thankful that you've got more than two options.

Here are the regional breakdowns:

Atlantic 18%
Québec 8%
-Montréal 11%
Ontario 21%
-Toronto Area 22%
Manitoba 32%
Saskatchewan 27%
Alberta 14%
BC 31%
-Vancouver 32%

I'm surprised to see the numbers from Atlantic Canada so low. Isn't that Alexa McDonough's old stomping ground? Or have the various economic and fisheries problems had that severe an effect that the people are looking elsewhere?

The NDP would note have 14% support in Alberta, provincially they only have 2 seats and about 6 or 7% support and the Alberta NDPers are Liberals in disguise. The NDP is a group of disorganized people looking for some meaning. Their only effective candidate was Sven Robinson and since he's gone, Layton, who won't win his seat by the way, and the rest of the party likely won't win more than 15 or 16 seats. A recent canada.com poll should these results:

If an election were called right now:

Liberals 142 seats
Conservatives 94 seats
Block 53 seats
NDP 19 seats


I agree with the NDP on certain social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage but on international relations and the economy, they are brutal. I don't fear them though, I live a province run by them and they lied the whole election campaign, smeared the opposition and forgot to mention the enormous debt they'd caused. Oh well, they'll get kicked out next election by some real people who know what to do. Also, look at how they ran BC and Ontario and see if you can still trust them.

I will vote either the Liberals or the NDP. I most likely will vote for the Liberals, though.

Anyway, to the data:

http://erg.environics.net/news/default.asp?aID=549

According to an Environics poll, conducted between March 29 to April 18, the Liberals dropped to 39%, 12% down from December, 2003.

Liberals: 51% - December, 2003. 39% - April, 2004.
Conservatives (die!) - 24% - December, 2004. 29% - April, 2004.
NDP: 15% - December, 2003. 19% - April, 2004.
Bloc Quebecois: 8% - December, 2003. 11% - April, 2004.
Other: 2% - December, 2003. 3% - April, 2004.

I wish Chretien was leading the Liberals rather than Martin, but, oh well.

http://erg.environics.net/imageLibrary/042304_1.gif

http://erg.environics.net/imageLibrary/042304_2.gif

http://erg.environics.net/imageLibrary/042304_3.gif

http://erg.environics.net/imageLibrary/042304_4.gif

http://erg.environics.net/imageLibrary/042304_5.gif

I can't support either the Liberals or the Conservatives. I'm pretty confident that Reform's new mask won't fool any Easterners, who have got to be angry at the insult and innuendo the Alliance has thrown their way for years. I find it hilarious that they're desperately scratching for Atlantic votes after implying they were all lazy welfare bums who don't want to work for the last ten years. As if everyone from Alberta has moral superiority just because their province happens to have oil and gas reserves. (No offense to Mallberta and other Alberta citizens -- I know you're not responsible for the attitudes of the ex-Reformers.)

Historically, the Liberals have done a lot of good things for this country. Just about everything I'm proud of, from Universal Healthcare to inventing Peacekeeping, was done by a Liberal government. But that doesn't excuse them for the Chretien year's cronyism or Martin's insistence on appointing Liberal riding candidates instead of letting members vote for their own candidates. If I were a party member and I lived in those ridings, I would be livid. In my opinion those appointments are inexcusable.

I live in Victoria, so I'm going to vote NDP. It would be nice to wave goodbye to David Anderson, who I feel has been incredibly ineffective no matter what portfolio he's been offered. This is one of the few ridings that the NDP might win a seat in, and while I don't think I want an NDP government, I would be happy to see them wield more influence in parliament. I think they have some important views that are lost in the conflict between the Liberals and the Conservatives. If the Libs win a minority government and the NDP get enough votes, the Libs might be forced to listen a little harder to the NDP in order to get their support come voting on bills time.

I'm glad Harper won the Conservative nomination. They might have gotten a few seats in the east if Stronach had gotten it -- I would have been much more worried that the Conservatives would win. i might have had to swallow my disgust and vote for Anderson for fear of splitting the vote.

As for Sheila Copps, for her sake it's nice to see that she has a few supporters here, but I can't say I've ever been overly impressed with her. I give her credit for taking the fight to Martin though. That was the best thing I've ever seen from her.

Eguus, you said that the Conservatives won't fool Easterners. Funny, in Al Anbar's numbers, it showed the Conservatives with a 7% increase in support in Ontario and 31% overall. I'd say they'll steal a few seats from the Liberals out there. Also, did you still vote for the NDP in your last provincial election? Cuz I thought that EVERYONE pretty much gave them the boot. 2 seats, one in the heart of downtown Vancouver and the other in Victoria. Even their leader lost. Also, the Layton run NDP won't fool many in the West.

Since the Reform party was created they tried to take on the Liberals on the issues and found that Canadians weren't willing to listen to issues.

Take the gun registry which the Reform swore would cost much more than they anticipated and be ineffective. Liberals laughed and said that they were all a bunch of right wing rednecks who just wanted to have assault rifles. (typical Liberal response to criticism) Oh wait, the Reform (now Conservatives) were RIGHT!!

How about Senate reform? The Conservatives have been forever espousing reform but nobody would listen.

Same goes for many issues. Military, US-Canada relations, tax policies, etc... I think the Conservatives have realized that the majority of Canadians don't care about policies. Mostly because a lot of us believe they are all liars anyway... so they only way to win is to paint the other party as being worse liars. (its working so far... Conservatives have jumped in the polls since the Sponsorship Scandal)

...Canadians weren't willing to listen to issues...the majority of Canadians don't care about policies.

Not so! Canadians are concerned with issues like universal health care, gun control, affordable housing & education, employment & fair wages, infrastructure upkeep, responsible and sustainable resources & growth management, opportunity & justice for First Nations people, legal equality for same-sex couples, decriminalizing marijuana, multi-culturalism, national unity, species protection & the environment, fair taxation and distribution of tax revenues...

*These* are the issues that matter to Canadians, not the bogus ones Conservative propagandists would try to sell us on.

Quebec. . .that's where the Liberals will get most of their seats. They will get about half, and the Bloc about half.

Ontario. . .In the last election, the PC's and Alliance split some ridings. Rural, they will go Conservative, but Ottawa and Toronto, NDP. Hamilton, Liberal (Tony Valeri will win <<shudders>>) BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba will see urban ridings go NDP and rural Conservative. They may as well not vote in Alberta, that's Conservative ground. Maritimes. . .Conservative/NDP.

Riding to watch. . .Ottawa South. Monia Mazigh (Maher Arar's wife) for the NDP, vs. David McGuinty (the Ontario premier's brother) for the Liberals.
I'd love to see how Ms. Mazigh and Jack Layton battle it out over gay rights, especially because that's why I haven't joined the NDP.

Just a little note to La Terra di Liberte. I'm going to assume based on the wording of your post that you do not live in Ontario or B.C., but have decided to mention how badly they ran those provinces anyway. Well, Don't talk about how badly the NDP ran BC until you'v lived there under the current Liberal government ( who are not affiliated with the federal Liberals and are a conservative party for that matter). The Liberals under Gordon Campbell were basically handed the rock-bottom that the NDP landed the province in, and then proceded to dig deeper. In order to reverse the budget crisis we were in, the Liberals proceeded to develop the biggest confusion of priorities I have ever seen. Under their government, I have watched as they sucked away at money for education and health care (resulting in surgery waiting lists YEARS long) to fund the 2010 olympics. And they continue to cut services too. They recently shut down the only centres for street kids in Vancouver, despite the province recently coming out of debt. There was also a plan to cut costs in the ministry of children and families by ceasing to investigate cases of "mild" physical and sexual abuse. A reporter from The Province newspaper exposed this with the help of some whistleblowers, and the government scrapped the plan. In short, I will vote NDP no matter what.

I don't live in either BC or Ontario, although I almost moved to Kelowna several years ago and to Ajax, North of Toronto just last year. I frequently visit both, mostly due to family. But I do live under an NDP government myself in Saskatchewan and they were given the bear minimum from the old Torries and Roy Ramonow did a very decent job until he quite. His replacements have been absolutly the most useless group of people I have ever seen. They lied to win an election, promised to lower taxes, try to reduce the provincial debt and improve the economy. They have done the exact opposite. They recently raised taxes, pissed off the Unions (they're only lasting supporters), increased the debt by wasting $500 000 on stupid TV commercials to grow the province, which will never happen and our economy is worsening EVERY year. They are a nice group of people but are NOT equipped to run a province. I didn't support the NDP in the last election here because of the way they lied about the opposition, miss quoted their leader and called him a pedifile (well a focus group did anyway) for being in a commercial featuring young people that leave our province year after year. So I haven't lived under Campbell, although it sounds like he's doing the same things the NDP are out here. I've never liked the NDP much anyway, I don't like the unions much, even though I see their purpose and I don't like higher taxes because that takes away my money that I should be able to use, not the government's to waste on TV commercials.

. , I don't like the unions much, even though I see their purpose and I don't like higher taxes because that takes away my money that I should be able to use, not the government's to waste on TV commercials.

Ok, I could understand what you were saying right up too this point? you don't like unions that much? What the Hell are you talking about? I will admit, that alot of them have become corrupt over the years, but, they are still there to fight the good fight, and stand up for the rights of the worker. Now, as for your higher taxes, well, that's invariable going to happen in a province where socialists are elected. Yes, they do spend money on TV commericals but, alot of that money is used for legitamate purposes. Ie, healthcare, you know, stuff like that.

Now, I'll admit, I'm not the biggest fan of the NDP, but I rather them then the (expletive deleted) Saskatchewan Party. I can assure you, that once the Sask-a-tories come to power,they will privitize the crowns(which won't be good for the common layman) and will advocate the privitization of healthcare like Klein in Alberata. In fact, the current leader, Brad Wall, before the election, advocated for privitization of the crown corps.

Oh, and for the record, in the last year, Saskatchewan's population only declined 50 people, explain that too me please.

Since the Reform party was created they tried to take on the Liberals on the issues and found that Canadians weren't willing to listen to issues.

Take the gun registry which the Reform swore would cost much more than they anticipated and be ineffective. Liberals laughed and said that they were all a bunch of right wing rednecks who just wanted to have assault rifles. (typical Liberal response to criticism) Oh wait, the Reform (now Conservatives) were RIGHT!!

How about Senate reform? The Conservatives have been forever espousing reform but nobody would listen.

Same goes for many issues. Military, US-Canada relations, tax policies, etc... I think the Conservatives have realized that the majority of Canadians don't care about policies. Mostly because a lot of us believe they are all liars anyway... so they only way to win is to paint the other party as being worse liars. (its working so far... Conservatives have jumped in the polls since the Sponsorship Scandal)
For 8 years, Mulrooney chanted jobs, jobs, jobs. He gave us higher debt (double what he inherited), the GST, sold off profitable government holdings, eliminated tax breaks for the middle class, froze the personal deduction level, and lost jobs, jobs, jobs. Why would Canadians believe that a reincarnated Reform Party would do any better than the following accomplishments by the Liberals:

Reduced taxes, PAID down the deficit past 5 years, reduced unemployment, increased health care funding, diffused the separatist cause, and the most important one-----refused to join the "coalition of the willing".

What did the Leader of the Opposition (Stephen Harper) have to say to Chretien about the matter?

"When will this government do the right thing and back our American friends and allies? Because frankly sir, you are embarrassing us,"

Canada did do the right thing and refused to join an illegal war (not sanctioned by the UN), and recent polls support that decision now. If Harper had been the Prime Minister, Canada would have troops in Iraq right now.

BTW, for 7 straight years of the last 11 under the Liberals, Canada was selected by the UN as the BEST country in which to live.

The Liberals may not be perfect, but they gotta be better than the Reformed Tory Alliance, or is that the Alliance of Tory Reformers?

Didn't you hear that new Sask Party leader Brad Wall is changing their party platform and said he will NOT sell the crowns. Anyway, I don't like unions because of the amount of control they have over the government. Kevin Yates, Sandra Morin, Kim Trew, etc are all former union people and therefore make the unions a higher priority than I think they need to be. I can see their value for someone making minimum wage and hardly can speak a word of english and even people that can but they have too much power over the NDP here. Also, the NDP lied to people in Regina about the healthcare because there were 3 ridings in the city that they feared would go Sask Party. Enough people got scared and voted NDP or Liberal, which split the opposition vote. As for the 50 people, believe me, more than that moved out of Regina alone last year but it is because the aboriginal population continues to grow that it balances out the depatures to the number of children the aboriginal parents are having. I you don't believe me, go to North Central Regina and see all the little kids running around the streets, they are the balancing component.

Didn't you hear that new Sask Party leader Brad Wall is changing their party platform and said he will NOT sell the crowns. Anyway, I don't like unions because of the amount of control they have over the government. Kevin Yates, Sandra Morin, Kim Trew, etc are all former union people and therefore make the unions a higher priority than I think they need to be. I can see their value for someone making minimum wage and hardly can speak a word of english and even people that can but they have too much power over the NDP here. Also, the NDP lied to people in Regina about the healthcare because there were 3 ridings in the city that they feared would go Sask Party. Enough people got scared and voted NDP or Liberal, which split the opposition vote. As for the 50 people, believe me, more than that moved out of Regina alone last year but it is because the aboriginal population continues to grow that it balances out the depatures to the number of children the aboriginal parents are having. I you don't believe me, go to North Central Regina and see all the little kids running around the streets, they are the balancing component.

Just a bit of info about 'illegal wars', Kosovo was also not sanctioned by the UN, it too was an 'illegal war'.

The Liberal policies have not decreased taxes, rather they shuffled taxes from one thing to another. Liberal policies have not created jobs (other than the desk jobs for the government). Liberal policies have caused the gap between the rich and the poor to increase exponentially over the past decade.

The Liberal government under Martin has refused to put Cod as an endangered species.

Personally, I have voted Liberal in the past. However, in the most recent Provincial election I decided to go with NDP. All in all I agree with the NDP's stance on most issues and feel that since both the Conservatives and the Liberals haven't being doing such a great job, perhaps it is time to give another party a chance to show what they can do for Canada. For once I would like to see a party actually stand by it's campaign promises, but they're all politicians so that probably won't happen. Well that's my take on it.

I was a member of the Canadian Alliance before it became the Conservative party...and I live in Quebec. This talk about how Easterners are not going to like the Conservatives because of reason 1 or 2 is a bunch of mindless drivel. The fact is that as far as Quebec goes, voting here goes down 2 lines, seperatism (or its weedier counterpart Union Economique) or a federalist line. The Conservative party doesn't represent either one of those.

The liberals will win a minority government in the next elections. The conservatives will be the official opposition and will win some seats in Ontario and seats in the Maritimes. I'd like to see Stronach take over the Finance in the shadow cabinet; she has the business connections and know-how, just not the leadership or public speaking ability. Had we elected her as leader it would have been another Stockwell Day fiasco. This party could NEVER have sustained another Mr.Day type person.

Its about time the liberals were voted out, they've done enough damage so far that it has become much more widely known and accepted. And I personnally don't care what the UN says on illegal wars or on whose #1 in the world. I care about Canada in our own terms.

I hope the NDP does exceptionally well in the next elections...that way they will steal the maximum amount of votes from the Liberals (Red NDP anyway). And if I remember correctly, Leyton said that ANY liberal would be welcome into the party so long as they did not go and contest their riding association elections. He was trying to avoid making NDP membership a consolation prize for those liberals who lost their candidacy. In any case, Mrs.Copps would have finished her career had she joined the NDP. What could she have become? Leader? #2? Junior Janitor? She's ambitious and interested in the #1 place in the liberal party. She relatively young (for a politician) compared to Martin who won't be there more than 4-8 years. At that point she has an excellent chance of taking the leadership, it may be in opposition but it will be as leader; something she has always attempted to grab.

I wouldn't want to see the NDP win...ever, after seeing what the provincial NDP did with BC and Ontario (The 2 levels share ALOT of resources and policies).

I'd just like to shake ol' Joe Clark's hand for standing up for his convictions today and speaking the gospel truth about the upcoming federal election - that his old Liberal foe Martin will make a far better PM than that twat Harper & his rightwing thugs who hijacked Joe's beloved old Tory party. Good for you Joe!!

:?

Harper didn't hijack the PC party... the vote was overwhemingly in support of the merger.

And let us remember .. this is Joe Clark we are speaking of, the only PM who couldn't do basic arithmetic if his political life depended on it. (see his PMship in 1980 - there's a reason he has one of the shortest terms as PM)

Joe Clark, the guy who's ego is so big, when 1/3 of his party dared to vote against him on a leadership review, he called a full fledged convention. Which he then LOST! (see 1983 and the election of Mulroney)

Joe Clark, who led the brave remnants of the once grand PC party into the ground and barely making party status. Doing worse that Charest! (see election 2000)

Now, he's bitter and lashing out at anyone and everyone.

Anyone with half a brain in his/her head should see this for what it really is; a temper tantrum by one of the most self-centered leaders in Canada's history. (o.k... maybe not that bad.... but you get my point)

The Joe Clark I remember is the one who for years served Canada with intelligence, class & dignity as Foreign Minister despite the humiliation of his backstabbing by his boss Mulroney (*spits*)

Clark would have been a pretty good PM had he been given some time. But no, the Eastern political establishment couldn't stomach a Westerner from outside their oldboys clique leading the nation. Mulroney cynically exploited this and led a coup to take over the Conservative leadership. The whole country suffered terribly as a result.

Clark is that rarest of political creatures - a sensible, centrist Conservative with morals, compassion and honour. He's alway been far too good for either the old or new Tory parties.

A 'good' Prime Minister is also measured by how well he can hold together a government.

Liberal PM W.L.M. King set an example during the 1920s by forging together a minority government that actually worked (until Liberal scandals broke it apart - some things never change). Joe Clark on the other hand barged ahead not trying to build a consensus. The guy lost because he put his ego before the good of the nation or the party.

Mulroney was elected and re-elected despite hard economic times. Need I say more?

As for stabbing people in the back, well, what do you call Clark's attack on his ol' friends in the Conservative party. He has some of the longest serving PC members calling him an "idiot" (watch the CBC), some of them longtime Clark supporters. Clark underhandedly attacked his own former party out of spite, not honour, not compassion, not sensibility.

What do you call Martin's coup of Chretien's power? And I'll bet you are voting for him, after you spit on Mulroney for doing the same thing.

My question is. . .

What is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals?

Not much. . .

There is only one policy where they are significantly different, and Pierre Pettigrew managed to mess that one up.

A former PC leader would rather see Paul Martin win than Stephen Harper.

The left wing of the Liberal Party is being pushed out, like Sheila Copps. :(

The leader of the Liberal Party and second-runner-up in the Conservative party both have corporate backgrounds.

The NDP has put out a different platform than the other parties. Yet, they only have about 20% of the vote, and will win even less of the seats because we don't have PR :cry:

When will Canadians come to their senses and quit voting for those who cuddle up to the corporations. . .Conservative or Liberal?

Temme, Canadians don't like the NDP because they favour bigger government, weaker international relations, weak economic plan and don't appeal to rural people. I only agree with them on scoial issues but they are brutal one everything else. Also, as long as Alberta, rural BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario exist, the Conservatives will have a strong supporter base than the NDP who relies on Winnipeg, Victoria, Vancouver, Oshawa and Windsor for 90% of their support. Besides, they have done such a miserbale job running most provinces that people don't trust them anymore. The Conservatives and the Liberals views appeal to more average Canadians and therefore will be the two dominant parties for years to come. Canada is awake and it's choosing it's best choices over the left wing hippies. I hope in my life time that the NDP will never become the Federal government, or Canada will collapse and self distruct, also I would likely move to another country. I wouldn't be the only one either.

Temme, Canadians don't like the NDP because they favour bigger government, weaker international relations, weak economic plan and don't appeal to rural people. I only agree with them on scoial issues but they are brutal one everything else. Also, as long as Alberta, rural BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario exist, the Conservatives will have a strong supporter base than the NDP who relies on Winnipeg, Victoria, Vancouver, Oshawa and Windsor for 90% of their support. Besides, they have done such a miserbale job running most provinces that people don't trust them anymore. The Conservatives and the Liberals views appeal to more average Canadians and therefore will be the two dominant parties for years to come. Canada is awake and it's choosing it's best choices over the left wing hippies. I hope in my life time that the NDP will never become the Federal government, or Canada will collapse and self distruct, also I would likely move to another country. I wouldn't be the only one either.

I despair that we'll ever have a proper Centre-Left party to vote for. You're correct that the NDP is usually abysmal. Their biggest problem is their ties to Big Labour which prevent them from progressing/adapting to changes. The NDP is even weak on Environmental issues; if a big union wants to save some horrible big-polluting old industry just to protect union jobs, the NDP will back that.

The NDP needs a leadler like England's Tony Blair who can drag the old party into this century and rebuild it from the ground up.

Some years ago we had some hope when Mel Hurtig was hatching his National Party; hopefully that idea will be reborn sometime soon.

Um, at least the NDP isn't falling head-over-heels in love with the corporations. When will voters wake up and smell the roses and realize that the NDP represents the majority of Canadians' values?

The NDP does NOT represent a majority of Canadians views. They represent the left wing and NOTHING else. They hate rural people, people that make a little more money like doctors and lawyers and anyone who owns a business, big or small. They are the party other than the Bloc who represent the least amount of Canadian's views. Ok also, Canada was built on semi-Christian values, the NDP are a bunch of athiests. Also, critizing Canadian voters is a sure way to make your party be eliminated. At least the Liberals and Conservatives don't do that.

The NDP does NOT represent a majority of Canadians views. They represent the left wing and NOTHING else. They hate rural people, people that make a little more money like doctors and lawyers and anyone who owns a business, big or small. They are the party other than the Bloc who represent the least amount of Canadian's views. Ok also, Canada was built on semi-Christian values, the NDP are a bunch of athiests. Also, critizing Canadian voters is a sure way to make your party be eliminated. At least the Liberals and Conservatives don't do that.

The NDP does not hate rural people. The CCF, forerunner to the NDP, was originally a labour/farmer party. When did they critizcize the voters? I don't remember them doing that. They do represent the values of the middle class and working man, see the election ads on their website, www.ndp.ca. And the NDP are not a bunch of atheists, Monia Mazigh, their star candidate, is a Muslim.

Temme, that was the old NDP. The actually productive Tommy Douglas ones, not the new ones. Also, if only of your MPs is religious, well that says something right there. It was you who critized the voters for not "walking up". Also, you should see some Liberal ads saying the NDP is a wasted vote, they know it's between them and the Conservatives and those are the two parties that a vote really counts for.

Not quite. So what if was me who criticized the voters; I am not Jack Layton or any other prominent NDP person. There are only about 19 people who are recognized as being NDP (the MP's plus Jack Layton, Ed Broadbent, Olivia Chow, and Monia Mazigh) Out of those, 1 is religious. That would be a 1/19 people being religious. I bet if you took those numbers and applied them to other parties, they would be about the same. Besides, Tommy Douglas was a minister. And the old Tommy Douglas NDP have not disappeared; Ed Broadbent is running. The NDP is not a wasted vote; they will become the balance of power. :D

The views of the CCF were much more conservative than what the NDP represents today. In fact, the views of the NDP have changed dramatically over the last few decades. (as you've probably heard before, my grandpa ran for the NDP). The CCF started out west, like the Reform party, and represented their views. So, it would be closer to say that the Conservatives are more like the CCF than the NDP.

The Conservatives are almost totally religious, by the way.

The Conservatives are almost totally religious, by the way.

Let us pray they'll never win then :lol:

The views of the CCF were much more conservative than what the NDP represents today. In fact, the views of the NDP have changed dramatically over the last few decades. (as you've probably heard before, my grandpa ran for the NDP). The CCF started out west, like the Reform party, and represented their views. So, it would be closer to say that the Conservatives are more like the CCF than the NDP.

The Conservatives are almost totally religious, by the way.

I suppose my politics are more like a CCF supporter.

I don't know who to vote for.
I'm a Conservative but I don't like or trust Harper at all. I was a Stronach supporter. Peter McKay is a liar who betrayed his party.
The Liberals are mired in scandal. Martin is a smiling Cretien. There doesn't seem to be a lot of responsible people in that party worthy of a vote.
The NDP, sad to say, seem to be the only real option nationally. Jack Layton seems to be a decent chap. I worry about their fiscal responsibility however.
The Bloc are a nonstarter. Who votes for traitors?
I'm one of the few I guess who think Mulroney was one of the best Prime Ministers we've ever had. Even have an autographed picture of him when he was PM. And Mike Harris when he was Premier but that's another story... He should've ran for Conservative leader.
I guess I *may* vote NDP but by default.

( What poll btw? )

I don't know who to vote for.
. . .I'm one of the few I guess who think Mulroney was one of the best Prime Ministers we've ever had. Even have an autographed picture of him when he was PM. . . .

What? Brian Mulroney was mired in scandal and then let it all fall to Kim Campbell. He's the reason we've never had an elected woman prime minister. Then you complain about the Liberal scandals. . .

Garaj Mahal, hoping they don't win because they are religious is absured. At least they'll have moral values then, although questionable ones some times.

I think a lot of people fall for Liberal and NDP fear-mongering about Harper. In fact, so far he hasn't done anything worse than Chretien, Martin or Layton have done.

I'd rather wait until I see their policies come out before I pass judgment

Um, I'd disagree with the part about Jack Layton. Stephen Harper supports private healthcare. I can stomach that about as well as I can stomach mouldy cheese.

Do you remember those pictures of him smoking up a storm and that article about his support for terrorism? I'd say he's even in a different group than Martin and Chretien.

Maybe you should link to that so we can all see.

That was pretty made-up. If the anti-NDP reputable media believed it, they would have reported it. As it is, they've decided that it's not reputable. Personally, it smells like tabloid.

Harper has stated that he is pro-Universal health care. If the left-wing parties and media would stop the fear-mongering you'd hear him say it.

Besides, private health care has been around for years. Paul Martin's family doc runs a huge for-profit (private) health care provider.

Layton is too left wing... his party members (ie Joe Comartin) have been specifically playing towards the muslim community by relentlessly attacking the US and Israel without thinking about what is right. (I wouldn't mind it if they balanced their thoughts but... they don't).

The NDP is also anti-business, and since I want to be employed some time in the future I want to have a somewhat pro-business party in. They want to implement things like the Kyoto protocol and more anti-business policies. Look at what the NDP and excessive pro-environment policies have done to BC.. it used to be one of the richest provinces... now it can barely get by.

I'm all in support of protecting the environment but not to the point where I'll condemn our children (and my generation) to abject poverty for it.

As well, Layton and his party are anti-military. Which I think is not good, if Layton had his way, Canada wouldn't have a military at all. And we'd have to mooch off the US. But since Canadian policies (and Layton) would've so aggravated the US it is doubtful they'd help.

Harper has stated that he is pro-Universal health care. If the left-wing parties and media would stop the fear-mongering you'd hear him say it.
Maybe, but what I was talking about was privatization. For-profit MRI's and the like.

Besides, private health care has been around for years. Paul Martin's family doc runs a huge for-profit (private) health care provider.
That doesn't mean it's right. I strongly dislike that.

Layton is too left wing... his party members (ie Joe Comartin) have been specifically playing towards the muslim community by relentlessly attacking the US and Israel without thinking about what is right. (I wouldn't mind it if they balanced their thoughts but... they don't).
Balanced their thoughts? What's that supposed to mean? They've chosen a stance and they're sticking to it. A lot better than Paul Martin/Pierre Pettigrew health mix-up.

The NDP is also anti-business, and since I want to be employed some time in the future I want to have a somewhat pro-business party in. They want to implement things like the Kyoto protocol and more anti-business policies. Look at what the NDP and excessive pro-environment policies have done to BC.. it used to be one of the richest provinces... now it can barely get by.

I'm all in support of protecting the environment but not to the point where I'll condemn our children (and my generation) to abject poverty for it.

Um, on the NDP website, on the "Our leader" spot, Jack Layton talks about environmental solutions that create jobs. That doesn't sound like poverty to me.

As well, Layton and his party are anti-military. Which I think is not good, if Layton had his way, Canada wouldn't have a military at all. And we'd have to mooch off the US. But since Canadian policies (and Layton) would've so aggravated the US it is doubtful they'd help.
Well, I don't think one needs a huge military. Enough to defend oneself should be enough. Violence never solves anything.

Jack Layton for PM! (ok, even I know that's unrealistic, but it makes a nice ending)

Temme, Layton's plans are so unrealistic and disorganized, it's funny. Unless he plans to create jobs for hippies, you can't create jobs otherwise if you put a halt on all use of the environment. Also, theiur stance is the wrong one. They ignore all the Jews killed in pointless suicide bombings and then are outraged when the Jews take action to prevent further attacks. They are dfending thmselves, whihc is right. They control such a small piece of land, the Arabs have Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, etc. Also, Pettigrew is realistic. Tommy Douglas wanted to make sure every Canadian got health care if they needed it, he didn't try to prevent people from maybe having private clinics where you could go if you wanted to/ had the money but not erasing the public healthcare system. Also, in the changing world, military needs to become more of a priority. Terrorism is unlike anything we in the free world have faced before and cannot be solved without military action. Also, violence has solved plenty, if we didn't use violence against Hitler, half the darn world would be under Nazi rule. The terrorists also use violence against us and the only way we can stop them is by using violence against them. Sad but true. Hudecia is right, and well while you socialists may not see it that way, it's reality. The world is not and I doubt will not be a peaceful place until long after we're all dead and forgotten.

Actually, The Liberals, or Conservatives, will get a minority, I know the Liberals, have a larger Popular Vote, but it has to be spread, and well remember Trudeau during the years he got a minority, PC's-107, and Liberals-109. And well, he had the same popularity as Mr. Martin. So I think it's either Conservative minority, or Liberal Minority.

Thank you La Terrra.

Layton's policies are ludicrous, he claims they'll create jobs, but its a load of hogwash.

Layton and the NDP are blindly anti-American and anti-Israel. They do not consider that maybe the US and/or Israel might have a reason for doing what they are doing. For example, Israel pulling out of the West Bank and Gaza strip, if done incorrectly, could be construed as a victory for terrorists (like Arafat: who has just told the Palestinians to "terrorize their enemies" see MSNBC) .

If the Canadian health care system for public health care is so wonderful then why are people dying for it (literally - don't get me started on this... personal experience). Either our health system needs to be revamped or we need to introduce some for-profit systems. (I prefer the former but will settle for anything)

If Canada doesn't have a navy then we will not be able to protect the endangered species on our Grand Banks from international poachers (we caught some from Portugal recently). As it stands our navy is slowly degrading (our Iroquois Destroyers are being retired soon and will not be replaced).

We don't need a huge military--that will only tempt us to start invading countries for no reason (look at the U.S.A. and Iraq). And environmental solutions do create jobs. Jack Layton's already done it. And health care--well, we do need reform, and Jack Layton is promising reform. The media is not taking him seriously. If Jack Layton ever becomes Prime Minister, we will see a new, revitalized Canada, one that all people would be proud to live in.

Well, except Paul Martin and Belinda Stronach. They can go to the U.S.A.

The policies directed by the NDP will eliminate our navy and air force before they destroy our army. We need an army, period. Who will defend our soveriegnty without an army? We will be forced to mooch off the US for eternity, making us a colony, not a nation.

Layton's policies have NOT created jobs. In fact, his policies haven't even been implemented (thank goodness).

As for the health care system, he proposes throwing more money at the problem until we are all broke from taxes.

First of all, we won't be mooching off the U.S. We will have a small military, with peacekeepers, and we won't need a huge military, because we won't be going to war a lot.

In fact, according to Jack Layton, he's seen them work. I'd love to see them in action on a national scale.

Until we are all broke from taxes? The rich would have their taxes raised before ours were raised. Let's face it, while Belinda Stronach's making the millions (or is it billions?), people are starving in the streets. I think she can be taxed higher.

I'll sum it up with a quote from Jack Layton. "You shouldn't need to have a Visa to find out if you have cancer."

I agree that you shouldn't have to pay to get health care... however, at the same time, the current system isn't working. It needs to be reformed, and Layton isn't proposing reform, he is proposing cosmetic changes to our health care system, not real changes.

A recent statistic showed that if we do not drastically increase funding for our armed forces the RCAF will not exist by the end of this decade. The Canadian navy will not exist within a decade. Layton does not support increasing our funding for the military.

Canadians starving in the streets? Not likely, we have welfare systems that support people who live responsibly. I know many people who bum off the welfare system. Usually people who are 'starving' have been convicted of welfare fraud or have spent all their welfare checks in the casinos.

A lot of the 'green' policies will create a few bureaucratic jobs but will cut out much more than they create. Even the gun registry created hundreds of jobs. Speaking of which, Layton still supports this, even though it has proven itself a useless waste of money.

Layton was a city counciler in Toronto. He can't have implied anything too big. I would hate to see them implied on a national scale, it would be economic suicide for Canada. Also, having higher taxes is stupid, don't tax don't raise taxes for the rich or for anyone. People what more money in their pocket to spend for themselves, not in the hands of some Jack Layton run NDP, which may just make Telus, Rogers Communications and Bell all Crown Coporations and unionize every company in Canada. Also, if you have ever been to a third world country, e.g. Mexico (ok I know it's better than most but still), you would know that poor people in Canada have it a million times better than the poor in Mexico. I saw it first hand down there. There is no Salvation Army, no food bank, no homeless shelter, nothing. The only thing they have is warmer weather but the heat in the summer is unbearable, so even it has it's downsides. Finally, Layton shouldn't poo poo private clinics, if you want to pay a little more, you can get a service done quicker. If you don't have the money, there's always the hospital.

You don't have to choose between the environment and jobs anymore. You are still stuck in your old mindset. Higher taxes are not stupid. As a well-known policy analyst, Neil Brooks, once said, "Taxes are the price we pay for a more civilized society." Is it fair that Paris Hilton doesn't even know what generic food is while homeless people eat generic cat food? Is it fair that people with a Ph.D. drive taxis while Belinda Stronach drops out of university and gets Daddy to find her a job at Magna. Is this a civilized society? How can you sleep at night condoning such injustice?

It is not the 'old mindset' to believe that green policies hurt the economy. Look at British Columbia, it is now officially a 'have-not' province thanks to the policies of environmental radicals over the past decades.

Higher taxes aren't bad? What kind of logic is this? Any increase in taxes would mean increasing the taxes on higher earners like doctors, radiologists, anesthesiologists and pretty much every other kind of medical provider (except nurses). Do you expect this policy to encourage doctors to stay in Canada when they can be paid more and taxed less in the US? I have friends who have stopped working in Canada for the exact reason and now provide medical services in the USA. Where they get better equipment, are treated with more respect, garner better wages, and live a less stressful existence.

And how about increasing the taxes on other higher earners? They'll just move out of the country or find tax loopholes. In the end higher taxes for the wealthy will only cause more people to want to avoid becoming rich.

Ok, so why not just increase taxes in general? Because it isn't economical. If you increase taxes it means that the people do not have as much money to spend on consumer goods, or they save most of their remaining money. If they don't buy goods, employers stop producing and start laying off people. The economy takes a hit and the unemployment goes up. (in 1930 this kind of action caused the global depression ... but I don't think that will happen again)

Besides, do you think that our government is responsible enough to be given more money? The NDP and Layton would require more taxes to feed their enormous appetite for spending.

I have heard of taxi drivers having Ph.Ds... usually they are either foreign Ph.Ds (which they often obtain by bribing a university), or they have a degree in something like "Liberal Arts".

You'll have to pardon me for being an American, but I have seen many of these same issues being debated in the US and I guess I don't understand a lot of the logic. Taking this idea of fairness to one of its argumentative conclusions makes it seem like such an absurd argument - if you completely level the playing field and say that everyone makes the same amount of money, where is the incentive for improvement or development? Most research is not towards the betterment of society, but towards getting one step ahead of the competition. National Healthcare causes a few people to burden the society as a whole - for example, a skateboarding craze of skating without a helmet does not seem smart, but now when the idiot cracks their heads on the concrete, now the government has the increased costs (use whatever example you want - smoking, obesity, etc.). Simply saying that the taxes of the wealthy should compensate others doesn't get to the heart of the problem. It would seem that responsibility for one's own life is not being taken into consideration at all here. I agree that there should be avenues to help the less fortunate, but forcing the whole nation to be burdened by the luck (or results of bad judgement) of the few does not seem fair to me either. As in the past, shouldn't charities and societal organizations have an incentive to help out those few without burdening the whole nation?

A lot of people still believe that if anyone works hard enough, they too can rise to the top. And they also believe that if anyone is homeless, it is their own fault. Of course, not everyone is quite that extreme, but various shades of it can be present in a lot of people's thinking.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't always work that way. Belinda Stronach drops out of university and gets to run her father's company at 37 years old. Children are homeless on the streets at night. Statistics show that more rich people than poor people go to university.

That's what's wrong with the thought that "you've made your bed, now lie in it." People's parents made their beds for them, and they may be able to straighten out a few wrinkles here and there, but they're still either trapped in a cycle of poverty, or using Daddy's influence to get a job.

One final thought: If Paris Hilton or Belinda Stronach suddenly lost all their money, would they be able to survive in the real world? That's the premise of "The Simple Life," but I mean it on a can't-survive-if-they-don't basis. Would they be able to make it? Or would they be sleeping in a cardboard box, their designer shoes offering no protection against the cold?

Oh who cares about Canada?

Um, at least the NDP isn't falling head-over-heels in love with the corporations. When will voters wake up and smell the roses and realize that the NDP represents the majority of Canadians' values?

No they don't. If they did then people would have voted for them.



The Conservatives are almost totally religious, by the way.

And being religious makes you what? Incapable of leading a country or participating in politics? Harper has stated time and time again he will NOT legislate anything on social issues. Now private member bills are another thing; if members of the party attempt to pass a bill then parliament choses. It is also party policy that social issue bills will be made an open vote. I don't attend mass and I am not even religious, and I am a proud member of the Conservative Party.

Harper supports amendments to the Canada Health Act so provinces get back their rightful power over healthcare. Therefore if a province chooses to enact ordinances to allow private hospitals or clinics then so be it. The Federal government has NO right to interfere in the jurisdictions of the provinces.

We don't need a huge military--that will only tempt us to start invading countries for no reason (look at the U.S.A. and Iraq). And environmental solutions do create jobs. Jack Layton's already done it. And health care--well, we do need reform, and Jack Layton is promising reform. The media is not taking him seriously. If Jack Layton ever becomes Prime Minister, we will see a new, revitalized Canada, one that all people would be proud to live in.


Larger military makes you want to invade countries? That's insane logic. Then why hasn't India, China, Brazil, or even Poland invaded its neighbors yet? They all have large armies compared to their regions. Canada needs to reform its armed forces; they need more funding, more equipment and substantially better pay. We need a new Air Force plan before 2010, and a new ships for the Navy by I'd say 2015. We need to buy those things now.

Layton has promised alot, and produced very little backing. He's promising stuff just like all the other politiciens. I don't see anything special in his policies. Layton is like the Ontario NDP and the BC NDP; they ruined their provinces financially, I don't want to see that happen to Canada.

A lot of people still believe that if anyone works hard enough, they too can rise to the top. And they also believe that if anyone is homeless, it is their own fault. Of course, not everyone is quite that extreme, but various shades of it can be present in a lot of people's thinking.I agree to a small degree. Poverty does tend to be cyclical. However, the attitude that one grows up with has a lot to do with that. I came from a low-income, large family where the parents encouraged the kids to be better educated and more successful than they were (and all of us were, by far). I went to schools where every child was encouraged the same way by their parents - and to my knowledge they all succeeded. However, when I got into the working world, I knew of many families whose attitude was not as supportive, and yes, that meant the kids weren't as successful. That is not a government issue, but societal. Placing the burden to take care of the attitude of the kids because the parents won't isn't fair for anyone.

Indeed, Kelleville, I am not from a high income family. (More like low-income actually because I have a large family). I worked my butt off in high school to obtain the best grades so I could get scholarships. I scraped and saved every penny from the age of 10 to pay for my education if I didn't have enough scholarships. Many of my rich friends are indeed having 'daddy' pay for their education and buy them nice new cars and pay for their insurance. Some day I hope to go to medical school and become a doctor. That'll require as much money and hard work as I can put into it. If I make it there, I'll be the first of my family to ever make it that far.

I did not get lucky to be born to rich parents. But that does not mean that I should sit down and give up. Canada was not built on welfare. It was built on the backs of hard-working immigrants who turned this small, rough colony into the great nation that it is today. A nation which has been ranked as the best in the world by the UN in years past.

Welfare is there for people who are honestly down on their luck. Welfare exists to help people continue on until they can get back on their feet. Welfare is NOT there so people can bum off it for the rest of their life throwing their hands up in the air and blaming some 'conspiracy'.

Vorringia... I was not saying that being religious is a bad thing. I was simply pointing out that the conservative party has a fairly high percentage of religious members.

Indeed, Kelleville, I am not from a high income family. (More like low-income actually because I have a large family). I worked my butt off in high school to obtain the best grades so I could get scholarships. I scraped and saved every penny from the age of 10 to pay for my education if I didn't have enough scholarships. Many of my rich friends are indeed having 'daddy' pay for their education and buy them nice new cars and pay for their insurance. Some day I hope to go to medical school and become a doctor. That'll require as much money and hard work as I can put into it. If I make it there, I'll be the first of my family to ever make it that far.

I did not get lucky to be born to rich parents. But that does not mean that I should sit down and give up. Canada was not built on welfare. It was built on the backs of hard-working immigrants who turned this small, rough colony into the great nation that it is today. A nation which has been ranked as the best in the world by the UN in years past.

Welfare is there for people who are honestly down on their luck. Welfare exists to help people continue on until they can get back on their feet. Welfare is NOT there so people can bum off it for the rest of their life throwing their hands up in the air and blaming some 'conspiracy'.

Vorringia... I was not saying that being religious is a bad thing. I was simply pointing out that the conservative party has a fairly high percentage of religious members.

So why did you feel the need to point it out? Why does it matter whether alot of them are religious or not?

Canada needs major reforms to all of its welfare institutions. They are for the most part antiquated and corrupted. A return to a province centric approach to healthcare would be a nice start.

You'll have to pardon me for being an American, but I have seen many of these same issues being debated in the US and I guess I don't understand a lot of the logic. Taking this idea of fairness to one of its argumentative conclusions makes it seem like such an absurd argument - if you completely level the playing field and say that everyone makes the same amount of money, where is the incentive for improvement or development? Most research is not towards the betterment of society, but towards getting one step ahead of the competition.
I guess this would pertain to a communistic country. I do hope that you were not trying to suggest that Canada is communist?

National Healthcare causes a few people to burden the society as a whole - for example, a skateboarding craze of skating without a helmet does not seem smart, but now when the idiot cracks their heads on the concrete, now the government has the increased costs (use whatever example you want - smoking, obesity, etc.).
Thank God our country cares about the health care of all Canadians.

In America, I understand that you have to pay for insurance to cover health care costs? If this same “idiot” cracks his head, do insurance premiums increase?

Simply saying that the taxes of the wealthy should compensate others doesn't get to the heart of the problem. It would seem that responsibility for one's own life is not being taken into consideration at all here.
Just the wealthy pay taxes in the US?

I agree that there should be avenues to help the less fortunate, but forcing the whole nation to be burdened by the luck (or results of bad judgement) of the few does not seem fair to me either.
If you believe in your Constitution, I think it talks about all being created equal? Hollow words huh?

Generally speaking, the higher the poverty level in a country, the higher the crime rate. How much does it cost to police increased crime, to prosecute it, and to incarcerate the offenders? Wouldn’t it be much better for society, to help the impoverished to get a good education, and help them to get on their feet?

If we don’t do anything about poverty, the chances of someone stealing your car, or breaking into your house increases, as does armed robberies etc. what about the drug dealer selling drugs to your kid? Go ahead, let the masses fend for themselves, just don’t complain about the consequences.

As in the past, shouldn't charities and societal organizations have an incentive to help out those few without burdening the whole nation?
How much time do you devote to charity? Why should people be forced to volunteer in a free society? What if there were no volunteers?

There are millionaires who begrudge paying anything to help the less fortunate and all they want to do is turn their 1 million into 2 million. I call that greed.

I make an above average wage and I do not begrudge paying taxes to help maintain a national healthcare program. I believe the quality of life here in Canada is pretty decent.

For 7 years in a row, Canada was deemed by the UN to be the best country in the world in which to live. I will take that as affirmation that we are doing something right.

Read some quotes from Stephen Harper that should be of concern:

http://www.stephenharpersaid.ca/

Take a look at some of the things that Martin and his cronies have said that should be of concern...

www.teammartinsaid.ca

Here's some stuff Jack Layton said on health care:

http://action.web.ca/home/ndpnpd/en_leader_speeches.shtml?sh_itm=0797bf1319d8dfcd48fcb1d56174ee01

And on the environment:

"I don’t accept old thinking that says we have to choose between creating jobs and prosperity or protecting our planet…because I’ve helped create environmental solutions that create jobs. Canada has the ideas. It just hasn’t seen the alternative to the Liberals that puts those good ideas in action."

And on quality of life:

"We can build a Canada where nobody’s left on the streets at night. Where you and your family get quality, free Medicare. Where we stand up for our resource and farm communities. And where our kids have the clean air and water they deserve – while we create jobs delivering it."

Jack Layton for PM! (hey, no more sponsorship. . .)

With an election to be called this weekend for June 28th, all the Federal Parties seem to be already on the campaign trail. The Liberals are out west, trying to clear thier tarnished image of waste our money to get Quebec votes (oh wait, they should campaign everywhere except Quebec for that), the NDP storms around Manitoba and Saskatchewan, hoping some body will listen to their unrealistic promises and their "false" plans to "improve" the economy. The Bloc is the, well umm, the Bloc (need I say more?). If you haven't guess yet, I'm supporting the Conservatives, although I don't think Stephen Harper should be their leader. They are strong on economic and foreign issues (besides Iraq) and plan to lower taxes for lower income families and what not. My only concern is the way they look upon immagration, abortion and same-sex marriage. They have ignorant right wing views on all of them and that kind of scares me off. If Belinda Stronach had been elected leader, she would have changed that party for the better, making eastern Canadians want to put an "x" down beside their Conservative candidate, instead they'll likely vote Liberal for fear of what the Conservatives may pull out. I predict the Liberals will sneak out a majority government with the Conservatives making small gains in rural Ontario, the NDP making small gains in urban Ontario and the Bloc regaining some seats that they lost to the Liberals last election. Oh, btw Cuneo Island, who gives a care about the United States? At least we don't beat up third world countries and think we're all the stronger because of it. Take your bs to an American forum where someone actually cares, or God forbid agrees!

For years I've been waiting for Paul Martin, clearly the person most quaified to lead Canada, to finally have a clear and unobstructed mandate. At last that time is here. Get ready for an *inevitable* 8 years of great government! :D

Why Canadians should vote Liberal in the upcoming election.

I believe the number one priority of Canada is to stay united and I further believe that the only party that can continue to achieve that goal is the Federal Liberals. Here is why:

In 1995, a year and a half after Jean Chretien's Liberals defeated Brian Mulroney/Kim Campbell's Conservatives, a referendum was held and the NO side barely squeaked out a win. Many Quebecers were very disenchanted by the failed Meech Lake Accord and the Charletown Referendum (Mulroney's promise of including Quebec in the Constitution).

Since then, the question of Quebec sovereignity has greatly dissipated. The Provincial Liberal win in Quebec in 2003 further demonstrated that most Quebecers were dissillusioned with the separatist cause, and Jean Chretien played a strong part in that change of heart, by inducing Jean Charest to switch to the Liberals, and helping out in the Provincial campaign.

The election of a minority Conservative government, with little or no representation in Quebec, would once again, create an unstable climate.

Other important considerations:

1. The Liberals have reduced the National Debt for the past 5 years, which no party has been able to accomplish in the past 50 years. Who was the Finance Minister during most of Canada's debt reversal? None other than the present Prime Minister.....Paul Martin.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/govt03.htm

2. When the Liberals took over from the Conservatives in 1993, the unemployment was at an all time high of 11.4%. Under the Liberals, the unemployment rate is currently 7.3%.

3. Over the past 5 years, the Liberals have INCREASED funding for the Canada Health Act by approximately 33%

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/health13.htm

4. Inflation remains low at levels of 2% to 3%

5. In 1997, Chretien signed the Kyoto Accord, acknowledging Canada's commitment to the world's environment, especially greenhouse gases. It should be noted that the US continues to balk at signing this agreement, even though the US is responsible for 36.1 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in 1990.

http://www.canada.com/national/features/kyoto/story.html?id=D75B99CC-F63F-41F7-ADF3-A44F35B1BE4B

6. Regarding the Iraq War, Chretien made this comment:

"If military action proceeds without a new resolution of the Security Council, Canada will not participate,"

What did Mr. Harper (then leader of the Canadian Alliance) have to say about it?

Canadian Alliance Leader Stephen Harper, who has been one of the most vocal critics of the federal government's stance on the war and of anti-American sentiments expressed by Liberal officials, was among those who addressed the cheering crowd.

"We are with you in the battle for Baghdad," Harper told a cheering crowd.

"Let us pledge today that in the future, when our American and British friends around the world take on the cause of freedom and democracy, we will never again be isolated," he said.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1049469057997_30/?hub=Canada

In retrospect, I am glad that Mr. Chretien said no to Mr. Bush, and that sentiment is reflected across this country. In a poll from Feb. 2003:

A Canadian Sun poll published on 20 February found 66% of Canadians believe Canada should not support a U.S. invasion of Iraq without United Nations approval.

http://www.glocom.org/special_topics/social_trends/20030224_trends_s28/

Want a strong, healthy, united Canada? Vote Liberal!!

Ahem... it doesn't take a genius to pull off a deficit-free budget during booming economic times. Mulroney was in office during hard economic times (for the most part).

Besides... do you really believe all the junk they tell us about the budget and deficits? Our provincial PC party was kicked out of office right after a budget and it was 'discovered' that we didn't have the surplus of several hundred million, we actually had a deficit of over 6 billion. Wow, the government lied to us, who knew!

Jean Chretien only held the country together by a margin of 0.5%. Which is next to nothing. Could another PM have done better perhaps?

The Provincial Liberals in Quebec are on the way out. Opinion polls are showing that there is again, another increase in separatist fervor.

Look at the site I showed you guys and look under "Iraq War". Martin openly supported the war in Iraq.

Also, quotable quotes from out beloved ex-PM Jean Chretien.

"Good proof is good proof, and you know you have good proof when it is proven!"

Ahem... it doesn't take a genius to pull off a deficit-free budget during booming economic times. Mulroney was in office during hard economic times (for the most part).

Besides... do you really believe all the junk they tell us about the budget and deficits? Our provincial PC party was kicked out of office right after a budget and it was 'discovered' that we didn't have the surplus of several hundred million, we actually had a deficit of over 6 billion. Wow, the government lied to us, who knew!

Jean Chretien only held the country together by a margin of 0.5%. Which is next to nothing. Could another PM have done better perhaps?

The Provincial Liberals in Quebec are on the way out. Opinion polls are showing that there is again, another increase in separatist fervor.

Look at the site I showed you guys and look under "Iraq War". Martin openly supported the war in Iraq.

Also, quotable quotes from our beloved ex-PM Jean Chretien.

"Good proof is good proof, and you know you have good proof when it is proven!"

The fact is that the Conservative party and the NDP will never represent more than fringe opinion in this country. The only way these parties can increase their appeal is when they begin to sound & act more like Liberals. That's what they've always done in the past.

Harper's Conservatives are doing that right now - pretending to be moderate while camouflaging the right-wing fundamentalism of their leader and his hidden agenda. Canadians won't be fooled by them.

I grew up in the West. But when I moved to Toronto I *really* had my eyes opened to one immoveable fact: that truly, most voters and political power are based in Ontario/Quebec and always will be. Their numbers are so HUGE compared to the rest of the country that in reality they are the political heart/soul of this country. Ontario/Quebec *is* Mainstream Canada.

Ontario/Quebec/Maritime people are not truly Conservative and they never will be. Sure they might occasionally help elect a Conservative gov't (so long as it acts Liberal) but these people will never embrace Conservative-Libertarian *ideology* the way that many Westerners puzzlingly do.

This means that Conservative-Libertarian ideology is only a *fringe* ideology in Canada - and will never grow beyond the sparsely-populated West. Mainstream Canada is Liberal - period.

Westerners are forever carping that they are shut out of the federal political arena. And they are, but that's because they do this to themselves! If Westerners really want to gain some influence and respect in mainstream Canada, they must elect more Liberal MPs and get inside the offices of power. By pointlessly clinging to fringe-Conservative ideology and electing outsider MPs, Westerners perpetually keep themselves in the political wilderness.

Anyone doubting this need only look at the Maritimes - smaller populations/economies but far more clout than the West has. That's because Maritimers are smart enough to elect strong Liberal MPs that can actually be heard in Ottawa and actively represent their interests.

Stephen Harper was not long ago president of Canada's *far right-wing* "National Citizens Coalition". Here's an article about that lovely group:

http://www.nupge.ca/news_2002/news_no02/n08no02a.htm

(Yes obviously the article is heavily Union-slanted, but it's written for that audience. And despite its goofy tone it does raise a lot of serious questions.)

With what is commonly known about the NCC, could Canadians want or trust *anybody* who'd be a member of that group to lead our country? They're almost fascists.

I don't know much about Canadian politics, so I won't comment about who exactly must win or lose. However, all I ask is that when Canadians are at the polls, keep in mind your little friends to the south. Whoever gets voted in must strenghten immigration laws. Recriminalization of marijuana would be nice, but it's not a matter of international security. Immigration is, as it has allowed terrorists a convinient entry point into the US.

However, all I ask is that when Canadians are at the polls, keep in mind your little friends to the south.

Sure, but will Americans also please kindly consider Canada a bit when you guys choose your president this year? A president who plays fair re Free Trade agreements would be a nice start. Most Canadians prefer that you elect Kerry.

Whoever gets voted in must strenghten immigration laws. Immigration is, as it has allowed terrorists a convinient entry point into the US.

What is needed is tightened application of our existing laws. As it is criminals are getting in and disappearing. Or when we find out they're criminals and order them deported, that isn't instantly applied so again they disappear. To be fair though things have been tightened up lately here and continue to be.

Recriminalization of marijuana would be nice

Disagreed! Marijuana should not be illegal *anywhere* - these laws are a waste of time and only exist to jail people who are doing nothing wrong.
But there's another thread already open to argue that issue so let's go there for that.

Ahem... it doesn't take a genius to pull off a deficit-free budget during booming economic times. Mulroney was in office during hard economic times (for the most part).

Besides... do you really believe all the junk they tell us about the budget and deficits? Our provincial PC party was kicked out of office right after a budget and it was 'discovered' that we didn't have the surplus of several hundred million, we actually had a deficit of over 6 billion. Wow, the government lied to us, who knew!
Yeah the Provincial Conservatives lied, what else is new? But let's not confuse Provincial politics with Federal politics.

Okay...task # 1

1. The Liberals have reduced the National Debt for the past 5 years, which no party has been able to accomplish in the past 50 years. Who was the Finance Minister during most of Canada's debt reversal? None other than the present Prime Minister.....Paul Martin.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/govt03.htm

Muldoons record:

Mulroney was in power 9 years, raised our taxes like crazy, reduced income tax deductions, introduced GST, sold off billions of dollars of Government assets, increased government spending, increased unemployment (despite his cry of Jobs, Jobs, Jobs), and doubled our National Debt.

He even CLOSED military bases. Imagine a Conservative doing such a thing?

Compare that to this:

Over the past 10 years Canada has seen a spectacular economic turnaround. Look at Table 1, which compares Canada’s budgetary situation in 1993 with that of today. In 1993 Canada recorded the largest deficit among the G-7 countries after Italy. Our governments’ deficits represented 8.7% of our economy. Today we are the only G-7 country with a surplus.

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/default.asp?Language=E&Page=PressRoom&Sub=Speeches&Doc=20031205toronto_e.htm

I guess that makes Martin a genius huh?

Be sure to click on the tables, it is interesting to see just how well Canada has done over the past 11 years.

Jean Chretien only held the country together by a margin of 0.5%. Which is next to nothing. Could another PM have done better perhaps?

I stated that it was a narrow win, but I qualified it by saying that Quebecers were disillusioned by the failed Meech Lake Accord and the Charletown Referendum (under Mulroney)

Task # 2:

Since then, the question of Quebec sovereignity has greatly dissipated. The Provincial Liberal win in Quebec in 2003 further demonstrated that most Quebecers were dissillusioned with the separatist cause, and Jean Chretien played a strong part in that change of heart, by inducing Jean Charest to switch to the Liberals, and helping out in the Provincial campaign.

The Provincial Liberals in Quebec are on the way out. Opinion polls are showing that there is again, another increase in separatist fervor.

The Provincial Liberals are on their way out after winning 45% of the vote and a majority government in April 2003? The PQ only managed 33%.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1050325839474_134///?hub=TopStories

From 2001:

In January 2001, Lucien Bouchard resigned as Quebec premier and PQ leader, citing his inability to increase support for Quebec sovereignty, which has fallen from almost 50 percent in the October 1995 referendum to about 40 percent.

Do you have recent polling to support your claim?

My point about the governments lying was to point out that our statistics are not necessarily true. Besides, do I really need to prove that the Federal and Provincial Liberals are all liars? I hope not.

Mulroney cut down the military sure, but most of our newer warships were produced thanks to Mulroney and he was even trying to replace our aging Sea Kings. Closing military bases does not imply a decrease in funding.

As your stats just proved, Canada was in booming economic times during the past ten years. Making it easy to balance the budget. Also, the federal Liberals profited from all those tax increases that Mulroney put in place (which they promised to get rid of.. oh wait... did they lie to us again?). Moreover, the Liberals have cut military spending down to next to nothing (saving billions).

Just saw a poll quoted in the National Post that ranked the Provincial Liberals at 30% of the popular vote. Trying to dig up the site. Also, check out this site

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1075504209499&call_pageid=1012319932217&col=1012319928928

Shows that the PQ would win if an election were held today.

I am not sure why the Quebecers almost voted to separate but I think it had a lot more to do with general dissatisfaction than with one specific event. Mulroney tried his best to bring Quebec into the constitution, unfortunately he failed, although I don't believe due to his own failings. I think that our nation is far too diverse to be able to agree on much.

Garaj Mahel... Kerry plans on boosting tariffs, enforcing trade rulings against us, cut tax deductions for businesses in Canada, prevent US jobs from coming over here to us.... why are Canadians supporting Kerry?

I think most Canadians are split on Kerry/Bush in that we don't really want either.

At least Harper is calling for democratic reforms to make our country more democratic and less of a 'elect a 5 year dictator'. Which doesn't classify as being 'fascist'.

If majiuana possession is illegal then people who have it are breaking the law and 'doing something wrong'. Until it is legalized, it is still an offence, and hence 'wrong'.

Purly Euclid, Canada needs to be able to enforce our marijuana laws in a more sensible manner. Our courts are filled to the breaking point with marijuana offences (and many others) and many times crimes will go unpunished because they cannot get access to a trial in a 'timely manner'. Decriminalization is not the same as legalization. Legalization means it is O.K. to possess marijuana, decriminalization means we don't have to try people anymore, we just hand them a ticket for several hundred dollars.

Anyone caught with more than a specified amount will be charged with marijuana trafficking, which is still criminal.

Garaj Mahel... Kerry plans on boosting tariffs, enforcing trade rulings against us, cut tax deductions for businesses in Canada, prevent US jobs from coming over here to us.... why are Canadians supporting Kerry?

I think most Canadians are split on Kerry/Bush in that we don't really want either.

At least Harper is calling for democratic reforms to make our country more democratic and less of a 'elect a 5 year dictator'. Which doesn't classify as being 'fascist'.

If majiuana possession is illegal then people who have it are breaking the law and 'doing something wrong'. Until it is legalized, it is still an offence, and hence 'wrong'.

Purly Euclid, Canada needs to be able to enforce our marijuana laws in a more sensible manner. Our courts are filled to the breaking point with marijuana offences (and many others) and many times crimes will go unpunished because they cannot get access to a trial in a 'timely manner'. Decriminalization is not the same as legalization. Legalization means it is O.K. to possess marijuana, decriminalization means we don't have to try people anymore, we just hand them a ticket for several hundred dollars.

Anyone caught with more than a specified amount will be charged with marijuana trafficking, which is still criminal.

So is anybody here from Ontario?

On the news last night a story said that Ontarians were angry about their new Provincial Budget and were considering taking their anger out on Paul Martin.

That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard; surely most Ontarians don't feel this way. What does Martin have to do with the Ontario Premier's actions?

I think that Ontarians are mad about paying more taxes. We are suffering at the pump, we are paying high taxes as is, and now we are slammed with even more!

I'm from Windsor, and our city is increasing taxes as well! That makes the Conservative tax cut plan sound really really nice.

Also Garaj, most people confuse provincial with federal politics. Like people confusing the actions of the former PC party with the Conservative party.

As tax policy analyst Neil Brooks once said, "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." I think that we need more taxes on the rich. Middle-class and lower-income families pay about the right amount of tax. We don't need lower taxes, we need less government waste of our taxes.

My point about the governments lying was to point out that our statistics are not necessarily true. Besides, do I really need to prove that the Federal and Provincial Liberals are all liars? I hope not.

HOW do you explain this one?

Thursday, October 30, 2003 - Page A1

http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20031030/UONTAM/TPTechInvestor

TORONTO -- Ontario's Liberals will have to dig themselves out of a massive hole and will operate in the red this fiscal year after an independent financial investigation revealed that the Conservatives have left them with a $5.6-billion deficit.

"It is shocking, Finance Minister Greg Sorbara said yesterday after learning the size of the financial burden his government had been handed. "It exemplifies a history of mismanagement and misrepresentation on the part of the previous government."

Read all about the Provincial Tories "cooked books". You will soon realize who the true liars are. Especially to the tune of $5.6 BILLION!!

Talk about smoke and mirrors. This is truly shocking to say the least.

Dalton MacGuinty made all kinds of campaign promises, he has reneged on all but a few. He promised to stop development on a moraine outside of Toronto, he reneged on this one. He promised to cap hydro costs, he promised NOT to raise taxes, he promised not to run a deficit, he reneged on all of them.

I think that the Liberals are lying about our deficit too. Besides, if the Liberals did not know that the PC was running that much of a deficit it means either one of two things:
1) They were an incompetent opposition. What makes you think they'll be a better government?
2) The knew about it and ignored it so they could make huge campaign promises. In which case they lied.

Incompetent? or liars?

The federal Liberals... well... read the Liberal Red Book of Lies.. err ... I mean promises. At one point the then Canadian Alliance took a promise out of their Red Book (made by Jean Chretien and Paul Martin in 1993), and made a Private Members Bill out of it (word for word - to create an independent ethics counsellor) and then had the bill shot down by the Liberal party.

What about GST? What about everything else they promised? They reneged on it all.

With an election to be called this weekend for June 28th, all the Federal Parties seem to be already on the campaign trail. The Liberals are out west, trying to clear thier tarnished image of waste our money to get Quebec votes (oh wait, they should campaign everywhere except Quebec for that), the NDP storms around Manitoba and Saskatchewan, hoping some body will listen to their unrealistic promises and their "false" plans to "improve" the economy. The Bloc is the, well umm, the Bloc (need I say more?). If you haven't guess yet, I'm supporting the Conservatives, although I don't think Stephen Harper should be their leader. They are strong on economic and foreign issues (besides Iraq) and plan to lower taxes for lower income families and what not. My only concern is the way they look upon immagration, abortion and same-sex marriage. They have ignorant right wing views on all of them and that kind of scares me off. If Belinda Stronach had been elected leader, she would have changed that party for the better, making eastern Canadians want to put an "x" down beside their Conservative candidate, instead they'll likely vote Liberal for fear of what the Conservatives may pull out. I predict the Liberals will sneak out a majority government with the Conservatives making small gains in rural Ontario, the NDP making small gains in urban Ontario and the Bloc regaining some seats that they lost to the Liberals last election. Oh, btw Cuneo Island, who gives a care about the United States? At least we don't beat up third world countries and think we're all the stronger because of it. Take your bs to an American forum where someone actually cares, or God forbid agrees!

Has Belinda been elected, then we'd have had another Stockwell Day-like individual leading the party. She had no experience whatsoever. Her speeches and informal question periods with the press were...terrible. I voted for Harper, but only because I couldn't vote for someone like Grant Hill or Preston Manning. Oh and I am from the East. People in the East will vote for the conservatives; I expect maybe 10% of the vote in Quebec.

The fact is that the Conservative party and the NDP will never represent more than fringe opinion in this country. The only way these parties can increase their appeal is when they begin to sound & act more like Liberals. That's what they've always done in the past.

Harper's Conservatives are doing that right now - pretending to be moderate while camouflaging the right-wing fundamentalism of their leader and his hidden agenda. Canadians won't be fooled by them.

I grew up in the West. But when I moved to Toronto I *really* had my eyes opened to one immoveable fact: that truly, most voters and political power are based in Ontario/Quebec and always will be. Their numbers are so HUGE compared to the rest of the country that in reality they are the political heart/soul of this country. Ontario/Quebec *is* Mainstream Canada.

Ontario/Quebec/Maritime people are not truly Conservative and they never will be. Sure they might occasionally help elect a Conservative gov't (so long as it acts Liberal) but these people will never embrace Conservative-Libertarian *ideology* the way that many Westerners puzzlingly do.

This means that Conservative-Libertarian ideology is only a *fringe* ideology in Canada - and will never grow beyond the sparsely-populated West. Mainstream Canada is Liberal - period.

Westerners are forever carping that they are shut out of the federal political arena. And they are, but that's because they do this to themselves! If Westerners really want to gain some influence and respect in mainstream Canada, they must elect more Liberal MPs and get inside the offices of power. By pointlessly clinging to fringe-Conservative ideology and electing outsider MPs, Westerners perpetually keep themselves in the political wilderness.

Anyone doubting this need only look at the Maritimes - smaller populations/economies but far more clout than the West has. That's because Maritimers are smart enough to elect strong Liberal MPs that can actually be heard in Ottawa and actively represent their interests.

The more the Conservatives move to the center, the less I like 'em and I'm a Conservative member. What Right-Wing Fundies are we hiding by the way? Everyone is free to see what's been said; and it is that on social issues it will be a free vote. A vote of conscience.

As far as mainstream Canada goes, yes the weight of the seats is in Quebec and Ontario. However, you fail to see that the fastest growing regions are in the West. Alberta and B.C. have the fastest growing populations and between elections they gain more seats due to population increase whereas in the East the gain is very small. If the electoral map were redrawn to truly take a look at population distribution then the West would gain substantial weight.

So for Westerners to gain more power...they have to give up their principles? Sell-out so to speak? Complete garbage. Everyone should vote for what they believe in, whether you are Liberal, NDP, Conservative, Green or whatever; Vote your Conscience! Go out and vote for whatever party you believe will make the best government. Don't just go out and vote for the one you believe will win, this isn't a game show. Western dissatifisfation goes back to the time when the provinces were still being created and everyone there remembers the Trudeau Energy Plan which robbed "The West".

Maritimers have a larger say in Federal politics, because their vote distribution hasn't changed in decades. They can't lose seats because of the Constitutional minimum. Their seats are guaranteed. That's why they have such weight within our system, and not because they "saw the light" of the Liberal Party.

I've lived in Quebec for 14 years now. And the Meech Lake and Charlottetown issues are a thing of the past. No one cares anymore! The only thing people care about now is: Seperatists about "Notre Patrie" and the Federalists about "Our Canada". One of them wants a home for their people and the other to keep their home in one piece. No one thinks about events which happened 10+ years ago, except if they relate to the Quiet Revolution. Seperatism isn't dead, wait till the Liberals get kicked out next provincial elections, they lied through their noses to get in.

On the democratic issue, some of the ideas from the Conservatives has been Senate Reform to allow an elected Senate with real powers. No more political appointments. 2-Term Prime Minister maximum and the much needed SET election dates.

So for Westerners to gain more power...they have to give up their principles? Sell-out so to speak?

To recognize Conservative ideology for the mean-spirited & destructive pollution that it is - and evolve beyond it - is *not* to give up principles. It is to *gain* them!!

I don't believe that The Liberals or NDP are moral saints by any means. But rejecting global Conservative ideology is unquestionably a step towards moral & humanitarian betterment.

And for Western Canadians to reject Conservatism at the ballot box would bring them the added reward of a stronger voice in Ottawa. It would be win-win.

Dalton MacGuinty made all kinds of campaign promises, he has reneged on all but a few. He promised to stop development on a moraine outside of Toronto, he reneged on this one. He promised to cap hydro costs, he promised NOT to raise taxes, he promised not to run a deficit, he reneged on all of them.

I think that the Liberals are lying about our deficit too. Besides, if the Liberals did not know that the PC was running that much of a deficit it means either one of two things:
1) They were an incompetent opposition. What makes you think they'll be a better government?
2) The knew about it and ignored it so they could make huge campaign promises. In which case they lied.

Incompetent? or liars?
You obviously did not take the time to read the article that I quoted?

http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20031030/UONTAM/TPTechInvestor

Creative Financing 101:

Part of the discrepancy between the budget presented by the Conservatives last spring and the review conducted by Mr. Peters can be attributed to an economy that did not perform up to expectations. The Tories overprojected growth in tax revenue by about $1.3-billion.

But they also padded their bottom line with $273-million from the federal Canada Health and Social Transfer that is not expected to be realized. Ottawa had made it clear that the CHST money was contingent on a significant federal surplus, Mr. Peters said, and it was not to be put on the books in the same fiscal year in which it was granted.

The former government also overestimated the income it would receive from Crown corporations by $960-million. And it projected asset sales of $1.8-billion, a figure that was nowhere close to reality.

"Some numbers were used to balance the budget. For example we found that the . . . asset sales and rental revenue has averaged, in the last few years, about $300-million a year and they used a number in excess of $2-billion," Mr. Peters said.

He said the feasibility of attempting to reduce the deficit by selling Crown assets and announcing savings targets should be reassessed.

"Buy Oct. 24, 2003, neither the Crown assets that were to be sold for a projected gain of some $1.8-billion nor the in-year program savings of about $500-million had been identified," he said. "No government action had been taken on these items."

On the spending side, the Tories were hit with unplanned expenditures from severe acute respiratory syndrome, savings targets that weren't met and costs not projected in their financial plans. In total, they had bills of about $1.5- billion so far this year that were not budgeted, he said.

What should not be lost sight of is the fact that over the past 9 years, the Tories have significantly reduced quality health care in Ontario. Closing of hospitals, ambulances turned away from emergency wards, and longer waiting lists for major surgery.

Toss in increased tution fees, increased funding for PRIVATE schools, huge cutbacks to public education, and loss of extra cirricular programs, and you have crisis a la Snobelden.

Don't forget our own made in Ontario "Watergate", with the deaths at Walkerton.

Want to know why municipalities are starting to increase taxes at the local level? That is easy......the Tories downloaded (read cut funding) to the municipalities. The infastructure in many cities and towns are suffering badly as a result, hence local tax increases.

Vote Tory if you want to continue the decay.

He promised to cap hydro costs,
You really don't understand deregulation of the electrical industry in Ontario, or you wouldn't have brought this topic forward.

Why do people vote for scandal-ridden parties? That is the question I would love to have answered.

In the case of the Liberals, I think I have an answer. Fear-mongering. People are too afraid that the Conservatives are going to introduce private health care (although the Liberals talk about it, when Bill 11 in Alberta was introduced, they did nothing) and that the NDP will drive us all into debt. Well, I'm here to set the record straight. When Jack Layton was city councillor, he was able to create green jobs and balance the budget doing it. Don't listen to the fear-mongering. Vote for the party who represents your values.

You still haven't answered my question CanuckHeaven... why didn't the Liberals point out these discrepancies? It is obvious now that they should have seen them.

I know all about how the PCs rigged the budget. What prevents any other government from doing the same? Overestimate here, underestimate there...

ABout the hydro deregulation, Dalton promised that our rates wouldn't change, now maybe I'm a little uninformed and/or unintelligent (as you seem to indicate) but when someone says that they won't do something and then does it.. its called a lie. I also know that now Dalton wants us to pay to install an expensive system to measure our hydro usage and charge us higher rates at different times.

Kinda like making us pay for our own rope.

Besides, according to our federal government our economy is booming, our John Manley called us the "Northern Panther" in our economy. Could it be that they were manipulating the stats, (*gasps*) horror! Our government lied/exaggerated again!

So for Westerners to gain more power...they have to give up their principles? Sell-out so to speak?

To recognize Conservative ideology for the mean-spirited & destructive pollution that it is - and evolve beyond it - is *not* to give up principles. It is to *gain* them!!

I don't believe that The Liberals or NDP are moral saints by any means. But rejecting global Conservative ideology is unquestionably a step towards moral & humanitarian betterment.

And for Western Canadians to reject Conservatism at the ballot box would bring them the added reward of a stronger voice in Ottawa. It would be win-win.

Conservatism is mean spirited? I don't think you know what Canadian Conservatism is all about. At least check www.conservative.ca to see some of the policies. I'm a fiscal conservative (something I don't see in the liberal party) and a liberal on social issues. I like the Conservatives and liked the Alliance because they promised to stop government expansion into areas of the private individual as party policy. I don't consider moving towards liberalism as "evolving" or "gaining"; you wouldn't be convinved of your liberal minded superiority? Canadian Conservatism is more aking to a mix of Fiscal conservatism and libertarian approach to social issues. Private members can do whatever they like in parliament, the party does not support any particular bill and you won't see them force party line voting.

Westerners reject the Liberal party, because the Reform/Alliance/Conservative party has done for them more than the Liberals ever had. Alot of bad blood still exists back from the Trudeau days. Always remember that Alberta once had an independence party. You don't gain a stronger voice in Canada by ignoring your roots.

You still haven't answered my question CanuckHeaven... why didn't the Liberals point out these discrepancies? It is obvious now that they should have seen them.

I know all about how the PCs rigged the budget. What prevents any other government from doing the same? Overestimate here, underestimate there...
Okay if you know how the PC's rigged the budget, why are you being so hard on the Liberals?

I am quite sure that over the weeks and months ahead, the Lberals will deinitely do everything in their power to detail the mismanagement of Government funds by the PC's. The article in the Globe, is just a start.

The truly unfortunate part of all of this, is that the general public don't have a clue what is really going on. They look at the budget, blame the Liberals then do nothing but stew about it. Even the local rag Sun won't be honest in looking into the true picture because they love their Tories, come Hell or high water. Not only is it a pity, it is irresponsible journalism to say the least.

ABout the hydro deregulation, Dalton promised that our rates wouldn't change, now maybe I'm a little uninformed and/or unintelligent (as you seem to indicate) but when someone says that they won't do something and then does it.. its called a lie.
I do believe that they indicated that the rates would indeed change and would be based on consumption over 750 KW per month?


I also know that now Dalton wants us to pay to install an expensive system to measure our hydro usage and charge us higher rates at different times.
Actually, the metering is not expensive and it is intended to give consumers a break for those that use more electricity during off peak hours:

Ontario Energy Minister Dwight Duncan recently spelled out the elements of a new energy policy that he said would put the province "back on solid footing by taking a balanced approach." Included among his proposals was establishing a pricing plan for small consumers that would ensure they "can take advantage of time-of-use rates so that they would have the opportunity and incentive to shift consumption from periods of high demand and prices to periods of lower demand and prices."

Premier Dalton McGuinty indicated that the Ontario Energy Board will be charged with developing "a plan to install a smart electricity meter in 800,000 Ontario homes by 2007 . . . and in each and every Ontario home by 2010." These smart meters, "combined with more flexible pricing," would provide an economic incentive for consumers to avoid energy use during peak periods when generating costs are much higher.

By shifting electricity use to off-peak periods, many consumers can reduce their energy bills. More importantly, the collective response of many consumers can reduce the need for new power plants and transmission lines, dampen price volatility in energy markets and improve the environment.

These are good ideas, supported by a 30-year history of electricity-pricing studies that indicate without a doubt that consumers can and will shift load in response to time-varying electricity prices. The most recent example is from California, where supply shortages similar to those in Ontario have led regulators to implement the largest pricing experiment ever conducted among homeowners and small businesses to estimate the impact of time-varying prices on energy-use patterns.

Now this is certainly a better solution than the stop gap $75 cheque routine by the PC's. BTW, there is another $1 Billion dollars of taxpayer money out the window due to Tory mismanagement of the electrical industry.

They were warned repeatedly about the situation in California and Alberta and they went ahead anyways. The result was HIGHER not lower hydro bills. Not for profit public utilities were turned into tax paying for profit entities. Blame the Tories again. This is huge!!

You still haven't answered my question CanuckHeaven... why didn't the Liberals point out these discrepancies? It is obvious now that they should have seen them.

I know all about how the PCs rigged the budget. What prevents any other government from doing the same? Overestimate here, underestimate there...
Okay if you know how the PC's rigged the budget, why are you being so hard on the Liberals?

I am quite sure that over the weeks and months ahead, the Lberals will definitely do everything in their power to detail the mismanagement of Government funds by the PC's. The article in the Globe, is just a start.

The truly unfortunate part of all of this, is that the general public don't have a clue what is really going on. They look at the budget, blame the Liberals then do nothing but stew about it. Even the local rag Sun won't be honest in looking into the true picture because they love their Tories, come Hell or high water. Not only is it a pity, it is irresponsible journalism to say the least.

ABout the hydro deregulation, Dalton promised that our rates wouldn't change, now maybe I'm a little uninformed and/or unintelligent (as you seem to indicate) but when someone says that they won't do something and then does it.. its called a lie.
I do believe that they indicated that the rates would indeed change and would be based on consumption over 750 KW per month?


I also know that now Dalton wants us to pay to install an expensive system to measure our hydro usage and charge us higher rates at different times.
Actually, the metering is not expensive and it is intended to give consumers a break for those that use more electricity during off peak hours:

Ontario Energy Minister Dwight Duncan recently spelled out the elements of a new energy policy that he said would put the province "back on solid footing by taking a balanced approach." Included among his proposals was establishing a pricing plan for small consumers that would ensure they "can take advantage of time-of-use rates so that they would have the opportunity and incentive to shift consumption from periods of high demand and prices to periods of lower demand and prices."

Premier Dalton McGuinty indicated that the Ontario Energy Board will be charged with developing "a plan to install a smart electricity meter in 800,000 Ontario homes by 2007 . . . and in each and every Ontario home by 2010." These smart meters, "combined with more flexible pricing," would provide an economic incentive for consumers to avoid energy use during peak periods when generating costs are much higher.

By shifting electricity use to off-peak periods, many consumers can reduce their energy bills. More importantly, the collective response of many consumers can reduce the need for new power plants and transmission lines, dampen price volatility in energy markets and improve the environment.

These are good ideas, supported by a 30-year history of electricity-pricing studies that indicate without a doubt that consumers can and will shift load in response to time-varying electricity prices. The most recent example is from California, where supply shortages similar to those in Ontario have led regulators to implement the largest pricing experiment ever conducted among homeowners and small businesses to estimate the impact of time-varying prices on energy-use patterns.

Now this is certainly a better solution than the stop gap $75 rebate cheque routine by the PC's. BTW, there is another $1 Billion dollars of taxpayer money out the window due to Tory mismanagement of the electrical industry.

They were warned repeatedly about the situation in California and Alberta and they went ahead anyways. The result was HIGHER not lower hydro bills. Not for profit public utilities were turned into tax paying for profit entities. Blame the Tories again. This is huge!!

Vorringia,

That part about the Private Members Bill is my favourite part about the Conservative party. Enough of this party politics, lets bring back democracy. Something Paul Martin promised to do, but well, he hasn't fulfilled on that promise yet.

The new brand of "Canadian conservatism" as created by the Reform-Alliance is part of a larger global movement. This was most prominent in the 80s and was inflicted on us by Reagan/Thatcher/Mulroney etc. It is today perpetuated by Bush, and Stephen Harper's NCC/Conservative Party thugs.

This "Neo-Conservatism" is all about neutering governments worldwide and gutting the social programs that help bring fairness to society - solely to benefit corporations and the wealthy. Unfortunately many people who aren't rich - who should know better - are suckered by "Neo-Con" propaganda that promotes the sick idea that activist government is evil.

The worldwide Neo-Con movement IS harmful and morally indefensible. Harper's Conservative Party would have you believe that they're part of some moderate, made-in-Canada "Conservatism-lite". Don't be fooled. A vote for them is a vote for a branch of the Republicans.

I, too, am sick of the economically conservative (I'm so-con) parties cuddling up to the corporations and other businesses in a way that leaves out Average Joe. I'm absolutely sick of it.

A good book to read for those who agree (and those who don't): Challenging McWorld by Tony Clarke and Sarah Dopp. It's published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

And, of course, there's another alternative, one that I must have mentioned half-a-dozen times.

The new brand of "Canadian conservatism" as created by the Reform-Alliance is part of a larger global movement. This was most prominent in the 80s and was inflicted on us by Reagan/Thatcher/Mulroney etc. It is today perpetuated by Bush, and Stephen Harper's NCC/Conservative Party thugs.

This "Neo-Conservatism" is all about neutering governments worldwide and gutting the social programs that help bring fairness to society - solely to benefit corporations and the wealthy. Unfortunately many people who aren't rich - who should know better - are suckered by "Neo-Con" propaganda that promotes the sick idea that activist government is evil.

The worldwide Neo-Con movement IS harmful and morally indefensible. Harper's Conservative Party would have you believe that they're part of some moderate, made-in-Canada "Conservatism-lite". Don't be fooled. A vote for them is a vote for a branch of the Republicans.
It is the Reform Party, trying to pass itself off as the NEW Conservative Party. Yeah and unless you are extremely well off financially and/or own a BIG business, then this party is not for the Average "Joe" Canuck.

The federal Liberals... well... read the Liberal Red Book of Lies.. err ... I mean promises. At one point the then Canadian Alliance took a promise out of their Red Book (made by Jean Chretien and Paul Martin in 1993), and made a Private Members Bill out of it (word for word - to create an independent ethics counsellor) and then had the bill shot down by the Liberal party.
They threw away the Red Book and gave us a stronger more vibrant Canada. 5 straight years of surpluses, lower National Debt, low inflation, lower unemployment. Higher standard of living.

Canada has outperformed the G-7 and the OECD over the past 11 years.

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/docs/PressRoom/Speeches/20031205TorontoTableaux_e.pdf

NOTE: During Mulroney's years 1984 to 1993, the were responsible for some of the highest deficit budgets in Canadian history. The past 6 years under the Liberals, there has been a budgetary surplus which has enabled Canada to pay down the National Debt. The last Prime Minister to have a budgetary surplus before Chretien was Pierre Trudeau in 1969-70.

Vote Liberal

The Liberal party is not responsible for the boom in the Canadian economy. Just like how Bush was not responsible (for the most part) for the decline in the US economy and Jiang Zemin and Wen Jiabao are not responsible for the boom in the Chinese economy.

Vorringia,

That part about the Private Members Bill is my favourite part about the Conservative party. Enough of this party politics, lets bring back democracy. Something Paul Martin promised to do, but well, he hasn't fulfilled on that promise yet.

Dam right Hudecia. I want to see more private MP's stand up and propose ideas instead of having the PMO office dictate policy and ideas.

The new brand of "Canadian conservatism" as created by the Reform-Alliance is part of a larger global movement. This was most prominent in the 80s and was inflicted on us by Reagan/Thatcher/Mulroney etc. It is today perpetuated by Bush, and Stephen Harper's NCC/Conservative Party thugs.

This "Neo-Conservatism" is all about neutering governments worldwide and gutting the social programs that help bring fairness to society - solely to benefit corporations and the wealthy. Unfortunately many people who aren't rich - who should know better - are suckered by "Neo-Con" propaganda that promotes the sick idea that activist government is evil.

The worldwide Neo-Con movement IS harmful and morally indefensible. Harper's Conservative Party would have you believe that they're part of some moderate, made-in-Canada "Conservatism-lite". Don't be fooled. A vote for them is a vote for a branch of the Republicans.

PC members are thugs? Well thank yee. Highly enlightened of you I must say. Those 3 leaders you mention are some of the most fondly remembered individuals of modern history. As for the corporate jab...the Democrats are just as guilty of taking big company money as the Republicans. As for the PC party...we get most of our money from the grass roots. And I hope you do understand that Canada has a public financing law therefore capping business donations. Your accussations are baseless, and so is your argumentation.

Oh and I do know that voting for the PC is voting for Republicans-Lite...that's why I like them. You provide ZERO proof for most of your accusations, except attempting to link all Conservative parties together into one mass.

As for being suckered, well I survived Poland under communist rule, I LOATH activist governments.

As for the the Reform Party taking over the PC's...truly laughable at best. Shows that you are not paying attention to who is in favour currently. Harper fell out of favour long ago for standing with the Conservative members when they formed the CA. Chuck Strahl led the rest of the reform party into a split that lasted a few short weeks. Those individuals are out of favour and leaving politics (Debra Grey this year). Next time you notice parliament in session, check the seating arrangement around Harper. Ex-PC members for the most part (Reynolds, MacKay, Wayne, etc...). The Reform members are far in the back. Again, CanuckHeaven you know nothing about the PC's, because if you had you would realize that the party is essentially led by Harper, Reynolds and McKay.

I hear alot of scaremongering and very little on actual issues.

The Liberal party is not responsible for the boom in the Canadian economy. Just like how Bush was not responsible (for the most part) for the decline in the US economy and Jiang Zemin and Wen Jiabao are not responsible for the boom in the Chinese economy.

Let me get this straight:

1. If an economy does well under a Liberal government or even a Communist one, the government cannot possible claim any credit simply because you don't like them. But if the economy does badly, then it *is* of course totally those governments' faults.

2. If an economy does badly under a Conservative government you admire, then the bad performance cannot possibly be that government's fault. However if the economy does well, it's because of the wonderful Conservative policies and that government can bask in the credit for it.

Um,


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The new brand of "Canadian conservatism" as created by the Reform-Alliance is part of a larger global movement. This was most prominent in the 80s and was inflicted on us by Reagan/Thatcher/Mulroney etc. It is today perpetuated by Bush, and Stephen Harper's NCC/Conservative Party thugs.

Those 3 leaders you mention are some of the most fondly remembered individuals of modern history.

Gawd how I wish you were joking! Reagan/Thatcher/Mulroney are among the most hated political figures in postwar history - and rightfully so. Their policies were the downfall of civilized, caring western societies. They neutered goverments, wrecked social programmes, staggeringly increased poverty & homelessness, stopped the move towards world peace - and increased debts.

I survived Poland under communist rule, I LOATH activist governments.

But not all activist governments are the same, and you know that very well. To compare democratic-liberal activist governments with command-communist ones is ignorant at best and deliberately mischievous at worst.

Harper's Conservative Party would have you believe that they're part of some moderate, made-in-Canada "Conservatism-lite". Don't be fooled. A vote for them is a vote for a branch of the Republicans.

Oh and I do know that voting for the PC is voting for Republicans-Lite...that's why I like them.

Oh you like Republicans do you? Well its nice to hear one of you Conservatives finally admit to what I've always suspected.

Republicanism is un-Canadian, plain & simple. An ancestor of mine fought in the 1812 war to defeat Americans trying to take over Canada. We literally fought to preserve our own political systems, and Republicanism doesn't fit with the Canadian Vision of a compassionate society at all. Anyone wanting to have a Republican government should move to the U.S. Those who try to establish a Republican government in Canada should be viewed as traitors.

The Liberal party is not responsible for the boom in the Canadian economy. Just like how Bush was not responsible (for the most part) for the decline in the US economy and Jiang Zemin and Wen Jiabao are not responsible for the boom in the Chinese economy.

Let me get this straight:

1. If an economy does well under a Liberal government or even a Communist one, the government cannot possible claim any credit simply because you don't like them. But if the economy does badly, then it *is* of course totally those governments' faults.

2. If an economy does badly under a Conservative government you admire, then the bad performance cannot possibly be that government's fault. However if the economy does well, it's because of the wonderful Conservative policies and that government can bask in the credit for it.

Um,


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
It appears that way huh Garaj Mahal?

BTW when was the last time that the Canadian economy performed well under the Federal Conservatives then? Was it during Diefenbakers term?

The Liberal party is not responsible for the boom in the Canadian economy. Just like how Bush was not responsible (for the most part) for the decline in the US economy and Jiang Zemin and Wen Jiabao are not responsible for the boom in the Chinese economy.
With a statement such as that, you have lost all credibility in future discussions.

[BTW when was the last time that the Canadian economy performed well under the Federal Conservatives then? Was it during Diefenbakers term?

Yeah, and Diefenbaker's legacy is his single-handedly killing-off the "Avro Arrow" jet, which would have made Canada a world leader in aviation had it gone into production. More superb Conservative management.

[BTW when was the last time that the Canadian economy performed well under the Federal Conservatives then? Was it during Diefenbakers term?

Yeah, and Diefenbaker's legacy is his single-handedly killing-off the "Avro Arrow" jet, which would have made Canada a world leader in aviation had it gone into production. More superb Conservative management.
That is truly one of the sadder moments in Canadian history that is for sure.

The Avro was a winner and it was amazing how the whole thing was canned and the working aircraft were dismembered and cut up and all the blueprints were destroyed.

My friend's father was working on the Avro when the news came down. They closed the plant and everyone was let go. Where did most of the experts go? NASA. We can only imagine where Canada would be if we had stayed the course.

Oh well......c'est la vie!! :cry:

Why are we going all the way back to Diefenbaker?

The policies for the Conservatives and the Liberals are a lot alike. When you put a fiscally conservative person in a centrist party, you'll get a close similarity to the right-wing platform.

My advice? Don't vote for those who don't share your values. Vote for those who do. Remember the old Tommy Douglas story about Mouseland.

Why are we going all the way back to Diefenbaker?. Remember the old Tommy Douglas story about Mouseland.

Why are we going all the way back to Tommy Douglas? Admittedly Douglas is 10000% more admirable and historically important than old Dief, but he's just as far in the past.

ELection called! It's on June 28.

Please, *everybody* vote!! It's a fact that the very worst governments get elected when hardly anybody bothers to vote.

It's especially important for young people with principals to vote. Because old, mean-spirited cranks and fundamentists *always* make the effort to vote. Do we want them to be the ones who elect the government?

Why are we going all the way back to Diefenbaker?

The policies for the Conservatives and the Liberals are a lot alike. When you put a fiscally conservative person in a centrist party, you'll get a close similarity to the right-wing platform.

My advice? Don't vote for those who don't share your values. Vote for those who do. Remember the old Tommy Douglas story about Mouseland.
In the recent Provincial election, I voted NDP, because he was the only likely person to knock of the incumbent Tory. He only lost by 1000 votes. The Common Sense Revolution in Ontario was about tax cuts that would benefit the wealthy the most, while massive cuts were made to health care, education, and municipalities.

User fees, a "crisis in educational delivery, shocking hospital closings, and cutbacks to emergency room staffing are the result of this "Common Sense" approach. Also massive cuts to welfare, and subsidized housing has resulted in many more people sleeping on the streets.

We ended up with the tradgedy at Walkerton, and the tainted meat scandal.

While I do earn an above average wage, I am not looking for any tax cuts that ultimately would erode the social programs in Canada. I would like the Federal Government to work on reducing child poverty in this country.

BTW, I do admire Tommy Douglas, as it was through his efforts, that Canada ended up with Universal Health care which was enacted by the Federal Liberals.

As for the NEW Conservative party, they are just a re-invention of the Stockwell Day Alliance Party, which is at best the old Reform Party. Just less than 4 years ago, the Alliance elected Day as their leader, and just over a year later they were asking him to quit after a rift split the new party. In 2002, Day was defeated by Harper. We need these people running our country? Even Joe Clark is advocating support for the Liberals.

Despite the Adscam scandal, and despite their own internal struggles, the Federal Liberals have done a lot to make Canada a stronger country.

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/docs/PressRoom/Speeches/20031205TorontoTableaux_e.pdf

So while I have supported the NDP in the past, mostly at the Provincial level, I am committed to a strong Liberal presence at the Federal level.

Vote Liberal

The latest Environics Poll in regards to quebec separation:

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/thepolls/democracypoll.html

In your opinion, is it very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely or not at all likely that a majority of Quebecers would vote Yes to Sovereignty if a referendum were held in Quebec within the next five years?

Very likely
14 Total
14 ROC
15 Quebec

Somewhat likely
25 Total
25 ROC
25 Quebec

Not very likely
44 Total
44 ROC
44 Quebec

Not at all likely
13 Total
12 ROC
14 Quebec

DK/NA
4 Total
4 ROC
3 Quebec

So it would appear that this is just not an issue in the upcoming election.

I think that if Stephen Harper shows strong, and Jack Layton continues his momentum, we can get a Conservative minority.

This election has been called an historic one for Canada. It surely will be. With the NDP and Conservatives gaining ground in Ontario and the Bloc destroying the Liberal support base in Quebec, the Liberals are surely headed for a minority government. This can be a good or bad thing. It's good in the sense that it keeps the Liberals out of too much trouble and if they propose absured bills, they can be defeated on them. Keeps them in check. On the down side, the Liberals may become more left wing in order to get NDP support on bills. This could lead to Canada becoming more left wing on issues like business, job creation etc. This election will shape Canada for a long time. When you vote, which every eleigable person in Canada SHOULD DO (it's not that damn hard to go to a school or community centre) think about what you want Canada to look like and what you want for your and your children's (if you have them) future. I cannot vote because I'm not 18 yet but if I could, I would vote Conservative because I believe they are a positive change to the Liberals and will help improve Canada.

VOTE CONSERVATIVE

I'd like to here feedback from other Canadians and if need be Americans :? ... I don't expect the Conservatives to win this time, although a strong opposition, combined with a minority Liberal government would be the next best thing!

I'm honestly so far out of the loop with regard to Canadian politics that I would hardly be a qualified person to answer your questions.

Having said that, isn't it possible that the Liberals may end up having to form some kind of coalition government or if the Liberals don't have a majority in your Parliament, does that then mean that Martin has to step down?

We are so inundated with the American election cycle that I'd be surprised if too many Americans respond, or if any do, I would be shocked if there were very many intelligent replies, and this one certainly does not qualify!

[ isn't it possible that the Liberals may end up having to form some kind of coalition government or if the Liberals don't have a majority in your Parliament, does that then mean that Martin has to step down?

We tend not to do "coalition" governments - I don't think there's been one in modern times if ever. And Martin would not have to step down if his Liberal party ends up with only a minority government. Rather, the survival of his party's government will be completely dependent on day-to-day, *highly-conditional* support of the 3rd and 4th strongest parties during parliamentary votes. If a parliamentary vote is held on some issue (and there are plenty every year, that's how laws/legislation get passed) and Martin's Liberals fail to get that vital support from the other parties - they will be required to resign and call another election. This could happen within a matter of months.

Of course the 3rd & 4th - strongest parties are literally salivating with hope at this scenario, because it would mean that the governing Liberals will need to acceed to these other parties' wishes in order to survive. The 2nd strongest party (called The Opposition) would also salivating - with the hope that another election might be quickly held that they might win.

In all though, Minority governments in Canada are very rare - and don't usually survive for long before being replaced with a Majority one. Overall we're pretty stable here - not like, say, Italy where nearly every government they elect is a shaky minority one with a short lifespan.

i'm not sure if this has been posted yet.
but here are the links to the three major parties main sites. i did some researching yesterday and i'm leaning towards ndp at the moment.

but for all of your own refrences:

http://www.canadianalliance.ca/english/index.asp conservatives
http://www.ndp.ca/language/?thisURL=%2Findex.php3 ndp
http://www.liberal.ca/ liberal

i didn't bother looking up the bloc as i can't vote for them anyways, not living in quebec and all.
and i discovered that the marijuana party has nothing other than plans for legalizing pot. you would think that they'd at least say "we'll do this and that for healthcare and education..." but yeah.
the ndp site got updated since yesterday... i'm not sure if anything's changed other than the format though.

oh, and i really hope that the conservatives don't get in, they're still using the alliance website. you would think that they would be distancing themselves from the old alliance party. they quite frankly scared me.
aside from that, upon review of their website, i don't think they would do the best for our country. i'm not sure how they're going to cut taxes and pay off the debt without cutting into social services.

I think that if Stephen Harper shows strong, and Jack Layton continues his momentum, we can get a Conservative minority.
Scary thought. I also think it very unlikely. Martin still has it over Harper 46% to 16% as to who would be the best leader.

Had some thoughts today re Ontario voters.

Years ago, Conservative premier Mike Harris offered Ontario voters radical tax cuts which people *should have known* they would have to repay one day - these tax tax cuts were unsustainable after all and any person with foresight should have known that.

However people always want a free ride, so they stupidly elected Harris over all common sense. After Harris' tax cuts and his other Conservative policies predictably wrought havoc on Ontario, people finally half woke up and elected Dalton McGuinty's Liberals to clean up the horrific mess.

It was a given that McGuinty would *have to* restore the taxation that Harris had cut, right? So why then are Ontarians so outraged and surprised that McGuinty's done this - what choice did he have? Sure it would have been nice if he could have been truthful up front and warned people about the tough medicine they'd need to swallow - restored taxation. But people don't want to hear the truth - they'll only elect politicians who tell them the lies they want to hear. And in this case the lie they wanted to hear was, "Yes I'll fix everything without restoring old tax levels". Of course McGuinty had to break his promise not to raise taxes - why crucify him for a lie voters forced him to tell?

***

So here we are at the federal election and the same old choices are being offered to the nation as Ontario was given a few years ago. The New Conservative Gang are offering us tax cuts which all logic tells us are unsustainable - these cuts WILL wreak havoc on Canada if implemented.

Will Canadians (especially Ontarians) be again suckered by this false promise of a free ride? Because if they are, in a few years they'll just have to change back to the Liberals again to clean up the devastation left by the Harper tax cuts. Our present tax levels will have to be restored, and this will be much more painful than if they were never cut in the first place.

I urge all Canadians not to fall for the Harper BIG LIE that Canada can operate just fine on slashed tax revenues. Jeez, *think ahead* people - these tax cuts might seem pleasing at first but they are guaranteed to bring much pain later on.

Ontarians, more than anybody, should remember what believing the lies of someone like Mike Harris can lead to. Don't repeat that mistake with Harper.

You attack Hudecia because he doesn't love the Liberals, which is absured. The Liberals in my mind are thieves and I'm even losing my trust in my MP, Ralph Goodale, simply because I see him with that Martin group who seem to be the centre of this scandal. The Liberals also seem to have grown an arrogance because year after year they get majority governments and think they can do anything or pass any bill because they can out vote the Bloc, NDP and Conservatives combined. A minority government would keep them in check. The Conservatives are the perfect opposition, they'll make sure they don't ruin Canada economically. I personally cannot see any intellegant reason to vote for the NDP. They have NO economic plan, their environmental plan to create jobs would work if pigs could fly and the earth was flat and they have terrible foreign and trade relations ideas. They are a wasted vote this election and people shoudl either vote Liberal or Conservative. Besides, Layton was only ever a city counciler, unlike Martin, Harper and Duceppes, who have all run federally before. Think about that before you vote NDP. They'll just unionize and crown everything in Canada. I like under an NDP government, I would know.

The Conservatives are the perfect opposition, they'll make sure they don't ruin Canada economically.

the liberals aren't ruining canada economically. they've produced balanced budgets for the past 6 years and paid back a chunk of the debt.
i wouldn't want the conservatives with anywhere near enough power to do anything for what they will do to the country's social programs as well as society in general (i'm not sure i can see the same sex marriage deal getting passed through, nor decriminalization of marijuana nor the bill to make the morning after pill available over the counter)

I personally cannot see any intellegant reason to vote for the NDP. They have NO economic plan, their environmental plan to create jobs would work if pigs could fly and the earth was flat and they have terrible foreign and trade relations ideas.

well, one very intelligent thing is that the ndp won't go along with bush's star wars project... which is a retarded waste of money and something that we'll all regret a few years down the road...
layton has created green jobs in the past, so i don't know why you're claiming that it won't work.
the ndp plan on creating greater equality in our nation, which is an excellent thing to strive for.
there are a number of reasons to consider a vote for the ndp.

Besides, Layton was only ever a city counciler, unlike Martin, Harper and Duceppes, who have all run federally before. Think about that before you vote NDP.

but has harper been in charge federally? who cares if he's run and lost...

Dakini, marijuana should remain illegal. If you want to help the druggies, then fine. Same-sex marriage will be passed because not all the Conservatives are against it, e.g. Peter McKay. As for the NDP, Layton was a city counciler. He wasn't out creating jobs. Unless you're gonna start paying tree hugger for chaining themselves to trees, you won't make money. Also, you can't favour unions and the environment because unions help create pollution from factories and what not. Can't play both sides of the sword. I do agree with having greater equaility but not ruining everything else in the country. Unfortunatly, you can't balance both in the REAL WORLD. Harper is the leader of the Opposition. Martin is the only one of the four that has been in power, so don't just run down Harper. I'll be saying "who cares if he's run and lost..." after Layton loses his seat and the NDP only gain one or two more seats and remain a non-factor in Ottawa.

Um, yes you can. Jack Layton actually did so during his time as city councillor. He suceeded. Don't stick to old thinking. Don't be afraid to expand your thinking. Like Dakini said, he's made it work. Don't write him off.

I updated my website for the election. . .check it out.

www.geocities.com/plain_jane_917

Um, yes you can. Jack Layton actually did so during his time as city councillor. He suceeded. Don't stick to old thinking. Don't be afraid to expand your thinking. Like Dakini said, he's made it work. Don't write him off.

I updated my website for the election. . .check it out.

www.geocities.com/plain_jane_917

Dakini, marijuana should remain illegal. If you want to help the druggies, then fine.

WRONG. Hey I don't use marijuana but it's clearly immoral to keep it illegal. Ditching marijuana laws will benefit all society - get rid of organized-crime growers by removing the illegal profits from this plant and free up police to go after more serious/dangerous drugs. Not one person has ever died from marijuana - unlike alcohol or tobacco which kill millions. To give someone a criminal record for using a *relatively* harmless plant cannot be justified in any moral society.

Shame on anyone who wants to continue persecuting innocent people, just because you dislike their lifestyle. That's a very intolerant and Un-Canadian attitude.

Thank you La Terra.

Thoughts re Ontario: Tax cuts are not unsustainable, they are only unsustainable when the economy takes a downturn as it did. However, the Liberals cut taxes and lowered our benefits. The Provincial Liberals are digging the bottom of the barrel to get more money out of us (cameras for ticketing, raising tabacco prices - which I agree with but not for the reasons, taxing casino winnings). The Tories didn't have to do any of this for several years in power (although they ended on a very sour note). All this searching for cash makes me wonder where it is all going. We never had to do this before? Our economy is not that much worse and they have balanced all the previous budgets.

I do not support the PC, Liberals or NDP provincially. They are all liars and deserve to be fired. I just wish there was another viable party to vote for.

On the NDP: The NDP have a few good ideas (like electoral reform, for example) and they seem to be honest (a rare quality). However, their policies will not create jobs as some people seem to believe. I am going to point to the death of the BC economy as a prime example of their 'green' policies failing the economy.

As for their other 'social' policies, like legalizing marijuana; they are holding a naive view of the world. They seem to believe that if we legalized marijuana all organized crime would cease to exist and we'd all live happily ever after... the truth is that if we legalize marijuana, they'll simply start selling more crack or prostitutes or something. Just like the end of prohibition didn't end organized crime, so legalizing marijuana won't.

As for the overflow of cases, decriminalization deals with that. Besides, are we going to legalize crack once it becomes too difficult to contain? WIll we legalize child porn once cases like it flood our system? The answer should be 'no' (ou 'non' si vous parlez francais), why?, because it still does not make it right.

Garaj... your comments are becoming extremely annoying... YOU DARE TO DECIDE WHAT IS CANADIAN AND WHAT IS NOT CANADIAN!?! CANADIAN VALUES INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE FOR OURSELVES WHAT WE BELIEVE!!! IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ALLOWING PEOPLE TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT THEY BELIEVE THEN YOU ARE BEING INTOLERANT AND UNCANADIAN!

Ahem... sorry... but I had to get that out.. I've been holding it in ever since Garaj started insulting my beliefs.

Marijuana is ILLEGAL. Which means people who use it are NOT innocent. Millions of people die from marijuana, just like they die from tobacco and alcohol. Marijuana is NOT a lifestyle choice, it is a crime according to our laws. That is the facts. Stop calling people who use it 'innocent' because they are not according to our laws.

I'll do more research on Jack Layton before I vote one way or the other, maybe I am influenced by my grandfather's opinions on this.

Millions of people die from marijuana, just like they die from tobacco and alcohol.

Where did this "fact" come from - a 1930s church pamphlet? Nothing I've ever read or heard supports a wild opinion like that. You will not find any reputable source to back such a claim. I repeat, *not one person* has ever died directly from substances in marijuana. Yes a few may have had lethal mishaps while high, but that's from the persons' behaviour and not caused by the drug itself. Tobacco and alcohol however *do* contain toxins and carcinogins and are *proven* to directly cause death. Plus they are addictive - tobacco especially so - while marijuana is at very worst only mildly psychologically addictive in a minority of users.

Ok.. so when you can't beat on facts you reduce yourself to snide remarks... just like a Liberal.

Marijuana has been declared a dangerous substance by every major medical association and carries carcinogens and toxins just like tobacco. The only reason why medical associations support its use for medical reasons is because the people using it are going to die anyway. Like pumping you full of morphine... the size of the doses will cause all kinds of damage.. but they do it because they do not think you will survive longer anyway.

Marijuana is not 'mild' in any way. It causes severe responses from your nervous system (that is why it is supported for a drug - kills pain).

Read some facts before you blurt out nonsense.

Ok.. so when you can't beat on facts you reduce yourself to snide remarks... just like a Liberal.

Marijuana has been declared a dangerous substance by every major medical association and carries carcinogens and toxins just like tobacco. The only reason why medical associations support its use for medical reasons is because the people using it are going to die anyway. Like pumping you full of morphine... the size of the doses will cause all kinds of damage.. but they do it because they do not think you will survive longer anyway.

Marijuana is not 'mild' in any way. It causes severe responses from your nervous system (that is why it is supported for a drug - kills pain).

Read some facts before you blurt out nonsense.

Ok.. so when you can't beat on facts you reduce yourself to snide remarks... just like a Liberal.

Sorry that you find my remarks "snide". But when someone insists on deliberately spreading a blatant lie like "millions die from marijuana", forgive me by being angered by that. Despite what you said above, none of it supports in any way your "millions die" claim. Until you can furnish concrete links/proof you should be decent enough not to make such statements.

Of course you can find lots of "risks-of-marijuana" links. But words like "risk" and "danger" are highly subjective - hell aspirin has dangers and risks. Most importantly, no reputable person would ever say these very debatable dangers & risks add up to the hysterical claim "millions die!!"

(As a side-note, Medical Marijuana is *not* only prescribed to terminal patients - it's proven effective to stabilize patients and reduce nausea and increase appetite for a number of people with a wide range of symptoms. Your comparing its use to heroin is, again, ridiculous.)

So let's ask everyone here: Has *anybody* ever seen the headline "millions die from marijuana!" in reputable media like the CBC, the Toronto Star, or even from the Canadian Medical Association?

I thought not.

I think that marijuana should be kept illegal, except for medicinal purposes. It should, however, be decriminalized, for one should not have a permanent criminal record for smoking a single joint.

I think that marijuana should be kept illegal, except for medicinal purposes. It should, however, be decriminalized, for one should not have a permanent criminal record for smoking a single joint.

Hudecia, thank you for backing me up on many issues. Mahal, do you know anyone who's ever done marijuana? A friend? A family member? Well I do and while it may not kill them, the effects it has on them are tremedous. If you smoke a joint or two then get behind the wheel of a car, you are like a drunk driver. Your vision is all wavey and isn't adjusted to see things properly. You could easily hit someone or be in a car accident. Thats when human life is taken. People may not die from it but could dies because some idiot needed to get high. Also, I'm not un-Canadian, I simply don't think we need more red eyes walking out and about and increase drug use, which will coast the health care system big time. It doesn't need that burden.

Well, what about alcohol? It does the same thing to people who drive. Should we ban alcohol?

Well, what about alcohol? It does the same thing to people who drive. Should we ban alcohol?
This is a very good comeback.

Alcohal isn't illegal guys, marijuana is. You shouldn't use either of them before driving, it's simply common sense. Marijuana though is illegal to begin with, so you shouldn't be using it to begin with unless it's medicinal. I'm not against drinking but I am against drugs. Common sense and obeying the law are two different things.

Mahal, do you know anyone who's ever done marijuana?

Yes, I used it between the ages of 15 and 21 - the last 2 years daily. (I'm 44 now). I knew that driving while high was stupid, exactly the same as driving after drinking is stupid. I stopped using marijuana because I no longer enjoyed it. I rarely drink anymore either, for the same reason.

But that's just my own situation and I don't judge anyone else for having different situations and making different decisions about how they use booze or pot - so long as they're not hurting anybody. And trust me, most people who *responsibly* use alcohol or marijuana don't hurt anybody - not even themselves.

I don't at all regret using marijuana - even though it's decades in my past. It was fun and enlightenening while it lasted. Everybody should at least try it a half-dozen times. I feel I gained a measure of perspective, experience and self-knowlege that I absolutely never would have otherwise.

Yes I'm fully aware that most marijuana is far stronger now than it was in my youth. Solution? Simple - just use far less of it.

Finally, yes I've known plenty of people who've used marijuana and continue to today. A few had problems with but most have not. Just like with alcohol.

I'm not against drinking but I am against drugs.

That statement makes not one bit of sense. Alcohol IS a drug!! A very powerful, lethal and addictive drug too. Just because it's legal doesn't change that fact.

Alcohal isn't illegal guys, marijuana is. You shouldn't use either of them before driving, it's simply common sense. Marijuana though is illegal to begin with, so you shouldn't be using it to begin with unless it's medicinal. I'm not against drinking but I am against drugs. Common sense and obeying the law are two different things.
Why is marijuana illegal and alcohol is not? Alcohol kills far more people than marijuana?

My comment about marijuana is no more sensational than your comments about alcohol and smoking. (yes, smoking and alcohol kill lots of people)

CanuckHeaven, we tried to ban alcohol in the 1920s -30s but people complained that it promoted organized crime so we legalized it. (hmm... do I hear a similar argument?)

La Terra, I am against drinking and smoking. I do not believe that they are good for society at large. I would like to see them banned... but then again I know that won't happen so I'm not going to push the issue.

Garaj .. check out some of these sites..

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n725.a05.html

Here's a site that talks about the hazards of marijuana

http://www.drugwatch.org/Marijuana%20is%20not%20medicine.htm

There's nothing wrong with Atlantic Canada

I'd vote NDP in a heartbeat.

Then again, living about 160 km south of Vancouver, i just wish we had the NDP in the States, so that I could vote for an NDP candidate in my riding. They're also polling at near-record highs, according to the numbers CBC released today.

Just be thankful that you've got more than two options.

Here are the regional breakdowns:

Atlantic 18%
Québec 8%
-Montréal 11%
Ontario 21%
-Toronto Area 22%
Manitoba 32%
Saskatchewan 27%
Alberta 14%
BC 31%
-Vancouver 32%

I'm surprised to see the numbers from Atlantic Canada so low. Isn't that Alexa McDonough's old stomping ground? Or have the various economic and fisheries problems had that severe an effect that the people are looking elsewhere?There's nothing wrong with Atlantic Canada

I'd vote NDP in a heartbeat.

Then again, living about 160 km south of Vancouver, i just wish we had the NDP in the States, so that I could vote for an NDP candidate in my riding. They're also polling at near-record highs, according to the numbers CBC released today.

Just be thankful that you've got more than two options.

Here are the regional breakdowns:

Atlantic 18%
Québec 8%
-Montréal 11%
Ontario 21%
-Toronto Area 22%
Manitoba 32%
Saskatchewan 27%
Alberta 14%
BC 31%
-Vancouver 32%

I'm surprised to see the numbers from Atlantic Canada so low. Isn't that Alexa McDonough's old stomping ground? Or have the various economic and fisheries problems had that severe an effect that the people are looking elsewhere?There's nothing wrong with Atlantic Canada