NationStates Jolt Archive

Which party do you support and why?

I support the Stephen Harper and the PCP.

I'm generally right wing, and in general the only issue I'm left on is environmental, and Stephen harper appears to lean to the left on environmental issues as well, although that might just be an election platform, but regardless, I simply find Stephen Harper to be the best candidate.

Paul Martin is an idiot, sorry, but he's a corrupt, lying idiot.

Jack layton is too leftist for me...

I really, really, really like Jack Layton's economic policies. The fact that we don't have to choose between jobs and the environment is great. Increased social programs--bring it on, Jack! Why are people so scared of Jack Layton?

Really curious, are there really that few people from Canada on here?

Really curious, are there really that few people from Canada on here?

Maybe you were unaware of this already-existing thread? http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=129438&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Honestly, I don't know who to vote for in this election.
I've always voted for Manley in the past, as he's been a strong candidate for Ottawa South, and always had time for local affairs.

Currently, we have David McGuinty, I wonder if his promises are as good as his brothers??? Plus I don't really trust the Liberals anymore.

Monia Mozigh, who is suing the Canadian government for 30 million dollars, while her husband is suing the government for 70 million, and 10 of their relatives for 30 million a piece! Not at all a candidate I would support, regardless of party politics.

Then there's the Conservatives, but Harper scares me, because I believe he would honestly gut our social programs completely, making us just a Northern version of the US, which as nice as it is, if I wanted to live there, I would move there (especially as I don't need a work visa to work there, I could easily).

That just leaves my to choose the Green Party, Communist Party of Canada, and the Marijuana party candidates, none of which have a hope of gaining any seats, so I would be throwing my vote away essentially.

I don't know, I guess I'll just keep watching, and see what transpires.

I agree that Harper appears to be the best candidate. When Martin began his term as PM I was initially hopeful, he was making a lot of positive-looking annoucements and I actually thought he was going to address the widening gulfs between our nations various regions. The past few months and the election platform have led me to believe that Martin is just another Liberal and that nothing has changed. The only thing on their agenda is attaining power and keeping it.

I agree Layton looks good, but I don't really think he has what it takes to be PM. As well the NDP never really prepares a platform (federally) that could be enacted, even if they were elected. They have a hodge podge of ideas, some of which are good (cutting GST on essential products), some of which are complete jokes (retrofitting every single building in the entire country for energy effeciency).

I've decided to vote NDP. Jack Layton maintains the traditional NDP positions on social and environmental issues while being pragmatic about economic issues and balancing the budget. He even recognizes that the military has been underfunded and needs money. He knows we have to pay to play. My biggest problem with Layton's platform is that he isn't prepared to put much money towards paying off Canada's existing debt.

Jack Layton has put his money where his mouth is as a municipal politician. He didn't just talk about what he believed in -- he actively worked to make things better. He's gained my respect in ways that Paul Martin and Stephen Harper never have. Sure, Paul Martin has made a lot of money in his lifetime, but Canadian Steamship Lines did it by evading Canadian regulations, wages, and working conditions (registering ships with flags of convienience). Stephen Harper is too right wing. He talks mildly at the moment, but he's just trying to lure away the Liberal voters. I remember what he has said in the past, and what his party members say now (which he tries to hush up).

I mean, can you imagine a Conservative government with a Bloc opposition? The mind boggles. The government trying to dismantle Canada's social institutions while the opposition tries to create a sovereign Quebec. <shudder>

I suport CPC beacuse Canada neads change its been stagnating for too long

The Conservatives will turn Canada into a tinpot copy of the US - who the hell wants that? (besides American neo-conservatives). If you want change from the Liberals, then vote NDP, for progress in the right (well, left) direction, for social programs with actual funding, for a renewed emphasis on Canada's role in the world, for a change from corporate plutocracy, for empowering the working class.

The Conservatives are about 4 steps in the wrong direction. Make the right choice... vote NDP.

I suport CPC beacuse Canada neads change its been stagnating for too long

Let me guess. You're not old enough to remember Brian Mulrooney, or the sentiments of the Reform/Alliance party. Don't be fooled by the bland sheep's clothing Harper is wearing for the election -- if he keeps the promises he offers in his platform, he'll cut taxes and run deficit spending to maintain services and make huge boosts to the military. Yes, the military needs more funding, more equipment, etc, but in his platform he wants to buy dual-purpose aircraft carriers, when what we need are smaller things like helicopters and armoured personel carriers (for example). If you read all the platforms, you'll see that Harper promises to spend as much as the Liberal and NDP do - but he also promises to cut taxes, so he won't have the same amount of money to spend. The Conservatives will head us into another big debt spiral, just like all the rest of the G-8 nations.

Don't let your vote just be a knee jerk reaction against the Liberals -- think about what you want for this country.

stephen harper scares me. he's anti-choice, pro-death penalty, pro-war in iraq, pro-star wars missile defense program and anti-gay rights.
not to mention that he's probably going to put out country into debt a la bush... cutting taxes and pumping up the military, that is unless he cuts out all social programs and makes our country go down the shitter.


i'm voting ndp. they're pro-gay rights, pro-choice, anti-death penalty, anti-star wars missile defense, pro-marijuana legalization, pro-environment et c.

though really, no matter who you vote for, what matters is that you do vote and you make an informed decision.

http://www.liberal.ca/
http://www.conservative.ca/english/index.asp
http://www.ndp.ca/
http://www.greenparty.ca/

also, to be fair, the liberals have done a decent job with our country. they've been paying off the debt and we've had a balanced budget for like 7 years.

As a member of the CPC my vote is automatically for my party. Hell I'm even on the campaign team in my Quebec riding.

The provincial NDP has managed to abuse and nearly destroy 2 provinces, British-Columbia and Ontario. Both Federal and Provincial branches share alot of the same ideas which have pretty much stayed constant for the last two decades. They bring nothing new to the table. Their platform is not feasible and I find the proposition of raising taxes on the people who earn more than 250,000$ troubling; they do understand that these people can simply move out of Canada right? Their not trapped in Canada, raise taxes on these people and they will leave. Another point I'd like to make about the NDP is on their approach to provincial affairs, they are centralizers, always have been and always will be. They propose to abolish the Senate, actively PROHIBIT provinces from opening private health institutions on their territory. Health is a provincial matter, NOT federal, they have no rights to get involved. The NDP will, if they attain power, further centralize power into the PMO office, moreso then now.

The Liberals have mismanaged Canadian Taxpayer dollars for most likely now 10 years. Billions have been wasted on fake contracts, pointless programs, massive overspending and ridiculous/frivolous contract hand-outs to their friends. Martin promised to get to the bottom of the subject before the election call, he didn't. He vowed he would bring people to account...to date he hasn't.

I see alot of knee-jerk reactions against the CPC in this thread; things like "They'll americanize us!","They'll make us America's love slave!". At least visit the platform/issues at www.conservative.ca or go down to your local campaign office for the CPC and ask for some information. Want other sources which will take out the political rhetoric? Try http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2004/static/issues/issues.html
OR if your prefer the CBC try http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/analysiscommentary/index.html

They have some good information and include the Green Party which should be at the debate.

Always Remember:

Your money,
Their friends,
Martin has alot of new friends...

vorrigana, i already visited the websites for the major political parties. the conservatives still scare me... reading the site made it worse because it revealed some issues of their platform that they don't discuss.

not to mention that harper's talking about opening up a vote about abortion...

I live in BC. I have lived under Social Credit, NDP, and 'Liberal' governments. Glen Clark's NDP may not have been the best government, but at least he wasn't convicted of drunk driving in office like Gordon Campbell.

However, the NDP of Jack Layton is not the NDP of Glen Clark, anymore than the Liberal government of Gordon Campbell is the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau. Gordon Campbell's Liberal party is made up primarily of ex-Social Credit party members - who got booted out in favour of the NDP 14 odd years ago. They may wear the Liberal colours, but they're as conservative as Harper and his guys. The only thing they really differ on is gay rights.

Be that as it may, the people of BC are quickly learning that the last NDP government was not as bad as they had been led to believe. We've watched provincial liberals - ex SoCreds - get fired or forced to resign for scandal after scandal. Nepotism. Money going missing. Marajuana ops. Involvement with organized crime. Meanwhile, while the rest of Canada watches their unemployment rate drop, BC watches our rise. This is the world of the pro-big business neo conservative BC Provincial Liberals.

Meanwhile, the Lorne Calvert NDP government in Saskatchewan is improving their economy, their job outlook, and the provinces's morale -- working hard! -- despite repeated droughts and Mad Cow Disease in their farm dependent province. It is a real success story. Why don't you use them as an example? As for Ontario, if you must malign their past NDP government, why don't you mention how Ontario voters kicked Ernie Eves and the rest of Conservatives out on their butts just a few months ago? Seems like Ontario wasn't very happy with them either.

Jack Layton has proved himself to be a proven, effective leader municipally. You claim that traditionally the NDP are centrallists. Well, they're offering the cities a much better deal in their platform than the Conservatives are. Doesn't sound like centralization to me.

As for preventing Alberta from setting up private health care facilities, some of us think that's a good idea. The Canadian Journal of Medicine today released a study showing that private facilities cost 19% more than public ones -- primarily because they must make a profit for their shareholders.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/07/canada/hospitals_040607

If you don't wish to accept a Canadian version of this, allow me to present you with links to an American medical journal that shows that US health spending is 43% higher than Canada's per capita - and they still can't provide health care to all of their citizens. This article cites a "highly complex and fragmented payment system" necessitating higher administrative costs as being the primary reason.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/10/T1
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/10#T1

I may be an American, but I know a bit about Canada. After all, I live across the lake from Toronto, and thanks to our new ferry, it's only a two-hour ride away.
Anyhow, this Stephen Harper dude doesn't sound bad at all. He probably will never attack your universal healthcare, as you guys love that too much. But he seems like he can put Canada's house back into order.
Toronto, I think you'll agree, is a fair representation of Canada. However, it appears as if Toronto is in a state of laziness. Unemployment for Canada is at 7.6%. If that happened in the US, there'd be a shootout at the White House. The slums in Toronto are not only alive, they are growing. With the prospect of legalizing marijuana, I fear that they may grow more, as Canada will be a new base of drug-smuggling into the US. This promises only to strain our relations.
It's only one example, but Canada isn't in the best possible position to grow and thrive, let alone compete with the US on anything. I know that the US may not be too fond with a major economic competitor so close to us, but it affects the US as well. If you guys decline, we decline, because so many resources must be contributed to stopping drug smuggling from Canada, and terrorists. Harper may not top your list, but I do think he is the best choice for the moment.

Voting Conservative makes you a sucker, or greedy, or both. It's an indefensible party with an indefensible, un-Canadian ideology. Shame on anybody who supports them.

Unemployment for Canada is at 7.6%. If that happened in the US, there'd be a shootout at the White House.

For starters, a 7.6% unemployment rate is around the historical lows in Canada. Also consider that it is based on true unemployment, NOT like the US. The US counts employment even if a person only works 1 hour in a week.

US Unemployment:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

The last time we had a Conservative Government in Canada (1984 to 1993) we had the following unemployment rates:

Canada
1984 11.3
1985 10.7
1986 9.6
1987 8.8
1988 7.8
1989 7.5
1990 8.1
1991 10.3
1992 11.2

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4456/is_73/ai_105851454

So 7.6% is not bad at all.

Toronto, I think you'll agree, is a fair representation of Canada.

Toronto is not a fair representation of Canada, you only think that because it is the only part of the country you know. The econimic, social, and political situations in other parts of the nation are totally different. I live in Nova Scotia and have been to Toronto and Southern Ontario at various times and believe me, they are different! If you were to tell many of the people down here (or many western farmers for that matter) that Toronto was a fair representation of them, they would spit in your face, quite literally! That is part of what makes this country so challenging to govern, it is so large and diverse!

Canada isn't in the best possible position to grow and thrive, let alone compete with the US on anything.
Perhaps you could back that up somehow?

Canada has and continues to have a strong trade surplus with not only the US, but the rest of the world:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/02/13/trade_040213

http://www.moneysense.ca/news/shownews.jsp?content=20040512_103011_1_reuters_roc

Also, consider the following:

United Nations Human Development Index

Canada was ranked first for nine straight years on the United Nations Human Development Index from 1992 to 2000.

Every one of those years was under a Liberal Government, except 1992.

I think this country competes very well.

Harper may not top your list, but I do think he is the best choice for the moment.

Why in your estimation would Harper make the best choice?

vorrigana, i already visited the websites for the major political parties. the conservatives still scare me... reading the site made it worse because it revealed some issues of their platform that they don't discuss.

not to mention that harper's talking about opening up a vote about abortion...

When did he say there would ANY government sponsored bill? He said private members can bring up the bill and TRY to pass it through as is their prerogative as members of parliament. Abortion is not a election issue, regardless if the Liberals will beat this dead horse until their hands fall off.

I live in BC. I have lived under Social Credit, NDP, and 'Liberal' governments. Glen Clark's NDP may not have been the best government, but at least he wasn't convicted of drunk driving in office like Gordon Campbell.

However, the NDP of Jack Layton is not the NDP of Glen Clark, anymore than the Liberal government of Gordon Campbell is the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau. Gordon Campbell's Liberal party is made up primarily of ex-Social Credit party members - who got booted out in favour of the NDP 14 odd years ago. They may wear the Liberal colours, but they're as conservative as Harper and his guys. The only thing they really differ on is gay rights.

Be that as it may, the people of BC are quickly learning that the last NDP government was not as bad as they had been led to believe. We've watched provincial liberals - ex SoCreds - get fired or forced to resign for scandal after scandal. Nepotism. Money going missing. Marajuana ops. Involvement with organized crime. Meanwhile, while the rest of Canada watches their unemployment rate drop, BC watches our rise. This is the world of the pro-big business neo conservative BC Provincial Liberals.

Meanwhile, the Lorne Calvert NDP government in Saskatchewan is improving their economy, their job outlook, and the provinces's morale -- working hard! -- despite repeated droughts and Mad Cow Disease in their farm dependent province. It is a real success story. Why don't you use them as an example? As for Ontario, if you must malign their past NDP government, why don't you mention how Ontario voters kicked Ernie Eves and the rest of Conservatives out on their butts just a few months ago? Seems like Ontario wasn't very happy with them either.

Jack Layton has proved himself to be a proven, effective leader municipally. You claim that traditionally the NDP are centrallists. Well, they're offering the cities a much better deal in their platform than the Conservatives are. Doesn't sound like centralization to me.

As for preventing Alberta from setting up private health care facilities, some of us think that's a good idea. The Canadian Journal of Medicine today released a study showing that private facilities cost 19% more than public ones -- primarily because they must make a profit for their shareholders.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/07/canada/hospitals_040607

If you don't wish to accept a Canadian version of this, allow me to present you with links to an American medical journal that shows that US health spending is 43% higher than Canada's per capita - and they still can't provide health care to all of their citizens. This article cites a "highly complex and fragmented payment system" necessitating higher administrative costs as being the primary reason.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/10/T1
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/10#T1

Thanks for the lesson on B.C.. In truth only people who lived there can tell others how it was. From what I saw on this side of Canada, was a government which wasted taxpayer dollars endlessly. The fact that the liberals (provincially) continue this trend is baffling to me. I didn't talk about Mr.Calvert, because I know very little about him or the issues he pushes forward. My post was directed against the NDP in a general fashion.

I'll malign the Conservatives (provincial) a bit. Eves had the charisma of a worm...Okay the worm had more, his party moved away from the standard policies that Harris had pushed for. Klein is doing a fine job in Alberta, and to me, its an example of how to run a deficit free province while the people getting as much as they can out of it. The ex-Cons of Quebec well are non-existent, after Mulroney everything was basically done for the party.

The NDP platform is centralist. Their proposals for the municipalities is a rehash of what other parties have offered. Day after day I see Layton, and local candidates, proposing the establishment of new boards, committees, new programs, etc...Sometimes on issues which don't concern the federal government, EVER. Health and education most notably.

In the end, the federal government has no right in provincial affairs. So if say Ontario suddenly decided to establish private clinics, that's their business, people over in Quebec have ZERO say in that. Our public system costs plenty as it is, and we want to throw more money at it, as if MORE money will suddenly help the system. Its a provincial matter, for better or worse, the decision-making body rests closer to the people.

Voting Conservative makes you a sucker, or greedy, or both. It's an indefensible party with an indefensible, un-Canadian ideology. Shame on anybody who supports them.

Ahhhh Mahal...Thank you for calling me a sucker and greedy(and nearly 30% of the Canadian population). You have no proof and have no idea what Canadian values are. None. I'm proud of supporting the CPC, and I will so long as they have the grassroot structure I cherish.

What are Canadian values to you then? And historically speaking...what have been Canadian values? Can you define me a Canadian? Are you by chance one of the genius Martinites who attempted to slander the CPC?

Thanks for the troll too.

In any case, vote, for the love of God just go out and vote for whoever you believe will represent you best. Its your vote, your duty and your choice, use it.

Just under 2 years ago, the leader of the old/new Alliance Party, which eventually took over the NEW Conservative Party was none other than Stockwell Day.

The people that elected him, had to ask him to leave as leader. He refused but lost the leadership vote that ensued. The sad part is that most of the people who supported Day, are the same people who want to run Canada today.

Scary thought indeed.

Voting Conservative makes you a sucker, or greedy, or both. It's an indefensible party with an indefensible, un-Canadian ideology. Shame on anybody who supports them.

Ahhhh Mahal...Thank you for calling me a sucker and greedy(and nearly 30% of the Canadian population). You have no proof and have no idea what Canadian values are. None. I'm proud of supporting the CPC, and I will so long as they have the grassroot structure I cherish.

What are Canadian values to you then? And historically speaking...what have been Canadian values? Can you define me a Canadian? Are you by chance one of the genius Martinites who attempted to slander the CPC?


I'm not a fulltime Liberal - just a fulltime anti-Tory. I'll vote for whomever can best defeat Tories where I live.

Even if 99% of Canadians went Tory, that's still no defense of them. Conservative ideology still represents a huge moral and mental failure.

Both sides of my family have been in this country for over 2 centuries, so don't say I've no idea about Canadian values. At least one of my ancestors fought in the 1812 War to defeat American invaders.

Some basic Canadian values, in case you've forgotten:

- being your brother's keeper, and paying enough taxes to do that
- building a better society through strong central government
- having a pluralistic, inclusive society
- Multi-culturalism and bilingualism
- protecting Minority rights from mob rule
- separation of church & state - official Secularism
- universal health care and education paid for by fair taxation
- being a good global citizen through foreign aid and non-aggression
- correcting past injustices against First Nations people
- direct action on protecting/preserving the environment
- strong state support of National media and arts


There are other Canadian values of course, but these are some of the absolute core ones.

Since these Canadian values fly in the face of laissez-faire Capitalism, the Conservative Party's backers seek to underfund and disembowel the public institutions needed to enact our values. If Canadians would *wake up* to that fact instead of selfishly chasing the tax-cut carrot, they would not support the Tories.

Conservative Party values are not Canadian values - they are American *Republican Party* values. The Tories seek to undo and sell-out the Canada we battled to create in 1812 - and are therefore traitors.

As for preventing Alberta from setting up private health care facilities, some of us think that's a good idea. The Canadian Journal of Medicine today released a study showing that private facilities cost 19% more than public ones -- primarily because they must make a profit for their shareholders.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/07/canada/hospitals_040607

If you don't wish to accept a Canadian version of this, allow me to present you with links to an American medical journal that shows that US health spending is 43% higher than Canada's per capita - and they still can't provide health care to all of their citizens. This article cites a "highly complex and fragmented payment system" necessitating higher administrative costs as being the primary reason.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/10/T1
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/10#T1

Thanks for the lesson on B.C..

<snip>

In the end, the federal government has no right in provincial affairs. So if say Ontario suddenly decided to establish private clinics, that's their business, people over in Quebec have ZERO say in that. Our public system costs plenty as it is, and we want to throw more money at it, as if MORE money will suddenly help the system. Its a provincial matter, for better or worse, the decision-making body rests closer to the people.


Thanks for taking the time to respond. And please understand that I don't mean any of what I say as a personal attack on you and your values. You have the right to your beliefs, just as I and others have the right to ours. You've dealt with the trolling by others very well.

I just wanted to ask about the point you make above:

public system costs plenty as it is, and we want to throw more money at it, as if MORE money will suddenly help the system.

But according to the studies above, moving to a private system will cost more money than maintaining a public system. Don't get me wrong, I agree there should be reforms, and I'd like to see the Romanow Commission findings get implemented instead of talked about, but it's pretty clear to me that we both agree that throwing more money at the problem is not the solution. What baffles me is the belief that moving to a public-private system would be cheaper. Moving to a for-profit system immediately assumes that profits would have to be made above and beyond the costs of the health care system. Administrative and insurance systems would need to be duplicated. Hospital CEOs and other executives would need competitive salaries with CEOs and executives in other industries. That all spells out additional cost to me.

Don't get me wrong. There are some areas where for profit systems are acceptable. For example, I don't have a problem with for profit medical laboratories. I also would be fine if vanity plastic surgeries were taken off the public coffers (of course I don't regard reconstruction after an accident as a vanity surgery, just so I'm clear). On the other hand, having previously worked in home care, I've got to say that the non-profit agencies I worked in were more efficient, served everyone in need, didn't pick and choose for the easiest, wealthiest clients, and generally cost less than the for-profit agencies I was associated with. Ditto with retirement homes. My mom is a nurse (part time in a hospital on a maternity ward, part time in a retirement home) and she agrees. The for-profit homes soak their clients for thousands of dollars every month, and all they provide are 1 bedroom or bachelor apartments, some meals, recreation, and janitorial of the common areas. As a home support worker, I was still being hired to go into these apartments and supply meals, cleaning, laundry, baths, and medical care (this portion was often government subsidized). In a non-profit retirement home, housing, all meals, recreation, janitorial, laundry, personal care, and medical care are all provided in house, and is affordable even to people subsisting on their pensions.

I could go on and on -- I have plenty of other relatives that work in other parts of health care. (Not me anymore, I got out in 1999.) Except for the doctors in the family, all are unanimous in supporting the public health care system. The doctors are about 50-50. Those in support of adopting private options generally list higher salaries as their incentive. Now I agree that polling family members is hardly scientific, but given their experience I think their views have value.

Healthcare is not a federal issue. Neither is education. Any federal politician who makes healthcare or education a central issue of their election campaign automatically loses my vote.

Read the constitution dammit.

Healthcare is not a federal issue. Neither is education. Any federal politician who makes healthcare or education a central issue of their election campaign automatically loses my vote.

Read the constitution dammit.

Huh? As long as the provinces are still getting $Billions$ from the Feds for Health and Education (and they all do), these issues are very much a Federal matter.

Besides we need the Feds to protect us from the rogue actions of certain provinces who seem determined to wipe out universal Medicare and bring in Two-Tiered U.S. style systems.

Unemployment for Canada is at 7.6%. If that happened in the US, there'd be a shootout at the White House.

For starters, a 7.6% unemployment rate is around the historical lows in Canada. Also consider that it is based on true unemployment, NOT like the US. The US counts employment even if a person only works 1 hour in a week.

US Unemployment:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

The last time we had a Conservative Government in Canada (1984 to 1993) we had the following unemployment rates:

Canada
1984 11.3
1985 10.7
1986 9.6
1987 8.8
1988 7.8
1989 7.5
1990 8.1
1991 10.3
1992 11.2

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4456/is_73/ai_105851454

So 7.6% is not bad at all.
Let me give you a priviledge you didn't give me: saying everything in one post.
Economically, Canada is spineless. No multinational corporations, asside a few breweries, exist in Canada. You rely on the US for 87.5% of your exports. Economically, Canada is far too linked to the US to be a major player of its own. The EU, China, and Japan all pass you buy, because you're essentially the same market as the US.
Politically, it's even worse. Canada is seen as too easy to push over, participating in every single UN mission, and having a weak military. Don't forget the loose nature of the Federation of Canada, especially Quebec.
If Paul Martin stays in power, Canada is on the fast track to having severe cultural rifts, loosing its credibility in the world, and possibly division. It's time that all of Canada can assert some backbone, both at home and abroad, and make Canadians feel proud about Canada. Traditionally, conservatives do the best job at that.
BTW, if I were a neo-con, Steve Harper wouldn't be on my list for Canada's next prime minister. It'd be Paul Martin, who'll link Canada with the US, and ultimatly, make Canada a vassal state of the US. I feel, however, that it's in the US's best interests for a strong, proud, but cooperative Canada.

Huh? As long as the provinces are still getting $Billions$ from the Feds for Health and Education (and they all do), these issues are very much a Federal matter.
The feds are unconstitutionally taxing in order to raise the funds needed to dictate to the provinces how to run their healthcare systems. I refuse to let "Canada" have a say in my province's health care system and I'll fight it as best I can.

Besides we need the Feds to protect us from the rogue actions of certain provinces who seem determined to wipe out universal Medicare and bring in Two-Tiered U.S. style systems.
By rogue you mean "sovereign". All provinces are democracies right? So if universal health care is more important to you than democracy you can take your federal "protection" and shove it up your butt.

Some basic Canadian values, in case you've forgotten:

- being your brother's keeper, and paying enough taxes to do that
- building a better society through strong central government
- having a pluralistic, inclusive society
- Multi-culturalism and bilingualism
- protecting Minority rights from mob rule
- separation of church & state - official Secularism
- universal health care and education paid for by fair taxation
- being a good global citizen through foreign aid and non-aggression
- correcting past injustices against First Nations people
- direct action on protecting/preserving the environment
- strong state support of National media and arts


There are other Canadian values of course, but these are some of the absolute core ones.

Since these Canadian values fly in the face of laissez-faire Capitalism, the Conservative Party's backers seek to underfund and disembowel the public institutions needed to enact our values. If Canadians would *wake up* to that fact instead of selfishly chasing the tax-cut carrot, they would not support the Tories.

Conservative Party values are not Canadian values - they are American *Republican Party* values. The Tories seek to undo and sell-out the Canada we battled to create in 1812 - and are therefore traitors.

I'll rebute the one's I know are blatantly wrong. Being your brother's keeper? Taxes were brought in to pay for WW2 and in general in the New Deal proposed by most Western states when people returned from the war and wanted more services since they were being taxed more. I don't like high taxes and frankly I hate the idea that the answer to everything is to raise taxes.

Strong central government? When the first constitution was drafted, Canada was meant to be a highly de-centralized state. The position of Prime Minister is not even enshrined in the constitution. The system was designed to bear more resemblance to the British style of parliamentarism, however, due to our own way of doing things, voting down party lines and obedience to the party leader became primordial. Since 1945 the government has began to centralize administrative power, hence its not an "original" Canadian value. Strong central government is NOT a Canadian value, even if you think it is.

Multiculturalism? Fine by me. I come from a non-visible minority so I got nothing to say about it. Bilingualism? Wrong on every level. Canada was founded on our British history. We were given our independence by the British Crown. Thus english was the only official language until it was changed in the 1970's with the adoption of the Official Languages Act. Its a modern value, NOT shared by everyone in this country. The act itself favors Quebecers for public positions, because they have the advantage in learning French. The act has also caused the government to waste millions in double printing of documentation, translators and overall doubling of everything. Not everyone agrees with bilingualism.

Universal healthcare? Education? NO. Those are the sole responsability of the provinces and not the government. Its not a value and alot of people don't agree with it. It also started only after the 1950's.

The last four are not values, their policies. We are not responsible for the wrong committed by our ancestors. We didn't have a say in what they did. Protectionism for the environment is a new trend, and so is the support for national medias and arts. Alot of people dislike the CBC, or the idea of a state-sponsored media.

And cut the traitor crap. I don't like being called a traitor, and neither do the people who support the CPC. How about you cut the flames and cut the crap also? :evil:


Thanks for taking the time to respond. And please understand that I don't mean any of what I say as a personal attack on you and your values. You have the right to your beliefs, just as I and others have the right to ours. You've dealt with the trolling by others very well.

I just wanted to ask about the point you make above:

public system costs plenty as it is, and we want to throw more money at it, as if MORE money will suddenly help the system.

But according to the studies above, moving to a private system will cost more money than maintaining a public system. Don't get me wrong, I agree there should be reforms, and I'd like to see the Romanow Commission findings get implemented instead of talked about, but it's pretty clear to me that we both agree that throwing more money at the problem is not the solution. What baffles me is the belief that moving to a public-private system would be cheaper. Moving to a for-profit system immediately assumes that profits would have to be made above and beyond the costs of the health care system. Administrative and insurance systems would need to be duplicated. Hospital CEOs and other executives would need competitive salaries with CEOs and executives in other industries. That all spells out additional cost to me.

Don't get me wrong. There are some areas where for profit systems are acceptable. For example, I don't have a problem with for profit medical laboratories. I also would be fine if vanity plastic surgeries were taken off the public coffers (of course I don't regard reconstruction after an accident as a vanity surgery, just so I'm clear). On the other hand, having previously worked in home care, I've got to say that the non-profit agencies I worked in were more efficient, served everyone in need, didn't pick and choose for the easiest, wealthiest clients, and generally cost less than the for-profit agencies I was associated with. Ditto with retirement homes. My mom is a nurse (part time in a hospital on a maternity ward, part time in a retirement home) and she agrees. The for-profit homes soak their clients for thousands of dollars every month, and all they provide are 1 bedroom or bachelor apartments, some meals, recreation, and janitorial of the common areas. As a home support worker, I was still being hired to go into these apartments and supply meals, cleaning, laundry, baths, and medical care (this portion was often government subsidized). In a non-profit retirement home, housing, all meals, recreation, janitorial, laundry, personal care, and medical care are all provided in house, and is affordable even to people subsisting on their pensions.

I could go on and on -- I have plenty of other relatives that work in other parts of health care. (Not me anymore, I got out in 1999.) Except for the doctors in the family, all are unanimous in supporting the public health care system. The doctors are about 50-50. Those in support of adopting private options generally list higher salaries as their incentive. Now I agree that polling family members is hardly scientific, but given their experience I think their views have value.

I agree with the fact we need a public healthcare system, but I believe that the provinces should determine whether they need one on an individual basis. I believe that every province should have control over what is rightfully their's. The implementation of private clinics should NOT be subsidized by government in any way. That's up to the private sector to figure it out on their own in each individual province.

I've been to the hospital on several occassions and thankfully never as a patient. The service has steadily declined since the 1980's. The approach the Federal government has taken is to cash strap the provinces, and force them into administrative agreements. The Federal government has no business in this field and should back-off.

You at least had the decency to present your views so I can respond with some manner of intelligence. Calling the CPC traitors, greedy, etc...is ridiculous and offensive to the members and their supporters.

[quote=Stirner]Healthcare is not a federal issue. Neither is education. Any federal politician who makes healthcare or education a central issue of their election campaign automatically loses my vote.

Read the constitution dammit.

Huh? As long as the provinces are still getting $Billions$ from the Feds for Health and Education (and they all do), these issues are very much a Federal matter.

Besides we need the Feds to protect us from the rogue actions of certain provinces who seem determined to wipe out universal Medicare and bring in Two-Tiered U.S. style systems.

That money is rightfully the ownership of the taxpayers. It doesn't belong to government. It should go down to people who are closest to the people. Lets cut the Canada Health Act and the spending from the Federal government for Health and Education.

There you go again with the "Feds need to protect us from the rogue provinces". What provinces do within their jurisdictions is not the problem of the Federal government. If Alberta determines it needs both public and private clinics, then Albertans will decide by voting in whoever proposes the idea. Other provincial & Federal branches have nothing to say and should keep their nose out.

Guys, if the problem with the public system is the expense, why do people continue to believe that the private system will fix those problems?

If certain provinces are determined to institute a system that will clearly cost Canadians more money than the current system without any clear benefits to anyone other than specific shareholders, why shouldn't the federal government step in?

Those provinces aren't willing to give up transfer payments -- they just want transfer payments without strings attached. But like it or not, the federal government has to consider the big picture. How the provinces decide to implement health care definitely effects that big picture. The feds simply can't ignore the issue, it's too big and effects every Canadian.

Healthcare is not a federal issue. Neither is education. Any federal politician who makes healthcare or education a central issue of their election campaign automatically loses my vote.

Read the constitution dammit.

So you'll be voting for one of the 11 fringe parties then? All of the major parties mention health care as a central tenent of their platforms.

Guys, if the problem with the public system is the expense, why do people continue to believe that the private system will fix those problems?

If certain provinces are determined to institute a system that will clearly cost Canadians more money than the current system without any clear benefits to anyone other than specific shareholders, why shouldn't the federal government step in?

Those provinces aren't willing to give up transfer payments -- they just want transfer payments without strings attached. But like it or not, the federal government has to consider the big picture. How the provinces decide to implement health care definitely effects that big picture. The feds simply can't ignore the issue, it's too big and effects every Canadian.

Its not only the expense, its the idea, the cost AND the fact it doesn't work anymore. Its supposed to be run by the provinces, but isn't. The Federal government has starved all the provinces in order to make the transfer payments something they can negotiate with.

And cost Canadians in general is highly speculative. If PEI institutes private clinics then how will this affect me? No taxpayer money goes into funding it. I fail to see how we will communally pay more. The people of PEI may pay more, but thats their business not mine.

The Federal government has only one duty. To respect and uphold the Constitution. Their involvement in Healthcare and Education violates those tenants.

The argument that individuals with money will get better treatment holds no water. They still DO get better treatment by flying to the U.S. and using their private clinics. The issue here is we could get Canadian citizens to remain here and have an option available to them IF their provincial governments determine they need it. Its all about choice, and decentralized control over issues which hit close to home for many people.

If certain provinces are determined to institute a system that will clearly cost Canadians more money than the current system without any clear benefits to anyone other than specific shareholders, why shouldn't the federal government step in?

For the same reason the government of France shouldn't step in: It's none of their business! When it comes to health care I'm not a Canadian, I'm a British Columbian.

So you'll be voting for one of the 11 fringe parties then? All of the major parties mention health care as a central tenent of their platforms.
I may. The Libertarian would-be candidate got me to sign her application petition (you need a number of signatures to get on the ballot) and she was kinda cute...

If I vote for a mainstream party it will be Conservative, no question. Yes, I know they have health care as an issue on their website:
Access to Health Care
Canadians depend on our public system of health care. That’s why the Conservative Party supported the federal-provincial Health Accord. A Conservative government will cooperate with the provinces to ensure adequate funding, shorter waiting lists, and more doctors and nurses. We will improve access to health care for all Canadians, regardless of ability to pay. Demand Better. Demand improved access to health care.
Still, health is not the the central plank of the Conservative platform, unlike for the Liberals. I think my anger at the Liberals outweighs my disappointment with the Conservatives. The next couple weeks will tell.

I live in BC.
<snip>
...the Lorne Calvert NDP government in Saskatchewan is improving their economy, their job outlook, and the provinces's morale -- working hard! -- despite repeated droughts and Mad Cow Disease in their farm dependent province. It is a real success story.

Perhaps if you lived in Saskatchewan, or knew more about it, you wouldn't be quite so fawning in your praise of Lorne Calvert's government. The economy is hardly improving and the job outlook is terrible, except among ever-increasing government ranks. The morale is such that those who haven't already left for Alberta ask themselves jokingly why they haven't yet. And while the assumption in BC and Ontario of Saskatchewan as a backwards, rural, farm-dependant province, only a very small percentage of Saskatchewan's income is farm-related. Farmers just happen to be one of the most vocal groups. Alberta was much more affected by BSE.

Yes, the NDP just got re-elected (by the slimmest margin possible), but it wasn't because they did a good job last term, or had a good platform. Their platform was "don't vote Saskatchewan Party, they'll take apart social programs and privatize all the crown corps!" Their message of fear was more effective than the Sask Party's protests that they had no intention of doing either, and preying on the fears of the uninformed they secured themselves another term.

Frankly, our regional disputes are unimportant. The bulk of my taxes go to the federal government and then go to pay for services across Canada. I may be a British Columbian - but I am a Canadian first.

Look, the purpose of a government is to provide services that are too expensive to acquire individually (and to create laws, recognize citizens' rights and responsibilities, and negotiate with other national governments, but that's outside of this debate). It's the same reason people group together, such as employees at a workplace, to buy insurance -- bulk purchases give you more buying power.

Take policing for example. If policing were an individual's responsibility, you'd have to spend your entire life defending your property. You wouldn't have even have time to work for a living. And what would you do if you caught a criminal? Lock him up in your basement? Shoot her? The obvious solution was for communities to band together and pay a police force (and justice system) to do the job for them. Some large cities are big enough to have their municipal government supply police forces. Most other communities must band together and purchase police services from either the province, the nation, or both. This purchasing is done through, you guessed it, taxation. No one argues that having a federal police force, the RCMP, is important -- no one wants crime prevention or solving to stop at a municipal or provincial border the way it frequently stops at international borders. And yes, you can argue that people still hire private security guards. But it's extremely inefficient, from both a cost and effectiveness standpoint. It can also incure additional outside costs because private security guards don't have the same training. In BC, these additional costs (for example, improperly trained security guards apprehending and accidentally killing people, or themselves being injured) forced the provincial government to incorporate a standard for security guard training, so now there are two different institutes (Justice Institute and Police Academy), two different sets of employees, and so forth. It's inefficient. For the same amount of money, we'd have more police officers and police equipment, instead of a smaller number of police and security guards with an unfortunate information gap.

The same thing applies to health care. Frankly, smaller, poorer provinces and territories (and even larger, richer ones) can't afford to provide their own health services through provincial taxes alone. It's simply too expensive. They have to look to funding and purchasing power from the federal government. It's too simplistic to say that private clinics exist outside the tax system and so wouldn't cost the tax payers money. The point is, it still costs. The US private system (as an example) costs 43% more per capita than the Canadian public system. But why should they have to pay so much more? They still have waiting lists. Insurance companies still argue whether you need an operation to repair your skull. ( http://www.canada.com/news/oddities/story.html?id=1d71ffc0-6dbb-4832-890f-91dc1e540feb ) How is that an improvement? Besides, most of that money comes from the pockets of the individual that gets sick. If you can't afford it, too bad for you. The people of Canada determined years ago that everyone deserves treatment, and personally, I agree.

Instituting private clinics will further damage the public health care institution. Why? Because they are for profit. They will charge whatever the market will bear -- whatever a desperate person is willing to pay. This is the market of fear. Private clinics will be willing to pay higher salaries. Public system doctors will point to those salaries and use them for negotiation points to argue for pay raises from the provinces. Same for nurses.

Now you'll say that those doctors and nurses will just move to the States for higher fees and they'll be no med staff left. I disagree. If they were going to move, they would and many have. But the majority are still here. Many of them have numerous personal reasons for staying in Canada which there is no point in discussing here. But instituting private clinics will give them the option of staying in Canada and holding the public system ransom.

Then there is the question of access to hospitals. Look at Ontario and the costs of the proposed public private partnership hospitals. They're already seeing increased costs to the public. And if private clinics get access to public hospitals for surgeries and so forth, again, the cost is born by the rest of Canada.

The only good argument for private health care options is making money; not supplying services, that are already supplied. And if that same money was channeled into the public system, everyone would get more bang for the bucks. Yes, the system needs work. We've got Romanow's report, and the government should institute those recommendations. Romanow himself said that it wasn't about more money. So why the holdup?

Do you throw your car away because you need to service it regularly? No, you make sure you maintain it properly so that it runs properly. No one buys a new car just because they need an oil change. We need to do some work on our health care system, not toss it out.

Frankly, our regional disputes are unimportant. The bulk of my taxes go to the federal government and then go to pay for services across Canada. I may be a British Columbian - but I am a Canadian first.
I am not a Canadian first. For health care I am a British Columbian. For what I want for lunch today I am my own person. For building a restaurant where the concession is on Kits Beach I am a Vancouverite. For national defence I am a Canadian. For NHL hockey I am a Vancouverite. For Olympic hockey I am a Canadian.

I live in BC.
<snip>
...the Lorne Calvert NDP government in Saskatchewan is improving their economy, their job outlook, and the provinces's morale -- working hard! -- despite repeated droughts and Mad Cow Disease in their farm dependent province. It is a real success story.

Perhaps if you lived in Saskatchewan, or knew more about it, you wouldn't be quite so fawning in your praise of Lorne Calvert's government. The economy is hardly improving and the job outlook is terrible, except among ever-increasing government ranks. The morale is such that those who haven't already left for Alberta ask themselves jokingly why they haven't yet. And while the assumption in BC and Ontario of Saskatchewan as a backwards, rural, farm-dependant province, only a very small percentage of Saskatchewan's income is farm-related. Farmers just happen to be one of the most vocal groups. Alberta was much more affected by BSE.

Yes, the NDP just got re-elected (by the slimmest margin possible), but it wasn't because they did a good job last term, or had a good platform. Their platform was "don't vote Saskatchewan Party, they'll take apart social programs and privatize all the crown corps!" Their message of fear was more effective than the Sask Party's protests that they had no intention of doing either, and preying on the fears of the uninformed they secured themselves another term.

I do know that the stats recently released by Stats Canada showed that Saskatchewan has seen decided job growth. I know that agriculture is Saskatchewan's second most important industry, with mining being the first. And a lot of the other industries, such as equipment retail and manufacturing are dependent upon farm incomes. I know that the Sask gov't has also done a lot to futher develop other industries, including tourism, energy, manufacturing, and scientific research. They are also working bring outside investment into the province.

What is your primary complaint against the Calvert government? You complain, but you're not offering any examples. What I do know is that they have done a lot to improve your province's outlook, and clearly the majority of Saskatchewaners agree. It's hard to get elected for a second term when outside factors (like drought and BSE) heavily effect the province. Yes, Alberta was effected by the same issues, but they have tremendous oil and gas reserves to fall back on. Yes, both BC and Saskatchewan have drilling but you can't reasonably compare it to Alberta's stocks.

Frankly, our regional disputes are unimportant. The bulk of my taxes go to the federal government and then go to pay for services across Canada. I may be a British Columbian - but I am a Canadian first.
I am not a Canadian first. For health care I am a British Columbian. For what I want for lunch today I am my own person. For building a restaurant where the concession is on Kits Beach I am a Vancouverite. For national defence I am a Canadian. For NHL hockey I am a Vancouverite. For Olympic hockey I am a Canadian.

Well said. Exactly how I feel.

To Equus:

Healthcare is for the provinces to take care of, not the Federal government. What Quebecers do in their province with their healthcare is THEIR business, everyone else can mind their own affairs.

Provinces would be able to provide healthcare, if the Federal government would stop draining them of resources and stop taxing Canadians the way it does now. If provinces had a greater say in how the management of taxpayer dollars goes, then it would be possible.

The fact is that provinces are supposed to decide, NOT the federal government. The decision lies with the provincial governments elected by the people. Frankly I don't care what people in Ontario believe is best for MY province, I live here I can make my own decisions. I also don't care if other provinces believe it will cost more; we choose the option we prefer. Up to now, no one has proposed to scrap the entire system so your car analogy doesn't work here. Our system is old and cranky, we keep putting more money into our little Pinto and the fire still isn't out.

As for the issue of doctors and nurses. Currently in Quebec, the provincial government wants to force doctors/nurses to work a certain amount of years in outlying regions where no one wants to go. Forcibly telling people where they may and may not work. They have no right, no power, but exercise this control over peoples professional careers. Many doctors have quit in protest, we've had numerous nurse strikes and many have left. Guess where? The U.S.A.. The reality is they have a private system which entices people to work at a substantially higher pay and better opportunities for the gifted. Our public system cannot deal with it. We are not talking about the system needing oil, its needs a new ignition coil, new shocks, the fuel line is leaking and the transmission is shot...it needs complete rebuilding. This rebuilding will start with the provinces taking over their rightful duties and taking care of their voters their way. They can implement local changes and measures along with entertaining the option of private clinics if they feel they need it. People in New Brunswick have no say in how the healthcare system should be run in B.C., only the people of N-B have that right.

Frankly, our regional disputes are unimportant. I may be a British Columbian - but I am a Canadian first.

Amen to that.

I wonder if our Alberta Tory friends feel the same? Are they Canadians first or Albertans first?

When you hear people speaking of "Sovereign" provinces and of wanting a neutered federal government, you have to query their national loyalties.

I notice that Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe feels he has much in common with certain Alberta Tories - gee I wonder why?

Do we want a Canada that's a balkanized mish-mash of sovereign provinces - with no national standards for health care, education, resource management, the environment, taxation, etc?
Already there's far too much of this so-called "sovereignty" among provinces and it's weakening us as a nation. Every time we elect a federal Tory government they pander too much to provinces and weaken the country further yet.

For Canada to survive and be strong, we need a strong common vision, strong & effective federal government, and loyalty to the entire country.

Let's stop being so backwardly provincial shall we?

Let's stop being so backwardly provincial shall we?
No thank you. Absolute nationalism is a disease, and it will drag Canada down.

I am Canadian, and that means I believe in a confederation with inviolate separated jurisdictions for national and local governments. If you don't believe in that then its you that are wrecking the foundation of this country. How's that for Canadian values?

I will support the CPC and Stephen Harper this election.

Harper has been handling most sensitive issues in a proper manner, let the individual MPs decide on a case by case basis and do not make an official government policy on them without a mandate.

Harper supports increased autonomy for the individual MPs, democratic reforms (our system currently is an 'elect-a-dictator'), tax cuts, and increased autonomy for the provinces.

Martin is coming off (to me at least) as hypocritical. While campaigning he states that he believes young women should undergo 3rd party counselling before having an abortion. Then, when a CPC candidate says the same thing, Martin attacks Harper (who didn't even make the comment) for 'threatening women's rights'.

Martin wants to make health care an issue. Yes, health care is important in Canada, but it is a provincial issue according to our Constitution. Realistically, health care shouldn't even be brought up during federal debates. Martin then attacks Harper saying he wants to destroy the Charter and the Constitution. Who is undermining the Constitution?

Martin sends his henchmen (Ms. Sgro and Mr. McCallum) to harass Harper, and instead of going along with their petty attacks, Harper either ignores them or makes a witty comeback.

Plus, Martin and his boys (and girls sorry) have had 10 years to accomplish what they promise to do this time... why should we believe them this time?

I am voting conservative, Canada needs to move forward, we can't live under the Liberals. I live in British Columbia and have single handedly felt the liberals cuts, and they hurt. We need Steven Harper to push us into a better age.

I am Canadian, and that means I believe in a confederation with inviolate separated jurisdictions for national and local governments.

Those things are fine, but provincial powers and interests shouldn't over-ride national unity, strength and well-being. Without strong national institutions and common vision, you get suicidal fragmentation. Local interests must be secondary to national needs, just as national interests should be secondary to global survival and well-being.

I am Canadian, and that means I believe in a confederation with inviolate separated jurisdictions for national and local governments.

Those things are fine, but provincial powers and interests shouldn't over-ride national unity, strength and well-being. Without strong national institutions and common vision, you get suicidal fragmentation. Local interests must be secondary to national needs, just as national interests should be secondary to global survival and well-being.
Those things aren't "fine". They're the base on which Canada exists. I don't give a lick about your national unity, strength, and well-being. Your common vision can go to hell too. It's Canadian nationalism that nearly drove Quebec out, not a respect for confederation.

National needs are local interests. Canada is a liberal state: one founded on the sovereignty of the individual and respect for his rights. Those rights are more important than any "national need" "global survival" or "universal healthcare".

Your national totalitarianism will fail if I have anything to say about it. And I will.

...the sovereignty of the individual and respect for his rights. Those rights are more important than any..."global survival"...

Thanks for writing the epitaph of the planet. Self-interest taking precedence over the common good is what will do us all in.

Frankly, our regional disputes are unimportant. I may be a British Columbian - but I am a Canadian first.

Amen to that.

I wonder if our Alberta Tory friends feel the same? Are they Canadians first or Albertans first?

When you hear people speaking of "Sovereign" provinces and of wanting a neutered federal government, you have to query their national loyalties.

I notice that Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe feels he has much in common with certain Alberta Tories - gee I wonder why?

Do we want a Canada that's a balkanized mish-mash of sovereign provinces - with no national standards for health care, education, resource management, the environment, taxation, etc?
Already there's far too much of this so-called "sovereignty" among provinces and it's weakening us as a nation. Every time we elect a federal Tory government they pander too much to provinces and weaken the country further yet.

For Canada to survive and be strong, we need a strong common vision, strong & effective federal government, and loyalty to the entire country.

Let's stop being so backwardly provincial shall we?

Canada is a confederation. What makes Canada stronger is when we strengthen the confederacy by accepting and working within this framework instead of undermining provinces.

I don't want Federally imposed standards for health, education or resource management. That's for the individual provinces to determine how best they can administer them.

Strong Provinces make for a strong Canada.

I am Canadian, and that means I believe in a confederation with inviolate separated jurisdictions for national and local governments.

Those things are fine, but provincial powers and interests shouldn't over-ride national unity, strength and well-being. Without strong national institutions and common vision, you get suicidal fragmentation. Local interests must be secondary to national needs, just as national interests should be secondary to global survival and well-being.

Provinces are the fundamental component of the Canadian system. Stirner made all the points I'd have made.

I'm glad to see other Canadians feel the same way about Canada that the general membership of the CPC does. A strong Canada starts with strong provinces and not the other way around.

Thanks for writing the epitaph of the planet. Self-interest taking precedence over the common good is what will do us all in.
Nonsense. The subordination of society to the individual is what makes our civilization great, and has and will do more for the "common good" than any statist collectivist policy ever will.
I'm glad to see other Canadians feel the same way about Canada that the general membership of the CPC does. A strong Canada starts with strong provinces and not the other way around.
I should point out that I'm not entirely happy with the CPC. There are elements in the party, mostly from the "Joe Clark Tory" side of the house that are nationalistic in the same sort of way as the Liberal party. And I feel an uneasy alliance between social libertarians like myself and social conservatives that also find a home with the Conservatives.

Still, because of the "grassroots" style of the Conservatives (something the old Progressive Conservatives never had) I think there is a chance for libertarianism to take hold in that party.

I'm a supporter of the NDP because I think Jack Layton has what it takes to take the country into the future. He can pull off all the social programs and still balance the budget. I wish he was PM; we'd have far fewer scandals and corporate tax cuts.

I'm assuming that you are only trolling - but some posts just deserve a response if only to keep the discussion in the realm of fact instead of fiction.

Economically, Canada is spineless. No multinational corporations, asside a few breweries, exist in Canada.


Spineless? According to the CIA World factbook the top countries for per-capita GDP (in USD) are:
1 Luxembourg 44,000
2 United States 37,600
3 Bermuda 35,200
4 Cayman Islands 35,000
5 San Marino 34,600
6 Norway 31,800
7 Switzerland 31,700
8 Ireland 30,500
9 Canada 29,400
10 Belgium 29,00

Now You can point to total output if you like and completely ignore the fact that the US is nearly 10 times the size of Canada, but for robustness of economy we seem to be kicking the crap out most of the rest of the world - including the bulk of the EU.

No Multinationals?
What? Nobody around the world is buying Bombardier aircraft or trains anymore? The "TD" in "TD Price Waterhouse" didn't really happen when the Toronto Dominion Bank bough Price Waterhouse? Weston still isn't one of the largest food processing companies in North America? Barrick suddenly stopped producing gold all around the world? Husky isn't drilling for Oil in China? The Potash Corp of Saskatchewan isn't one of the largest worldwide producers of fertilizer anymore? Abitibi isn't still making paper products on several continents? Precision Drilling got out of Soth America and the Middle East when I wasn't looking? McCain's has stopped making food?

Get a clue!


You rely on the US for 87.5% of your exports. Economically, Canada is far too linked to the US to be a major player of its own.

And equally, the US counts on Canada to take about a quarter of their exports. Yes - we are heavilly interlinked - more so for us than for you - but a failing Canada hurts you baddly also. It cuts both ways.

The EU, China, and Japan all pass you buy, because you're essentially the same market as the US.

Which is why Honda and Toyoto both build cars here? Why bilateral trade bwtween Canada and Japan is expected to exceed 25 Billion this year? Gimme a break! Yes, they may market to what they consider to be a fairly homogenous North American market, but if you think that the 10% of their sales in North America that occur up here don't matter to them - you are deluding yourself. Besides - it's not like Sony doesn't "bypass" you to build their stuff in Mexico either.


Politically, it's even worse. Canada is seen as too easy to push over, participating in every single UN mission, and having a weak military.

A push-over because we work with the rest of the world? YEah - the world hates people they can work with....In that respect we are viewed as a good partner as opposed to the American loose canon.

Don't forget the loose nature of the Federation of Canada, especially Quebec.
Well, now you are just throwing whatever muck you can hoping it will stick...

If Paul Martin stays in power, Canada is on the fast track to having severe cultural rifts, loosing its credibility in the world, and possibly division.

Now you are really stretching. Exactly which cultural rifts are going to jump up that aren't already here? And how are our rifts inherently any worse than the black-white / north-south cutural divides we keep hearing about in the US?

It's time that all of Canada can assert some backbone, both at home and abroad, and make Canadians feel proud about Canada. Traditionally, conservatives do the best job at that.

Since when are Canadians not proud of Canada? And do you mean "asserting a backbone" like telling GW to get stuffed regarding helping him in IRaq? National Pride does not come from fiscal ideology, you are trying to equate Canadian Liberal vs Conservative to American Democrat Vs Republican. The comparison is NOT valid.

I think you missunderstand the fact that Canadians generally don't express that idiotic "my country right or wrong" attitude as a lack of pride. Actually, I think it shows more pride to be wanting your country right more often than wrong, and to keep pushing for that ideal. Accepting wrong out of blind patriotism shows a distinct lack of pride imho.


BTW, if I were a neo-con, Steve Harper wouldn't be on my list for Canada's next prime minister. It'd be Paul Martin, who'll link Canada with the US, and ultimatly, make Canada a vassal state of the US. I feel, however, that it's in the US's best interests for a strong, proud, but cooperative Canada.

Actually, that was Mulroney that tried to go that route. A Conservative who had his nose so far up Reagan's ass that he's still attached. They couldn;t shake him loose so they made him a pallbearer. I may have disagreed with a lot of what Cretien did (or mostly didn't do), but as the leader of the Liberals he never sucked the Whitehouse's butt. He got along with Clinton, but he never was a sellout in that regard. On the other hand, it is Harper who has been running down to spread his solidarity with the US to Fox News.


Nice attempt at a general smear Euclid. Using the old "throw as much mud and hope some sticks" technique is pretty lame though. Next time, try getting past false rhetoric and try engaging us in intelligent discussion of the facts.



For myself, I was a fed up with the Liberals as anybody. But Harper's adherence to Bushonomics seems an incredibly stupid and dangerous approach to take. "Get less revenue and spend more" is a dumb way to run a fiscal budget. I also do not like his positions on most social issues. My choices are therefore between the Liberals and the NDP. With the bulk of the old Cretien crew out, I'm going to stick with the guy that balanced the budget for most of the last decade.

And I'm going to hold him to his promise to dedicate some of our increasing surpluses to rebuilding our military.

-Z-

[quote=Purly Euclid]
Unemployment for Canada is at 7.6%. If that happened in the US, there'd be a shootout at the White House.

For starters, a 7.6% unemployment rate is around the historical lows in Canada. Also consider that it is based on true unemployment, NOT like the US. The US counts employment even if a person only works 1 hour in a week.

US Unemployment:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

The last time we had a Conservative Government in Canada (1984 to 1993) we had the following unemployment rates:

Canada
1984 11.3
1985 10.7
1986 9.6
1987 8.8
1988 7.8
1989 7.5
1990 8.1
1991 10.3
1992 11.2

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4456/is_73/ai_105851454

So 7.6% is not bad at all.

Let me give you a priviledge you didn't give me: saying everything in one post.
Economically, Canada is spineless. No multinational corporations, asside a few breweries, exist in Canada. You rely on the US for 87.5% of your exports. Economically, Canada is far too linked to the US to be a major player of its own.
Yup, totally spineless. We like it that way. Why would we want huge multinational companies that are prone to failure (Enron, WorldCom, Texaco, Pacific Gas, Kmart, etc.)? Bigger isn’t necessarily better huh? Besides we only have 1/10th the population of the US, and we do well with what we have. Here you can find the Top 25 US Bankruptcies 2002-03

http://www.hlhz.com/main.asp?p=CORP_FRRankings

Largest US Bankruptcies 1980 to Present:

http://www.bankruptcydata.com/Research/15_Largest.htm




The EU, China, and Japan all pass you buy, because you're essentially the same market as the US.
Like I said, we are doing ok. We actively pursue trading partners and our GDP continues to grow.

Politically, it's even worse. Canada is seen as too easy to push over, participating in every single UN mission, and having a weak military.
Who do we need to defend ourselves against? The Cold War is over. If we had had a Conservative Government in Ottawa when Bush invaded Iraq, we would have been there with you. Thank God we had a Liberal Government that said no thanks.

Don't forget the loose nature of the Federation of Canada, especially Quebec.
If Paul Martin stays in power, Canada is on the fast track to having severe cultural rifts, loosing its credibility in the world, and possibly division.
This is where you are way off base. The Liberals have a good base in Quebec and the Bloc Quebecquois and the present Conservatives are diametrically opposed to each other. The Liberals support bi-lingualism and inclusion. The Conservatives, at least the western element has fought bilingualism since its inception.

He is a quote for you:

While a long-standing constitutional impasse between English- and French-speaking areas has traditionally divided Canada, Liberalism and a waning interest in separation has defined Francophone politics of late. This change has eased some of the tension and the possibility of a split in the federation is no longer a major concern.
Want to fan the fires of separation? Just elect Conservatives.

It's time that all of Canada can assert some backbone, both at home and abroad, and make Canadians feel proud about Canada. Traditionally, conservatives do the best job at that.
Canada doesn’t want to go around bullying other countries, and we are damn proud of this country and it doesn’t take a Conservative Government to accomplish that. The last time the Conservatives were in Government, this country was going down the tubes. Before the 1988 National election, Mulroney had so alienated the western element, they split off to form the Reform Party, which became the Alliance Party, which took over the Conservative Party just recently. They change parties faster than I can change my mind. They turfed out Preston Manning, elected Stockwell Day who lasted less than 2 years before he was ASKED to quit. Joe Clark the former leader of the Conservatives is totally against the NEW Conservative (Social Credit/Reform/Alliance) Party. This party is a disaster waiting to happen. Recent polls suggest it is a tight race.....shudder!!

Just before the National election in 1993 the Quebec element of the Conservatives split off to form the separatist Bloc Quebecquois, Brian Mulroney sensing impending doom, jumped ship and passed the reigns to a hapless Kim Campbell. Result? Only 2 Conservatives got elected.
The Conservatives are the MOST divisive party in Canada. We don’t need their politics.

BTW, if I were a neo-con, Steve Harper wouldn't be on my list for Canada's next prime minister. It'd be Paul Martin, who'll link Canada with the US, and ultimatly, make Canada a vassal state of the US. I feel, however, that it's in the US's best interests for a strong, proud, but cooperative Canada.
Doesn’t this contradict what you just stated?

Unemployment for Canada is at 7.6%. If that happened in the US, there'd be a shootout at the White House.

For starters, a 7.6% unemployment rate is around the historical lows in Canada. Also consider that it is based on true unemployment, NOT like the US. The US counts employment even if a person only works 1 hour in a week.

US Unemployment:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

The last time we had a Conservative Government in Canada (1984 to 1993) we had the following unemployment rates:

Canada
1984 11.3
1985 10.7
1986 9.6
1987 8.8
1988 7.8
1989 7.5
1990 8.1
1991 10.3
1992 11.2

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4456/is_73/ai_105851454

So 7.6% is not bad at all.
Let me give you a priviledge you didn't give me: saying everything in one post.
Economically, Canada is spineless. No multinational corporations, asside a few breweries, exist in Canada. You rely on the US for 87.5% of your exports. Economically, Canada is far too linked to the US to be a major player of its own. The EU, China, and Japan all pass you buy, because you're essentially the same market as the US.
Politically, it's even worse. Canada is seen as too easy to push over, participating in every single UN mission, and having a weak military. Don't forget the loose nature of the Federation of Canada, especially Quebec.
If Paul Martin stays in power, Canada is on the fast track to having severe cultural rifts, loosing its credibility in the world, and possibly division. It's time that all of Canada can assert some backbone, both at home and abroad, and make Canadians feel proud about Canada. Traditionally, conservatives do the best job at that.
BTW, if I were a neo-con, Steve Harper wouldn't be on my list for Canada's next prime minister. It'd be Paul Martin, who'll link Canada with the US, and ultimatly, make Canada a vassal state of the US. I feel, however, that it's in the US's best interests for a strong, proud, but cooperative Canada.

If asserting some backbone abroad means rushing into ill-advised millitary endevours such as the USA has done in Afghanistan and Iraq, or perpetrating abuses in the name of some (ficticious) war on terror (Guantanamo Bay, Iraqi prisoner abuse, etc.) then I am all for being spinless abroad. If asserting some backbone at home means having a US-style deparment of homland security, samping on people's rights in the name of national security, kowtowing to the religious right, and allowing more corporate interference in the political process, then I am all for being spinless at home to. There is definitly a lot that needs fixing in Canada, but I personally don't think that the conservative platform is the best way to go about it.

Thanks for writing the epitaph of the planet. Self-interest taking precedence over the common good is what will do us all in.
Nonsense. The subordination of society to the individual is what makes our civilization great, and has and will do more for the "common good" than any statist collectivist policy ever will.
I'm glad to see other Canadians feel the same way about Canada that the general membership of the CPC does. A strong Canada starts with strong provinces and not the other way around.
I should point out that I'm not entirely happy with the CPC. There are elements in the party, mostly from the "Joe Clark Tory" side of the house that are nationalistic in the same sort of way as the Liberal party. And I feel an uneasy alliance between social libertarians like myself and social conservatives that also find a home with the Conservatives.

Still, because of the "grassroots" style of the Conservatives (something the old Progressive Conservatives never had) I think there is a chance for libertarianism to take hold in that party.

Aye same for me, so long as its grassroots oriented I'm supporting them. As far as Quebec goes, I know for a fact that alot of old PC members don't get along with the CA members. However, the CA people have the backing of more people in the West and overall better organisation. Alot of the younger people who joined are social libertarians thankfully, so the future looks pretty good as far as quality MP candidates goes.

Hurrah! The Conservatives are shamed!

I myself am a supporter of Jack Layton and the NDP, although I don't think they'll get elected. However, in a minority Liberal government, they would probably hold the balance of power (they're riding pretty high in the polls right now), and we'd be able to put some true progressive policies into action. They'd also help hold the government accountable for its actions - no more (well, less, some is inevitable) Liberal waste! The NDP may take a little more of your money, but by God, they'll make it count!

Oddly enough, many of the new policies in the Liberal's Red Book were already in the NDP's election platform - an extremely good read. Most of these things are actually capable of being used.

And as for the whole nationalist/Canadian values thing, I think that progress with always happen. It's just, the right wants to slow it down, the centre wants to keep going at the same pace, and the left wants to speed it up. Even Conservatives don't dare speak out against public health care these days, because it is so central to us. (Oddly enough, those policies were put in by Liberals with the NDP in the balance of power... coincidence? I think not.)

As for dealing with the U.S., the NDP and event the Liberals would have far more of a spine than Stephen Harper. Whenever Bush says "Come!" Harper would come running to his aid, just like a little dog. Whenever Bush says "Sic!" Harper would sink his miniscule little military teeth into them. (Actually, all 3 parties want to increase military spending - its just by how much, and what it will be used for).

The NDP is probably the second most nationalist out of all the parties (second to the Canadian Action Party), and this is another reason why I support them, and their progressive policies.

And there is often far more of a "grassroots" flavour to the NDP than everybody else (except possibly the Communists). The NDP is the party of the working class, of the proletarians, and of the young and idealistic - this is much more "grassroots" material than a 54 year old man looking to cut his taxes (I would know, my father is one of them).

It's interesting that the views on this forum are so different than that of the average voter....

Currently on this forum it's almost perfectly split between support for the 3 parties.... whereas many of the polls show liberals just barely 1 or 2 points ahead of the CPC with NDP trailing far behind....

I haven't taken the time to read all the posts thus far, so forgive me if I bring up points that have been mentioned already.

As I stated in the originaly post, I support CPC, I was short on time so I didn't really go into detail, which I shall now.

First off, I want to comment about the way many many liberal and NDP supporters seem to say Canada is breaking from it's roots by voting conservative, that they are becoming too americanized. This is nothing but a gimmick to try and draw away conservative votes. Let's put it into perspective, if the Liberals and NDPs were truly so intent on removing American influence, the vast majority of our movies, T.V, or really most of our entertainment would be gone. On top of that, how about dropping NAFTA?

Now, while I was skimming over some of these posts, I noticed repeated mentions of the founding roots of Canada or something like that. Allow me to remind everyone the very reason why Canada formed together as a nation in the first place, TO REPEL AN AMERICAN INVASION. No I'm not joking or making stuff up, go look it up yourself if you've never learned this. That is the sole reason for Canada's creation in the first place. I won't go into a history lesson, but the point is, that is long over. I think it's pretty obvious we don't live under the threat of a U.S invasion, and even if we did, I don't think Canada could do much to stop it, so really that entire argument is moot.

Canadian values that have developed over the years:

Multiculturalism -
The CPC hardly opposes multiculturalism, and if you think they do, pray tell why you think that?

Minority rights -
How are they infringing on minority rights? If you're talking about the issue of gay marriage, Stephen Harper has stated that his personal belief is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman (as is his right to say so), but he also clearly stated that it would be held to a free vote (or open vote, I can't remember the term, but you know what I mean) in parliament if it came up.

Social programs -
Well okay, to be honest, I'm against social programs and excessive social spending. However, for all those of you who love it, the CPC has promised MORE money into the health care system as opposed to less, and isn't removing this social safety net, so really, any arguments here are also moot. Enh, just also thought I'd point out, the Social Safety net was introduced I believe around the mid 20th century. Canada has been a nation since 1867, so how is social welfare a root of Canadian identity?

Hmmmm going onto those with typical anti-conservative views....

I've noticed alot of people (not necessarily on this forum, just people I know) who support the left often bash the CPC by saying they oppose many forms of change. Yes, I know they oppose some changes proposed by the left, however, remember, NEWER IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER. Often ideas that have lasted for thousands of years are for a good reason, because they are good ideas! This won't apply in all cases of course, but I'd just like to point out how ignorant it is to oppose the CPC on the basis that they are more traditional.

I already went over the thing about Americanization....

I'm going to stop for now, because I've noticed people have a tendancy to not read long posts, and this is already pretty long. I can continue later *shrug*

The Liberal campaign strategy against the Conservatives seems to be to use the word "American" or "American-style" as much as possible in reference to the Conservatives. We see through this blatant attempt to invoke Canadian anti-Americanism to hurt the CPC.

I've seen the TV ads, and the NDP seem to be the only ones pushing their own ideas. The other 2 seem to be attack, attack, attack. I know the NDP won't win, but I wish they would.

Visit my site. It's got some links and predictions and bios.

www.geocities.com/plain_jane_917

I've seen the TV ads, and the NDP seem to be the only ones pushing their own ideas. The other 2 seem to be attack, attack, attack. I know the NDP won't win, but I wish they would.
I mostly agree with this statement. Harper needs to start coming across as the likely PM (whether he'll achieve it or not). Get a deputy to attack the Liberals and start acting like the man to beat.

Hurrah! The Conservatives are shamed!

As for dealing with the U.S., the NDP and event the Liberals would have far more of a spine than Stephen Harper. Whenever Bush says "Come!" Harper would come running to his aid, just like a little dog. Whenever Bush says "Sic!" Harper would sink his miniscule little military teeth into them. (Actually, all 3 parties want to increase military spending - its just by how much, and what it will be used for).

And there is often far more of a "grassroots" flavour to the NDP than everybody else (except possibly the Communists). The NDP is the party of the working class, of the proletarians, and of the young and idealistic - this is much more "grassroots" material than a 54 year old man looking to cut his taxes (I would know, my father is one of them).

Shamed? How?

As for Stephen Harper's stance towards the U.S., your either ignorant of the platform or blinded by partisan politics. Either way...your comment was pretty childish.

Grassroot flavour in the NDP? Having alot of young people doesn't count as grassroot support. The NDP's policies are not determined by only members, unions have a substantial input into what is produced.

The CPC is grassroots, its not about being young, idealistic, worker or proletarian. Its about getting involved and helping about the people you believe in. Its about letting members decide on party policy (party conventions now have a purpose!), its about being able to send an e-mail to the president of the local riding association and being able to setup a meeting with people liek Strahl or Grey. The middle-class is the biggest group in Canada, they pay the most of the taxes...and if they want a tax-cut, then they should get it.

Still, because of the "grassroots" style of the Conservatives (something the old Progressive Conservatives never had) I think there is a chance for libertarianism to take hold in that party.

Not likely to happen. The CPC may have a Western, Libertarian element to it *for now*. But Ontario's flirtation with the CPC is temporary. The sole reason Harper's getting so much support is that Ontario is *temporarily* mad at the Liberals. That won't last more than a year or two. At heart, most Ontarians are Liberals - they're certainly not Libertarians and never will be.

Say that Harper's CPC does win this election. Like any party in power, the CPC's next concern will become how to get *re-elected*. To do that, they will have to concentrate on wooing Ontario and that will mean the CPC will be forced to act more and more like Liberals. Likely there will be in internal coup within the CPC to overthrow Harper and his Western backers - and replace him with someone from the old Bay Street eastern power elite.

Remember how Mulroney's eastern backers knifed Joe Clark in the back and took over the old Tory party? You'll see the same thing happen to Harper before 2008 - guaranteed. Many of the Tory old guard whom Harper's Alliance guard bumped aside will be back running the Tories again. It will again be an eastern-dominated, power-elite party that looks and sounds a whole lot like the Liberals. Gone will be "grassroots" influence and any trace of Libertarianism. Again Liberal-minded Ontario will be completely controlling the federal political scene, through both the main parties.

Still, because of the "grassroots" style of the Conservatives (something the old Progressive Conservatives never had) I think there is a chance for libertarianism to take hold in that party.

Not likely to happen. The CPC may have a Western, Libertarian element to it *for now*. But Ontario's flirtation with the CPC is temporary. The sole reason Harper's getting so much support is that Ontario is *temporarily* mad at the Liberals. That won't last more than a year or two. At heart, most Ontarians are Liberals - they're certainly not Libertarians and never will be.

Say that Harper's CPC does win this election. Like any party in power, the CPC's next concern will become how to get *re-elected*. To do that, they will have to concentrate on wooing Ontario and that will mean the CPC will be forced to act more and more like Liberals. Likely there will be in internal coup within the CPC to overthrow Harper and his Western backers - and replace him with someone from the old Bay Street eastern power elite.

Remember how Mulroney's eastern backers knifed Joe Clark in the back and took over the old Tory party? You'll see the same thing happen to Harper before 2008 - guaranteed. Many of the Tory old guard whom Harper's Alliance guard bumped aside will be back running the Tories again. It will again be an eastern-dominated, power-elite party that looks and sounds a whole lot like the Liberals. Gone will be "grassroots" influence and any trace of Libertarianism. Again Liberal-minded Ontario will be completely controlling the federal political scene, through both the main parties.

Then people will quit the party like they did with the PC's. I know I would. Unlike the old PC party, the majority of the party finances and membership is in the West. Taking over the CPC is substantially more difficult, because of the way riding associations work and the free form hierarchy. The more the party moves towards the left, the less it appeals to the West. The day they fail the balancing act is the day they become another liberal rehash. Right now its the 2004 elections I'm interested in.

In any case, whatever party is elected is always interested in being re-elected.

As for Harper's chances of staying leader...their looking good for another 4 years. The only current competition is from Clement and Stronach. Neither of which have substantial party backing, regardless of the percentages.

Canadian values that have developed over the years:

Multiculturalism -
The CPC hardly opposes multiculturalism, and if you think they do, pray tell why you think that?

Minority rights -
How are they infringing on minority rights? If you're talking about the issue of gay marriage, Stephen Harper has stated that his personal belief is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman (as is his right to say so), but he also clearly stated that it would be held to a free vote (or open vote, I can't remember the term, but you know what I mean) in parliament if it came up.

Social programs -
Well okay, to be honest, I'm against social programs and excessive social spending. However, for all those of you who love it, the CPC has promised MORE money into the health care system as opposed to less, and isn't removing this social safety net, so really, any arguments here are also moot. Enh, just also thought I'd point out, the Social Safety net was introduced I believe around the mid 20th century. Canada has been a nation since 1867, so how is social welfare a root of Canadian identity?


His own party suffered a small blow. Tamara Kronis, the president of the Trinity-Spadina Conservative Party Electoral District Association, resigned.

"Though I have been a Tory since I learned to walk, I feel that I can no longer support a Conservative party led by Stephen Harper," she said in a news release.

She said she thought the Tory-Alliance merger was a good idea. However, comments by Conservative candidates regarding abortion, same-sex unions, hate crimes and the death penalty fly "in the face of moderate, centrist Canadian values."

Beware of the "hidden" agenda of todays NEW Conservatives, or should I say the recycled Reform/Alliance Party.

Beware of the "hidden" agenda of todays NEW Conservatives, or should I say the recycled Reform/Alliance Party.
Damned straight it is. The "Tories" are dead and anyone who uses that term to describe the Conservatives is delusional.

If you're happy being told what your values are by nationalist propaganda, please vote Liberal. If you want your MP to represent whatever your beliefs may be, vote Conservative.

As for Harper's chances of staying leader...their looking good for another 4 years. The only current competition is from Clement and Stronach. Neither of which have substantial party backing, regardless of the percentages.

Think Mike Harris is going to stay retired? He's waiting, just biding his time...

Canadian values that have developed over the years:

Multiculturalism -
The CPC hardly opposes multiculturalism, and if you think they do, pray tell why you think that?

Minority rights -
How are they infringing on minority rights? If you're talking about the issue of gay marriage, Stephen Harper has stated that his personal belief is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman (as is his right to say so), but he also clearly stated that it would be held to a free vote (or open vote, I can't remember the term, but you know what I mean) in parliament if it came up.

Social programs -
Well okay, to be honest, I'm against social programs and excessive social spending. However, for all those of you who love it, the CPC has promised MORE money into the health care system as opposed to less, and isn't removing this social safety net, so really, any arguments here are also moot. Enh, just also thought I'd point out, the Social Safety net was introduced I believe around the mid 20th century. Canada has been a nation since 1867, so how is social welfare a root of Canadian identity?


His own party suffered a small blow. Tamara Kronis, the president of the Trinity-Spadina Conservative Party Electoral District Association, resigned.

"Though I have been a Tory since I learned to walk, I feel that I can no longer support a Conservative party led by Stephen Harper," she said in a news release.

She said she thought the Tory-Alliance merger was a good idea. However, comments by Conservative candidates regarding abortion, same-sex unions, hate crimes and the death penalty fly "in the face of moderate, centrist Canadian values."

Beware of the "hidden" agenda of todays NEW Conservatives, or should I say the recycled Reform/Alliance Party.

Ermm...yes one person switches sides...want to talk about those who have switched from the liberals to the NDP? Liberals in the Toronto-area riding of Brampton-Springdale switched sides when they couldn't pick their own candidate. So in mid election they are now supporting another candidate.

How about Senator Anne Cools who will no longer be sitting as a Liberal and will now be a Conservative?

As far as our new agenda, its the same thing as before, but more people support us now. We don't hide anything and everything is out there to see. Candidates make personal comments and the Liberals pounce on them, disregarding the fact their just that; personal beliefs. Liberal supporters are getting desperate looking at the poll numbers. One of the Liberals own candidates, Carolyn Parrish, even admitted that things are going badly and that they need new direction or a Plan B.

As for Harper's chances of staying leader...their looking good for another 4 years. The only current competition is from Clement and Stronach. Neither of which have substantial party backing, regardless of the percentages.

Think Mike Harris is going to stay retired? He's waiting, just biding his time...

Two points to make here. He retired from provincial politics in order to solve family problems. He supported Belinda during the leadership race and guess what? Did nothing for her campaign in Ontario, her numbers were abysmal for the amount of money and the skill of the organisers she acquired. Since he quit in 2002, he's lost his political edge and has NO support in the party. He can bide all he wants, it won't change the fact that he's finished. The real interest in the future is for Ralph Klein and the ever cool Bernard Lord.

Remember how Mulroney's eastern backers knifed Joe Clark in the back and took over the old Tory party? You'll see the same thing happen to Harper before 2008 - guaranteed. Many of the Tory old guard whom Harper's Alliance guard bumped aside will be back running the Tories again. It will again be an eastern-dominated, power-elite party that looks and sounds a whole lot like the Liberals. Gone will be "grassroots" influence and any trace of Libertarianism. Again Liberal-minded Ontario will be completely controlling the federal political scene, through both the main parties.

Then people will quit the party like they did with the PC's. I know I would. Unlike the old PC party, the majority of the party finances and membership is in the West. The more the party moves towards the left, the less it appeals to the West. The day they fail the balancing act is the day they become another liberal rehash.

When the old Eastern Tory faction re-takes the CPC and pushes the Harper-Alliance faction aside, a lot of Westerners *will* quit. But that won't matter, because Westerners' numbers & clout are insignificant in comparison to Ontario-Quebec. And Westerners will still solididly vote CPC even after they're pushed out of running the party - because they'll never get wise to electing enough MPs from all 3 parties to become influential in all of them.

Aside from pleasing Ontarians, it will be crucial for the CPC to get some electable MPs in Quebec - or stay permanently stuck in the mud like the Alliance was. (Mulroney knew this when he went on his massive recruitment drive in Quebec.) There will never be any Quebec CPC MPs so long as the party is dominated by the Harper-Alliance faction. The old eastern Tory faction will *have to* regain control to attract Ontario-Quebec and thus keep the CPC in power for more than one lone election.

Should Steven Harper become PM in 2004, years from now we'll be recalling his time as one of those very brief interludes when The West had a major political voice in this country. But that can't and won't last. PM Harper will be mentioned in passing along with Westerners like Joe Clark, Kim Campbell and John Deifenbaker. A mere blip.

The real interest in the future is for Ralph Klein . Oh great. A nut-job alcoholic plagiarist for PM...

Remember how Mulroney's eastern backers knifed Joe Clark in the back and took over the old Tory party? You'll see the same thing happen to Harper before 2008 - guaranteed. Many of the Tory old guard whom Harper's Alliance guard bumped aside will be back running the Tories again. It will again be an eastern-dominated, power-elite party that looks and sounds a whole lot like the Liberals. Gone will be "grassroots" influence and any trace of Libertarianism. Again Liberal-minded Ontario will be completely controlling the federal political scene, through both the main parties.

Then people will quit the party like they did with the PC's. I know I would. Unlike the old PC party, the majority of the party finances and membership is in the West. The more the party moves towards the left, the less it appeals to the West. The day they fail the balancing act is the day they become another liberal rehash.

When the old Eastern Tory faction re-takes the CPC and pushes the Harper-Alliance faction aside, a lot of Westerners *will* quit. But that won't matter, because Westerners' numbers & clout are insignificant in comparison to Ontario-Quebec. And Westerners will still solididly vote CPC even after they're pushed out of running the party - because they'll never get wise to electing enough MPs from all 3 parties to become influential in all of them.

Aside from pleasing Ontarians, it will be crucial for the CPC to get some electable MPs in Quebec - or stay permanently stuck in the mud like the Alliance was. (Mulroney knew this when he went on his massive recruitment drive in Quebec.) There will never be any Quebec CPC MPs so long as the party is dominated by the Harper-Alliance faction. The old eastern Tory faction will *have to* regain control to attract Ontario-Quebec and thus keep the CPC in power for more than one lone election.

Should Steven Harper become PM in 2004, years from now we'll be recalling his time as one of those very brief interludes when The West had a major political voice in this country. But that can't and won't last. PM Harper will be mentioned in passing along with Westerners like Joe Clark, Kim Campbell and John Deifenbaker. A mere blip.

its asshole easterns like you that make the west wana leave canada

The fact is you have to vote for the Liberal party. The conservatives will Americanize us. really, who the hell wants that? So, you are a little ticked with the Jean years.. News flash, Paul Martin is not Jean. He's never broken a promise. He has given us balanced budget after balanced budget. I understand there is a huge protest vote underway.. vote NDP.. you and I know that they don't stand a chance of being elected. It's the same as in the states. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, well a vote for the NDP is a vote for the Conservatives. The Conservatives already plan to spend all of our huge surplus. Stephen Harper said on Fox News that he spoke for the silent majority.. "that most Canadians support the Iraq war" Does he speak for you? He's surely not speaking for me. He's also not speaking for any majority. The polls clearly indicate this. Can we please just look back to the Brian years.. do we want that again? Not to mention it will be worse.. the Canadian Conservatives are very much the same as the current Republicans. They're right-wing, religious zealots. Do we want a Canadian version of Bush?

This election in all polls is close. Vote Liberal. It's the only way to keep Canada, Canada!!!

dont give me that BS Marten has broke promes after promes ever read the red book of lies? I cant belave you buy into that natiticl crap marten is spuing its nother but fear mongring but I guess it dont matter since the CPC is going to win

dont give me that BS Marten has broke promes after promes ever read the red book of lies? I cant belave you buy into that natiticl crap marten is spuing its nother but fear mongring but I guess it dont matter since the CPC is going to win

Get back to me when you can spell "Paul Martin" for some one who claims to know so much about him, you can't even spell his name.. further more.. Paul Martin was not behind the redbook.. Jean Chrétien was.. further more, Paul Martin has cleaned house of most former Jean Chrétien aids. Paul Martin has given us the surplus we enjoy today.. and like any other house-hold.. don't you think it's a good idea to save some money for a rainy day? I do. Stephen Harper would spend it all his first year in office. An office that *I* will work very hard to see he never holds.

Well I guess he has not goten rid of all things Chrétien since his red book is all most Identical to the 1993 book


So some how my poor spelling makes my oppines invalied? give me a brake :roll:

So some how my poor spelling makes my oppines invalied? give me a brake :roll:

No, not really, just shows a lack of education.

So some how my poor spelling makes my oppines invalied? give me a brake :roll:

No, not really, just shows a lack of education.Well sine my pore spelling is atriped to a brain defect I dont rally think its shows a lack of egucation

[its asshole easterns like you that make the west wana leave canada

I AM a Westerner - just not an Albertan. But politically I'm embarrassed at how most Westerners vote. If I'd been around during the days of the great Tommy Douglas, I would've been very proud to support Western political aspirations.

And don't get so defensive when someone speaks the truth - it makes you sound like a conservative.

im not albertan eather (BC to be exact) but Im sick of the shaft job the west is getting

its asshole easterns like you that make the west wana leave canada

So just because we don't agree with your view of life, that makes us assholes? That hardly seems in keeping with libratarian and grassroots values. In Nova Scotia the votes are predominantly for the Liberals because they are the party that generally represents where the province wants to go. I assume the same holds in Ontario. People aren't (generally) voting against the western conservative candidates (such as Harper) in the east because they are assholes, the are voting agianst them because they don't agree with what the stand for. Don't label us assholes just because we don't agree with you.

And don't get so defensive when someone speaks the truth - it makes you sound like a conservative.

Speaks the truth? You've done nothing but insult CPC voters and call them traitors, attack their values and admonish their beliefs. YOU are the one who sounds narrow minded.

The fact is you have to vote for the Liberal party. The conservatives will Americanize us. really, who the hell wants that? So, you are a little ticked with the Jean years.. News flash, Paul Martin is not Jean. He's never broken a promise. He has given us balanced budget after balanced budget. I understand there is a huge protest vote underway.. vote NDP.. you and I know that they don't stand a chance of being elected. It's the same as in the states. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, well a vote for the NDP is a vote for the Conservatives. The Conservatives already plan to spend all of our huge surplus. Stephen Harper said on Fox News that he spoke for the silent majority.. "that most Canadians support the Iraq war" Does he speak for you? He's surely not speaking for me. He's also not speaking for any majority. The polls clearly indicate this. Can we please just look back to the Brian years.. do we want that again? Not to mention it will be worse.. the Canadian Conservatives are very much the same as the current Republicans. They're right-wing, religious zealots. Do we want a Canadian version of Bush?

This election in all polls is close. Vote Liberal. It's the only way to keep Canada, Canada!!!

So many flagrant scaremonegring comments in one paragraph its impressive. Firstly your facts are garbage. The CPC has no intentions of making Canada into America Jr., we're bringing some new ideas into the political arena. Before Reform came along, deficits and taxation were hardly an issue of the Liberal party.

Never broken a promise? Laughable. How about the promise Martin made that he would find the guilty party BEFORE the election? How about the promise he made that he would bring them to justice? Vaporized when he saw an opportunity.

Your mindlessly repeating Liberal garbage about Vote wasting. NEWS FLASH: People have a right to vote for whoever they want. Its their vote and NOT yours. I am not telling people vote CPC or be a douchebag, I'm telling people to go out and vote. Make the next parliament truly representative, and foremost vote for whatever candidate, platform, leader you believe in most.

Your pathetic attempts to compare the CPC to the Republican party is truly sad. The Harper=Bush comparison is ridiculous. Right wing? Yes we're right wingers...and it seems that 30% of Canadians like our ideas...maybe even more, get used to it. Canadians are not all Left wingers, even though you'd like to think so in your little bubble world.

Vote Liberal in the next election? Vote if you believe in them yes. However, remember this, Martin has lied, some of the former cabinet members and Chretienites pocketed your taxpayer dollars at your expense. In order to get balanced budgets he starved the provinces. He's been leading a misleading, negative and personal campaign against Harper.

Remember,

Your money,
Their friends,
Martin has a bunch of new friends...

The real interest in the future is for Ralph Klein . Oh great. A nut-job alcoholic plagiarist for PM...

Heaven forbid that a popular premier of the most succesfull province in Canada would be coaxed into leading the CPC. You are the nut-job with your comparisons of the CPC to traitors.

And btw, Klein was acquitted of the charge as it was an involuntary error on his part. As far as alcoholic goes, he's dropped the bottle and on many occassions apologized to the people he's offended.

Remember how Mulroney's eastern backers knifed Joe Clark in the back and took over the old Tory party? You'll see the same thing happen to Harper before 2008 - guaranteed. Many of the Tory old guard whom Harper's Alliance guard bumped aside will be back running the Tories again. It will again be an eastern-dominated, power-elite party that looks and sounds a whole lot like the Liberals. Gone will be "grassroots" influence and any trace of Libertarianism. Again Liberal-minded Ontario will be completely controlling the federal political scene, through both the main parties.

Then people will quit the party like they did with the PC's. I know I would. Unlike the old PC party, the majority of the party finances and membership is in the West. The more the party moves towards the left, the less it appeals to the West. The day they fail the balancing act is the day they become another liberal rehash.

When the old Eastern Tory faction re-takes the CPC and pushes the Harper-Alliance faction aside, a lot of Westerners *will* quit. But that won't matter, because Westerners' numbers & clout are insignificant in comparison to Ontario-Quebec. And Westerners will still solididly vote CPC even after they're pushed out of running the party - because they'll never get wise to electing enough MPs from all 3 parties to become influential in all of them.

Aside from pleasing Ontarians, it will be crucial for the CPC to get some electable MPs in Quebec - or stay permanently stuck in the mud like the Alliance was. (Mulroney knew this when he went on his massive recruitment drive in Quebec.) There will never be any Quebec CPC MPs so long as the party is dominated by the Harper-Alliance faction. The old eastern Tory faction will *have to* regain control to attract Ontario-Quebec and thus keep the CPC in power for more than one lone election.

Should Steven Harper become PM in 2004, years from now we'll be recalling his time as one of those very brief interludes when The West had a major political voice in this country. But that can't and won't last. PM Harper will be mentioned in passing along with Westerners like Joe Clark, Kim Campbell and John Deifenbaker. A mere blip.

You obviously don't understand how the CPC voting scheme works. Yes it is balanced for now so the East has a larger weight then its membership should allow, however, next leadership its one vote per person, equal throughout the land. The old Tories have mostly either left the party or accepted their part as the old guard leaving soon. The younger members are mostly like myself, educated, libertarian in perspective and willing to help. Westerners are gaining seats in larger numbers and faster than the East, so sooner or later their weight will be either equal or greater. The power center of Canada is shifting to the West and the CPC is well placed to advocate for the voters in these future ridings.

Our chances in Quebec are slim, we know it, I know it since I'm on the riding association campaign team. Our numbers are low and so are the funds, however, we do have a chance in 4-5 ridings here in Quebec through vote splitting. Repeat after me, the Eastern Tories are has-beens and on the way out. They neither represent anyone on the party executives nor do they account for much of our financial officers. They have no influence.

A win in 2004 for Harper looks better week after week, however, in truth we need to clinch a majority government on June 28. Otherwise, the Liberals will make a coalition government with the NDP even if we win more seats. They get the first crack at creating the government under our Constitution. In any case, the CPC is prepared in case of a run-off a week afterwards if nothing goes right.

There seems to be a lot of tallk about 'Western alienation' on this thread. I think that Liberals just don't understand how a westerner thinks, whereas, westerners are learning how the rest of Canada (except for Quebec) thinks.

Good joke on it (from National Post):

Liberal Strategist: What would it take to get the West to vote Liberal?

Reporter: Would Medicare fund mass lobotomies?

Harper was elected showing the west's desire to understand the east. Harper has performed excellently the past few weeks (I hope I don't get any argument here). If certain Conservative candidates would shut their mouths, things would be a lot better though.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for freedom of the individual MPs to say what they believe in. However, the Liberals are spinning everything to make it seem like it is Harper saying these things.

There seems to be a lot of tallk about 'Western alienation' on this thread. I think that Liberals just don't understand how a westerner thinks, whereas, westerners are learning how the rest of Canada (except for Quebec) thinks.

Good joke on it (from National Post):

Liberal Strategist: What would it take to get the West to vote Liberal?

Reporter: Would Medicare fund mass lobotomies?

Harper was elected showing the west's desire to understand the east. Harper has performed excellently the past few weeks (I hope I don't get any argument here). If certain Conservative candidates would shut their mouths, things would be a lot better though.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for freedom of the individual MPs to say what they believe in. However, the Liberals are spinning everything to make it seem like it is Harper saying these things.

Just a friendly reminder to everybody:

Tomorrow, do the most patriotic and thoughtful thing you can possibly do for Canada: STOP STEPHEN HARPER!!!

That just leaves my to choose the Green Party, Communist Party of Canada, and the Marijuana party candidates, none of which have a hope of gaining any seats, so I would be throwing my vote away essentially.


actually, each party gets funding per vote they receive.
so if you vote green, even though they may not win, they'll get some extra cash for campaigning next time around.

i'm voting ndp even though no one except the conservatives have a shot in hell at winning my riding.

i'm voting ndp even though no one except the conservatives have a shot in hell at winning my riding.

Bless you Dakini :)

Thank the Good Lord for small mercies - another person with a brain who doesn't bother chasing around after tax cuts :roll:

Tommorow, I don't get to vote (although I wish I could - if the NDP has their way, I'll be certain to vote in the next, probably soon, federal election). But I've encouraged people, and helped educate some - my sister, for instance, who previously would not have voted, is now going to vote NDP, as well as my brother and possibly my mother. My father is a hard core Conservative, however... no changing that.

All I can do is pray that Paul Martin, however much I may dislike him, will be elected tommorow, and the the NDP will be capable of holding the balance of power - without the Bloc.

The chances of that are slim.

Lets hope that my fellow Ontarians will set aside their hatred for "the liar McGuinty", as he is so often called, and vote for the Liberals whom they truly sympathise with, rather than the Conservatives whom they do not, over a little tax hike.

Let us hope common sense and reason prevail against the Tax Cut Carrot.

I'm jealous of the canadians in that they have a candidate I, the american, strongly support and would feel confident in the future with them as my leader.
Canada to annex U.S.A please. I really like that Jack Layton guy.

apparantly the liberals have been making a comeback in ontario...

interesting site, by the way: http://www.electionprediction.org/2004_fed/p_35on.html

that's only the ontario page, i haven't browsed around on it yet though, but yeah, knock yourselves out.

edit: http://www.electionprediction.org/2004_fed/index.html
all of canada, much better.

i'm voting ndp even though no one except the conservatives have a shot in hell at winning my riding.

Bless you Dakini :)

well, to be honest, for a while i was debating whether to vote liberal should they stand a better chance... but i figure i'll vote for the people who i like best.

aside from that, the ndp candidate was the only one who showed up to an all-party health care debate in my riding. if the others are too damn lazy to do that, then they haven't earned my vote.

I'm jealous of the canadians in that they have a candidate I, the american, strongly support and would feel confident in the future with them as my leader.
Canada to annex U.S.A please. I really like that Jack Layton guy.

My wife immigrated here from the U.S. (Atlanta) 3 years ago. Initially she wasn't going to bother getting full Canadian citizenship because she didn't feel a strong need to vote in our elections.

But she's been so impressed by Jack Layton and our level of political debate in general that she's going to become a full citizen in time for our provincial election next year. She's dying for a shot at kicking Gordon Campbell's ass. (She still gets to keep her U.S. citizenship too BTW and can vote in U.S. elections too.)

Just a friendly reminder to everybody:

Tomorrow, do the most patriotic and thoughtful thing you can possibly do for Canada: STOP STEPHEN HARPER!!!

The most patriotic thing you can do is vote for whoever you believe in. Just vote, don't stay at home and let others decide for you!

Unlike Garaj and Martin's team I won't question your patriotism to our country if you vote Liberal...its your choice and not mine; we're all Canadians.

yeah, really, i want people to vote more than to vote for a specific party.

assuming this works, here is a list of all the parties and the links to their official sites.

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pol&document=index&dir=par&lang=e&textonly=false

read, absorb information and then go vote tomorrow.