NationStates Jolt Archive

Any Canadians care to enlighten the rest of us on whats going on in the great white north?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/05/10/canada.vote.reut/index.html

Well, we are in a minority government which can be defeated if it doesn't not have majority support of the House of Commons on issues pertaining Confidence (major motion).

The liberals at the moment are in power but they are getting hit hard by sponsorship scandals.

The Conservatives along with the French Seperatists Bloc have stated that they will vote against the governemnt in an upcoming debate on the National Budget.

The Liberals and the New Democratic Party have made concessions that will see both parties support the vote on the National Budget. If these two parties can muster up enough votes to defeat the Conservatives and the Bloc, then the government will not be dissolved. If it can't... well we're going back to the polls.

Now recently, as in a few hours ago, a motion was introduced by the Liberals but, as to the best of my knowledge, was not a Confidence issue. It was a recommendation that revisions be made to some committee and the House had a vote on it... because it was not a Confidence motion, the government cannot be toppled even if they do not gain support. The Conservatives however have intepreted this motion as Confidence and wants to see the end of the Liberals as soon as possible.

It's more a question of Constitutional consistency. You'll have to keep up to date with the news to know what's going on.

THe Budget Vote will be next week i think so we'll see how things work out.

Hope i didn't confuse anyone ;)

*sigh*

Mr. Harper of the 'new' Conservative Party very badly wants to be Prime Minister. In order to do this, he has crawled into bed with the separatist Bloc Quebecois party. Mr. Harper is either blissfully unaware of the impacts his power-games in Ottawa are having on the country, or if he knows, chooses not to care. I suspect he has initiated some back-room dialogues of his own. Let's hope if Mr. Harper and his cronies do make it into the PMO, that the nation won't be held to ransom by political demands from Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc.

I think Mr. Harper has bitten off more than he can chew, frankly. I don't think he understands, really understands, the workings of Canadian national politics. I think he understands the workings of Albertan politics, and I'm sure he understands the needs and concerns of his Albertan constituents - but in three incarnations - first as the Reform Party, later the Canadian Alliance, and now the 'new' Conservative Party of Canada, Harper has failed to address the political stance of a large segment of the traditional old 'Tory' party: the 'Red Tory'.

Red Tories were attracted to the old Progressive Conservative Party because of it's fiscal conservatism, married with social progressiveness. Harper and friends are having none of that. Their brand of conservatism is not fiscal, it is social. My Tory friends have had a hard time of it these last few elections - because what they're talking about, and what Mr. Harper is talking about, aren't the same things at all. They've been voting Liberal, not because in their hearts they're Liberal, but because the Liberal party came closer to their vision of conservatism than this regional, political rump-end of right-wing extremism did.

Wake up call for Mr. Harper: Canadians want the politicians in Ottawa to get some work done, and not play power-games on our dime. Work it out. Maybe you've got election fever, but nobody I know does. And I usually love an election. And maybe we do need change, but I'm pretty sure, now that I've seen how seriously you take your job versus how you seriously you take an advantage, that you're not the man to lead this nation. I think it's you who needs to change first before you hope to change government.

This could be complicated....

K, first off. Most people here are familiar with the U.S. political parties so:
The Conservative Party = Republicans
Liberals = Democrats
New Democratic Party (NDP) is left of the Libs
Bloc Quebecois excluding the separatist agenda is indistinguishable from the NDP.

The numbers: 308 seats in the Canadian House of Commons. The Liberals formed a minority gov't with 131 seats. Right now there is a major public enquiry concerning the apparent corruption of the LIberal party during the '95 Quebec referendum on separation. HUGE corruption. The inquiry was called by our PM Paul Martin who was finance minister at the time. Naturally, all of the opposition parties smell blood and are daily attacking the Liberal's and it looked like the gov't was going to fall.

And then along came a budget.....

The Libs proposed tax cuts, and additional spending on current programs - we've been in surplus for quite a while now - EVERYONE OBJECTED. Conservatives called for more cuts and dropping Kyoto, NDP said it was same old, same old with no new spending and the Bloc hates everything.

If a budget gets defeated, the gov't falls and an election is usually called.

Panic time for the Liberals!! It looks like they have to keep at least a few of their election promises. So, after negotiations with the NDP they deferred tax cuts to major corporations and introduced $4.6 Billion in new programs for the environment, housing, welfare etc. etc.

The conservatives and bloc called foul, called the NDP leader the Devil ("Paul Martin has made a deal with the devil" exact quote) and since the new amendments to the budget are so popular with the population at large are now trying procedural means to bring down the gov't before the budget can be voted on.

Now, between them, the Tories (conservatives) and the Bloc have 153 seats in the house. The Libs and NDP have 150 seats. Three independants the speaker of the house is liberal (and can't vote unless there is a tie) and one vacancy.

If it comes to a vote, and everyone votes on party lines then the gov't will fall and an election will be called. It's a poisoned pill though, since the spending is so popular, it will make the Tories look bad (worse?) along w/ the Bloc. Especially since most canadians polled want to hear the judges findings on the inquiry (Nov) and like to budget, a partial explanation.

Full disclosure, I vote NDP and am happy w/ the deal hammered out between the NDP and Liberals on the budget, I'm sure others will have a different take on it. But as I see it, that's where the 'turmoil' is coming from, the Tories and Bloc trying to force the government out without actually voting down the budget.

*sigh*

Mr. Harper of the 'new' Conservative Party very badly wants to be Prime Minister. In order to do this, he has crawled into bed with the separatist Bloc Quebecois party. Mr. Harper is either blissfully unaware of the impacts his power-games in Ottawa are having on the country, or if he knows, chooses not to care. I suspect he has initiated some back-room dialogues of his own. Let's hope if Mr. Harper and his cronies do make it into the PMO, that the nation won't be held to ransom by political demands from Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc.

I think Mr. Harper has bitten off more than he can chew, frankly. I don't think he understands, really understands, the workings of Canadian national politics. I think he understands the workings of Albertan politics, and I'm sure he understands the needs and concerns of his Albertan constituents - but in three incarnations - first as the Reform Party, later the Canadian Alliance, and now the 'new' Conservative Party of Canada, Harper has failed to address the political stance of a large segment of the traditional old 'Tory' party: the 'Red Tory'.

Red Tories were attracted to the old Progressive Conservative Party because of it's fiscal conservatism, married with social progressiveness. Harper and friends are having none of that. Their brand of conservatism is not fiscal, it is social. My Tory friends have had a hard time of it these last few elections - because what they're talking about, and what Mr. Harper is talking about, aren't the same things at all. They've been voting Liberal, not because in their hearts they're Liberal, but because the Liberal party came closer to their vision of conservatism than this regional, political rump-end of right-wing extremism did.

Wake up call for Mr. Harper: Canadians want the politicians in Ottawa to get some work done, and not play power-games on our dime. Work it out. Maybe you've got election fever, but nobody I know does. And I usually love an election. And maybe we do need change, but I'm pretty sure, now that I've seen how seriously you take your job versus how you seriously you take an advantage, that you're not the man to lead this nation. I think it's you who needs to change first before you hope to change government.


I totally agreed with you.

This NEW Conservative Party i am very suspicious of. I was a fan of the Tories before their bloody merger. Harper himself is a threat. The Conservatives are so eager to get into power but i don't think they are at all ready to rule. Their views are very different to what many Canadians want.

It was too bad that the two parties had to merge. I think this issue will be problematic for them if they get into power. And Harper must know. A swift power grab won't look too good.

Frankly, i am disappointed at all the parties. If Canadian political history tells us anythings, it's that a lot of progress can be made in a minority government! Seeing that the conservatives want to topple the government so quickly only suggests they are in it for the power... nothing was really accomplished in this session which usually isn't the case. It was all about bickering and badgering, racist name calling and wild allegations.

Bloc Quebecois excluding the separatist agenda is indistinguishable from the NDP.That is not true...The Bloc has righ and left members...

Dont forget the "founder Father" of the Bloc is Lucien Bouchard...

Bouchard would never be associated with the NDP...not even close.

I agree with all you state Dobbs!!

Here is what could happen? (http://info.wlu.ca/lispop/LateLateApril05Projection.htm) Mind you, the Liberals could gain from a populace forced to go to the polls by the over zealous Mr. Harper? How many seats will the Tories win in Quebec? None, nada, zip!!

The Liberal Party has been in power since 1993, and since power corrupts you can imagine how corrupt they are. But there is one problem, Canadians won't vote for Conservatives anymore it seems. The Liberals have made the Conservatives out to be evil (I don't like Harper, I would prefer Peter Mackay as Party leader or Stronach but only because she is somewhat hot) and American too, thus Canadians are afraid to vote for them. This is why the Liberal Government is becoming close to looking like a Dictatorship; they can't be removed from power for some strange weird freaky reason that I have yet to understand. I respect the right of people to vote for the party that they want but, for the love of god why do they keep voting back in the corrupt liberals? A whole generation has grown up with the Liberals in power basicly, this is scary don't you agree? The Conservative Party of Canada is not the GWB Party, we are a party that is an alternative to the corrupt liberals. We are a party that will help the military, improve Canada's international image, lower taxes (this will note mean cuts to the precious health care because we will clean up the health care system by allowing a two-teir system thus allowing us to gradually lower the money put into health care over time as the rich Canadians use the private health system), and a whole bunch of stuff that I don't know because I'm not Party Leader or even an MP running for office. So please Canadians, vote for change.

That is not true...The Bloc has righ and left members...

Dont forget the "founder Father" of the Bloc is Lucien Bouchard...

Bouchard would never be associated with the NDP...not even close.

Their social spending policies mirror those of quebeckers at large which is... indistinguishable from the NDP. That's one of the ways they attact support for separatism, by consistently positioning themselves to the Left of the Liberals on spending and human rights (except for First Nations that is, but then again, every party screws them)

And Bouchard was against Mulroony's deficit spending policies of rewarding the rich, ignoring the poor.

Here is what could happen? (http://info.wlu.ca/lispop/LateLateApril05Projection.htm) !!Wow
from those say that In British columbia they dont mind corruption...they actually support it !!!

The Liberal Party has been in power since 1993, and since power corrupts you can imagine how corrupt they are. But there is one problem, Canadians won't vote for Conservatives anymore it seems. The Liberals have made the Conservatives out to be evil (I don't like Harper, I would prefer Peter Mackay as Party leader or Stronach but only because she is somewhat hot) and American too, thus Canadians are afraid to vote for them. Okay, okay. Despite my disagreements over Tory policy, I can accept that there are principaled Tory's who believe they want what's best for everyone and their's is the right way to do it. Then you go and say you want MacKay as leader? !!! The guy signed a public freakin' contract with David Orchard not to merge with the Reform Party (Alliance, same thing) in order to get Orchards support for his leadership bid. What was the first thing he did? Merged with the Reform Party!!! Principals, schmincipals. Oh, and I think Belinda is hot too, despite the fact that she's a spoiled rich brat.
This is why the Liberal Government is becoming close to looking like a Dictatorship; they can't be removed from power for some strange weird freaky reason that I have yet to understand. I respect the right of people to vote for the party that they want but, for the love of god why do they keep voting back in the corrupt liberals? A whole generation has grown up with the Liberals in power basicly, this is scary don't you agree? The Conservative Party of Canada is not the GWB Party, we are a party that is an alternative to the corrupt liberals. We are a party that will help the military, improve Canada's international image, lower taxes (this will note mean cuts to the precious health care because we will clean up the health care system by allowing a two-teir system thus allowing us to gradually lower the money put into health care over time as the rich Canadians use the private health system), and a whole bunch of stuff that I don't know because I'm not Party Leader or even an MP running for office. So please Canadians, vote for change.
I'm voting for change, I'm voting NDP. Why don't you vote green? They're just Tory tree huggers. Check out their platform, it freaks me out as badly as the Tories, so you might like it.
And if refuse to discuss the 'merits' of a two-tier health care system with someone who believes what you just said.

Like I said, I'd be willing to vote for change, but better the devil I know (the essentially conservative Libs) than the devil I don't (the so-far-right-they-drive-into-oncoming-traffic, so-called new 'Tories'.

We might want change, but not to things like health-care. Not to devolution of Federal powers to the Provinces. The changes we want are the changes Mr. Harper and his thugs are hellbent to prevent. Like decriminalizing marijuana, recognizing same-sex marriage from coast-to-coast, and turning the taps off of corporate welfare.

Mr. Harper does not understand this. He has created divisions within Canadian conservatism, an 'Us or Them' sensibility, that will forever deny him access to vote-rich Ontario. Canadians would love to be able to vote for change, but neither Mr. McKay (thanks to his two-faced double dealing and treachery which killed the original Progressive Conservative party) or Mr. Harper, who in one breath decries the Libs and the NDP for doing precisely what minority governments are supposed to do, i.e. build coalitions, in the next breath shows utter contempt for every Canadian's sense of credulity when he goes and arranges a back-room deal with the separatists (the separatists.for God's sake) to destabilize an already shaky government in order to achieve personal power.

What hubris.

I hope the next government chooses its' bedfellows wisely. This current Loyal Opposition certainly has not.

That is not true...The Bloc has righ and left members...

Dont forget the "founder Father" of the Bloc is Lucien Bouchard...

Bouchard would never be associated with the NDP...not even close.

Look, both the Bloc and the provincial Parti Quebecois have been, at one time or another, anything to anyone.

When the PQ began, it positioned itself as a left wing party - and capitalized on it. The PQ in the 80s was touted as a conservative party. The Bloc was instigated by the pullout of dozens of 'instant Tories' from the Mulroney government, none of whom were really ever Tories in any sense other than that they were backbenchers with an eye toward government pension moneys.

The point is, the BQ/PQ aren't anything other than populist. They remain a single-note entity, whose only political reason for existing is the dissolution of Confederation. Right, Left - these terms don't apply to a one-issue party. But they're more than willing to exploit and capitalize on whatever the greatest number of their constituents think. The tragedy of the BQ/PQ is that their presence in Ottawa silences traditional political representation in their areas.

Like I said, I'd be willing to vote for change, but better the devil I know (the essentially conservative Libs) than the devil I don't (the so-far-right-they-drive-into-oncoming-traffic, so-called new 'Tories'.

We might want change, but not to things like health-care. Not to devolution of Federal powers to the Provinces. The changes we want are the changes Mr. Harper and his thugs are hellbent to prevent. Like decriminalizing marijuana, recognizing same-sex marriage from coast-to-coast, and turning the taps off of corporate welfare.

Mr. Harper does not understand this. He has created divisions within Canadian conservatism, an 'Us or Them' sensibility, that will forever deny him access to vote-rich Ontario. Canadians would love to be able to vote for change, but neither Mr. McKay (thanks to his two-faced double dealing and treachery which killed the original Progressive Conservative party) or Mr. Harper, who in one breath decries the Libs and the NDP for doing precisely what minority governments are supposed to do, i.e. build coalitions, in the next breath shows utter contempt for every Canadian's sense of credulity when he goes and arranges a back-room deal with the separatists (the separatists.for God's sake) to destabilize an already shaky government in order to achieve personal power.

What hubris.

I hope the next government chooses its' bedfellows wisely. This current Loyal Opposition certainly has not.
I don't know if Harper is thinking he is going to carry Ontario, butFOR GOD SAKE GET RID OF THE LIBERALS.. They are not even ashamed of their corruption.They are worse then the Mafia only they do their dirty work on a national scale.If we elect the Liberals one more time i am going to puke :headbang:

I don't know if Harper is thinking he is going to carry Ontario, butFOR GOD SAKE GET RID OF THE LIBERALS.. They are not even ashamed of their corruption.They are worse then the Mafia only they do their dirty work on a national scale.If we elect the Liberals one more time i am going to puke :headbang:
*CanuckHeaven* hands SHAENDRA a barf bag. :)

I'm going to go along with Afghregastan on this one.

If you WANT change, and you don't want the Liberals, vote NDP instead...!

--a bit of snipping--
The point is, the BQ/PQ aren't anything other than populist. They remain a single-note entity, whose only political reason for existing is the dissolution of Confederation. Right, Left - these terms don't apply to a one-issue party. But they're more than willing to exploit and capitalize on whatever the greatest number of their constituents think. The tragedy of the BQ/PQ is that their presence in Ottawa silences traditional political representation in their areas.

Good points, all of them. Especially on the populist point. Did you notice during the last election Duceppe attacked everyone except Layton? Quebec (for the last 40 years at least) has always been to the left of Anglo Canada. And that's how I interpreted Duceppes strange colleigiality with Jack, panderring to the socialist in Quebec.

Incidentally, as a purely hypothetical thought experiment, which way do you think the BQ/PQ would go in the event of separation, Tory, Lib, NDP? I'm thinking they'd go all out Tory.
Jacques "Money and the ethnic vote" Parizeau was the giveaway for me....

Look, both the Bloc and the provincial Parti Quebecois have been, at one time or another, anything to anyone.

When the PQ began, it positioned itself as a left wing party - and capitalized on it. The PQ in the 80s was touted as a conservative party. The Bloc was instigated by the pullout of dozens of 'instant Tories' from the Mulroney government.....The "pullout" Leader was Lucien Bouchard...and that "Pullout" is what gave birth t the Bloc...

In Quebec the birth of Bloc has been the like Iceberg to the Titanic (PC)...
to make things even worse Kim cambell was given the Dutie to try to salvage the Boat... But the road to Ottawa goes tru Quebec...

enter mr Manning and the rest is history...

When Lucien Bouchard was in charge...it was rith wing policies...way more than Charest...

But the Unions never really complained...the left never really complained...why? because the man was Lucien Bouchard...

Charest name is currently being draged at every possible occasion...and he is a good premier...IMO

Good points, all of them. Especially on the populist point. Did you notice during the last election Duceppe attacked everyone except Layton? Quebec (for the last 40 years at least) has always been to the left of Anglo Canada. And that's how I interpreted Duceppes strange colleigiality with Jack, panderring to the socialist in Quebec.

Incidentally, as a purely hypothetical thought experiment, which way do you think the BQ/PQ would go in the event of separation, Tory, Lib, NDP? I'm thinking they'd go all out Tory.
Jacques "Money and the ethnic vote" Parizeau was the giveaway for me....

In the event of separation, we could only be talking about the PQ of course, as the House of Commons would be obliged to no longer recognize the former members who formerly represented former parts of Canada in that hypothetical situation.

But as to what they would become, I cannot say beyond that it would, almost out of neccesity, splinter into two, or possibly three camps - A centrist, politically populist party would probably emerge, hoping to be the yin to the existing Liberal party's yang, while divesting itself of its' ultra-nationalist, racist outer fringe. An ultra-nationalistic, racist 'heritage' party would seem inevitable, at least in outlying regions where this sort of sentiment is most popular. I could see fiscally-conservative Pequistes forming a third party, but it seems more likely they'd try to manipulate the populist party to reflect their values rather than go out on their own.

Apart from the term, 'Liberal', I'm reasonably sure any political parties in a separate Quebec would have no corresponding party in Canadian politics - so, no Nouveau Partie Democratique, no Partie Conservateur...well, maybe the Greens.

Yeah, come to think of it, the Greens'd probably gain some political clout in a seperate Quebec. If only due to voter apathy, that is.

Would like to introduce a second topic that may or may not have to do with this current situation. Is it true we are nearing a refferendum on Quebec independance? Is that just a pipe dream for them? If it does happen do you Canadian NS'ers think that Canada will stay together with the remaining provinces? Would they split. Some forming there own nations while others entertaining US statehood? Interesting to see all this take place north of my border here.

Would like to introduce a second topic that may or may not have to do with this current situation. Is it true we are nearing a refferendum on Quebec independance? Is that just a pipe dream for them? If it does happen do you Canadian NS'ers think that Canada will stay together with the remaining provinces? Would they split. Some forming there own nations while others entertaining US statehood? Interesting to see all this take place north of my border here.

Ironically, Marrakech, when all is said and done, even if each and every province were to go it on their own, or in groups, or anything that you mentioned, there are two parts of this country that are forever bound together by shared history - the former 'Upper' and 'Lower' Canadas, Ontario and Quebec.

If Confederation were to fail, at some point not long after I would expect some other form of political union to be hammered out between our two provinces. We are integrated far more than some people might think, and far more than any other two provinces. Traditionally, the two Canadas were held to represent the masculine and feminine aspects of our nation, different, but together, in a sometimes tempestuous relationship. And I think it's this relationship which has forever bound us together.

But maybe you should start another thread for this topic all the same.

*sigh*

Mr. Harper of the 'new' Conservative Party very badly wants to be Prime Minister. In order to do this, he has crawled into bed with the separatist Bloc Quebecois party. Mr. Harper is either blissfully unaware of the impacts his power-games in Ottawa are having on the country, or if he knows, chooses not to care. I suspect he has initiated some back-room dialogues of his own. Let's hope if Mr. Harper and his cronies do make it into the PMO, that the nation won't be held to ransom by political demands from Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc.

I think Mr. Harper has bitten off more than he can chew, frankly. I don't think he understands, really understands, the workings of Canadian national politics. I think he understands the workings of Albertan politics, and I'm sure he understands the needs and concerns of his Albertan constituents - but in three incarnations - first as the Reform Party, later the Canadian Alliance, and now the 'new' Conservative Party of Canada, Harper has failed to address the political stance of a large segment of the traditional old 'Tory' party: the 'Red Tory'.

Red Tories were attracted to the old Progressive Conservative Party because of it's fiscal conservatism, married with social progressiveness. Harper and friends are having none of that. Their brand of conservatism is not fiscal, it is social. My Tory friends have had a hard time of it these last few elections - because what they're talking about, and what Mr. Harper is talking about, aren't the same things at all. They've been voting Liberal, not because in their hearts they're Liberal, but because the Liberal party came closer to their vision of conservatism than this regional, political rump-end of right-wing extremism did.

Wake up call for Mr. Harper: Canadians want the politicians in Ottawa to get some work done, and not play power-games on our dime. Work it out. Maybe you've got election fever, but nobody I know does. And I usually love an election. And maybe we do need change, but I'm pretty sure, now that I've seen how seriously you take your job versus how you seriously you take an advantage, that you're not the man to lead this nation. I think it's you who needs to change first before you hope to change government.

Well said. Mr. Harper, being as young as he is, would not truely make a good PM. His attitude and approached to gaining the popular vote of Canadian's has become somewhat of a joke (Going as far as insulting Martin in saying something icredably hateful and disgusting to the face of politics in Canada).

By 'going to bed' with the Parti Quebecois, Harper has dug himself further into the ground. Althought Martin has not been the greatest representation of Canadians over the past few months with the sponsership scandel hanging over his head, he does however have the means, as well as the motives to lead the counrty further on.

As I mentioned before, Harper,when you look at previous Canadian PM's, is young. The naive young that would get him nowhere. Would he rather be known as the 'PM who didn't last two months in 24 Sussex's Drive because he couldn't hold his party's platform up' or would he rather be acknowledged as a great like Trudeau, Mackenzie King or even MacDonald.

He has some serious growing up to do in order to step up from childish name calling, to leader of a country of 35+ million people.

Good points, all of them. Especially on the populist point. Did you notice during the last election Duceppe attacked everyone except Layton? Quebec (for the last 40 years at least) has always been to the left of Anglo Canada. And that's how I interpreted Duceppes strange colleigiality with Jack, panderring to the socialist in Quebec...Like i said the Bloc is first and fore most about quebec separation...not about Left or rite...

the reason why the Bloc is pasive about the NDP is because of the way the NDP has presented itself to les Quebecois...

They have basically allowed all their Quebec candidates to publicly say "they dont mind the mouvement souveranisne"...or that they are sympatic to the movement...

remember Phil Edmonston?

Wow, yeah I do remember Phil Edmonston. I'm surprised to hear that name again. Is he still active?

Would like to introduce a second topic that may or may not have to do with this current situation. Is it true we are nearing a refferendum on Quebec independance? Is that just a pipe dream for them? If it does happen do you Canadian NS'ers think that Canada will stay together with the remaining provinces? Would they split. Some forming there own nations while others entertaining US statehood? Interesting to see all this take place north of my border here.

Hard to say about the chances of a secession, however the last one voted to stay in Canada by a margin of 50k votes in a province of 6 million with a REALLY high turnout. The media is currently going through a wicked backlash against the Liberals for *gasp* increasing social spending, and for the Sponsorship Scandal ($100's of millions lost to graft)

I don't think other provinces would join the States or that it would force the partioning of Central Canada into separate entities. However, I think the Maritime Provinces, in whole or in part would of necessity leave Canada at that point.

remember Phil Edmonston?

Who? I mean, no, please elucidate.

I cannot imagine any of the remaining provinces ever opting to become U.S. states, for any reason. We have too many resources, what could we possibly have to gain? Especially in Western Canada, which shoulders a disproportionately large share of the tax burden and watches those tax dollars flow into the East and never return. Our taxes would come down out here in the West, and we would retain health care benefits which the U.S. does not enjoy. It would be like California and Texas opting to become part of Mexico if the State of New York seceded. It just wouldn't make any sense.

Well I don't know where you think your tax dollars are going, but they aren't going to Ontario or Quebec. We're the combined industrial heartland of the nation. Most likely your tax dollars are going to pay down the national debt, or at least the interest on the debt.

And why do you guys out west get so crabby about helping out people from the Maritimes, anyway? When the shoe was on the other foot and you were all dirt farmers, you didn't mind getting bailed out by the then-wealthy eastern provinces, now did you?

Fair-weather friends with short memories, is what I say.

Well I don't know where you think your tax dollars are going, but they aren't going to Ontario or Quebec. We're the combined industrial heartland of the nation. Most likely your tax dollars are going to pay down the national debt, or at least the interest on the debt.

And why do you guys out west get so crabby about helping out people from the Maritimes, anyway? When the shoe was on the other foot and you were all dirt farmers, you didn't mind getting bailed out by the then-wealthy eastern provinces, now did you?

Fair-weather friends with short memories, is what I say.

Ummm...is someone having a bad day? When did I ever complain about helping the Maritimes? I said we would have no reason to join the U.S. should Confederation fail. Perhaps you should redirect your hostility.

When the shoe was on the other foot and you were all dirt farmers, you didn't mind getting bailed out by the then-wealthy eastern provinces, now did you?

Oh and may I remind you, back in those days most of us WERE living back east. My industrialist forbears shovelled tax dollars from Ottawa into the West then, and I am shovelling tax dollars from Vancouver into the East now.

NDP


that sums it up....*goes away*

You said your tax money flows into the "East" and never returns. I'm assuming your talking about Federal-provincial transfer payments. "East" from your perspective could mean just about anywhere, but whenever I speak with westerners, they're usually referring to Ontario and/or Quebec when they use the nebulous term, the "East".

I know Mr. Harper raised an uproarious stink in the Atlantic provinces with his jab about laziness and the disparity in transfer payments between the Atlantic and Western provinces.

Knowing as I do that Ontario and Quebec are both money-making provinces, who both receive less from the Feds than they pay into transfer payments, I took exception to your using the term "East" which I felt indicated that somehow we here in the east are putting the thumbscrews to you people out west, something that I've heard often enough to seem almost like a Western mantra.

Anyway, if you're feeling uptight about taxes, maybe you should choose your place of residence on the basis of the lowest levels of taxation available.

Once again, I must point out to you that I am not in any way uptight about taxes. I am a Canadian. I like my taxes. They make me feel good about my country and how we treat our own.

What I said was, IF the Separatists were to secede and take part of Eastern Canada with it (primarily the Maritimes, lest you misapprehend yet again what I typed), Western Canada (i.e. that which remains after the leavers leave) would have lower taxes and lots of natural resources and would therefore have no reason to join the U.S.

You seem very willing to tar everyone with the same brush, and you expose some interesting biases with these outbursts. Did the Wicked Witch of the West drop a house on your sister or something?

Actually, Quebec is the largest recipitent of transfer payments followed by the Atlantic provinces and Manitoba. Alberta and Ontario pretty much carry everybody else. Although, Ontario is slowly becoming a have not, while Saskatchewan, due to new oil finds might soon become a have. The Maritimes meanwhile have struck a transfer deal with offshore oil, so they aren't currently payin transfer on that but in a few years they may be a have province as well. Quebec is not the industrial heartland, Ontario is. Quebec's economy has been sluggish due to language laws passed by the PQ which made many company's leave Quebec. In about 10 years I bet Alberta and Saskatchewan will be supporting Quebec and Manitoba (even though Manitoba has both Hydro power and has recently found oil, the NDP government will ensure that the economy doesn't grow), with everybody else breaking pretty much even, assuming, of course, nothing major happens.

As for the East helping the West in the past, thats false. The Feds used tariffs and a few constitutional rights, whose names I can't remember right now, to hold down the West and feed the East (where the votes are), hence the rise of the Social Credit party way back and the Reform in 93. If sometimes, the Feds decided to maybe give a little of that back, well that was not generosity; just the thief returning a portion of what he stole.

As for the Conservatives, I hope they win. The Libs are corrupt and the NDP are a bunch of extremist idealogues who would sink the economy like a brick. But those in Ontario will vote Liberal as always, they seem to like being robbed.

Would like to introduce a second topic that may or may not have to do with this current situation. Is it true we are nearing a refferendum on Quebec independance? Is that just a pipe dream for them? If it does happen do you Canadian NS'ers think that Canada will stay together with the remaining provinces? Would they split. Some forming there own nations while others entertaining US statehood? Interesting to see all this take place north of my border here.

Basically the Supreme court of Canada has ruled that it would be illegal for Quebec to leave without the majority of Canada agreeing to it. So, it's basically a pipe dream. Quebec is quite famous for bitching & screaming about every 30 years or so on the issue. The last conservative government to hold office opened the can of worms. Once the Liberals took power after the complete destruction of the conservative party in the early 90's they closed the loop hole if you wish. And if you want to be really technical about it, the "Bloc" in Canada is unconstitutional for being a federal party in the first place, as they only represent the interest of one province. But I wouldn't even get into that.

The real break down of the parties in Canada are as follows.

The New Conservatives = Republicans
The Liberal Party = the center or moderate.
NDP = Liberals.
The Bloc = They want what they can't ever have.

I'm going to be pretty breif, because most of the stuff, about it being a minority, or the differnt ideologies, has already been said or is easy to find.

Basically, the liberal government, which has been in power for the past ten years, has been hit by a major corruption scandal. Canada needs new leadership, but the only viable alternative is an party that has only recently been put together from two older parties and has a young and inexperienced leader. That party, the conservatives, has ideological views most canadians don't agree with, but will get elected on the platform of not being liberals. Basically, we are about to have an election where none of the candidates can acctually run the country.

Who? I mean, no, please elucidate.he was not your Classic polititcian...he had no roots in Quebec...and he went to a french reading...and asked the the quebecois to vote for him...even if he was like from another planet...

the Tory and Liberals were laughing at his ass...but good old Phil had the last laugh...against all odds.

... And if you want to be really technical about it, the "Bloc" in Canada is unconstitutional for being a federal party in the first place, as they only represent the interest of one province.The Bloc is going to be around untill Quebec separates...get over it.

and that "illegal" party is going to win by a lansdlile...you need to be realistic...read the writtings on the wall.

I'm going to go along with Afghregastan on this one.

If you WANT change, and you don't want the Liberals, vote NDP instead...!

There is one fundamental problem with this theory. There is not currently, nor has ther ever been enough support for the NDP to form government or even the Official Opposition. The only outcome of increased support for the NDP in places like Ontario, BC and atlantic Canada is to make it easier for the Fourth Reich --oops-- (I meant to say Conservatives)

People should be very concerned about a party who purposeley removed the word "Progressive" from their name. We should not allow ourselves to be deluded by Mr. Harper rhetoric about corruption and the "Moral Authority" to lead. Canadians have said consistantly the he is not to be trusted, that his party and the two that came before it are not to be trusted, and that, despite some significant missteps, the party which best expresses a vision for the type of Canada that most of us were brought up to believe in, the type of Canada for which many of our grand-parents and great grandparents died for is the Liberal Party of Canada.

It is truly gauling that the Stephen Harpers of this world are trying so franticly to force an election now, prior to all of the facts being known, is he afraid that some of the allegation may prove to be untrue, or, is he afraid that the focus of a nation might again return to his regressive ideology?

While I am not the Prime Minister's biggest fan, he has to be respected for putting his duty to his country above his duty to his party. The lumps that the Liberal party is taking now had been skillfully avoided by his predecessor (Chretien) even though trhe major components of this scandal were widely known since 2001. I wouild much rather be lead by someone who seeks out truth at his own peril than by those who avoid truth for personal gain.

...for which many of our grand-parents and great grandparents died for is the Liberal Party of Canada.

It is truly gauling that the Stephen Harpers of this world are trying so franticly to force an election now, prior to all of the facts being known, is he afraid that some of the allegation may prove to be untrue...again You have to be realistic...the LPC is so corrupted...It stinks all the way to madagascar...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada_sponsorship_scandal

those grand-parents and great grandparents must be revolving in their tombs...

those grand-parents and great grandparents must be revolving in their tombs...

No, but they were most certainly spinning when they read "On the Take," Stevie Cmeron's book detailing the horrors of the last Conservative government who did things that make this scandal look like a pre-school pagent. You will recall that one of their cabinet ministers, Sinclair Stevens, was convicted of 16 counts of Conflict of Interest.... Not one elected Liberal official has even been charged, much less convicted of a crime.

Your glass house is showing some cracks...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/11/pm-budget050511.html

Well, we'll have another chance to see whether Mr. Harper's interests lie in doing his job, or playing games with our country.

I'm expecting he'll try pushing for personal power and glory by forcing an election, the tunnel-visioned fool.

I'm going to go along with Afghregastan on this one.

If you WANT change, and you don't want the Liberals, vote NDP instead...!
Voting for the NDP is like voting for Nader in the U.S., a wasted vote.Their is no way they are going to get more then 20 seats :rolleyes:

The Bloc is going to be around untill Quebec separates...get over it.

and that "illegal" party is going to win by a lansdlile...you need to be realistic...read the writtings on the wall.
Quebec will never, i repeat never seperate,simply because they are addicted to the Federal teat. They will whine and bluster but they get good money for all their bitching and whining.Nobody is going to risk cutting off the supply.Besides isn't support for seperation at an all time low. The people of Quebec are not dumb .The politicians may run it up the flagpole as much as they wish but generally the population don't want to go through what they did in '93. :D

Voting for the NDP is like voting for Nader in the U.S., a wasted vote.Their is no way they are going to get more then 20 seats :rolleyes:

God, I hate those stupid emoticons. Don't go rolling your eyes at people. Didn't your mother teach you that's actually kinda rude?

Anyway, I don't agree with you, but I don't want to debate it. Canuck Heaven posted a very well-put-together poll earlier in the thread which at this point in time posits 25 or 26 seats for the NDP - and that is certainly well within their reach as things stand today.

It's nowhere near like wasting your vote for Nader. 25 or 26 seats means something in Parliament - like getting corporate welfare slashed from the 2005 Liberal budget. That's hardly the impact one would expect of a disposable, powerless political entity. That's the sort of impact one would expect for a bona fide, legitimate political party who knows how to wield power effectively in the face of (not) unsurmountable odds.

Quebec will never, i repeat never seperate,...
Besides isn't support for seperation at an all time low?...
keep repeating...
just keep repeating...

God, I hate those stupid emoticons. Don't go rolling your eyes at people. Didn't your mother teach you that's actually kinda rude?

Anyway, I don't agree with you, but I don't want to debate it. Canuck Heaven posted a very well-put-together poll earlier in the thread which at this point in time posits 25 or 26 seats for the NDP - and that is certainly well within their reach as things stand today.

It's nowhere near like wasting your vote for Nader. 25 or 26 seats means something in Parliament - like getting corporate welfare slashed from the 2005 Liberal budget. That's hardly the impact one would expect of a disposable, powerless political entity. That's the sort of impact one would expect for a bona fide, legitimate political party who knows how to wield power effectively in the face of (not) unsurmountable odds.
I'm sorry about the emoticons,sometimes i just can't help myself. Perhaps i should clarify my position. You are right i was too hasty in dismissing the NDP .They as a political party can effect change if and and only if they wield their power wisely,i.e. no making outrageous demands of the ruling party like they are presently doing with the Liberals. The point i wanted to make is that unless there is a major change the federal political landscape in the near future the NDP will never lead the country. People see what the provincial version of the party have done;remember Bob Rae.{{shudder}} and don;t want the NDP spending the country into bankruptcy.

[QUOTE=New Dobbs Town]
It's nowhere near like wasting your vote for Nader. 25 or 26 seats means something in Parliament - like getting corporate welfare slashed from the 2005 Liberal budget. QUOTE]

I wholeheartedly agree with you - the failure of the American system is that the half of the entire population who voted for Nader or for John Kerry don't have any of their views represented in the Administration office - it's all Bush making most of the tough decision, which is hardly democracy at all. Voting for Nader does nothing - your views are thrown out the window, and the "tyranny of the majority is forced upon the minority"(to steal a much wiser man's quote) whereas voting in your local NDP leader (ours, Jean Crowder, though in the actual House of Commons it's Dr. James Lunney, a Conservative, because of our large elderly population) still put's them in parliament where they vote on important matters, raise points and arguements. No one is really ignored, except the losers of the local elections for MP's, who usually find some other way to get into some House or another. (I.e. Being Stephen Harper's Forbidden love slave.)

Personally I think a Minority government is the other way for Canada. I liked it the way it was before all this Conservative bullsh!t came out.

Basically all that's going on here is a few procedural steps. They took a confidence vote, loosely in parliament - in order to really have the Prime Minister resign, there needs to be a proper commission on the No Confidence vote, which may or may not follow unless it's terribly pressed. Such a narrow margin hardly warrants it - because once you break these MP's away from their partizan alignment, they usually come to their senses. The best way to force this election is to declare a problem with the budget and defeat them - calling for a new election and a new budget. Hopefully things won't come to this.
On a more than unrelated matter, there is an inquiry occuring about the Sponsorship scandal which some peon's have pointed upwards at the government - some baseless claims, some compelling evidence, which suggests that Jean Chretien's government was in on some dirty money, which was supposed to go to an Advertising company for the sponsorship of the Liberals in the Quebec Referendum at the time.

Now a lot of people claim that Paul Martin, being Finance minister knew all about this - while I don't know the facts - like many canadians - it somewhat makes sense. The for him arguement is that 1. All he does is allocate the money, he doesn't know if it actually goes to it - he could have been completely oblivious to it, and these guys are just caught in a corner and pointing the finger at him... and the against him arguement is 2. How can our Finance Minister be too busy worrying about Finances... to look after our finances? Which was largely his claim.

I like Paul Martin - he's a little inactive, but staunchly supports Gay rights, (see my previous quote for his punchline) and a number of other socially progessive concepts, while balancing a lot of necessities too - like raising our military budget and adressing a lot of very pressing problems, Kyoto not one of them. I think a blend of the NDP and the Liberals as we see at the moment is the best thing we could have for Canada. He's no Trudeau, but he's still a good Leader, who should be fully given his chance.

As soon as this sponsorship thing got out (Which Paul Martin was the one to Launch the Inquiry ((so basically as soon as he found out money had been taken he launched an investigation after it)) so I guess he's at least partially off the hook) the conservatives have been using it as leverage. As a lot of people quipped - "Mr. Harper: I liked your Agenda better when you kept it hidden!" but they continue pretty much unrelenting. I don't have much against them - I don't like Stephen Harper nor do I trust him as far as I could spit and I would probably protest if he was actually elected - but I think once the Gomery Commision comes out clean, the budget actually examined, and this commission deals with the No Confidence vote, the Liberals might actually gain more seats. Maybe a majority gov'. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants?

I am shocked when I read that many on this thread feel that the Conservative Party of Canada is a far-right wing party, or even the "fourth reich". To me, this is just another example of how the Liberal Party has "brainwashed" (I know they haven't but hey it sounds cool) Canadians into thinking that Conservatives are evil, blood-sucking, Bush loving, anti-health care, anti-Canadian culture, and anti-gay marriage fascists. I am a member of the Conservative Party of Canada and I support gay marriage, I support universal health care (in a two-tier system), and I don't believe that Canada should become the newest State in the Union. I feel that Harper and the other leaders in the Conservative Party have realised that this Parliament will not work anymore, if it even ever worked in the beginning. Thus, an election is needed. For those of you that think are planning to vote NDP instead of Liberal, you should realize that the Conservative Party does have similar policies to the Liberals without the high-taxes (I should remind you that the NDP will not support the military at all, then you will understand what it means to be dependent upon the US for security).

I admit that some Conservative MPs are behaving stupidly in Parliament for no good reason, but the same is true for some Liberal MPs. Hell, the only MPs that are behaving good are the NDP ones.

I would never expect to see an NDP-led government in Ottawa. The circumstances that would bring such a government about are far too strange to consider credible. That being said, with the fragmentation of Canadian national politics in the 90s, the NDP are now far better poised, on the whole, to play a more vital role in coalition-building on Parliament Hill. I believe we will see a greater number of minority governments and coalitions in Canadian politics in this new century, far more than we did in the 20th.

And remember, we're Canadians. We're supposed to be widely known for efforts at building consensus, at accomodating each other and finding the true common ground. Minority governments are good for Canadians - much, much better than serial political majorities that try remaking the country in their image.

I'm going to vote NDP in the hopes that with greater numbers of canny MPs to give a little extra weight to their opinions, the NDP might be in a position to keep the governing party in close check. That means greater transparency. That means less back-room wheeling and dealing. That means next to no chance for the usual graft and cronyism the public has come to expect from the ongoing status quo of majority-government regimes - no matter WHAT PARTY is at the helm.

Frankly, I'd like to see further changes that would allow for further representation - an elected Senate based exclusively on voter percentages rather than ridings would give a Federal voice to such political parties as the Greens.

I like good government. And I want government to work. I see no reason, other than personal glory and his own chance to take a crack at the cookie jar, for Stevie Harper to follow the path he's taking. If he wants to impress people and get them to make him Prime Minister, maybe he should be focusing his efforts on getting things done and working with the government, instead of cozying up to the separatists and trying to foist yet another damn election on the Canadian people.

*sigh*

Elections? We did those, last year. Now the government is supposed to be busy doing what it does, passing Bills into Law. Except they aren't - instead, the opposition has been carrying on as if there's been an election campaign running all year long, and it's making me sick to my stomach to see our elected officials wasting time and money playing ridiculous power-games instead of getting on with what's piling up on their plates. I suppose if another election prompts a second minority government, Mr. Harper will proceed to waste Parliament's time further, in his haste to be crowned El Supremo. What a hero.

*sighs again*

I do not understand:

(a) people who won't wait for the results of the Gomery Commission before declaring guilt

(b) how the Conservatives can think the Canadian public is so stupid that they won't mind the fact that the Conservatives are preventing ANYTHING being accomplished for the good of Canadians while they hold Parliament hostage to their rhetoric

(c) why the Canadian public can see all this and STILL cannot be trusted to vote sensibly.

(d) how Stephen Harper can stand in front of a news camera and proclaim (with a straight face, no less) that the Liberals are ruining this country's finances, after the Liberals have produced, what is it now, nine consecutive balanced budgets? Canada now has the highest possible international credit rating, much better than America's or anyone else's. Does he think Canadians are unconscious? ARE Canadians unconscious?

EVEN IF...the Gomery Commission were to show that indeed some officials benefitted mightily from this ridiculous sponsorship program (which it must be pointed out was set up as an emergency fund to counter the separatist movement's activities, the same separatists with whom the Conservatives are now cozying up) are Canadians ready to ignore the fact that Canada is doing really, really well under the Liberals, in order to punish a few individuals? Why not use this inquiry's findings to find the loopholes in our system and close them, and punish the individuals at fault, and get on with governing the nation? Will we cut off our nose to spite our face? This is the same mentality that would impeach a President for having sex with an intern, as if what he does with his penis in private has any bearing whatever on his abilities as a national leader. It saddens me to think people have come so small a distance.

I do not understand:

(a) people who won't wait for the results of the Gomery Commission before declaring guilt

- they are impatient because, much to their surprise and chagrin, they've found themselves operating on the marginal fringe for ten+ years. They've seen themselves having no great success during this period due to the schisming of conservatism in Canada for most of that time. After buying out, er..."amalgamating" with the weakened PC party of old, and trotting out a shiny new brand identity just reeking of that new car smell (sans the stink of the Mulroney era), and finally settling on a leader who apparently wouldn't make an ass of himself on camera or in the House, those who've been rooting for the so-called Conservatives (i.e. Reform/Alliance) frankly feel a grossly disporportionate sense of entitlement - a subconscious demand that we accede to their far-seeing ethos, or lack thereof, and install their favoured fools as our new masters as though to confer upon them the gift of clairvoyancy. A game of one-up 'I toldja so'. But the stakes (as always) are too high to allow it to happen. I feel like I'm part of a perpetual, concerted effort to keep the bad old Mulroney days at bay - 'to hell with who gets in, provided it's not the Tories' might just be good enough for me.

(b) how the Conservatives can think the Canadian public is so stupid that they won't mind the fact that the Conservatives are preventing ANYTHING being accomplished for the good of Canadians while they hold Parliament hostage to their rhetoric

- I'm struck with wonder that Harper manages to keep his frustration with Canadian voters as well as he does, though he seems perpetually annoyed with us that we aren't reacting the way he seems to think we ought to. What his handlers aren't picking up on and telling him is that we're all more than aware of how stupid he and his Conservative cronies consider the canadian electorate to be.

(c) why the Canadian public can see all this and STILL cannot be trusted to vote sensibly.

- Well, we tend to vote reactively, i.e. we 'send a clear message' to Ottawa every so often. Problem is, we all make up our minds to do so at the same time, and hey presto! Majority government. If we made more of a point to vote our true political leaning, instead of engaging in strategic voting, we'd have a better form of representation. But the stakes, man - they're too high. They've been too high all my voting life. I even voted Liberal once, to keep a Tory from getting in. I never felt so dirty in my life.

(d) how Stephen Harper can stand in front of a news camera and proclaim (with a straight face, no less) that the Liberals are ruining this country's finances, after the Liberals have produced, what is it now, nine consecutive balanced budgets?

I dunno, Botox? No but seriously, he is full of crap on that score. I might not like him too much myself, but Paul Martin is probably one of the greatest Finance Ministers Canada has ever had. Ever see him talking numbers during last year's election campaign? It came through in his voice, his facial expressions, his body language - this is a man who lives for numbers. It was, sadly enough, the only time I got a sense of passion from him. But he was one of the architects that has made our ongoing economic viability a reality, and for that I am thankful.

*snips a little*

EVEN IF...the Gomery Commission were to show that indeed some officials benefitted mightily from this ridiculous sponsorship program (which it must be pointed out was set up as an emergency fund to counter the separatist movement's activities, the same separatists with whom the Conservatives are now cosying up) are Canadians ready to ignore the fact that Canada is doing really, really well under the Liberals, in order to punish a few individuals? Why not use this inquiry's findings to find the loopholes in our system and close them, and punish the individuals at fault, and get on with governing the nation? Will we cut off our nose to spite our face? This is the same mentality that would impeach a President for having sex with an intern, as if what he does with his penis in private has any bearing whatever on his abilities as a national leader. It saddens me to think people have come so small a distance.

- waiting for Gomery would present a lull that would interfere with certain people's sense of sweeping, almost messianic sense of entitlement and great expectation.

Marry me.

lol

Aww...I'm taken already. But the whole gender/gender preference thing'd probably get in the way, anyway.

I'm flattered though...

Hee.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/12/adjourn-motion050512.html

Vicious SOBs - they're so TOTALLY not getting my vote now...

Bunch of country bumpkins holding us all to ransom.

What bastards!

Maybe if Canada gets lucky the backlash will be towards the Conservatives and the Bloc for pulling this kind of crap now on a daily basis. The people don't seem to want an election, it only seems to be the power hungry Harper from what I have read.

Maybe if Canada gets lucky the backlash will be towards the Conservatives and the Bloc for pulling this kind of crap now on a daily basis. The people don't seem to want an election, it only seems to be the power hungry Harper from what I have read.
Ah Democracy,don't you just love it. Didn't Churchill say something about Democracy being the worst possible form of government, except for every other kind. As frustrating as it is to watch the House of Commons,as least we can dispel the notion that nobody cares about Canadian politics. Governing is a dirty business. .One Question though,has everybody who has made a comment on this thread actually voted on a regular basis in the last few elections? According to statistics published in The Ottawa Citizen ,Canada has one of the lowest voter turnout precentage in the western world 60 per cent!!40 percent of us don't even care enough to register their opinion where it counts, at the ballot box. Those who don't vote to me have forfeited their right to complain about the Government.

You know what I dont get? Why is Harper making such a big deal over 7 days? We don't know if it's a non-confidence motion now, but Harper can take down the budget on the 19th. And furthermore, Harper is only voting against the budget because he wants an election. After the Gomery testimony, Harper figured that now is the best chance he'll ever get to be PM, so he withdrew support from the budget and that's why the Liberals needed to get the NDP on board.

Quebec will never, i repeat never seperate,simply because they are addicted to the Federal teat. They will whine and bluster but they get good money for all their bitching and whining.Nobody is going to risk cutting off the supply.Besides isn't support for seperation at an all time low. The people of Quebec are not dumb .The politicians may run it up the flagpole as much as they wish but generally the population don't want to go through what they did in '93. :D

Support for separation is at an all time HIGH. Back in 1995 the YES had about 40% before the campaigne and went to 49,9% at the referendum. Right the YES option have 54%, wich mean it couls go at 60-65% with a good campaigne.

The only thing is that even if Charest is a really crappy prime minister, he still have 2 years before the next election in Quebec. And 2 years is a lot of time to forget.

You know what I dont get? Why is Harper making such a big deal over 7 days? We don't know if it's a non-confidence motion now, but Harper can take down the budget on the 19th. And furthermore, Harper is only voting against the budget because he wants an election. After the Gomery testimony, Harper figured that now is the best chance he'll ever get to be PM, so he withdrew support from the budget and that's why the Liberals needed to get the NDP on board.

It's really a shitty story...
Liberal + NPD + independent have 154 members
Conservatice + Bloc have 153

Right now, 1 independent is missing because he have cancer and need chimio-therapie so he wont be able to be there before next week to vote. Martin have to wait for him.

In the other hand, conservative have 2 members who are also ill from cancer. So they cry out loud that reporting the vote for 1 week is a tactic so theire 2 members get more ill and therefore cant vote next week.

Isn't it great to see our political leaders true colours, though?


Duceppe - smug and satisfied with the chaos on the Hill...

Harper - falling all over himself with impatience for power...

Martin - sticking to his guns on the deck of a sinking ship...

Layton - through it all, calm and collected...


I vote - every election I vote, whether municipal, provincial or federal. I had friends back in my communal hippie days who'd moan endlessly about government of any sort, but come election day, couldn't be bothered to participate. Not me. I actually went on 'Speaker's Corner' and slagged that mentality publicly. On election night, I used to set up a second television to see results live on two different channels (now I can do this w/ split screen, but it's the same principle) - elections are usually a hot ticket in my household.

But not this time. I really am just not in the mood for it, it doesn't seem at all right, or timely, or necessary - and if I, a real Canadian political animal, feels this way, I can only imagine how the less politically-inclined are feeling about it.

Also highly suspect is the timing - if you think our elections have poor voter turnout at the best of times, a summer vote will probably drop that bar another ten to fifteen percent. The paranoiac part of my brain is telling me the Tories are getting organized to drop-kick the vote, by making sure their minions get out and do their collective thing - while no doubt the left'll be mostly on vacation.

The provincial Tories in Ontario tried something like this a few years back. It worked - Tories can be extraordinarily strategic, perhaps more so than any other political party - which is, of course, why we've all had to be on our guard the last ten or twelve years, guarding against the day they might re-emerge as our ruling party.

HOLD THE FORT, BOYS! There's TORIES out beyond them walls! And they're armed with 'status quo' guns! From RED DEER, for Chrissakes! RED DEER. Think about it!

Ai yai yai.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/13/harper-house050513.html

If anyone was going to rise to the occasion, it was bound to be Ed.

Here is a man too good for federal politics, and, as was said many a time about the late old Tory leader Robert Stanfield, certainly without doubt one of 'the best Prime Ministers we've never had'.

Hats off to Mr. Broadbent, the nicest non-practising Druid ever to have a seat in the Commons.

Ahh, what the hell, this is one of the only threads that any puppet of Dobbs Town has contributed to in the last few days, so...

*bump*

Maybe there's still some life in 'er.