NationStates Jolt Archive

Harper to be investigated by ethics commissioner (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060301/emerson_election_060303?hub=TopStories&s_name=&no_ads=)

Ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro is launching a preliminary inquiry into conflict-of-interest allegations against Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Shapiro says he will look into what influence may have been wielded in the decision by former Liberal David Emerson to cross the Commons floor and join Harper's Conservative government cabinet.

"The ethics commissioner is apparently investigating ... whether Mr. Harper induced Mr. Emerson to come over with the offer of a cabinet post," CTV Ottawa bureau chief Robert Fife said.

Now Harper you see, got elected partially by promising to bring more accountability of politicians at the federal level, but with him now in the driver's seat, it appears that he will pick and choose who will be accountable, especially if he is in the spotlight. So guess what......

PM preparing to dump ethics commissioner: CTV (http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060306/harper_ethics_commissioner_060306)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is preparing to dump the ethics commissioner and is actively recruiting replacement candidates, CTV News has learned......

The news of a possible shake-up comes just days after ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro announced he would look into conflict-of-interest allegations against Harper.

Shapiro said he would investigate whether Harper breached the parliamentary ethical code for MPs by appointing David Emerson to his cabinet two weeks after Emerson won his B.C. riding as Liberal.

Shapiro said he will issue one report on the conduct of both Harper and Emerson, who is now international trade minister.

The parliamentary conflict-of-interest code prohibits inducing an MP to change his or her vote for personal benefit.

Keep up the good work Harper!! I am sure that the voters would love another swing of the bat!!

It just goes to show you that the culture of entitlement doesn't take long to set in. The Conservatives have proven they can be every bit as corrupt and immoral as the Liberals, and it only took them a matter of weeks!

I smell a new conservative leader coming up sometime soon...
I can't imagine how he'll manage to continue firing everyone, and pointing blame at everyone but himself for much longer...
Everyone's on to him. He should just give up, and realize he's just not cut out for the job... just like Martin wasn't.

It just goes to show you that the culture of entitlement doesn't take long to set in. The Conservatives have proven they can be every bit as corrupt and immoral as the Liberals, and it only took them a matter of weeks!
The sad part, or maybe blessing (depending on how one looks at this), is that he has the barest of minorities. We could be back at the polls in the fall. It will be interesting once the mudslinging begins.

I smell a new conservative leader coming up sometime soon...
I can't imagine how he'll manage to continue firing everyone, and pointing blame at everyone but himself for much longer...
Everyone's on to him. He should just give up, and realize he's just not cut out for the job... just like Martin wasn't.
I just cannot imagine Harper with a majority government. You would think that Harper would want to appear progressive and proactive considering his tenuous grip on the reins?

I just cannot imagine Harper with a majority government. You would think that Harper would want to appear progressive and proactive considering his tenuous grip on the reins?

You would think that... seeing how he's leading a more moderate sort of country, with no real power... but no, this is just a taste of how horrible he'd be if he had real power with a majority.
I just hope the people realize this, and don't vote for his party again, so long as he's leading it.
The only question is, who will people vote for? If it's another election soon (I think it will be), most people will still shy away from the Liberals. And Harper's proving to be an idiot. I think it MAY just be Layton's turn to shine!
Oh, I can only hope... :)

I just cannot imagine Harper with a majority government. You would think that Harper would want to appear progressive and proactive considering his tenuous grip on the reins?

He's probably convinced that if Shrub can continue ruling in defiance of public opinion, then he can as well.

You would think that... seeing how he's leading a more moderate sort of country, with no real power... but no, this is just a taste of how horrible he'd be if he had real power with a majority.
I just hope the people realize this, and don't vote for his party again, so long as he's leading it.
The only question is, who will people vote for? If it's another election soon (I think it will be), most people will still shy away from the Liberals. And Harper's proving to be an idiot. I think it MAY just be Layton's turn to shine!
Oh, I can only hope... :)
I could live with another Liberal minority government propped up by the NDP. No matter what people say about the Liberals, they were able to accomplish a lot of good in a short while, despite all the controversey.

I just cannot imagine Harper with a majority government. You would think that Harper would want to appear progressive and proactive considering his tenuous grip on the reins?

It's odd ... most of our political leaders seem to have a hard time getting their head around the concept of a minority government. They want to govern as if they have a majority. They are so used to getting a majority of seats with way less than a majority of votes that they just can't seem to grasp the fact that they can't just steamroll the opposition.

It's odd ... most of our political leaders seem to have a hard time getting their head around the concept of a minority government. They want to govern as if they have a majority. They are so used to getting a majority of seats with way less than a majority of votes that they just can't seem to grasp the fact that they can't just steamroll the opposition.
Well, the last PM that really acted in that manner was Joe Clark of the Progressive Conservatives way back in 1979.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1100canelection.htm

In 1978, the Tories beat the Liberals in a federal election, but not with enough members in the House to form a majority, and as such, Clark became the Prime Minister with a minority government. In order to be effective at governing, he was at a disadvantage unless he was willing to work and play well with others, which he wasn't. Clark arrogantly and foolishly tried to govern as if he had a majority, and when the budget came up for approval the following February, he was 'fragged' by the Liberals and the NDP. The fourth party at the time, the Social Credit, abstained in the vote. As such, the Clark government fell on a vote of no confidence, and Pierre Trudeau, the man Clark had ousted from power just nine months earlier, returned to power as Prime Minister.

Will history repeat itself with Harper at the controls?

So, the last non-confidence vote occured when the House was asked to pass a budget, right? Is this the only time when a no-confidence vote can occur, or can the opposition call one whenever it feels like it? I guess what I'm asking is: can we expect a non-confidence vote? And if so, when?

While I admit that Harper has made his first big blunder so far...one quote got me in the article


"There was no investigation when Belinda Stronach switched and when Scott Brison switched. This ethics commissioner has opened a Pandora's Box today with this investigation," Fife added.


So why is Harper getting investigated while Martin got free from TWO? I think the ethics commisioner is a wee bit biased. Isn't the ethics commision supposed to be neutral?

So, the last non-confidence vote occured when the House was asked to pass a budget, right? Is this the only time when a no-confidence vote can occur, or can the opposition call one whenever it feels like it? I guess what I'm asking is: can we expect a non-confidence vote? And if so, when?
Non-confidence motions can be called anytime by the opposition, but a frivolous mis-use of that tactic could result in voter back lash by the electorate.

In Canada, a non-confidence motion is a motion in the House of Commons, which, if passed, means that the government has lost the confidence of the House. The government must then either resign or ask the governor general to dissolve Parliament and call an election.

Votes on the Speech from the Throne and tax and spending bills are automatically considered to be votes of non-confidence.

Unless, Harper seriously tampers with popular laws or the Charter of Rights, I do not see the opposition calling for a vote of non-confidence. If Harper wants to ensure continuance of his minority government, his legislation will need approval of one or two opposition parties. If he pisses off enough people, and I think he is certainly capable of doing so, then we could have an early election.

My guess is that Canada will return to the polls in less than a year.

Canada City']While I admit that Harper has made his first big blunder so far...one quote got me in the article

So why is Harper getting investigated while Martin got free from TWO? I think the ethics commisioner is a wee bit biased. Isn't the ethics commision supposed to be neutral?
Stonach switched parties on a contoversial matter before the House, whereas Emerson didn't even sit one day in the House as an elected Liberal. While many people condemned Stronach, the fact remains that she eventually won re-election. I seriously doubt that Emerson would be able to do so. Emerson was obviously wooed by Harper right after the election. There is a huge difference between the two situations.

Harper who ran on cleaning up government corruption is now wallowing in his own mud, and the House hasn't even convened yet.

Should be an interesting speech from the throne. Watch the sparks fly!!

Canada City']While I admit that Harper has made his first big blunder so far...one quote got me in the article



So why is Harper getting investigated while Martin got free from TWO? I think the ethics commisioner is a wee bit biased. Isn't the ethics commision supposed to be neutral?

Well, the Office of the Ethics Commissioner wasn't around when Brison crossed the floor, so it would have been impossible to investigate. As for Stronach, that's a good question. Perhaps the Office felt there was not enough evidence to support mounting an investigation. Another possibility is that the reactions from the Conservative party were so offensive that Harper may have felt that pushing for an investigation would have made the Conservative party look even worse than they did at the time. Of course, Martin could also have simply told Shapiro not to investigate too.

Stonach switched parties on a contoversial matter before the House, whereas Emerson didn't even sit one day in the House as an elected Liberal. While many people condemned Stronach, the fact remains that she eventually won re-election. I seriously doubt that Emerson would be able to do so. Emerson was obviously wooed by Harper right after the election. There is a huge difference between the two situations.

Harper who ran on cleaning up government corruption is now wallowing in his own mud, and the House hasn't even convened yet.

Should be an interesting speech from the throne. Watch the sparks fly!!

It still doesn't deny the fact that the 'ethics' commisioner is liberal-sided. He investigates on ONE turncoat, but lets go on two turncoats.

I'm not a fan about this whole emerson deal either, but when someone who playing favorites with the title 'ethics commisoner', it kind of tells me that they might need to be fired.

I honestly don't believe that Harper fired him because of the investigation, but I think Harper fired him because this guy is showing his true red colors. I rather have a neutral member in the government then one that is part of the enemy.

Canada City']It still doesn't deny the fact that the 'ethics' commisioner is liberal-sided. He investigates on ONE turncoat, but lets go on two turncoats.


On December 10th, 2003, four days after Brison voted in favour of the PCs merging with the Canadian Alliance to form the new Conservative Party of Canada, Brison announced that he would cross the floor and sit as a Liberal MP.

The Office of the Ethics Commissioner was created in 2004 as a result of amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act.

Note the timeline.

Note the timeline.

They could've started their first investigation on that one.

Bernard Shapiro,when appointed Ethics Commissioner said and i quote,''It did occur to me to wonder how it is they got to my name''. This mans' handling of the Judy Sgros' ''Strippergate '' scandal and his refusal to hold an investigation into the Gurmant Grewal affair, where the Liberals were accused of the same thing they are accusing the Conservatives now,stinks of partisan politics and even has Ed Broadbent calling for his resignation. Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y. A Liberal investigating a Conservative,Gee i wonder how this is going to end.To read the full account http://ottawasun.com/Columnists/home.html Click on Greg Weston

If you look at the website for the Office of the Ethics Commissioner, you will see that one of the first investigations dealt with Mr. Grewal, and that Shapiro refused to release the report until after the election so that the Office would:avoid any perception that, on the last day of a volatile electoral campaign, the Office of the Ethics Commissioner deliberately released an inquiry report that contained comments on individuals who were involved in the electoral process; and
ensure that the report would be considered on its own merit, rather than being used as an electoral spin, and possibly be labeled as a tool for unjustified interference in an ongoing democratic process in which Canadians were engaged.

In doing so, he protected Grewal during the election, as the report itself does not look too favorably on him. This runs contrary to your theory that Shapiro acts only to benefit the Liberals.

Well, the last PM that really acted in that manner was Joe Clark of the Progressive Conservatives way back in 1979.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1100canelection.htm

In 1978, the Tories beat the Liberals in a federal election, but not with enough members in the House to form a majority, and as such, Clark became the Prime Minister with a minority government. In order to be effective at governing, he was at a disadvantage unless he was willing to work and play well with others, which he wasn't. Clark arrogantly and foolishly tried to govern as if he had a majority, and when the budget came up for approval the following February, he was 'fragged' by the Liberals and the NDP. The fourth party at the time, the Social Credit, abstained in the vote. As such, the Clark government fell on a vote of no confidence, and Pierre Trudeau, the man Clark had ousted from power just nine months earlier, returned to power as Prime Minister.

Will history repeat itself with Harper at the controls?

The interesting thing about that one was the PC's only got 36% of the popular vote, and the Liberals had got 40%, but less seats. So the Clark government really lacked political authority to govern as if they had a majority.

If you look at the website for the Office of the Ethics Commissioner, you will see that one of the first investigations dealt with Mr. Grewal, and that Shapiro refused to release the report until after the election so that the Office would:

In doing so, he protected Grewal during the election, as the report itself does not look too favorably on him. This runs contrary to your theory that Shapiro acts only to benefit the Liberals.

I'm not entirely sure why you would think that Shapiro's decision wouldn't benefit the Liberals. During an election, he avoided damning a fellow Liberal by not releasing any decisions, until AFTER the election, because the electorate might be biased in their decision making? Election time is exactly when you want to know if the person you are going to vote for is less than stellar.

Of course, the first moment the conservatives seem unethical, he starts doing his job, and goes straight for the PMO.

Whatever happened to Parliamentary Precedent? Belinda Stronach wasn't offered a cabinet post for switching to the Liberal party during a critical non-confidence motion?

If we're going after the conservatives, then we should be retroactively going after Stronach, and Paul Martin as well.

If the guy was doing such a crap job, how come he didn't fire him right off the bat? Why wait until after he decides to investigate the PM? The timing is just a little suspicious.

Goes to show why the office of ethics commissioner should be independent of the PM. Hiring and firing decisions should require all party consensus, or at least a super-majority.

Canada City']It still doesn't deny the fact that the 'ethics' commisioner is liberal-sided. He investigates on ONE turncoat, but lets go on two turncoats.

I'm not a fan about this whole emerson deal either, but when someone who playing favorites with the title 'ethics commisoner', it kind of tells me that they might need to be fired.

I honestly don't believe that Harper fired him because of the investigation, but I think Harper fired him because this guy is showing his true red colors. I rather have a neutral member in the government then one that is part of the enemy.

Bull. The leadup to Stronach's crossing the floor was well documented, including her clear support of the gay marriage ammendment that she was being pressured to oppose by Harper. She crossed on a vote on a matter of conscience, and because Harper had made it clear that she had no future in the party as long as he was leading it. Emmerson had no such issues before him, and was apparently lured with the promise of a cabinet post - a fact that he has been very clear was offered to him.

That is why this case is getting pulled in front of the ethics commissioner as the rules clearly differentiate cases where personal gain is involved - and cabinet ministers get a hefty hike in salary and benefits.

I just hope the people realize this, and don't vote for his party again, so long as he's leading it.

The short list of star Tories who could lead is just that - short. Mind-bogglingly short. Frankly, the only person with the actual (as opposed to the aired-for-public-consumption) values to effectively lead a transparent, trustworthy Conservative Party is Garth Turner, who has been turfed from caucus, consigned to the backbenches, and given an office somewhere in the dark recesses of the basement floor of Parliament Hill.

And why? Why, for stating publicly that it was wrong to tap the recently-elected Liberal MP, David Emerson, and persuade him to cross the floor just days after his re-election. Ditto appointing an unelected Senator to sit in caucus. Et cetera, et cetera...

We've met the new Boss. He's the same as the old Boss. We done been fooled - again.

Bull. The leadup to Stronach's crossing the floor was well documented, including her clear support of the gay marriage ammendment that she was being pressured to oppose by Harper. She crossed on a vote on a matter of conscience, and because Harper had made it clear that she had no future in the party as long as he was leading it. Emmerson had no such issues before him, and was apparently lured with the promise of a cabinet post - a fact that he has been very clear was offered to him.

That is why this case is getting pulled in front of the ethics commissioner as the rules clearly differentiate cases where personal gain is involved - and cabinet ministers get a hefty hike in salary and benefits.
You clearly have hit the nail on the head.

You clearly have hit the nail on the head.
What I just don't find credible are the knee-jerk reactionary Tories who seem to crop up here on NS, and in spite of their fearless leader's squandering of the public's trust before sitting for one day in Parliament, still bark and clap like so many trained seals. You've been had. By a man with shifty eyes and bad haircuts, at that.

Doesn't the conservatives have a budget bill coming up in April or May, right after Parliament's back in session again? Boy, this is going to be an interesting one.

Government accountability act my ass. At least the Liberals don't pretend to be innocent and pure. Harper's government so far has been PURE hypocracy.

As for the next election, we would have to see who's the next liberal leader to even begin to guess how the election will go. But knowing them, it would probably be another spineless creep who governs on opinion polls. As for the new tory leader...PLEASE don't be stockwell day!

Canada City']They could've started their first investigation on that one.
Why would they start an investigation? The man announced his intent to switch parties because of the party merger... and a year before the commission started up.

I can see why there wouldn't be an investigation for Stonach, she was saying a lot of things that were completely opposite what Harper says...

We've met the new Boss. He's the same as the old Boss. We done been fooled - again.

when he steals our money, THAN you can say he was the same as the old boss. but he hasn't so he's not. he's better.

Stephen Harper hasn't even gotten a chance to lead and you people are crying about everything so far. Am I crazy about the Fiberal joining the Conservatives? No. But at least I'm not a hypocrit in bitching about this, and totally forgetting that the Librano's got 2 people to switch their side with NO investigation. You can't say he's just as bad as the old boss AND than say "Hey lets vote the old boss in!"

Wow, that makes no sense. If you're saying that Harper is just as bad as the old boss, at least support Layton than(btw I hate NDP, I'm just saying)

And if the LIEberals keep getting into power, Alberta will get more pissed off. So if Canadians are so use to sucking up to Quebec, why not suck up to Alberta for the next 100 years and vote CPC? Because losing Alberta will be a GREATER economic loss than losing Queerbec

Wow, how refreshing to be here at Sea World...

*throws a kipper to the slick-coated SUN reader*

when he steals our money, THAN you can say he was the same as the old boss. but he hasn't so he's not. he's better.
Except that this boss argues for social conservatism... I'd rather be stolen from than be oppressed.

Stephen Harper hasn't even gotten a chance to lead and you people are crying about everything so far. Am I crazy about the Fiberal joining the Conservatives? No. But at least I'm not a hypocrit in bitching about this, and totally forgetting that the Librano's got 2 people to switch their side with NO investigation. You can't say he's just as bad as the old boss AND than say "Hey lets vote the old boss in!"
Again, one conservative switched not only as a result of the party merger, but before the ethics commission was formed and another switched after some long and obvious discord between her personal beliefs and the party line.

Harper's policies are BARELY socially conservative(which disappoints me) but pleases all the eastern whiners.

his policies are more economically conservative based. nothing wrong with that, socially and economically conservative policies created nations like Switzerland and Germany. look how big and rich they are compared to your apparent "socialism paradise" nations like Chile, Venezeula, and practically all of Africa

Harper's policies are BARELY socially conservative(which disappoints me) but pleases all the eastern whiners.

his policies are more economically conservative based. nothing wrong with that, socially and economically conservative policies created nations like Switzerland and Germany. look how big and rich they are compared to your apparent "socialism paradise" nations like Chile, Venezeula, and practically all of Africa
What are you foaming at the mouth about now, exactly? He's done bugger-all to please "eastern whiners". He's gone out of his way to give the turnip-truck crowd as many plums as possible. And more besides. For unelected Senators, even.

Harper's policies are BARELY socially conservative(which disappoints me) but pleases all the eastern whiners.
lol.

You're joking, right?

his policies are more economically conservative based. nothing wrong with that, socially and economically conservative policies created nations like Switzerland and Germany. look how big and rich they are compared to your apparent "socialism paradise" nations like Chile, Venezeula, and practically all of Africa
Paul Martin is a fiscal conservative too... he's socially liberal though. Furthermore, of the south american countries, Chile and Venezuela are doing ok and I wouldn't describe Africa as socialist paradises... want to know some countries that are? Scandanavian ones... you know, the ones with the highest quality of living in the world...

This here is Class A corruption; this is the kind of corruption Bush looks at in awe.

This here is Class A corruption; this is the kind of corruption Bush looks at in awe.
Awe or envy? ;)

there's no real power, and so laisse-faire prevails.

vote green!

lol.

You're joking, right?


Paul Martin is a fiscal conservative too... he's socially liberal though. Furthermore, of the south american countries, Chile and Venezuela are doing ok and I wouldn't describe Africa as socialist paradises... want to know some countries that are? Scandanavian ones... you know, the ones with the highest quality of living in the world...

No I'm not joking. Please? Can you find the Neoconservative influence in increasing the pension income-tax deduction to $2500, and ensuring better service for seniors? The Liberals wanted to increase military spending too, so you can't say that the CPC doing that is Neoconservative. The CPC isn't "taking gay rights away" like all the Liberal fear smear says. The CPC isn't taking "women rights away" like all the Fiberal BS also says.

Chile and Venezeula are third world countries. And they never will be first world countries with their governments. And the Scandanavian ones are hardly socialist. Perhaps Sweden, but Norway and Finland take a more center approach. And the RICHEST NATION on Earth is Conservative. Luxembourg. Now that's real success. Followed by another Conservative nation. The USA. Than you got your Norway(a center nation that has elected many Conservative governments). and so on, I can go on for a while

No I'm not joking. Please? Can you find the Neoconservative influence in increasing the pension income-tax deduction to $2500, and ensuring better service for seniors? The Liberals wanted to increase military spending too, so you can't say that the CPC doing that is Neoconservative. The CPC isn't "taking gay rights away" like all the Liberal fear smear says. The CPC isn't taking "women rights away" like all the Fiberal BS also says.

Chile and Venezeula are third world countries. And they never will be first world countries with their governments. And the Scandanavian ones are hardly socialist. Perhaps Sweden, but Norway and Finland take a more center approach. And the RICHEST NATION on Earth is Conservative. Luxembourg. Now that's real success. Followed by another Conservative nation. The USA. Than you got your Norway(a center nation that has elected many Conservative governments). and so on, I can go on for a while

I guess if all you're interested in is riches, you should feel free to move to a country that has those values...
But most people in Canada, from what I've seen, don't care about being rich. They care about having a good quality of life, which often requires putting money back into the system to keep it going for everyone, rather than just for the rich.

I guess if all you're interested in is riches, you should feel free to move to a country that has those values...
But most people in Canada, from what I've seen, don't care about being rich. They care about having a good quality of life, which often requires putting money back into the system to keep it going for everyone, rather than just for the rich.

Well Alberta/BC certainly seems to share my values. How about you guys get your Liberal government if Alberta/BC gets its own nation. Let Quebec go too while you're at it. Than you can all live happily ever after.

Well Alberta/BC certainly seems to share my values. How about you guys get your Liberal government if Alberta/BC gets its own nation. Let Quebec go too while you're at it. Than you can all live happily ever after.
Yeah, try telling me BC is all hot-and-bothered to leave - with Alberta.

*hoots*

Gordon Campbell is right-wing along the lines of Ralph Klein and Mike Harris. The Social Credit Union party owned BC for a time, and currently their Liberal party(which is actually a Right-wing party) is in power.

So they obviously are in tuned with "my beliefs" as I said above.

"A poll by the Western Standard conducted from June 29, 2005 to July 5, 2005 finds 36% of residents of the four provinces think "Western Canadians should begin to explore the idea of forming their own country."

That's alot, plus the seperation levels in Manitoba being much lower than the others basically "decreased" the number. I would drop Saskatchewan however from forming a country with BC/AB. Too flat for me.

BTW that last little bit was tongue in cheek, I'm not totally crazy for the idea of seperation, I do love Canada, I just wish more attention was payed to the West. that was a real survey...

I just wish more attention was payed to the West.
My entire 37 years on the planet, I do believe I have heard a perpetual whine emanating from across the prairies. And it ain't wind turbines. I fail to see just how much more attention we can pay to you... you... parochial milquetoasts. Honestly, it's embarrassing. It's like the twenty-odd-year span of the "Let's-do-something-to-really-make-Toronto-a-WORLD! CLASS! CITY!" craze. No matter how much you make yourselves the center of attention, it'll never be enough. And funny thing is, even if you manage it, you do know you'll become the butts of all the new region/region slag jokes right? Like Toronto is today. So whaddaya say? You'll do just about anything for attention right now, won'tcha?

Who wants a belly rub?

No I'm not joking. Please? Can you find the Neoconservative influence in increasing the pension income-tax deduction to $2500, and ensuring better service for seniors? The Liberals wanted to increase military spending too, so you can't say that the CPC doing that is Neoconservative. The CPC isn't "taking gay rights away" like all the Liberal fear smear says. The CPC isn't taking "women rights away" like all the Fiberal BS also says.

Chile and Venezeula are third world countries. And they never will be first world countries with their governments. And the Scandanavian ones are hardly socialist. Perhaps Sweden, but Norway and Finland take a more center approach. And the RICHEST NATION on Earth is Conservative. Luxembourg. Now that's real success. Followed by another Conservative nation. The USA. Than you got your Norway(a center nation that has elected many Conservative governments). and so on, I can go on for a while
Ummm, Luxembourg is a tiny dot on the map and don't have to worry too much like having a nation as large and diverse as Canada.

As far as the US is concerned, the Republicans are anything but fiscally conservative. Look at the bottom line:

The Debt To the Penny (http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm)

03/06/2006 $8,270,260,474,453.58

Yeah, that is over $8 TRILLION!!! I put it in red which is the traditional colour of negative numbers on a balance sheet.

In other words, the US is broke and to make matters worse, countries such as China and Japan have been gobbling up US treasury bills like they are candy. If you really want us to be like the US then you are asking us to sell out future generations. Take what you can get and leave the burden to our children? No thanks.

Well Alberta/BC certainly seems to share my values. How about you guys get your Liberal government if Alberta/BC gets its own nation. Let Quebec go too while you're at it. Than you can all live happily ever after.
Only if you promise not to come crawling back after the oil bubble bursts and your major export is beef. :rolleyes:

BTW, I really don't think BC would really want to join up with Alberta?

don't drag BC into this. We British Columbians have no interest in seperating with you Albertan hicks. Maybe interior BC is a little more conservative, but we are a province where the LIBERALS (who are generally seen as slightly leftwing) is the right wing party! Campbell and his sorry ass is in power now is only because of NDP corruption. I'll bet in the next election, the NDP would be back in power and our education and healthcare system would be less fucked up.

And honestly, if you cannot come to peace with the fact that Ontario is the center of the universe (or Canada anyway), you should not live in Canada. Everybody accepts the fact. Even the Quebecois accept the fact. Why can't you Albertan people accept it? Just because you have oil doesn't mean you own the country! So fuck off and stop trying to screw up our health care system.

don't drag BC into this. We British Columbians have no interest in seperating with you Albertan hicks.
Much as I expected.
So fuck off and stop trying to screw up our health care system.
*bows to your eloquence*

Spoken like a gentleman.

*tips hat*

*bows to your eloquence*

Spoken like a gentleman.

*tips hat*

don't you mean gentlewoman? (or girl...which ever suits you best :p )

don't you mean gentlewoman? (or girl...which ever suits you best :p )
Ah, the gender faux pas. My apologies. Hmm. Try thinking of the term, "gentleman", as a gender non-specific honorific intended to confirm a spirit of civility and community-mindedness upon the person so named. Y'know, instead of thinking of some dude.

What more can I say? Egg on my face.

*sighs*

Ah, the gender faux pas. My apologies. Hmm. Try thinking of the term, "gentleman", as a gender non-specific honorific intended to confirm a spirit of civility and community-mindedness upon the person so named. Y'know, instead of thinking of some dude.

What more can I say? Egg on my face.

*sighs*

it couldn't escape my attention that the word "gentleman" includes "man" in it. And as much as anyone would try, "man" would never be "a gender non-specific honorific intended to confirm a spirit of civility and community-mindedness upon the person so named."

in fact, "man" is often associated with "bastard", "curd", "son of a bitch", and other graceful words. But that's just my opinion. :p

Only if you promise not to come crawling back after the oil bubble bursts and your major export is beef. :rolleyes:

BTW, I really don't think BC would really want to join up with Alberta?

considering the oil reserves is worth over $1 trillion, I'm sure that's quite enough money to make a much more diverse economy. plus Alberta is quickly becoming a more business orientated province. communication and software technology will be the new "thing"

and like I said(if you read) I'm not crazy about seperation that much. more attention to the west, and the west we'll be happy. Queerbec has had a lot of attention, why not shift it more west(where there's more people and a much better economy)

The West - 10 million people - over $400 billion(Alberta has 30% of the population, but nearly 50% the total GDP)
Quebec - 7 million people - around $220 billion(Alberta is catching up and will eventually surpass Quebec in GDP, even if its population remains around half of Quebec's)

considering the oil reserves is worth over $1 trillion, I'm sure that's quite enough money to make a much more diverse economy. plus Alberta is quickly becoming a more business orientated province. communication and software technology will be the new "thing"

and nobody is denying the importance of Alberta in Canada, especially the Canadian economy.

and like I said(if you read) I'm not crazy about seperation that much. more attention to the west, and the west we'll be happy. Queerbec has had a lot of attention, why not shift it more west(where there's more people and a much better economy)

i'm all for attention to the West, but honestly, if you only tried to understand some of Quebec's point of view, you would not be so quick to judge them. They've gone through a lot of anger and betrayal ever since the colonial times, and your culture is not the one that is in danger of disappearing, but theirs is. And the french are annoyingly proud of their culture, so of course they would do whatever they must to preserve it.

also, doing things like "Queerbec" doesn't make you sound smarter. It just makes you look like a homophobic bastard who can't tolerate things that are different.

The West - 10 million people - over $400 billion(Alberta has 30% of the population, but nearly 50% the total GDP)
Quebec - 7 million people - around $220 billion(Alberta is catching up and will eventually surpass Quebec in GDP, even if its population remains around half of Quebec's)

again, not ALL of the west wants to seperate. In fact, not even half genuinely wants to seperate. The stat you gave was only the people who had considered the idea. It does not mean they would fervently support and defend it. We all get annoyed that Ontario get all of the attention, but just stop and remember what a great country we live in instead of trying to split it up even more!

[QUOTE=Disturnn]Queerbec QUOTE]

I will attempt to put this for you in such a coherent way that your narrow-minded bullfrogged brain will not overload and implode instantaneously. Alright?

I take serious offense to your use of the term 'Queerbec'. This is NOT because I am a Quebecer, or even a member of the B.C. Green Party. I am an Albertan. However profitable this province may be does not deem its overall importance in Canada. I would like to draw your feeble-minded attention to this comic: http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20060304

It holds the key to what you are saying here; Alberta is discriminated against, even though it is bigger, better, and stronger than any other province going, right? INcorrect. Albertans are drawing this fair judgement against themselves because of the bigotry they spout.

Fine, how about this: we take a vote on seperatism? Oh, wait, done that. Twice. Known as 'referendums'. And who's all for Western seperatism? Show of hands? Ah, the ignorant fools. You realize that after the redneck culture of uprooting oil and farming cows dies down, there will be nothing left? Does anybody realize that this province could not even sustain its own population in ratio to production rates? In fact, it can't now! That's right. There is so many jobs available in Alberta that Mr. Ralph Klein was (almost) completely entitled to pull the stint he did at the homeless shelter. Those who aren't working, simply don't want to.

But that is another thread.

When it comes down to it, Alberta needs Canada, and the relationship is mutual. Most medal winners from this just past Olympics are Albertan. Rejoice, something else to boost our insatiable ego. Canada does need the oil we harvest. We need the trees B.C. lops down, and the fish from the East. I am Canadian. I am a proud Albertan. But I am ALWAYS a Canadian first.

when he steals our money, THAN you can say he was the same as the old boss. but he hasn't so he's not. he's better.Better?

Stephen Harper hasn't even gotten a chance to lead and you people are crying about everything so far.Harper blew all his chances already.

Am I crazy about the Fiberal joining the Conservatives? No. But at least I'm not a hypocrit in bitching about this, and totally forgetting that the Librano's got 2 people to switch their side with NO investigation. You can't say he's just as bad as the old boss AND than say "Hey lets vote the old boss in!" Why would Scott and Belinda be investigated? Yes they got cabinet jobs but the reason why they switched because the Conservative Reform Party are too socially conservative. As for the Emerson switch, a very different story.

And if the LIEberals keep getting into power, Alberta will get more pissed off. So if Canadians are so use to sucking up to Quebec, why not suck up to Alberta for the next 100 years and vote CPC? Because losing Alberta will be a GREATER economic loss than losing QueerbecWe should declare Alberta and Quebec as special "suck up" provinces for christ sakes.

Harper's policies are BARELY socially conservative(which disappoints me) but pleases all the eastern whiners.Wow, you're really desperate to transform our country into Jesusland North. And as for "eastern whiners", you should also thank BC for electing more NDP and Liberals than Conservatives. :p

his policies are more economically conservative based. nothing wrong with that, socially and economically conservative policies created nations like Switzerland and Germany. look how big and rich they are compared to your apparent "socialism paradise" nations like Chile, Venezeula, and practically all of Africa.GDP - per capita

Canada: $32,800
Switzerland: $35,000
Germany: $29,700

Source: CIA WFB

Umm, yeah, Switzerland and Germany are very "big and rich" compared to Canada.

Wow, you're really desperate to transform our country into Jesusland North. And as for "eastern whiners", you should also thank BC for electing more NDP and Liberals than Conservatives. :p

GDP - per capita

Canada: $32,800
Switzerland: $35,000
Germany: $29,700

Source: CIA WFB

Umm, yeah, Switzerland and Germany are very "big and rich" compared to Canada.

no im not desperate to transform our country into Jesusland North. I'm barely Christian. BC elected mostly CPC, though if you combine NDP and Liberal than they have a couple more seats.

Germany may be less GDP per capita wise, but they do have the largest economy in Europe and the most exports in the world. Switzerland clearly is richer. And how about Luxembourg? Another social/economic conservative nation. GDP per capita = $62,700(basically double ours)

Judging wealth by GDP/capita is a bad bet because of how outliers completely destroy the mean.

For example, the GDP/capita of the Democratic Republic of the Congo would be basically doubled if Bill Gates took up citizenship there, even though nobody else would be making more money.

You know, I keep hearing that same old whine. but can some Albertan please give to me some SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of how the West is "not being paid attention to"?

I mean really. It is a lovely buzz-phrase, but it means sweet diddly squat.



So, what specific "attention" does Alberta require that it is not receiving?

You know, I keep hearing that same old whine. but can some Albertan please give to me some SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of how the West is "not being paid attention to"?

I mean really. It is a lovely buzz-phrase, but it means sweet diddly squat.



So, what specific "attention" does Alberta require that it is not receiving?

They've got oil, and the Conservatives are in power, so they want to take the "centre of the universe" position away from Ontario now. HA! fat chance!

We should declare Alberta and Quebec as special "suck up" provinces for christ sakes.
I wish certain martyrs from Alberta would learn to suck it up.

For once.

Now taking bets on whether or not Harper will last as long as Kim Campbell.

If Harper could, he'd fire the electorate, too.

*Back on the boats, everybody! His Majesty King Stephen the First has declared us all "repatriated to wherever the Hell our ancestors all came from" for "getting in his face and all". Well, what can I say? It's a fair cop*

If Harper could, he'd fire the electorate, too.

*Back on the boats, everybody! His Majesty King Stephen the First has declared us all "repatriated to wherever the Hell our ancestors all came from" for "getting in his face and all". Well, what can I say? It's a fair cop*
No doubt in my mind!!

Welcome back Dobbs....good to see ya posting again!! :cool:

Now taking bets on whether or not Harper will last as long as Kim Campbell.

Hasn't he already lasted longer than Campbell?

burrrrn :p
Fancy that... both conservatives, too...