... for now.

Belinda Stronach, Chuck Cadman, Layton's NDP, the Speaker of the House and our Prime Minister, the Right Hounourable Paul Martin and his team have all saved the nation from the venomous Conservatives and the even more spiteful Bloc Quebecois.

Canada can sleep safe and sound tonight, but Canadians will be called to vote again in January. From now until the elctions we must work hard to keep the country together, I can feel it in the air in Montreal; the sparatist movement is getting ready for another attack, the Conservatives would only slipt the nation even more by anatagonizing Quebec. We can't allow Gomery and the measly couple of millions that were stolen by a very FEW number of Liberals (who will be prosecuted by the law once the report is published) destroy Canada.

We must stop the Conservatives and the Bloc from destroying Canada. I applaud our Prime Minister and all those who worked so hard to impede the government and ultimately the country from falling.

^Sleep well, Paul M.

... for now.

Belinda Stronach, Chuck Cadman, Layton's NDP, the Speaker of the House and our Prime Minister, the Right Hounourable Paul Martin and his team have all saved the nation from the venomous Conservatives and the even more spiteful Bloc Quebecois.

Canada can sleep safe and sound tonight, but Canadians will be called to vote again in January. From now until the elctions we must work hard to keep the country together, I can feel it in the air in Montreal; the sparatist movement is getting ready for another attack, the Conservatives would only slipt the nation even more by anatagonizing Quebec. We can't allow Gomery and the measly couple of millions that were stolen by a very FEW number of Liberals (who will be prosecuted by the law once the report is published) destroy Canada.

We must stop the Conservatives and the Bloc from destroying Canada. I applaud our Prime Minister and all those who worked so hard to impede the government and ultimately the country from falling.

Amen.

The Liberal's arn't just criminal's they are very stupid aswell. They could have made a deal and passed a decent budget (the first budget that was voted on) with the conservitives but instead they showed their left wing extreamist side and passed the NDP's budget. Bribing MP's and dirty dealings with the NDP may save the Liberals for now but all it has really done is prolong the shit train that is coming for Ottawa. Hopefull come January the people in Ontario will put down the crack pipe for abit and toss the Liberal's out of office. The Paul Martin legacy will be scandel and dividing the nation in to Ontario vs the rest of Canada.

The Liberal's arn't just criminal's they are very stupid aswell. They could have made a deal and passed a decent budget (the first budget that was voted on) with the conservitives but instead they showed their left wing extreamist side and passed the NDP's budget.

What the hell are talking about. The Conservatives were hell-bent on toppling the Government all along. The NDP was the only party to say that would try to saave the government.

What the hell are talking about. The Conservatives were hell-bent on toppling the Government all along. The NDP was the only party to say that would try to saave the government.

Yesterday, Harper said that he would vote in favor of the original budget but not the NDP budget. Paul Martin could have made a deal that would keep his goverment alive for a short while and not reclessly spent money on the NDP.

And let me ask you this why save a goverment that is involved in Crime. :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo:

^Key part was... he said he would bote on the original one... whether he would have actually done it is another story... i for one dont this he would have... He was very adament over toppling the liberals.

The Liberal's arn't just criminal's they are very stupid aswell. They could have made a deal and passed a decent budget (the first budget that was voted on) with the conservitives but instead they showed their left wing extreamist side and passed the NDP's budget. Bribing MP's and dirty dealings with the NDP may save the Liberals for now but all it has really done is prolong the shit train that is coming for Ottawa. Hopefull come January the people in Ontario will put down the crack pipe for abit and toss the Liberal's out of office. The Paul Martin legacy will be scandel and dividing the nation in to Ontario vs the rest of Canada.

No, that's not what has transpired. First, Harper harped about supporting the budget, then he harped that he wouldn't. When the dirt got out about Adscam, and the polls showed that he could beat the Liberals in an election, he let his blind ambition over rule any small amount of common sense he possessed and decide to vote against the Budget. Then, some Conservatives from the Atlantic provinces harped to Harper that the Atlantic Accord must go through, so he decided to support the Budget and vote against the amendment to it (2nd vote). The reason for the amendent was that the Libs had to make a deal with the NDP, because Harper changed his mind on supporting the Budget after he saw the polls. On top of that, at the most critical moment Harper harped at Belinda and got her so upset that she jumped ship. So what does Harper do? He harps that billionaire Belinda who was once in charge of 72,000 employees at Magna International moved to the Liberals because of her ambitions. The dumb ass Harper ought to understand that if ambition was her motive, Belinda would have simply gone back to Magna International for a multi-million dollar pay cheque.

He was very adament over toppling the liberals.

And for good reason. At the very least they should be kick out of goverment, since some Liberal MP belong in Jail.

And for good reason. At the very least they should be kick out of goverment, since some Liberal MP belong in Jail.

Kick out the Libs so we can hire a new bunch of Conservative crooks. Or... we are willing to give Martin the benefit of the doubt.

Understand one thing, the worst government that Canada has had (in my life) was the Conservative Mal-Ruiny Government. They had huge deficits, raised taxes greatly and reduced services. Remember who it was who said now it's our turn to get our noses in the trough?

spent money on the NDP.


Yes, because ALL that money is going straight to the NDP, 5 billion into Layton`s own bank account. :|

By negotiating a deal with the NDP, Martin showed that the Liberals still care for the average Canadian; you and I. The average Canadian that is tired of seeing homeless people by the hundreds in our cities and wants more affordable housing, the average Canadian that wants to see more money in tertiary education, the average Canadian that wants to see more money in health care, the average Canadian that wants less corporate welfare and more social welfare. The deal demonstrated the beauty of minority governments.

I guess you Conservatives would rather see services cut across the board, multi-million tax breaks for corporations, see that those sinful homoscsuals don't ruin our "family values," give every person in Canada a gun because "God-forbid" we might see those immigrants and those French invade our suburban homes or our Alberta ranches...

When will ignorant hicks in backwater provinces (ie. Alberta) stop sending Conservative retards to represent them in Ottawa?!

|A|, you started out that post quite well, but you then allowed it to degrade into petty name-calling and stereotypes.

Not that crazyjoeda's "all Liberals are crooks" argument was any better, nor his "Ontarians putting down their crack pipes" remark. Just because the House of Commons lacks civility doesn't mean we should follow suit.

As for the topic at hand...

The Liberals as a whole are stained by the scandal, but in particular it'll be good to have all the details finalised before heading to the polls. Besides the scandal, I rather like the party... though I doubt I'll cast my ballot for them in the next election.

As for Harper... I see this attempt at toppling the government as an act of impatience and insecurity. It seemed to me like he didn't believe his party could retain its surge in popularity, and that the Conservatives would lose rather than gain supporters over time. The scandal is most certainly a nice boost for his party, but if he ever wants to find himself in a majority (or even minority) government, he has to convince Canadians that the Conservatives have the superior social/economic agenda. I've heard him say the word "corrupt" so many times over the past year that it's beginning to lose its resonance.

I'm glad the election was put off for now. If it were held in a month, I would vote... but it wouldn't be for the Liberals or the Conservatives.

For those who would oversimplify Canadian politics into an East vs. West argument, remember that there is not a single province or territory in the country that votes unanimously in favour of any one party. The "first-past-the-post" principle obscures the political complexity of Alberta (not all Conservative), Ontario (not all Liberal), Quebec (not all BQ), etc.

^^ Very good point.

When will ignorant hicks in backwater provinces (ie. Alberta) stop sending Conservative retards to represent them in Ottawa?!

There is absolutely no other way I can put this, so simply... FUCK YOU! :bleep:

Why hasn't this bigot been banned yet? This is the second time in a single week that he's gone spewing the same shit (at least in this one forum).

... for now.

Belinda Stronach, Chuck Cadman, Layton's NDP, the Speaker of the House and our Prime Minister, the Right Hounourable Paul Martin and his team have all saved the nation from the venomous Conservatives and the even more spiteful Bloc Quebecois.

Canada can sleep safe and sound tonight, but Canadians will be called to vote again in January. From now until the elctions we must work hard to keep the country together, I can feel it in the air in Montreal; the sparatist movement is getting ready for another attack, the Conservatives would only slipt the nation even more by anatagonizing Quebec. We can't allow Gomery and the measly couple of millions that were stolen by a very FEW number of Liberals (who will be prosecuted by the law once the report is published) destroy Canada.

We must stop the Conservatives and the Bloc from destroying Canada. I applaud our Prime Minister and all those who worked so hard to impede the government and ultimately the country from falling.


lol holy shit dude take go smoke some weed and chill out :banana:

One of the problems with the Conservatives is that they appear to have less aptitude to keep this country in one piece. The Conservatives would be much more willing to say - Let Quebec go their own way if that's what they want, and then we can get on with our own agenda. Regardless of the present scandal, the Liberals have a better chance in the long run, depending on how long it takes Quebec to forget about this mess. However, every move made recently by all parties just wreaks of political opportunism, under the guise of their own vision of national unity, and what is best for Canada.

[QUOTE=|A|]From now until the elctions we must work hard to keep the country together, I can feel it in the air in Montreal; the sparatist movement is getting ready for another attackQUOTE]

I know exactly what you meen, I thought I was the only one who noticed this. With two of the most popular groups in Quebec being Les Cowboys Fringants and Loco Locass (very openly separatists), the separatist message is really getting out there. I'm surprised at the fact that there is no media coverage about this in the ROC. People who do not follow french media would have no clue of what is going on here.

Anyways, as for the Liberals saving Canada, I'm not sure about that. I guess you're somewhat right about the fact that the Liberals are a little less unpopular than the conservatives, but I dont really think that is the issue. I think the sponsorship scandal hurt the liberals alot, but the biggest hit was taken by federalism and federalists in Quebec.

If you want to save Canada, you should worry more about the image of federalists in Quebec, cause it really is'nt doing very well right now.

Poor ole Conservatives. Can't shake off the 'reform party' image in 'central canada' (just a code word for Ontario). What conservatives need to do:

- elect an ontario based leader

Poor ole Conservatives. Can't shake off the 'reform party' image in 'central canada' (just a code word for Ontario). What conservatives need to do:

- elect an ontario based leader


thats what Belinda Stronach was supposed to be... for some reason they thought Harper would lead them to glory. Oops!

Kick out the Libs so we can hire a new bunch of Conservative crooks. Or... we are willing to give Martin the benefit of the doubt.

Understand one thing, the worst government that Canada has had (in my life) was the Conservative Mal-Ruiny Government. They had huge deficits, raised taxes greatly and reduced services. Remember who it was who said now it's our turn to get our noses in the trough?

There is no doubt and calling the Conservatives crooks is total bullshit. The Progressive Conservative Government of the 80's is not the same party that is lead by Steven Harper, the Canadian Alliance took over the PC and changed its name to the Conservative party which has very similar values but is hardly the same party. And officially the most corrupt government is the current Liberal government.

By negotiating a deal with the NDP, Martin showed that the Liberals still care for the average Canadian; you and I.

If the average Canadian felt that way Jake Layton would be the PM with a majority NDP government :lol: . Instead the NDP is a glorified fringe party with extreme and dangerous left wing views.

When will ignorant hicks in backwater provinces (ie. Alberta) stop sending Conservative retards to represent them in Ottawa?!

People in Alberta are way smarter then people in Ontario, who continue to support a government that is under investigation for theft of tax dollars, a government so irresponsible that it wastes over 2billion dollars on a gun registry, a government so incompetent with the mad cow crisis that the opposition party has formed a lobby group and has made more headway then the governing liberals.

^ Damn straight.


Alberta is much smarter (and wealthier) than Ontario. Why are people in the west automatically hicks? The people who think that are obviously the uneducated ones.

People in Alberta are way smarter then people in Ontario, who continue to support a government that is under investigation for theft of tax dollars, a government so irresponsible that it wastes over 2billion dollars on a gun registry, a government so incompetent with the mad cow crisis that the opposition party has formed a lobby group and has made more headway then the governing liberals.


yet they're still better than the Conservatives... that's impressive!

I can't vote conservative on a few principles... the Iraq war (Harper wanted more involvement), Gay rights, and for siding with the Bloc. I'd vote NDP if it weren't for the fear of weakening the Liberals (in other words, anything but Conservatives). And I somehow doubt the 'new' conservatives are any better than the old, for whom I'm not quite done punishing yet. There you have it.

disclaimer: that's not to say I'm brand loyal... I've voted for PC, Reform, Liberal, NDP and Green in the past, provincially and federally... so there! :)

There is no doubt and calling the Conservatives crooks is total bullshit. The Progressive Conservative Government of the 80's is not the same party that is lead by Steven Harper, the Canadian Alliance took over the PC and changed its name to the Conservative party which has very similar values but is hardly the same party. And officially the most corrupt government is the current Liberal government.

Fiscally, PC and the current Conservative party are similar, but they diverge a bit on social issues. Personally, I distrust the current Conserative Party(at least its Reform-Alliance Elements), and would rather vote for an alternative that emulates the BC Liberals. Stephen Harper is the downfall of the Conservative party, and should be booted for the welfare of the party.

BTW, Harper's from Ontario, but he just doesn't appeal to Ontarians. ;) Wrong tactic, Conservatives. You'll have a better chance winning if you pick a Westerner that reflects moderate Conservative values.

BTW, Harper's from Ontario, but he just doesn't appeal to Ontarians. ;) Wrong tactic, Conservatives. You'll have a better chance winning if you pick a Westerner that reflects moderate Conservative values.


I didn't know that..... I'll bet he's paid by the Liberals to be a useless leader, in light of the killer Stronach move. Don't trust us Ontarians!

BTW, Harper's from Ontario, but he just doesn't appeal to Ontarians. ;) Wrong tactic, Conservatives. You'll have a better chance winning if you pick a Westerner that reflects moderate Conservative values.

WHAT!!!!

Did he move out west when he was 1 minute old??? Or born on board an airplane on route to the cowpile?

"thats what Belinda Stronach was supposed to be... for some reason they thought Harper would lead them to glory. Oops! "

Yea man...have the Conservatives ever screwed the pooch. Their real hope switched sides...the goof they are stuck with failed at his non-confidence coo. This whole "Conservative/Reform/Alliance" experiment should just be called for what it is...a failure to create any kind of political party that can work.

I bet Harper wishes he was back in the days when he was Deborah Grey's lacky. That, and maybe he should drop that jehova's Witness look he has going.






KGB

coo?

WHAT!!!!

Did he move out west when he was 1 minute old??? Or born on board an airplane on route to the cowpile?

Whats that cowpile BS about? I would rather live in Calgary then that dive of city know as hog town.

I didn't know that..... I'll bet he's paid by the Liberals to be a useless leader, in light of the killer Stronach move. Don't trust us Ontarians!

lol.

I remember this because my friend (recent graduate) told me he was a graduate of Richview CI (Etobickoe).. :)

Whats that cowpile BS about? I would rather live in Calgary then that dive of city know as hog town.

Actual, I was referring to a pile of cow dung on a ranch - didn't know someone would refer to it as calgary. But, don't worry, I already knew you felt that way about 'hog town'. Its quite obvious in your other posts.

I don't think so...Harper is genuinely not playing with a full deck.

This is the guy who sent a congratulatory letter on independence from Britain to the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres (native Canadians). Didn't apologize either.

Says that any comparison between civil rights and gay rights is "vile", and voted against including sexual orientation in hate propaganda laws.

Doesn't support the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, because he doesn't believe global warming has anything to do with humans...he believes that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth togethter 5000 years ago....kinda like the Flintstones I guess.

The Neo-Nazi party loves him though.

I don't want this wack-job mowing my lawn, let alone running the country.







KGB

Hopefull come January the people in Ontario will put down the crack pipe for abit and toss the Liberal's out of office. The Paul Martin legacy will be scandel and dividing the nation in to Ontario vs the rest of Canada.
Oh piss off wanker.

There is no doubt and calling the Conservatives crooks is total bullshit.

Sorry, but it isn't. Just how do you think the Reform Party got its start? The Conservatives would give uncompetitive contracts to firms that were very close (and helpful) to the Conservative Party when Mal-Ruiney was in charge.

The Progressive Conservative Government of the 80's is not the same party that is lead by Steven Harper, the Canadian Alliance took over the PC and changed its name to the Conservative party which has very similar values but is hardly the same party. And officially the most corrupt government is the current Liberal government.

The problem with your statement is that you paint an entire party with the same brush. The corrupt part of the party is a portion of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party - and they will be dealt with.

The funny thing here, is that I was a Reform supporter, and voted Conservative before they existed. The Conservatives blew it, and the Reformers where essentially a fringe party.

For the new Conservative Party to succeed, they have to put their Bibles down for a minute and get a leader from Ontario who'll be seen as a moderate.

If the average Canadian felt that way Jake Layton would be the PM with a majority NDP government :lol: . Instead the NDP is a glorified fringe party with extreme and dangerous left wing views.

Perhaps "dangerous" isn't quite the right word. I agree they would be bad for the economy.


People in Alberta are way smarter then people in Ontario, who continue to support a government that is under investigation for theft of tax dollars, a government so irresponsible that it wastes over 2billion dollars on a gun registry, a government so incompetent with the mad cow crisis that the opposition party has formed a lobby group and has made more headway then the governing liberals.


People in Alberta are not smarter than people in Ontario. I know this because you wrote "then" when you should have used "than". ;)

I agree with you on the gun registry - a total waste of money - except I don't think they have spent $2 billion on it yet. The Conservatives wanted to waste other moneys on their own projects - like sending troopes to Iraq.

I don't think you can blame the Liberals (who I'm not a big supporter of) for the actions of the Americans.

Alberta is much smarter (and wealthier) than Ontario. Why are people in the west automatically hicks? The people who think that are obviously the uneducated ones.

The typical home in Ontario is much nicer than the typical home in Alberta - and worth more too.

As far as which is "smarter" just don't be foolish enough to bet any money on some Alberta University beating the University of Waterloo in some computer programming competition, because they'd get blown out of the water. ;)

coo?

I think he meant "coup".

I don't think so...Harper is genuinely not playing with a full deck.

This is the guy who sent a congratulatory letter on independence from Britain to the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres (native Canadians). Didn't apologize either.

Says that any comparison between civil rights and gay rights is "vile", and voted against including sexual orientation in hate propaganda laws.

Doesn't support the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, because he doesn't believe global warming has anything to do with humans...he believes that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth togethter 5000 years ago....kinda like the Flintstones I guess.

The Neo-Nazi party loves him though.

I don't want this wack-job mowing my lawn, let alone running the country.


KGB

You're thinking of Stockwell Day, now THERE'S a reason I won't ever vote Conservative. Harper's past outside of the NCC and politics is very vague. I have no idea how religious he is or what his background is. I know he went to a very upscale highschool in western Toronto, but that's about it.

During the last election, Stephen Harper ALMOST had me not afraid (i still wouldn't have voted for them). Then some of his extremest elements/counterparts started talking and he didn't discount them (abortion, gay rights, health care when Klein opened his trapper). Funny, as he didn't seem to give the same silent treatment when Belinda talked about supporting the budget.

There have been very moderate westerners elected. Joe Clark is from Alberta, remember. It doesn't matter where a leader is from, so long as I feel she/he represents my views. If joe clarke was around as the PC head, I probably would have voted for him in the next election instead of the Green party. That choice is no longer around, though. Greens it is!

The Conservative Party has no direction. Other than gay marriage, they've taken few stands outside of the scandal. They HAVE to adopt some progressive views or they'll never crack 35% of the vote. Just saying that they'll wait for the liberals to say something on healthcare and then emulate their platform is going to do little to inspire me.

The main reason I would never vote for Harper is due to his lies about sending Canadian troopes to Iraq. I saw him on FoxNews (US media) twice, where he clearly indicated that he thought Canada should send troopes to Iraq. When it became clear that that would be very unpopular with Canadians, he denied any such thing. He is a very poor liar, and I can't support support him for that reason alone.

I also don't like his damned crocodile smile. That is exactly how he looked (a smiling croc) when giving his speech after losing the non-confidence vote - yes, he was all smiles after losing. What a G.D. phony.

The typical home in Ontario is much nicer than the typical home in Alberta - and worth more too.

You know little of what you're talking about. Toronto is much older than any western city and the golden horseshoe has a huge population. Of course land there is going to be more valuable.

My only complaint of Edmonton or Calgary, is that they don't have nearly the numbers of nice old former streetcar suburbs that eastern canada has. I see those places as ideal living. Sure, they have them, but not anywhere near the availability that the other side of the country has. This is historical. If you liked new (post '50s) houses, then either would be fine with you.

You know little of what you're talking about. Toronto is much older than any western city and the golden horseshoe has a huge population. Of course land there is going to be more valuable.

Toronto is also much newer than any western city! Just compare housing starts stats.

I'm sorry dude, but I know a little more than you. I was born, raised and educated in Ontario, and have seen nearly every town and city in Ontario (lived there for 25 years). I also spent 15 years living in Alberta, so I know what I'm talking about. Obviously, you haven't compared the new communities in Alberta's main cities verses those in Ontario. Many of Ontario's old homes are brick or stone and are rather nice looking IMO. Alberta has too many tiny old stucco homes that look crappy. Most of Calgary's new homes are the type that you can reach out your window and just about touch your neighbor's house.

By the way, the value of Victoria's real estate is higher than Toronto's, yet it has a small population.

The main reason I would never vote for Harper is due to his lies about sending Canadian troopes to Iraq. I saw him on FoxNews (US media) twice, where he clearly indicated that he thought Canada should send troopes to Iraq. When it became clear that that would be very unpopular with Canadians, he denied any such thing. He is a very poor liar, and I can't support support him for that reason alone.

I also don't like his damned crocodile smile. That is exactly how he looked (a smiling croc) when giving his speech after losing the non-confidence vote - yes, he was all smiles after losing. What a G.D. phony.


So instead, Canada sent sailors on destroyers and frigates to command alllied fleets and protect American aircraft carriers as they launch fighters against Iraq...

Canada is so principled...

Kick out the Libs so we can hire a new bunch of Conservative crooks. Or... we are willing to give Martin the benefit of the doubt.

Understand one thing, the worst government that Canada has had (in my life) was the Conservative Mal-Ruiny Government. They had huge deficits, raised taxes greatly and reduced services. Remember who it was who said now it's our turn to get our noses in the trough?


Those deficits were inherited from Trudeau who committed Canada to huge social spending initiatives that continued to grow into the Mulroney years. The Mulroney government had in fact balanced their operating budget and also cut income taxes (only to have them clawed back by some provinces) but sky-high interest rates complicated Canada's finances further. Reduced services attest to the Mulroney government's deficit fighting measures.

Mulroney was ultimately vindicated when the Liberals maintained the hated GST and free-trade agreements. The GST being necessary to cancel the hidden manufacturer's tax so exporters can compete and create jobs.

So instead, Canada sent sailors on destroyers and frigates to command alllied fleets and protect American aircraft carriers as they launch fighters against Iraq...

Canada is so principled...

Actually, Canada had ships in the Middle East to support the war on terrorism long before the US decided to oust Saddam. Canadian ships didn't support the War on Iraq.

It is true however, that a small number of Canadian sailors served on US ships - who were part of an exchange program - during the Iraq War. I agree that Canada should have pulled them off those ships.

Those deficits were inherited from Trudeau who committed Canada to huge social spending initiatives that continued to grow into the Mulroney years. The Mulroney government had in fact balanced their operating budget and also cut income taxes (only to have them clawed back by some provinces) but sky-high interest rates complicated Canada's finances further. Reduced services attest to the Mulroney government's deficit fighting measures.

Nah, I'm not referring to the Trudeau deficits - which were small in comparison to the Mulroney deficits (of around $45 billion per year). Mulroney raised taxes big time and that caused the economy to slow and increased unemployment, which lead to even higher deficits. Meanwhile, the Feds were paying a smaller percentage to finance healthcare spending.

Mulroney was ultimately vindicated when the Liberals maintained the hated GST and free-trade agreements. The GST being necessary to cancel the hidden manufacturer's tax so exporters can compete and create jobs.

LOL! That hardly vindicated the Mulroney years. You can believe what you will, but circa 1995, Canadian voters nearly wiped the 'Progressive Conservatives' out of existance because of the mess Mulroney created for the country.

Perhaps the major problem with the GST was that it wasn't tax neutral - they should have lowered income taxes when it was brought in. Yes, they got rid of the manufacturers' tax (13 % I think), but they taxed many more things. The GST increased the tax load greatly, and was a big pain for businesses to administer - especially in Alberta were they had no PST. I know, because I had to go through all the bs with it.

I think that Algonquin has the healthiest attitude here so far. I disagree with his current assessment of things but that he's willing to consider things from a step back is good. No brand loyalty is the key that I respect here.

I will grudgingly admit that we are better off for the time being to have the Libs stay in power. Naturally, they have thrown us some tidbits to keep their heads above water but we'll see if people remember this come January. Nevertheless, without specifically pointing anybody out, the party is crooked. It's plain to see. Nobody has to vote for the Conservatives but it's mind boggling when people refuse to vote for anybody but the Liberals. This absurd notion that only the Liberals can provide for all Canadians is downright naive. Especially when I see comments stating that the "....Liberals care about the working class..." (a paraphrase but the same gyst) Since when did any political party actually care about the people that voted it into office ? Please, that's so intensely naive it borders on stupidity.

As for the whole "only viable alternative" line....how so ? Layton would be more than happy to force gay marriage through Parliament. He'd also be more than happy to see to it that all your socialist dreams come true. Fiscal conservative ? Of course not but what are you going to say ? The Liberals are giving away our money to their friends. They're wasting it on gun registries that do nothing whatsoever except cost money. They aren't investing it in our crumbling highways, defense, or post-secondary institutions (except when they need to buy some popularity like right now) so how would Layton make things worse?

Yeah I despise the NDP but I don't figure they'd be any worse than what we've got. For that matter they'd get my vote in a contest between them and the Lib's simply because they aren't proven crooks. So keep right on hating the Conservatives if you want but please, stop with this nonsense about how the Liberals are the best thing we have. For the love of God, THEY'RE CORRUPT !

"You're thinking of Stockwell Day"


Well, they may be two peas from the same pod, but no...I'm not mixing them up.







"So keep right on hating the Conservatives if you want but please, stop with this nonsense about how the Liberals are the best thing we have. For the love of God, THEY'RE CORRUPT ! "


Yea, but the Conservatives (and any political party really) also has corrupt, dishonest crooks and cronnies. It's only the ones in power that get's the attention....it's all a wash as far as that goes.

The difference is in their basic principals and agendas....and I mean, I just can't accept the racist, theological wackyness of any "conservative" group.

Do the Liberals have these people too? Of course they do...ya think Martin or his cronnies are any less conservative in their personal feelings than Conservatives? Hell no. I'm sure martin, as a good Catholic, thinks gays are as sick as Harper does. The difference is, they put them aside, because the principals of our constitution don't support that kind of thing.






KGB

^ Damn straight.


Alberta is much smarter (and wealthier) than Ontario. Why are people in the west automatically hicks? The people who think that are obviously the uneducated ones.

No, people in the west are not autmatically hicks. People in south-western BC are not, a lot of people in Manitoba are not, etc. i.e. the non-Conservative ridings. ;)

In other words, Conservatives ARE the hicks and not westerners.

Actually, Canada had ships in the Middle East to support the war on terrorism long before the US decided to oust Saddam. Canadian ships didn't support the War on Iraq.

It is true however, that a small number of Canadian sailors served on US ships - who were part of an exchange program - during the Iraq War. I agree that Canada should have pulled them off those ships.


Americans don't really make the distinction between the "war on terror" and the war in Iraq, but for Canadian politicians, it's an issue of semantics as one war is more politically expedient than the other. In reality, if you help Americans in one way, you help them help themselves in another. Canadian naval forces in the gulf help enable the Americans to deflect attention and resources from the gulf and then concentrate on Iraq or elsewhere.


USS George Washington Departs Arabian Gulf
In-Depth Coverage Navy Newsstand

Story Number: NNS040706-26
Release Date: 7/6/2004 4:41:00 PM

By Chief Journalist (SW/AW/IUSS) Henry Rice, USS George Washington Public Affairs

USS GEORGE WASH INGTON, At Sea (NNS) -- USS George Washington (GW) (CVN 73) departed the Arabian Gulf July 5, following more than four months on station providing air support for ground troops fighting in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).

GW will now continue to participate in “Summer Pulse ’04,” the simultaneous deployment of seven aircraft carrier strike groups (CSG), demonstrating the ability of the Navy to provide credible combat force across the globe in five theaters with other U.S. and coalition military forces.

Arriving in the Gulf March 1, GW and embarked Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 7 conducted more than 7,000 sorties, 1,500 of which were directly engaged in OIF. The ships assigned to the George Washington Strike Group, USS Vella Gulf (CG 72), USS Bulkeley (DDG 84), HMCS Toronto (FFH 333) and USNS Supply (T-AOE-6) have initiated or been involved in more than 200 boardings of merchant vessels during maritime intervention operations and logged more than 12,000 surface contacts in the Arabian Gulf.

USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) is scheduled to arrive on station in the Gulf some time later this month, and will pick up where GW left off, supporting coalition forces on the ground in Iraq and providing stability in the region.

www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/07/mil-040706-nns01.htm

Canada aiding and abetting the war in Iraq...
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_images/ship_site_images/ship_gallery/333/Manoeuvres.jpg

Nah, I'm not referring to the Trudeau deficits - which were small in comparison to the Mulroney deficits (of around $45 billion per year). Mulroney raised taxes big time and that caused the economy to slow and increased unemployment, which lead to even higher deficits. Meanwhile, the Feds were paying a smaller percentage to finance healthcare spending.



LOL! That hardly vindicated the Mulroney years. You can believe what you will, but circa 1995, Canadian voters nearly wiped the 'Progressive Conservatives' out of existance because of the mess Mulroney created for the country.

Perhaps the major problem with the GST was that it wasn't tax neutral - they should have lowered income taxes when it was brought in. Yes, they got rid of the manufacturers' tax (13 % I think), but they taxed many more things. The GST increased the tax load greatly, and was a big pain for businesses to administer - especially in Alberta were they had no PST. I know, because I had to go through all the bs with it.


The GST supposedly lowered the tax burden on goods (manufactured here, which was the whole point) but obviously not services. The Liberals campaigned on getting rid of the GST and free trade and yet it remains... and the Liberals actually having championed the cause in South America because the benefits of free trade are obvious and it was Mulroney that made it possible with the U.S.

The Mulroney deficit was largely a function of interest rates that also dampened jobs and the economy. Mulroney did have a balanced operating budget.

Yea, but the Conservatives (and any political party really) also has corrupt, dishonest crooks and cronnies. It's only the ones in power that get's the attention....it's all a wash as far as that goes.

The difference is in their basic principals and agendas....and I mean, I just can't accept the racist, theological wackyness of any "conservative" group.

Do the Liberals have these people too? Of course they do...ya think Martin or his cronnies are any less conservative in their personal feelings than Conservatives? Hell no. I'm sure martin, as a good Catholic, thinks gays are as sick as Harper does. The difference is, they put them aside, because the principals of our constitution don't support that kind of thing.

KGB
I believe you're absolutely correct in your summary of all political parties. I don't buy that the Conservatives are racists or necessarily theological wackos (although they undoubtedly harbour more than their fair share of them)

Don't forget however that Harper has promised the same rights to gays as the Liberals currently have. I believe that you would be correct in stating that the odds are better of getting absolutely all your demands met through the Liberals though. From this angle, I can understand your disinclination to vote any way but Liberal.

The point just has to be hammered home though : We know that the Liberals are corrupt. We have proof that they are but we only lack the specific identities of the parties involved. Yes, to some degree it's a matter of principle. Probably the lion's share of my opinion to not vote Liberal this time around is just that ; they have stolen from us and we know it. Some people argue that it's only pennies to each of us. Nonsense ! 100 million dollars pays alot of doctor's salaries, repaves plenty of highways, and purchases alot of MRI's . Nevertheless, this is the gyst of my position : If the Liberals are re-elected we are setting a precedent. The implicit message is that you can do anything you want if your re-election propaganda is good enough.

We simply can't let them get away with this. Yes, they'll all probably do the same but we can't sanction it can we ? We would be doing just that by re-electing these clowns. If not the Liberals, vote for somebody else. The Greens and the NDP are just as likely to deliver on most promises made by the Liberal social engineering department as the crooks themselves (if not more likely) Vote for the Lib's next time round but frankly, it's a sorry state of affairs in Ottawa when the ruling party can get caught swindling the public and the public re-elects them anyway. Heck, even though I abhor the NDP, Layton is probably the most honest one of all of them (which isn't to give him too much credit BTW) despite his rather radical leanings. I can understand why many don't like Harper (and I'll even admit that these forums have given me pause to reflect on his character which I readily admit I was ignorant of beforehand) although I'd still vote for the party. The point is that the Liberals are not the only party and neither are the Conservatives.

The basic tactical blunders over the past few weeks clearly illustrate that the Conservatives are no match for the Liberals. Not only did Harper overplay a weak hand, but he showed everyone the cards. In his quest for power, he forgot that the object of the game is not to win, but rather avoid losing!

The problem with Harper is that we've only seen very specific sides of him. I was reading an article (http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2005/05/21/1049783-sun.html) that essentially said that Harper tries too hard to give a very slick image.

Think about it. You'll have a very hard time finding a picture of him not wearing a very rigid suit and without the same dorky haircut. Why not roll up the sleeves and have a beer with some vetrans? Why not go skiing with some other members of his caucus? Go to a hockey (not NHL of course ;-) game and wear jeans. Get into a sandbox or a snowball fight with some kids. Go hunting (show that hunting rilfes are not the problem). Spit, swear, cry, SOMETHING other than a crooked smile and anger.

The way he talks about his family or families in general gives me the impression that he beleives most women still stay at home while the man works, even though I know he cannot be that ignorant. The way he talks about healthcare gives me the impression that while he won't change the way medicare works, he doesn't genuinly believe what he's saying. That doesn't inspire me, very much. On top of that, reform is needed in healthcare, and he's preventing any way of that happening.

The Conservative party was mostly an Alliance takeover. I think few people will disagree on this. While the party voting system is setup to give regions a fairly strong voice, most of the members that are active still come from the Alliance side.

If you read the linked article, you'll see that the conservatives don't appeal to minority, young, urban, and female voters. When 70% of Ontarians live within a 2 hour drive of the country's largest city, you're not going to get very far in that environment.

Harper is going to have to:
-enforce a party whip and actually SAY he's going to prevent his caucus from intorducing anti-abortion legislation (even as a private member's bill)
-talk less about families and more about people
-find a way to help students while not adding to their debt
-go so far as to push to extend immigration and make it easier for their extened families to follow suit
-offer to replace the gun registry with other tough gun control laws
-replace the current stance on gay marriage with a more libertarian stance. Civil unions for everybody, leave the term "marriage" as something society can determine the meaning for
-let ALL the provinces know that the federal government is not going anywhere. There will be stumbling over each other's stomping grounds and it's a normal function of a healthy democracy.
-most canadians would like to see less taxes. He needs to emphasize this less . Whenever Harper talks he sounds like he's preaching instead of saying "this is the way we COULD do things, what do you guys think?". Parliament is not church. You have to convince us, not tell us. That is how politicians should talk to us. (to be fair, the other party leaders do the same)

I think that Algonquin has the healthiest attitude here so far. I disagree with his current assessment of things but that he's willing to consider things from a step back is good. No brand loyalty is the key that I respect here.



I've noticed that as well, in a more general sense...

The problem with Harper is that we've only seen very specific sides of him. I was reading an article (http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2005/05/21/1049783-sun.html) that essentially said that Harper tries too hard to give a very slick image.

Think about it. You'll have a very hard time finding a picture of him not wearing a very rigid suit and without the same dorky haircut. Why not roll up the sleeves and have a beer with some vetrans? Why not go skiing with some other members of his caucus? Go to a hockey (not NHL of course ;-) game and wear jeans. Get into a sandbox or a snowball fight with some kids. Go hunting (show that hunting rilfes are not the problem). Spit, swear, cry, SOMETHING other than a crooked smile and anger.

lol. Beacause he might end up looking like Stockwell Day, lol.

http://www.statesmanorskatesman.co.uk/day1.jpg http://members.shaw.ca/flickharrison/stock/stocksign.jpg
http://www.phil.mq.edu.au/staff/grestall/log/images/DayPetition.jpg

^LOL. Yeah, maybe Harper will end up looking like Stockwell - I can't wait for that Day.

Possibly even more trouble for Harper...

Tory MP apologizes for use of 'inappropriate' language to describe Japanese

WINNIPEG (CP) - Conservative MP Steven Fletcher has apologized for referring to Japanese soldiers as "Japs" and "bastards" at a convention.

The Winnipeg politician's admission of using "language that was inappropriate" came Saturday after some Japanese-Canadians and Canadian veterans said they were upset about the MP's remarks.

Hayden Kent, president of the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans Unit 283, said he was taken aback by Fletcher's comments at an annual veterans' convention in Winnipeg last weekend.

According to Kent and two other sources, the rookie MP was describing his grandfather's wartime experience when he said "the Japs were bastards."

In a statement of apology, Fletcher said his family's personal experiences during the Second World War had given him "a very emotional perspective" on the events of the time.

"I allowed those emotions to colour my remarks," he added. "I should have chosen more appropriate language, and will do so in the future. I apologize for any offence I may have caused, and retract my choice of words without reservation."

Earlier, Fletcher had said the comments were made in reference to the past and reflect the historical terminology of the time.

"I stand by the fact that the Japanese were ruthless," he said. "If people want to challenge me on that, I look forward to it."

"Japs" was a word commonly used to describe Japanese people during the Second World War, even in newspaper headlines, but has come to be considered an ethnic slur.

Keiko Miki, past-president of the National Association of Japanese Canadians, had said she was surprised and hurt by Fletcher's comments.

"We'd like an explanation about why he is so ignorant at this point in time," said Miki. "I think we need to meet with him and verify the comments. If he doesn't deny them, we need to explain our position in this."

Fletcher's grandfather was captured by the Japanese after the fall of Singapore and held in a prisoner-of-war camp. At the camp, Allied soldiers were used as forced labour to help build the railroad depicted in the movie Bridge over the River Kwai.

"They used my grandfather's friend for bayonet practice," said Fletcher. "They put my grandfather on a raft when he was ill to die. They shot people indiscriminately.

"In the context of the time, in World War II, they treated people in ways that were barbaric and disgusting, and it should never be forgotten, and it should never be allowed to happen again."

Kent said Fletcher was there to bring greetings from the federal government as part of the conference's May 14 morning kickoff, and his remarks surprised many veterans.

"I understand his feelings about what his grandfather went through, but that wasn't the time or the place," Kent said. "If we'd had a person of Japanese descent on the convention floor, how would that person have felt? We have to forgive."

^Poor choice of words for sure but hardly the height of ignorance. He said that "The Japs were bastards" Well, at the time, the Japanese soldiers WERE bastards. I doubt you'd ever hear much nicer said from anybody in the countries the Imperial Japanese Army conquered.

In any case, yup, as a politician that was pretty stupid. Hardly requiring some special politically correct sensitivity training (i.e. brainwashing ) but still stupid in light of the fact that he represents Japanese Canadians for certain.

lol. Beacause he might end up looking like Stockwell Day, lol.

There's a difference between looking like a goof and not looking like a stiff. We've all seen clips of Martin playing with kids in day care centres, McKay in jeans at his father's farm, or Belinda riding horses.

Harper reminds me to much of my bosses at work. To me, Harper has no personal life and therefore to me it's almost as like he's not a normal person. The fact that it's so difficult to get information on his past makes it even worse. You can find very detailed information on where Jack Layton was (a vocal Toronto city counciler) or Martin (Canada steamship lines; he was a really good businessman), but Harper was a policy wonk for the reform party and headed a very secretive organization (national citizens coalition). I like to know about the people who are representing me!

"Possibly even more trouble for Harper..."


Probably not from his perspective.

Remember, this is a guy who hired as his media spokesperson in the 2002 Alliance leadership bid....a former Winnipeg radio jock, who was fired for saying "diesel dykes are running the school board".

This is the guy who refused to revoke the nomination of Conservative candidate Joe Li for referring to immigrants as "garbage".

This is the guy who's immigration policy refers to focusing on attracting immigrants who can best integrate into the “Canadian fabric” (read mostly white, mostly Europeans).

In his own words: “West of Winnipeg, the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettos, and who are not integrated into western Canadian society.”

This is the guy who attracts members of the Neo-Nazi Alliance and the Heritage Front.

He's a blatent racist.

There's only two reasons for this...either he's just stupid (like the retard who doesn't know he's retarded)...or he's simply taking a page out of his beloved American Republican election policies....simply appeal to the right wing vote, as to secure it 100%, and hope enough of the moderates will swing it in your favour.






KGB

or he's simply taking a page out of his beloved American Republican election policies....simply appeal to the right wing vote, as to secure it 100%, and hope enough of the moderates will swing it in your favour.


It worked like a charm last time around, with the help of some meddlesome Guardian readers who clinched Ohio for W ;)

Monkey-see, monkey-do...

There's a difference between looking like a goof and not looking like a stiff. We've all seen clips of Martin playing with kids in day care centres, McKay in jeans at his father's farm, or Belinda riding horses.

Acting casually may be so foreign to him, that he'll end up looking like a goof, lol. :)

Wow, you guys are really working yourselves up into a fine anti-Harper frenzy here.

The guy isn't really political leader material but he's hardly the second coming of Hitler.

lol. Beacause he might end up looking like Stockwell Day, lol.

http://www.statesmanorskatesman.co.uk/day1.jpg http://members.shaw.ca/flickharrison/stock/stocksign.jpg
http://www.phil.mq.edu.au/staff/grestall/log/images/DayPetition.jpg

I don't know what people have against Stockwell Day. He may not have seemed like a typical PM but he was undoubtably one of the most colourful politicians ever.

I think people in Ontario had to give their head a shake when Stock told them that the Niagara River flowed south when, in fact, it flows north over Niagara Falls into Lake Ontario.

He came across as somewhat awkward, and like a westerner who knew little about Ontario.

How would you take it if someone from Ontario - who wanted to be PM - thought that Vancouver was on Vancouver Island?

...or he's simply taking a page out of his beloved American Republican election policies....simply appeal to the right wing vote, as to secure it 100%, and hope enough of the moderates will swing it in your favour.

KGB

I think you hit the mark there KGB. To Harper, Canada is a mere subsidiary of the United States, and it should be governed as such.

"The guy isn't really political leader material but he's hardly the second coming of Hitler."


More of a Mussolini perhaps?

You seem like the perfect Harper convert....ya know what he does and says is wrong, but there's some bit of conservatism in you that makes you rationalize it all anyway.









"I don't know what people have against Stockwell Day."


Is that like a joke....errrr





KGB

You seem like the perfect Harper convert....ya know what he does and says is wrong, but there's some bit of conservatism in you that makes you rationalize it all anyway.



Well, that's pretty much how it works. Otherwise everyone would be a Liberal...

You seem like the perfect Harper convert....ya know what he does and says is wrong, but there's some bit of conservatism in you that makes you rationalize it all anyway.

Actually, no I don't know about how what he does and says is wrong but I'm sure you'll be more than happy to educate the masses on the evil that is Stephen Harper. lol

Then again, even if he was proven to be Canada's answer to the Dalai Lama you'd never allow yourself to believe it anyway. You've got your irrational beliefs and apparently I've got mine. No need to argue about it I suppose.

[
People in Alberta are way smarter then people in Ontario, who continue to support a government that is under investigation for theft of tax dollars, a government so irresponsible that it wastes over 2billion dollars on a gun registry, a government so incompetent with the mad cow crisis that the opposition party has formed a lobby group and has made more headway then the governing liberals.


we do it just to piss off the west, jk

if Ontarioians were really stupid, they would vote conservative which is just the old reform party under a thin veil. see Ontario's delima?

and really, the theft of tax dollars, thats not really going to piss of Ontario. we, along with alberta, have been seeing that for a decade. the theft peaked in 2001 at $28 billion. whats another $2 billion.

1: "People in Alberta are way smarter then people in Ontario"

2: "I don't know what people have against Stockwell Day."

3: You're from Vancouver

4: The word "crazy" is in your name.




Hold on, while I piece together a theory.






KGB

Wow, you guys are really working yourselves up into a fine anti-Harper frenzy here.

The guy isn't really political leader material but he's hardly the second coming of Hitler.

Ain't diggin Harper. Martin's a weasle. Duceppe and Layton are interesting characters but they'll never lead the country.

But the fact of the matter is the Conservatives scare Ontarians. We'd rather elects crooks to parliament than a "percieved group of yahoos" who call honourable members of parliament "whores" and suck up to the American right-wing with their apologies for not sending troops to Iraq.

If the Conservatives were really savvy, they'd boot Harper and replace him with a Quebecer. It's the only way they'll win a majority.

I think that Algonquin has the healthiest attitude here so far. I disagree with his current assessment of things but that he's willing to consider things from a step back is good. No brand loyalty is the key that I respect here.


I've noticed that as well, in a more general sense...

I'm intensely flattered. Some people might call me a political "whore" ;)

Pardon for using such a cliche, but the path to wisdom starts with knowing that you don't/can't know everything. Alot of people here are more in tune with current politics... I can hardly keep up with this thread, let alone current affairs. That doesn't stop me from being passionate about it though....

The other truth I do know is that democracy is useless if it's guided by misinformed citizens.

Personally, considering all circumstances, I think now is not the time to swing to the right. There will be a time and place for a conservative majority... but it's not now. Note our track record of government... it seems to me the best PM's come from the Liberal party.

Our best PMs DO come from the liberal party. But, the Liberal Party has had some problems recently.. I know!

They should re-brand them selves, with a new name, and be a "new" (yet old) political party, that would "accurately represent the views of all Canadians"! It worked for the Conservatives/Alliance/Reform/Progressive Conservatives/whatever-else-incarnation-they-may-have-existed-as-or-been-made-from!

Note: For ANYONE to ACCURATLY represent all views of all Canadians, we'd need a schizophrenic clost-bisexual, with a native, french, and english upbrining, living in Both Toronto, Montreal, and Obscure-Conserva-ville, Alberta, all at the same time! And he has to be opposed and for himself, at all times. And he should spend lots, too. and also be a she.

which points out how they're all wrong! But what do you expect? They're politicians! None of them are perfect, and all of them are corupt. I would support Peter McKay, but he's a crybaby!

And that proves, that even with, what, 5 major federal parties now? And at least 9 with candidates in my riding, I have absolutely no idea who to support....

They should re-brand them selves, with a new name, and be a "new" (yet old) political party, that would "accurately represent the views of all Canadians"! It worked for the Conservatives/Alliance/Reform/Progressive Conservatives/whatever-else-incarnation-they-may-have-existed-as-or-been-made-from!


Has it worked?

The Liberal brand is probably the only thing the Liberals have left. They don't want to mess with that.

They just need new Liberals with clean hands. The Gomery trial will hopefully make things clearer, and we'll have a new cabinet, and maybe a new PM.

Has it worked?

The Liberal brand is probably the only thing the Liberals have left. They don't want to mess with that.

They just need new Liberals with clean hands. The Gomery trial will hopefully make things clearer, and we'll have a new cabinet, and maybe a new PM.

Okay.. THen, we need some sort of sponsorship program for new liberals.. I guess we can take tax payers dollars.. That should be okay :|

Or at least reform the election process. The manditory voting and STV method, used in Australia, is a good example of how we should be voting. That way, our chances of electing corrup crum-bums, like Mr Dithers and crybaby, will drop drastically! And, we'll get a government that's actually able to do something!

Or, why not get rid of parties, and have votes for independants, forcused on issues and not brands? It works in the territories. The branding of political parties is probably how we got into this mess. "Liberals" and "Conservatives" have been in the media a lot lately, so thse are the two parties people will think of when it comes time to vote. If we put more emphasis on the policies, not the parties, we'd probably be beter off.

Or, why not get rid of parties, and have votes for independants, forcused on issues and not brands? It works in the territories. The branding of political parties is probably how we got into this mess. "Liberals" and "Conservatives" have been in the media a lot lately, so thse are the two parties people will think of when it comes time to vote. If we put more emphasis on the policies, not the parties, we'd probably be beter off.

I think you're onto something. Political ideologies, or any ideology, aren't meant to be zealously followed... it doesn't suit reality.

The best way for the Liberals to fix there problems is to sit in opposition for a couple terms and hope the conservatives screw up.

I think you're onto something. Political ideologies, or any ideology, aren't meant to be zealously followed... it doesn't suit reality.

EXACTLY! And if you look at Ontario's history, you'll see that the time it was best governed was by the Progressive Conservative party under the Red Tories.

It's too bad we can't hand-pick who we want in office. Oh sure, we can vote for a candidate but of course, that vote counts in other echelons as well.

What would be nice is something like this : Martin as PM (as I always say though, this is assuming he had nothing to do with Adscam) Layton would be great as lifetime opposition (ha ha but really if anybody would keep a government in step with social issues you've gotta admit that he's the guy) Throw in some fiscal conservatives and somebody with enough sense to keep our trade with the US on the up and up and you've got a recipe for success.

Of course, I'm not that familiar with very many of the current ministers unless they've made the news (usually not a good thing) but I can think of a few that I'd vote for. If Axworthy was available he'd make a good minister in some respect. Of course, he's pretty much the only one I can think of but you all know you're own regional representation and could likely pick from among the best.

First, Layton will not ever get elected because he has no support in Quebec or Alberta and thats 103 seats right there. I could see him being the official opposition some day.
He comes across as a reasonable person with conviction and is photogenic.
Second, the Bloc........enough said.
The Conservatives and Harper will never form a majority government. I don't think Harper is an extreme person but he is simply to far to the right for most Canadians especially vote rich Ontario and Quebec. He is very awkward looking and acting. He looks like you farmer uncle with a carrot up his ass.
Another bigger.........he is from Alberta. The chance of a PM being from neither Ontario or Quebec is remote but Alberta? impossible as it is too uniformily disliked and people veiw it as a hick province. Fair...not at all but no one every said politics was fair. Maybe at some point a minority but thats it. Remember there are real schisms in the Conservative party right now. The religious right from the Alliance and the west and the Red Tories from the former PC and the East.
Now that Belinda is history the party will be seen as even more socially conservative as she was one of the few socially liberal persons in the party and did not find many of her views very much welcomed.
Canada will for the forseable future have no majority governments except Liberal.

"For ANYONE to ACCURATLY represent all views of all Canadians, we'd need a schizophrenic clost-bisexual, with a native, french, and english upbrining, living in Both Toronto, Montreal, and Obscure-Conserva-ville, Alberta, all at the same time! And he has to be opposed and for himself, at all times. And he should spend lots, too. and also be a she."


Or...maybe just respect everyone's right to be themselves, even when that might not fit into your own personal lifestyle. I don't see what's so difficult about that.





KGB

Dude, I almost want to quote what you said and put it in my sig line, KGB.

no, he/she just has to be a liberal because liberals are canadians and canadians are liberals, just like the gov't says...

what's Peter MacKay all about? I don't know anything about him.

what's Peter MacKay all about? I don't know anything about him.

He was with Belinda Stronach, and she dumped him when she went over to Liberals. He was heart broken! And he cried! He's the deputy leader of the New Conservatives.

He was with Belinda Stronach, and she dumped him when she went over to Liberals. He was heart broken! And he cried! He's the deputy leader of the New Conservatives.

that was the extent of my knowledge :) anything else? Is he a contender for conservative leadership?

that was the extent of my knowledge :) anything else? Is he a contender for conservative leadership?

He was. I supported him, too. But Harper won. If MacKay had one, the Conservatives probably would have been more sucessful.

"For ANYONE to ACCURATLY represent all views of all Canadians, we'd need a schizophrenic clost-bisexual, with a native, french, and english upbrining, living in Both Toronto, Montreal, and Obscure-Conserva-ville, Alberta, all at the same time! And he has to be opposed and for himself, at all times. And he should spend lots, too. and also be a she."


Or...maybe just respect everyone's right to be themselves, even when that might not fit into your own personal lifestyle. I don't see what's so difficult about that.





KGB
lmao...well, you know, Harper is from Toronto originally and according to so many people on this site, he just may be all of those things you described.

He was. I supported him, too. But Harper won. If MacKay had one, the Conservatives probably would have been more sucessful.

And maybe then Belinda would not be able to find an excuse to leave the party, lol.

Okay, just read this whole thread front to back. Must say, interesting read. Just some thoughts of mine.

Many conservatives are angry that the east (read: Ontario) consistently vote Liberals irregardless. Despite the scandal, gun registry, corruption, power hunger and various other reasons that Cons. believe that the Grits should no longer be in power; Ontario keeps voting Libs back in.
However, lets switch this around. Lets say the Conservatives were in power for 11yrs and in the midst of a massive scandal. Would conservative minded people jump ship to liberals. I ask those hard core Conservatives of this thread if you can ever see yourself voting for Liberals, due of all things, to a scandal.

The fact of the matter is that Canadians are more idealogical than may be thought. 70-80% of the voting population votes for the same party again and again. That would explain why Libs generally get 30-40%, Cons. 25-35%, and NDP 15-25% in any given election What this also means is that at any given election, only 20-30% of voters are deciding the fate of our government. These are the swing voters between two different ideologues. Unfortunatly, this population is usually the least knowleadgeable about politics, and thus decide governments on a whim or based on anger. (I am very much generalizing here, hope nobody is taking offence).

The best thing for this country, in order to have more options, would obviously be some form of proportional representation. Under this, a couple of problems can be resolved. One, we would have more parties to choose from from the current two. (NDP is unlikely to ever form a gov't under First-Past-The-Post).
Second, Western Alienation--a large problem in this country which should be resolved--would be reduced. As an example, Liberals are accused of pandering to the east. However, this is largely to due with the fact they have so few seats in the West, which is in itself due to the fact that they don't get elected there. Under the PR system, you would have more Libs in the West (Alberta voted approx. 21% Lib, yet only got 2 seats) and more Cons. in Ont/Que (Que. voted approx. 9% with 0 seats). This would allow for the ruling party to have MP's from more parts of the country.
Finally, minority/coalitions will be more common which will potentially allow for more compromises and less hardline idealogues. (I will not go into it, because this can be debated in a thread of its own).

Personal preference: True PR system in which the % of popular vote represents % of seats in house. Exceptions to avoid unstable governments: Regional governments (ie BQ, possible West or maritimes) which are not represented in all provinces much meet a min. threshold (say 10% nat'l pop.) to be represented in the house. Also, National parties must also meet a threshold (say 5%) to avoid every fringe party you can think of (gooooooo Heritage front!!! j/k).

Since PR won't come anytime soon because Libs would never want to lose their grip on power (and can you blame them?), Cons. have to change if they ever want a chance at governing. First, they should be more clear on what they stand for. They have spent so much time telling Cdn's how corrupt and dishonest the Libs are they forgot to tell us what they plan to do in office other than "stop corruption and stop gay marriage". Come on, more specifics please.
Second, Cons. either have to be more moderate to ever have a chance in the East, or at least be honest about their more neo-socialist policies. This in between situation in which they deny their social beliefs, yet then all of a sudden mumble something very off the wall will not work. Exactly how the 2004 campaign crashed.
Finally, through no fault of their own, what is happening in the USA--specifically George Bush and religious right--is scaring many Canadians, hence distrust all conservatives in general. The best thing for Cons in this situation is not to be so close to the USA, at least not for the time Bush is in power. When things calm down south of the border, they may then move to establish closer ties without the resentment and distrust of the Canadian population.

For those who actually took the time to read this whole rant, that was really stupid, but thanks. I just wanted to point out that I am not bias to any particular party. I very much agree with certain ideas from NDP, Libs, and PC. However, I truly cannot fathom the concept of neo-conservatism. That's it, i'm done, i'm going to watch TV.

i disagree with bits and pieces of it, but overall, very good rant... for starters i don't agree with PR because we would always have minority gov'ts. This would most likely increase the red tape to possibly an indian level... (have your baksheesh ready...) not system of gov't i relish... also, seeing that there would always be minority gov'ts, who is really in charge of the country?..... (not the gov. generall)

Good point, but there is some ways to stop the costs of governing. It's not the minority gov't that is costly, but the constant elections, or coalition changing. Therefore, one way to avoid this is that once a government is elected and a coalition is formed if necessary, the coalition must serve the full 4yr term (or perhaps have a 2yr out clause, that's negotiable), unless 2/3rds of the house votes for non-confidence. This would mean that you would need a substantial majority to bring a gornverment down. Otherwise, the government MUST serve it's term.
A second point, you can't put a price or cost on democracy. I would rather havea consisten minority based on coalitions than one/two party rule that we currently have. It will allow Green party, Western Canada party, Urban party, etc to all have a say.
As for other minority government, I am not to familiar with the Indian system, but I am aware of the failures of the Italian and Isrealis parliaments. But like I mentioned in my "rant", this is partly due to every fringe party known to mankind being in parliament. the 5%/10% rule (just arbitrary numbers mind you) would easily eliminate that problem.
As for the gov. general, she's not responsible for the country, she's responsible for spending the countries money :lol:

Would conservative minded people jump ship to liberals. I ask those hard core Conservatives of this thread if you can ever see yourself voting for Liberals, due of all things, to a scandal.


Yuppers. I don't care what party does it, it's theft and I work too hard for my money to have some asshole in Ottawa give it away to his friends.

Lol, all politicians are assholes and they ALL give money to their friends.
What's the difference between this Liberal party and all other parties?
THEY GOT CAUGHT, plain and simple.
Here are the facts. The liberals are corrupt, have no direction and have been in power for far too long. They take the voters for granted, and will do anything to stay in power.
Conservatives are out of touch with the majority of Canadian values, they have no other purpose than to oppose the liberals, and have way too much infighting. They could care less about anything less than being in power and are greedy.
From my point of view, unless you want the other parties (Green or NDP) to be in power, your going to have to pick between these two shitty parties. So, I cannot see the point of voting in Conservatives to spite the liberals or allowing Liberals to retain power to piss off Harper.
Instead, vote based on what you believe is BEST for the country. Healthcare (pvt vs public?), trade relationship (co-operation with the USA), Taxes (higher/lower), and it can go on. These are the issues. This is what is a concern to Canada. Not some scandal. I'm thinking more long term than a simple spite.

Instead, vote based on what you believe is BEST for the country. Healthcare (pvt vs public?), trade relationship (co-operation with the USA), Taxes (higher/lower), and it can go on. These are the issues. This is what is a concern to Canada. Not some scandal. I'm thinking more long term than a simple spite.
Well in the realm of long term thinking then consider this : If someone can afford to pay for a service on top of the services they already pay for through taxes, who exactly is it that loses here? They get their needs met and take themselves out of the queue. They still get taxed the same as everyone else so what's the problem ? Sorry, I don't buy this nonsense about how allowing private clinics to open will be the death of healthcare in Canada.

Our trade relationship with the US ? Come on now, have you not been paying attention here ? Under the Liberals it has deteriorated substantially and it takes some balls to deny the claim as well. Every action the Liberals have taken in regards to the US seems to have been one of spite. I don't expect that we should agree with the US all the time but maybe a little diplomacy in delivering our messages would have been a little more prudent no ?

Taxes aren't the big issue these days really since there's no indication that they will be going up substantially in the near future.

The big issues to Canadians seem to be different depending on what neighbourhood you live in apparently because where I live right now said issues are pretty focused on the party stealing our cash and handing it out to people who have no business getting it. As for the notion that the Conservatives are out of touch with Canadian's values....no, they're out of touch with about half of Canadian's values depending on the poll but on average they're IN touch with the other half. Sorry if that bursts your bubble but the polls are all there for anyone to see.

If the Libs should lose the next election (and I pray that they do) I'll have four years to see what they do to fix things up within their own party. When the following election rolls around I'll decide if they get my vote or not based on the changes they've made to recoup my trust in them. Until then however there's no way I'll ever cast a ballot in their favor. Enough is enough.

I think you missed my point here. I was not advocating public health over private, raising taxes, or trade barriers. This was a series of example opinions that everyone is entitled to. And, this is what we should be basing our votes for. Cons. should presumably be advocating the introduction of privatization, lowering taxes and open trade with the US. Libs should presumably be advocating the strengthening of health care, lowering deficit and cautious open trade with the USA (i'm just using the above examples as generalities by the way. I don't want to go into debates into each topic.).

Instead, we have Cons. saying Libs are corrupt and you can't trust them, and the Libs saying the Cons. are deceptful & scaring the country into believing Harper just might be Satan. This is not healthy, and in the long term will not do anything to assist this country to thrive and achieve its goals.

As for the polls, if your talking about specific topics (ie gay marriage, gun registry, etc), than your absolutely right, there seems to be a 50/50% split. However I meant as a whole, not just certain issues. Sorry if I misconstrued what I meant.
However, I meant overall polls. As an example, I just briefly looked at all elections from 1965 to present (did'nt have anything before then, was too lazy to actually look around :) .
The combined total of all right of centre parties (PC, Cons, Alliance, reform) popular votes has ranged from 32-50%.
The combined total of all left of centre parties (NDP, Social Credit, Liberals) has been 47-67%.
This is the basis I used to say that Cons. are out of touch with Canadian values. A 40yr trend of having a minority % (Although you can also argue that dumping Libs/NDP together is unfair. But the fact of the matter they are both left of the political spectrum, and of course left of the Cons).
I'm not saying that the conservative values are wrong--it's just an opinion-- just that it is disagreed with by most.
I do agree with your last point though. A Liberal defeat would be very healthy to the party despite no liberal wanting it to happen. All parties have their ups and downs. When you have been in power for too long, you forget about what it's like to be in opposition. Being in opposition can be healthy because it clears up what you should stand for (or at least that's the intent, does'nt always work with partisan bickering).
However, once again, your typical moderate is afraid to go Cons due to the percieved neo-cons right wing shift made by the party.

Christian activists capturing Tory races

Some in party worry new riding nominees will reinforce notion of 'hidden agenda'

By GLORIA GALLOWAY

Friday, May 27, 2005 Updated at 4:28 AM EDT

From Friday's Globe and Mail


Ottawa — Christian activists have secured Conservative nominations in clusters of ridings from Vancouver to Halifax -- a political penetration that has occurred even as the party tries to distance itself from hard-line social conservatism.

At least three riding associations in Nova Scotia, four in British Columbia, and one in suburban Toronto have nominated candidates with ties to groups like Focus on the Family, a Christian organization that opposes same-sex marriage.

But organizers say many more will be on the ballot during the next federal election, a feat achieved by persuading parishioners, particularly new Canadians, to join the party and vote for recommended candidates.

Some Conservatives argue that the selection of a large number of candidates from the religious right is an unfortunate turn for a party that was accused in last year's election campaign of harbouring a socially conservative "hidden agenda."

"The difficulty, from a party perspective, is that it begins to hijack the other agendas that parties have," said Ross Haynes, who lost the Conservative nomination in the riding of Halifax to one of three "Christian, pro-family people" recommended by a minister at a religious rally this spring in Kentville, N.S.

Candidates who are running on single issues such as opposition to same-sex marriage "probably can't get elected because they certainly don't represent any mainstream population view," Mr. Haynes said.

Others within the party say they are extremely concerned and wished the party leaders had been more involved in the nominations.

But Tristan Emmanuel -- the Presbyterian minister whose endorsement at the Kentville rally aided the nominations of Andrew House in Halifax, Rakesh Khosla in Halifax West and Paul Francis in Sackville-Eastern Shore -- makes no apologies.

"It's time we stopped apologizing and started defending who we are," he said. "The evangelical community in Canada, by and large, and socially conservative Catholics, are saying we have been far too heavenly minded and thus we have been of no earthly value for far too long, on too many fronts."

Mr. Emmanuel runs the Equipping Christians for the Public Square Centre, which teaches people of his faith to become political. He is reluctant to say how many adherents have obtained Conservative nominations because he is afraid the news media will portray the campaign as the infiltration of the party by "right-wing fanatics."

But "it's happening everywhere, especially in urban ridings and in Ontario," he said. "Even in Toronto we have incredible people from the immigrant community who are stepping up to the plate who are just awesome candidates and sincere Christians."

Mr. Emmanuel said Christians have been allowed to believe that "to be a genuine citizen of the nation we need to check our religion at the political door. And I'm saying no, that's fundamentally flawed. You may participate in the public square as a religious individual and be not ashamed."

John Reynolds, the retiring Conservative MP who ran the party's nomination process, said the fact that social conservatives have won his party's nominations is simply a function of democracy.

"I don't believe in appointments and neither does our party, so we get some real battles," Mr. Reynolds said. "People say, 'Can't you do something about these guys running?' and I say 'Hey, you can do something: go out and sign up some more people.' "

That said, Mr. Reynolds is offended by attempts to paint the Conservative party as a harbour for religious zealots.

"There were three dozen Liberals who voted with us on the same-sex thing," he said. "Nobody is going after them and saying, 'Look at these far-right Christians that got into the Liberal Party.' "

If reporters who write about Christian fundamentalists taking over his party were to "insert the word Jew everywhere you've put Christian, do you think they would let you print it?" he asked. "I doubt it."

Darrel Reid, the party's candidate in Richmond, B.C., is a past president of Focus on the Family. Cindy Silver, who will run for the Tories in North Vancouver, was the executive director of the Christian Legal Fellowship for two years in the 1990s. Marc Dalton in New Westminster-Burnaby has been the pastor of a community church in Burnaby.

Mr. Reid, a former chief of staff to then Reform leader Preston Manning, said it is easy to label a person with his background a single-issue candidate.

"But the reason I entered this nomination contest is because I am really concerned about the direction our government is going," Mr. Reid said.

"In politics, people call you names. And sometimes it's not very pretty, but in the meantime I'm going to talk about the big issues and marriage is one issue out there. I know Canadians are concerned about it, a lot of people are talking about it, but it's just one of a whole range of issues that I went into politics to discuss."

Ms. Silver, a lawyer in the federal Justice Department, objects to being labelled a Christian candidate. "That's a form of discrimination," she said. "That's putting them in a class of people and ascribing to them the characteristics of that class without ever giving them a chance to stand on their own merits."

But other candidates clearly relied on their churches to promote their nomination.

Rondo Thomas beat former Conservative MP René Soetens for the nomination in Ajax, on the eastern edge of Toronto. Dr. Thomas is a top official with the Canada Christian College, which is run by Charles McVety, a senior director of the Defend Marriage Coalition.

"The Defend Marriage Coalition engaged in a concerted effort to help pro-marriage candidates become nominated," Dr. McVety said.

"There is a desire to see pro-marriage nominees as candidates right across the country. We know that we have 141 pro-marriage MPs now and our hope is to achieve a pro-marriage Parliament."

There has been no specific drive to infiltrate the Conservatives, Dr. McVety said. Some religious Liberals have been nominated as well. But the Tories have taken the lion's share, he said, probably because of the party's opposition to changing the definition of marriage.

Like Mr. Emmanuel, Dr. McVety expresses no uneasiness with his efforts.

"The distortion of the separation of church and state has driven people of faith out of leadership and this is very wrong," he said.

And now that the government has decided to redefine marriage, faith leaders have been forced to urge their congregations to mobilize politically, Dr. McVety said.

As a result, they "are typically signing up as members of political parties, some of them for the first time in their lives. Many of them even signing up for political parties that they've never voted for in their lives before."

Why the TORIES need a new LEADER:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Too much anger to succeed
After 23 years in politics, Stephen Harper still has a penchant for marginalizing moderates within his Conservative caucus, ridiculing the patriotism of Liberal voters and working out his anger issues in public

DAVID OLIVE

Look at that face, that hateful face.

-Sam Rayburn, Democratic speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, watching a televised address by Richard Nixon

Richard Nixon somehow made it to the top of the greasy pole. It's helpful to take that view of history in trying to imagine Stephen Harper as the man who can lead a united right to the New Jerusalem.

As dysfunctional in his own way as the dethroned Stockwell Day, Harper has twice squandered the chance effortlessly gained by the sponsorship scandal to form a government. He is, Tory insiders began saying last week, girding for a third try this fall, hoping the potency of the Grewal tapes matches that of the Gomery revelations.

It, too, will likely fail.

In a nation that favours public figures who project a sunny optimism, Harper traffics more heavily in bile than any major political party leader since John Diefenbaker.

Harper regards Liberals of every description as "corrupt," and their precarious government, in all its grand and sundry aspects, "morally reprehensible." Those who fail to align with Harper's worldview he labels monsters, harlots and underworld figures.

Danny Williams, premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, learned his hard lesson last month. Williams might have anticipated a little gratitude for joining with his fellow (Tory) Atlantic Canada premiers in taking the risky step of endorsing the Harper Tories on the eve of the last election. Instead, Williams was treated to a sputum eruption.

Harper was outraged last month that Williams was pressuring Tory MPs on the Rock not to defeat the Martin government, in order to preserve the recent hard-won pact between St. John's and Ottawa on resource-revenue sharing.

"What's the next thing?" Harper exploded. "We're going to have a bunch of Mafia people working for the government because it might give Danny Williams money a week earlier?"

Who are these organized crime figures on the public payroll? Carolyn Bennett? Ken Dryden? Right-to-lifer Roger Gallaway?

A few weeks back, Harper had a message for the five million Canadians who voted Liberal last June. Their patriotism is suspect. Anyone casting a ballot for the Liberals, the Tory leader said in his Calgary redoubt, is "quite frankly imperilling the future of the country."

It's a rule in politics that few voters take kindly to being told they were duped. Some can't quite accept that the country, typically among the U.N.'s top five best places in which to live, has been governed these past dozen years entirely by refugees from the sewers.

Yet Harper presses on; he is smarter than the untutored masses. Polls be damned, he just knew this spring that Canadians were in immediate need of a second election in less than a year.

Harper also knows better than his own caucus, which last Wednesday heaped scorn on Gurmant Grewal, surreptitious recorder of conversations with high-level Grits, who has been excoriated by caucus colleagues ? according to Canadian Press reports ? for conducting himself dishonestly and robbing his party of the ethical high ground.

Oblivious to the mood in the room, Harper emerged from that session to defend Grewal's behaviour as his "legal right" ? rather missing the point, as sometime Tory sympathizer John Ibbitson noted in The Globe and Mail, that the Grewal tapes "make the Tories look every bit as sleazy, dishonest, unethical, conniving, mendacious and just plain rotten as the Liberals."

But Harper, who appears at times to be channelling the New Testament, deals in absolutes.

Harper is no less certain of Grewal's good faith, in advance of probes into his conduct by the RCMP and Parliament's ethics commissioner, than he is of Grit perfidy despite the incomplete status of Justice Gomery's work.

"Gurmant had no intention of being bought," Harper declared last Wednesday ? an assertion not supported by any portion of Grewal's tapes that that Tories have so far seen fit to release.

How much more dignified it would be for a leader of the Official Opposition to let lessers handle the scut work of character assassination ? and there's no shortage of volunteers. Let Tory MP Jason Kenney accuse Martin of perjuring himself at the Gomery inquiry, for instance, and NDP backbencher Pat Martin describe the Liberals, in Commons debate last month, as "institutionally psychopathic."

But Harper insists on working out his anger issues in public, whether it's kicking chairs backstage at Tory events or shoving photographers out of camera range. Or labelling NDP Leader Jack Layton a slut for backing a slightly amended budget that increases spending by less than 1 per cent.

As they say, the fish rots from the head. Within a few days, John Reynolds, Tory campaign manager and prominent B.C. MP, was saying all Liberals "are whores. I don't like to call them that, because there are probably some whores who are nice people."

In the last election Harper let stand a Tory press release that called Paul Martin a supporter of child pornography.

No surprise, then, that Harper has not rebuked Saskatoon Tory MP Maurice Vellacott's description of turncoat Belinda Stronach. ("Some people prostitute themselves for different costs or different prices. She sold out for a cabinet position.")

`In a nation that favours public figures who project a sunny optimism, Harper traffics more heavily in bile than any major political party leader since John Diefenbaker.'

Harper is not in tune with his caucus, having marginalized moderates like Stronach and Peter MacKay, who went public with his own misgivings about an early election the same day, May 4, as his then-girlfriend did. Not one but three erstwhile contenders for the Alliance or Conservative leadership ? Keith Martin, Scott Brison and Stronach ? have been driven into the Grit fold.

"Join your own team, Stephen!" exhorts full-time Tory apologist Don Martin.

But after 23 years in politics, Harper is not a work in progress.

Harper still is in thrall to the armchair ideologues at the University of Calgary with whom he first fell in as a student there, a group currently headed by Tory chief strategist Tom Flanagan.

From the comfort of that ivory tower, history professor David Bercuson recently despaired of Central Canadian Tories who lacked the "blood lust" for an early election; while his colleague Barry Cooper dismissed Harper's supposed policy shift to the centre.

"I don't think he's changed his views," Cooper told Maclean's. "It's really a matter of packaging so you can be acceptable to people in Ontario who have a problem with Westerners."

Harper has flitted among five political parties (he was a Trudeau Liberal in his teens), and has flip-flopped on so many unpopular stands ? from the Kyoto accord to the Iraq war ? that the Grits and Tories are now scarcely distinguishable on policy. Harper is authentic, however, in his contempt for a centralized federalism that actually has worked pretty well for 138 years. After his electoral setback last summer, Harper wallowed in regional victimhood.

"The philosophy of the Liberal party is get the rest, screw the West," he complained last July.

"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country," Harper wrote in December 2000. In a little-noticed addendum to his widely criticized 2002 observation that Atlantic Canada tolerates "a culture of defeat," Harper also observed that "in parts of the Prairies" there is evidence of "the kind of can't-do attitude (that) is a problem in this country."

Just three years after counselling Ralph Klein in 2001 to mount a staged withdrawal from Confederation, Harper was still so obsessed with loosening the ties that bind the nation that he mused that Canada might benefit from emulating the chronically disputatious factions of the Belgian federation and the strife-torn Basque and Catalan regions of Spain.

That Harper's more recent project to topple Martin allied him with a Commons rump that advocates an extreme form of regional autonomy is hardly out of character ? either for Harper or the Tories, who with disastrous results cohabitated with Quebec nationalists in the 1980s.

Correspondent Clifford Krauss of The New York Times last month recorded the unwitting irony of Paul Martin's timing in celebrating the narrow survival of his government on May 19 with a renewed vow to "set the standard by which other nations judge themselves."

As it happens, though, only the Prime Minister was attempting that night to address both a scandal and other matters of import, in his speech about the Gomery inquiry and his plans for job creation, aboriginal justice and advances in child care, urban renewal and the environment, among other issues.

Harper spoke that night only of scandal, and of his impatience to inflict more wounds on the Grits.

Martin was speaking to the nation, Harper to his strategists.

Accordingly, the latest polls find Tory support at 27 per cent nationally, below the party's 29.6 per cent showing in the last election ? itself the Tories' worst performance since R.B. Bennett's drubbing in the Depression year of 1935.

Alarmed by the positive poll readings Martin garnered recently from his encounters with pre-voting-age Canadians who appear to enjoy the Prime Minister's company, Harper's handlers arranged a photo-op of their own at a Wallaceburg, Ont., rehab centre for children.

But the Tory leader was miscast for the assignment. He watched silently, not knowing what to say to these kids. Until, that is, one of the finger-painting toddlers leaned toward his tailored suit.

"Don't touch me," Harper said.

Okay. So what are you doing here?

The Conservatives will never win an election with Harper as leader.

Well in the realm of long term thinking then consider this : If someone can afford to pay for a service on top of the services they already pay for through taxes, who exactly is it that loses here? They get their needs met and take themselves out of the queue. They still get taxed the same as everyone else so what's the problem ? Sorry, I don't buy this nonsense about how allowing private clinics to open will be the death of healthcare in Canada.

Well where are all these new privatized clinics going to get their doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and surgeons? Probably from the public healthcare system, and I bet they'd pay them more, too. Which leaves those unfortunate people who are unable to pay for privatized healthcare stuck with a stretched-thin public system.

Air Canada probes Grewal's actions in airport

FROM CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA - Air Canada is investigating an incident at Vancouver airport involving a Tory MP embroiled in a taping scandal.

Gurmant Grewal was allegedly spotted in a waiting area Saturday trying to get passengers to transport a package to Ottawa.

Airport sources won't confirm if there was a tape in the envelope the B.C. MP was trying to pass along.

"We can confirm that we are currently investigating an incident involving Mr. Grewal," said Air Canada spokeswoman Laura Cooke.

"I have no additional information to provide on this matter at this point."

Security regulations require any passenger must be on a plane carrying that person's luggage.

A source says Grewal was booked on a flight to Ottawa and passed through security to a waiting area, where he was allegedly overheard asking "a number of" passengers to transport the package.

Grewal turned over tapes last week to the RCMP from secret recordings he made in meetings with two top Liberals.

Several audio experts have agreed the tapes were altered, prompting the Conservatives to issue a statement admitting that small changes had been made to the recordings.

On the tapes, Grewal is overheard negotiating possible job opportunities with the Liberal party in exchange for his vote in a crucial confidence showdown last month.

Conservative spokesman Geoff Norquay said he was aware of Air Canada's allegation against Grewal and planned to make a statement later Monday.

Grewal did not respond to an email request for an interview.

Well where are all these new privatized clinics going to get their doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and surgeons? Probably from the public healthcare system, and I bet they'd pay them more, too. Which leaves those unfortunate people who are unable to pay for privatized healthcare stuck with a stretched-thin public system.
So what's wrong with a private MRI clinic again? You seem to be highlighting a non-issue. What about all the GPs who don't perform surgery then? Or maybe we could pay our doctors something worth making public health worth their time ? You seem to be unwittingly advocating for the continued brain-drain to the south based on your argument. If that isn't an issue then this isn't either.

What about all the GPs who don't perform surgery then?
What about them?
And I'm not so much advocating for the continued brain drain to the south, I'd just prefer that there wasn't a secondary brain drain to privatization as well.