Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Yes, Canada is very frail at this point. The separatists see the Federalist camp in disarray and weak and rightly so. I am sorry if your so easily offended on such a sensitive subject, my question was not to question your patriotism. But surly you must understand that a Quebec officer in the army would have no qualms in serving an independent Quebec. So patriotism can easily be used as a political weapon against the very thing that both of us served mother green to protect. If someone chooses Harper who chose to side with the separatists over Canada then they are just as culpable in their fate when the inevitable destruction of the country ensues.

   

I am Canadian and I have never witnessed what you are saying.

   

Harper can suck..........my.......multi-ethnic................


(We are experiencing technical difficulties. Please stand by.)




Sorry folks! I just had to do that!!!

   

When Paul Martin wraps himself in the Canadian flag and preaches that he and he alone is the one to defend federalism, then who is it's enemy? The answer is...anyone who doesn't vote Liberal. He's not talking about the Bloc, he's talking about those evil Conservatives.

When the Liberals demonize Ralph Klein for experimenting with alternate delivery of health care, accusing him of trying to "Americanize" the system, he's again painting all conservatives as "Un-Canadian."

When the Liberals bill themselves as the party of multiculturalism, and try to paint multiculturalism as Canada's main foundation, then they're calling anyone who doesn't support them as an "Un-Canadian" and racist.

During last year's election, when Harper wanted to get a new ship for the military to get them overseas to the world's hot spots, the first thing Martin did was pen the term "Canada needs health care, not American style Aircraft Carriers." Again, another attempt to portray anyone who doesn't agree with the Liberal platform as a toady to the evil US.

Maybe you've missed it, but I've lived here a good chunk of my life too, and I can't see anything else.

   

The Bloc will controle only 60 odd seats, there are 308 in parliment and asumming a minority govt. that means approx. 130 -140 seats for a strong minority which is preferable. Leaving 14-24 seats required to be won over to pass a bill or motion on the floor. On the other hand the Bloc would need 94 seats to win a motion on the floor in the house. So your argument really doesn't hold water. There would have to be a referendum and then the passing of a bill on the floor in the house, and I know that the only way that could happen is if the Bloc formed the govt. There aren't enought seats in Quebec to do that. Quebec is here to stay.

   

More than politics, this is a national crisis

No it's not. Quebec isn't going to take over Canada, they are going to separate from it! This means the PQ will do that and Duceppe will take the reigns of the PQ if Harper wins and he is in opposition.

   

Mark my word. After the next election the house will look similar to this.

1. Conservitive's to form the govt. with about 110-115 seats

2. Liberals to form the opposition with about 100 seats

3. Bloc Quebecois with 60 seats

4. NDP 30 seats

5. Green Party 3-4 seats

6. and maybe a handfull of independents

I'm not trying to be clairvoyant but this is going to be the way the people of Canada will begin to punish the liberals. It'll be a trial run and this whole holding on to power and election mongoring will just switch switch. It'll be a very week minority and nothing will get done except the things that will need to get through. That's when being a polition will count and the lobying will have to be done to get the votes that are needed to pass a bill in the house. I like this LESS PARTY politics and MORE PEOPLE politics. The people of Canada need to keep the BQ out of the official opposition and things will be fine.

   

I agree but the NDP will split the Liberal base. If the inquiry is allowed to run its course we could at least have some decisive changes made but if we call it now that means the Bloc and the Conservatives are in bed, there is no other way around that. That will give the Bloc more votes at the expense of the Conservatives. There will be a backlash on the Liberals and that will translate into more seats for the NDP. The Greens don't have a hope in hell on getting a seat in the current unstable political climate. So my guess would be if the election is called before Gomery then we will have:

Liberals 90-100

Conservatives 90-100

Bloc 60

NDP 40-50

After Gomery

Liberals 90-100

Conservatives 100-110

Bloc 60

NDP 30-40

Timing is everything.

   

Airbus affair



You can say crackpot all you wish, the fact remains that Mulroney and Bouchard worked together for their own interests and put Canada up for sale.

It was Prime Minister Brian Mulroney who eliminated the requirement for Canadian Banks to hold a cash reserve. The Bank act of 1991 phased them out. He handed the Banks a gift of several billion dollars of taxpayer money which we have to hand over every year in perpetuity. We pay the banks interest on treasury bills and bonds that they bought in cash that they no longer have to keep in reserve.

Bouchard I can forgive, Brian never. As much as you call such facts as 'conspiracy theory' so too is the conspiracy theory that Harper is a viable option to keep Canada together when he is nothing more than a thinly veiled Albertan Separatist.

   

The PM appoints them... and that is supposed to be some great democratic step forward? The only people who voted directly for any PM are in their home riding (and voters just don't connect the dots from PM to supreme court decisions come election time). I would much rather that every riding is represented when such important decisions are being made.

   

The fact that the story in question was authored by David Orchard led me to believe that nothing of value would be said. The content of the article confirmed my suspicions. Orchard has moved into the political twilight zone, where those who were unceremoniously BOOTED off the island spend their time telling others they know how the game SHOULD be played. Which does nothing to explain why they were unceremoniously BOOTED off the island.

Joining David on the stage of Bitter Losers is none other than our old pal, Preston Manning. I'm sure you'll remember Preston. He, despite a complete lack of political experience, and with an understanding of Canadian politics that rivalled a laboratory mouse's understanding of quantum physics, decided to form a political party. Said party's aim was the promotion of small-c conservatism and the defeat of the Federal Liberals. The end result was a Canadian conservative movement so fractured that the federal Liberal's ruled uncontested for more than a decade. Preston now fills his days of disillusionment by dreaming of what might have been (... if only I'd given in to that urge to dress campaign workers in brown shirts and jack boots), and writing sniping op-eds for the Globe and Mail (which seems to be the last paper to willing to defend the virtue of Liberals and deny Paul Martin's culpability).

However, unlike Manning -who habitually gets it ALL wrong- Orchard did make a valid point regarding Pierre Trudeau's contribution to Canadian unity (as an Albertan, you can't imagine the pain I feel in contemplating that Trudeau might have done anything worth noting). His (Trudeau's) response to the October Crisis was absolutely the right thing to do. He let would be separatists know in no uncertain terms that any attempt by a province OF CANADA to secede from Canada would be viewed as nothing less than an act of treason and would be dealt with accordingly.

   

I'll assume that comment was made in an attempt to generate a response, even though it fails the most cursory examination of logic. If Harper had a hidden agenda of Alberta separation, surely even someone as politically inexperienced as he would see that it would be better expressed in a party devoted to that aim (can you say Bloq Alberta, I knew you could) rather than one desperately seeking recognition everywhere beside's Alberta.

The fact is that Harper and the Conservative's don't have any agenda, much less a hidden one. If the time should come to pass that Canadians should elect Conservatives in numbers sufficient to form the Government, the resulting confusion will make Paul Martin's meandering aimlessness seem positively inspired in comparison.

   

This is what Harper said.

God, I gotta repeat myself again.

In the most cursory examination of logic of his own words makes it very clear what is going on here. He want to flatten federalism outright. We may have a nation called Canada under Harper but that's all it will be, in name only as he will make us little more than a Confederacy with the strong lording over the weak. Who does this truly favor? Western separatists, because Quebec will separate under his plan and he know it. This will allow Alberta to go on it's own without any backlash from an Ontario with it's hands full. Simple divide and conquer.

   

In the quotes you cite, I see no foundation for an allegation that Harper is a Western Separatist, or that he supports such a movement. What I do see is that he promotes a view that Alberta should redefine it's role within the Federation. That may sound like a radical idea, but it is hardly unique. Quebec has repeatedly used it's "uniqueness" as an argument to gain advantage that is not given to other provinces. Certainly it's declining contribution to Confederation, should've diminished it's voice, not the opposite. The off-shore deal being given to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia is another example of a province(s) being given special treatment that others are denied. I agree with Danny Williams that resource revenues should belong solely to the province from which they come (and the Constitution Act of 1982 entrenches that into law). However, his argument (which the Martin Liberals have signed-off on) that resource revenues are separate and do not count toward transfer payments is seriously flawed. Without resource revenues, Alberta would also be a have-not province. Unless the Alberta provincial government trimmed their budget to match a revenue base that did not include resource revenues. If Alberta were not expected to contribute to the transfer payment scam, Newfoundland's decline in transfer payments would far exceed it's newfound resource riches. Danny Williams wants to have his cake, eat it, have someone else pay for it and expects the rest of Canada to clean-up his mess. Is it any wonder Alberta (and lately Ontario) wants to redefine their role in this wonderful con.

That Harper would express a "Firewall Around Alberta" as his own unique vision is pathetic. This idea has been bandied around Alberta since the days of the National Energy Program. That policy took Alberta from boom to bust in a matter of month's, and it's primary motivation (from an Albertan perspective) was to halt the perceived influence Alberta was gaining on the national stage. To pervert the national motto of Israel "Never Again The N.E.P.". It is worth noting that Alberta's prosperity has a very large effect on the prosperity of the nation. In this case what's good for Alberta IS good for Canada. Unfortunately, too often is the case that what is good for Canada is not good for Alberta (btw, the NEP was not good for Alberta or Canada). Hardly surprising then that Albertans might seek to implement a mechanism that protects them from federal interference that brings great harm to our province and grants political capital to those doing the harm. This does not constitute the strong lording over the weak. What's ironic in your statement is that The British North America Act and the Constitution Act of 1982 WERE designed to create a strong federal government and to limit the powers of the province's. That was a reasonable model when Ontario and Quebec made the lion's share of contributions to the federation, and the other regions depended upon them for the growth and/or survival. In that circumstance, Ontario and Quebec had every reason to expect to control Federal Government. However, the present reality is now quite different from that and maybe's it's time the framework was altered to match the changes.

While I understand your desire to discredit Stephen Harper (whom I consider a spineless policy wonk), your unfortunate misinterpretaions of his "agenda" does not enhance your own credibility.

   

Sometimes it's difficult to reconcile democratic principles with human rights. On the whole I think the Canadian practice represents a reasonable balance. If the PM appoints truly unacceptable people to the Supreme Court, people will connect the dots. So far, most -but by no means all- voters appear to find the present setup satisfactory. Canadians still support the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next