# Election time? - Go now or wait for Gomery?



## Prariedawg (9 May 2005)

Liberal Tony Valari has announced that on May18th that if the Lie-brals recieve a vote of non-confidence they will ignore it and carry-on,well folks you have just heard an MP plan the first Canadian dictatorship in history,did I wake up in communist China this morning?


----------



## Infanteer (9 May 2005)

That is where the Governor General could step in - by law she could dissolve Parliament.  Boy, would that make an interesting political situation.

If I'm not mistaken, the non-confidence vote is convention; there is nothing that says that the government has to call an election.


----------



## Reccesoldier (9 May 2005)

This is what the CPC is basing it's position of confidence on.



> King-Byng redux
> 
> Parts of one of Canadian history's most dramatic political moments is about to replay itself as this 38th Parliament inches closer to dissolution.
> 
> ...


----------



## Blue Max (9 May 2005)

The Liberals will be able to ignore the vote tomorrow tabled by the Tories, because it is not a budgetary vote of confidence.


----------



## Infanteer (9 May 2005)

Well, this is what happens when you don't have codified constitutional procedures:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/09/confidence-government050509.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/election2005/minoritygovt.html


----------



## Prariedawg (9 May 2005)

You know what,my bad guys.I heard the news this morning driving to the base and it didnt mention anything about it just being a motion  Just heard the evening news after I got home from school and got the full story.


----------



## Reccesoldier (9 May 2005)

What I understand is that the committee is going to declare that it has lost confidence in the government and bring that motion into the House of Confidence to be voted on by the MP's. 

So the CPC's position is that if a majority of the HoC agrees with the committees statement then they are in effect expressing non- confidence in the government. Sounds simple enough to me. 

If a small group of shreholders in a company expressed misgivings about the leadership of a company and then raised those fears in a shareholders meeting and the majority of the rest of the shareholders agreed would the CEO still be employed at the end of the day?

I think the liberals will be on shakey ground should they just ignore this motion, and honestly I think this government is already crippled and we will get no real work out of it until we have an election (other than a continuation  of Christmas in May in order to buy votes). 

Time for the GG to earn her pay. She has the power to end this farce.

A non-confidence vote does not have to be about the budget although normaly it does deal with some major piece of the governments platform.


----------



## Reccesoldier (10 May 2005)

The lying cheating bastards!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050510/BUDGET10/Front/Idx

OTTAWA -- MPs will vote today on a Conservative motion calling on the government to resign, after another wild day of procedural tactics.

Although the Liberals insist the motion is not one of confidence, two experts said the government would be expected to schedule a clear confidence vote in coming days if it loses today's vote.

"If that motion passes, I think they are -- to use the vernacular -- in deep doodoo," said parliamentary expert Charles Franks.

The Conservatives secured the vote yesterday through a surprise move that they had quietly planned days in advance with the Bloc Québécois.

Two Tory MPs who have cancer are being flown in for the vote, and all 54 Bloc MPs are in Ottawa today. B.C. Independent MP Chuck Cadman, who had chemotherapy treatment yesterday, will not be there to support the Liberals, so the Tories should have the votes to win.

Mr. Franks, of Queen's University, said today's vote would not be a no-confidence matter in the proper sense because it is a roundabout procedural instruction to a committee, not an explicit declaration of a loss of confidence expressed in a substantive motion.

But it would be a "body blow" to the government's legitimacy that would have to be settled quickly, Mr. Franks said. "If they don't, they're in perilous waters."

The government could bring forward its own explicit no-confidence motion, on which it would stand or fall. Or, it could rush in a vote on an automatic no-confidence matter, like its budget bill.

There is no hard and fast rule about how long that can wait, but Mr. Franks said it should not be delayed until June, for example. "I imagine that should be sooner rather than later."

Patrick Monahan, the dean of Osgoode Hall Law School and author of an authoritative text on constitutional law in Canada, agreed that today's motion is not a no-confidence matter in the strict sense, but could raise a question about confidence that must be resolved soon.

Liberal Whip Karen Redman said two Liberal MPs could be absent today, for personal and medical reasons. But she insisted this is not a no-confidence vote.

Both Bloc Québécois House Leader Michel Gauthier and Tory House Leader Jay Hill confirmed yesterday that the two parties had met to plan for yesterday's surprise motion. The Speaker of the House ruled the motion in order, setting the stage for today's confrontation.

The Conservative motion calls on the public accounts committee to rewrite a report so that it calls on the government to resign. The amendment is virtually identical to one made to another committee report that is expected to be voted on on May 18. The Liberals have also dismissed that one.

*The Liberals attempted a surprise of their own and asked for the vote to be held last night. But the opposition successfully argued that a deal was made not to hold any votes while the party leaders were in the Netherlands at V-E Day ceremonies.
*

In Apeldoorn, the Netherlands, before boarding a plane to Ottawa with the Prime Minister and two other opposition leaders, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said such motions are clearly matters of no-confidence.

"I think this is outrageous. The government cannot decide whether it has or doesn't have the confidence of the House. . . .

"This is to me another example of undemocratic behaviour in the face of the government's own difficulties in controlling the parliamentary agenda," he said.

Mr. Gauthier said he is confident the motion will pass and called for an immediate election.

New Democrat House Leader Libby Davies said that her party views today's vote as a matter of no-confidence and will vote against it as part of a deal to pass the budget.

Government House Leader Tony Valeri said the Conservatives and Bloc are misrepresenting the vote.

"Procedural motions are not confidence motions," he said. ". . . The opposition parties are not reflecting what Canadians are saying. Canadians are saying, 'Don't have an election, make this Parliament work, deal with the budget issue itself.' "


----------



## Joe Blow (10 May 2005)

Martin has promised to hold an election one month after Gomery publishes his report. 

Personally I'd rather not let the Libs run a campaign with government money until November  ...and the house isn't functioning very well.  I say it's time, but maybe there's more to it than what I see.

Your thoughts?


----------



## LCIS227 (10 May 2005)

I think that our system is totally broken. If our government cannot work in a minorty evironment then it's a clear indication that Canadians/MP cannot comprimise. 

We need to make a minority government work, because most likely, next election will only bring in another minority parliement and so on ... I'm not saying the Liberals should stay in power, but I'm not saying the NDP and Conservatives should be in power as well.

I don't feel like wasting millions of dollars in another election that'll bring "nothing" in return and I'm sure many Canadians think the same way.

All I know is that the Liberals gave the CF 12billion dollars and unless they stay in power for those 5 years, what is there that garantees that money will stay where it belongs?

Cheers


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (10 May 2005)

If an election is called, and the conservatives replace the liberals, we are still getting nowhere.Dont get me wrong I'm the conservatives biggest supporter but unless the governmental process is not changed we will never get anywhere.

  I think if a budget promise is made, the party should put itself on the line if its not commited to.Its one thing to promise the world just to get into power, but a real government would stick to its promises.

  There are those in the CF that worry that if the liberals fall, we would lose the money promised to the CF. Who really believes they were going to really commit to the plan when the bulk of the money promised wouldnt be seen for years to come.

 I think all politicians should have to account for every tax dollar taken in and if they are found to have "misspent" our money, they should face a minimum jail sentence plus have to repay the money.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (10 May 2005)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> If an election is called, and the conservatives replace the liberals, we are still getting nowhere.Dont get me wrong I'm the conservatives biggest supporter but unless the governmental process is not changed we will never get anywhere.
> 
> I think if a budget promise is made, the party should put itself on the line if its not commited to.Its one thing to promise the world just to get into power, but a real government would stick to its promises.
> 
> ...



That's what the Conservatives are missing.  If they run on an expanded Auditor General Role, and increased criminal penalties for government corruption, they win in a landslide.  The problem is they haven't said a word about how they're going to clean things up....just that they're going to do.  Making claims without a plan will get you nowhere.

I hope they get their shiiiiiit together soon.



M.


----------



## Joe Blow (10 May 2005)

> All I know is that the Liberals gave the CF 12billion dollars and unless they stay in power for those 5 years, what is there that garantees that money will stay where it belongs?



Isn't that just client politics at work?  Make people dependant on your government and they're sure to vote for you.  Before an election they run about saying they will give everyone everything, but if they're replaced ...well there's a chance no gets anything.  

An intersting aside is that left leaning dictatorships keep huge civil services in part for that reason.  Who would challenge the state when the state employs your whole family?  So what if the #$%# disturber down the street (or ethnic group X) can't publish his (their) antigov. news paper? - Not that Canada is a dictatorship or that the Liberals are the Bath party.  

The analogy only extends so far. All I'm saying is that the general strategy of maintaining power (in this case securing votes of CF members) by making the citizenry dependant on your continued stewardship of government is a well known one.

Don't look for gravy.  Look for integrity in leadership.

(EDIT: The above line is accusatory and was not meant to be.  I should have said "We should not be looking for gravy.  We should be looking for...")

Anyway, there is no great guarantee that the money promised in that budget will ever be delivered in any case.  The majority of it is slated for years 4 and 5 of the five year plan.  With the way they have been tossing money about in the run up to this election (I will look for numbers tonight)  I'd be surprised if they could meet all their commitments ...and what is always the first thing to go under a Liberal government when budgets get tight?


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 May 2005)

An election now would be cheaper than the cost of buying continued life support for this government.

A different minority government might actually govern.  Even if essentially the same government is returned, it sends a message that all parties involved can stop dreaming abou the next election result and get on with what they have.


----------



## Infanteer (10 May 2005)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/10/confidence-vote050510.html

Well, there you have it folks - despite the fact that 153 Members of Parliament voted for the Liberals to give it up and go to an election and only 150 voted against it, the Liberals have said that they will continue to govern.  This is where we could seriously use an elected Governor-General with some political teeth.


----------



## Infanteer (10 May 2005)

I don't see how the Communism thing relates to the issue - that is no better then left-of-center people pointing the Conservative Party and saying "redneck boogyman".

Stick the issue.


----------



## civvy3840 (10 May 2005)

I hope the GG calls for an election. The Liberals have messed things up bad enough I think it's time the Conservatives get in and do their stuff. I only hope that if the Conservatives do take over that they will still give the 12 million to the CF or more. 

Those are my thoughts.


----------



## Reccesoldier (10 May 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> That's what the Conservatives are missing.  If they run on an expanded Auditor General Role, and increased criminal penalties for government corruption, they win in a landslide.  The problem is they haven't said a word about how they're going to clean things up....just that they're going to do.  Making claims without a plan will get you nowhere.
> 
> I hope they get their shiiiiiit together soon.
> 
> ...



CB, it's all in here http://www.conservative.ca/documents/20050319-POLICY DECLARATION.pdf


----------



## Joe Blow (11 May 2005)

> Anyway, there is no great guarantee that the money promised in that budget will ever be delivered in any case.  The majority of it is slated for years 4 and 5 of the five year plan.  With the way they have been tossing money about in the run up to this election (I will look for numbers tonight)  I'd be surprised if they could meet all their commitments ...and what is always the first thing to go under a Liberal government when budgets get tight?



Well, this is the best I could find:



> Even the New Democrats were squawking the Commons yesterday, wondering how the government could possibly cover all it's promises, including its side deal to support the budget.
> 
> Add the combined $7.8 billion Ontario and Newfoundland payoffs to the 4.6 billion 2 year deal to buy the New Democrat's support, the $5 billion hole in the Kyoto plan and the planned $4 billion debt repayment, not mention the liability of aboriginal residential school settlements , and the IOUs dwarf the projected surplus of $9.1 billion.
> 
> ...



Clearly I have not done the tally of promises myself and it is worthy of mention that Mr. Martin's column was clearly labeled 'comment', so I only offer it for what it's worth.  However given those things (he is a respected journalist after all), and even assuming the Liberals have purposely low balled the surplus projection - as seems to be their practice - it's looking like a tight squeeze.  

I'll restate the question for effect: 'what is _always_ the first thing to go under a Liberal government when budgets get tight?'.  Don't count on that 12 billion.  There's a reason most of it is slated for years 4 and 5.

Joe


----------



## Long in the tooth (11 May 2005)

Although I don't see a valid alternative in waiting (a conservative MAJORITY), the current government should be put out of its misery.  The PM doesn't have the integrity to run the country without handing out bread and conducting circuses.  He's buying us off with our own future taxes!

We have taxation without representation, whole countries have been lost over this.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 May 2005)

The GG probably will not dissolve parliament. That's bad press all over. There's some important motions coming up, as well as the Opposition period for putting motions forward at the end of the month. By refusing to step down, it just looks worse on the Liberals in my book. It'd be better press to put a positive step foward and say "Fine, we'll call an election."

Its not a matter of if the Liberals will get booted, but when. The same party in power for over 12 years is not good for a country.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 May 2005)

I am inclined to agree that:

"¢	The GG should not dissolve parliament, or invite Harper to form a government, without the advice of her prime minister - the _King-Byng Thing_ and all that;

"¢	There is much to be gained by pounding the Liberals - on national TV, with loads of well rehearsed Question Period 'sound bites' which will be coupled with images of a weak-looking Martin invoking long dead political scientists as justification for clinging to power;

"¢	There is much to be gained from continued testimony before Gomery about Liberal lies and theft; and

"¢	There is no need to, gratuitously, p!ss off Western voters by interfering with a Royal visit attached to their centennial of confederation celebrations.

It is probable that the Liberals will never get more than 152 votes - Cadman will, in all likelihood, stay home.

Martin will come under relentless pressure to, finally, allow his government to fall; being a ditherer by nature he will, unless he suddenly gets really smart, delay too long and the acknowledges popularity of his new, spend, *S*pend, *SPEND* budget will be dissipated and then challenged as the _commentariat_ pronounces that he is being a spendthrift, forcing us back into deficits, etc while he tries to bribe us with our own money.   If the Tories are lucky Martin will dig his own grave sometime after 25 May - after he has tried to milk the Royal Visit for all it's worth.

If Martin is smart he will face the house this week - after he has his 152 votes lined up, and then say that he _â ?respects democracyâ ?_ and he's sorry the Tories and separatists are depriving every group known to man of untold new benefits and _dissing_ the Queen, Alberta and Saskatchewan in the process.   I doubt it will save him but that's the smart move.

I think there is a realistic, albeit slim, prospect of a Tory majority government if, *Big IF* Harper and Duceppe and the _commentariat_ can convince Ontarians that the Liberals are the big threat to national unity and that the Tories can work with Québec _nationalists_ and keep the country together.   Although it is usually unstated, Ontarians almost always vote against the party which, in their view, cannot or will not _*â ?keep Québec in its place.â ?*_   There are, I think, 70+ Liberal seats _up for grabs_ in Ontario - only 20 to 25 are really, solid, rock-ribbed Liberal.   A Conservative majority needs:

"¢	70 seats in the West (they got 68 in 2004);

"¢	70 seats in Ontario (they only got 24 in 2004, the Liberal vote needs to collapse, partially under assault from the left (NDP and Greens), but stranger things have happened in e.g. '57 and '84); and

"¢	15 seats East of the Ottawa River (they only got 7 in 2004 and a 100% gain in _old Canada_ (as Michael Bliss calls it) may be harder than a 300% gain in Ontario).


----------



## Reccesoldier (11 May 2005)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1115789648558_43/?hub=TopStories

All is not lost. Looks like Ont, is prepared to reverse it's self imposed Cranial rectal inversion.


----------



## a_majoor (11 May 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> I am inclined to agree that:
> 
> "¢	The GG should not dissolve parliament, or invite Harper to form a government, without the advice of her prime minister - the _King-Byng Thing_ and all that;
> 
> ...



Allowing Mr Dithers to be hoist on his on petrard is a good strategy, but only one prong; the Conservatives have to throw off the cloaking device and actually put forth some well thought out IDEAS and give us an idea of what they intend to do if in power. Pandering or poll following will not work, and no matter what, I doubt any party could swing a majorety this time around, so some practical ideas on cleaning up the mess, curbing the PMO and some Parliamentry reform to prevent further recurrences of Shawinigate, Adscam, the Billion Dollar Boondoggle etc. should be sufficient for the new session of Parliament.

We are living in a nightmarish time for fans of constitutional government. Jack Layton has staged a coup and effectively became Prime Minister when he blackmailed Mr Martin into accepting an NDP budget, and now Mr Martin continues to cling to power despite having been deposed by a majorety in the house. All we need now is a Junta to close the House of Parliament and the cycle will be complete. (If that happens lets hope there is an "Oliver Cromwell" leading the Junta, as opposed to a Lenin or Franco).


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (11 May 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> I am inclined to agree that:
> 
> "¢	The GG should not dissolve parliament, or invite Harper to form a government, without the advice of her prime minister - the _King-Byng Thing_ and all that;
> 
> ...



The only problem I see Edward is the longer this lasts, the more the Liberals are going to promise to handout and we all know in Canada that "buying votes" works....

And for anyone who has looked, the dollar took at 3/4 point hit this morning alone based on a combination of the above and the lower than expected Trade Surplus numbers.

Bottom Line:  This government doesn't have the mandate or the moral authority to lead so let's get on with an election.  Whoever is elected will have that mandate and we can get on with things.



Matthew.


----------



## camochick (11 May 2005)

> Bottom Line:  This government doesn't have the mandate or the moral authority to lead so let's get on with an election.  Whoever is elected will have that mandate and we can get on with things.



But what if the liberals are re-elected. Who is to say they can't win in another election. I for one can't bring myself to vote conservative, not when I know how they want to run things. I guess my only choices would be the green party or NDP and those choices don't seem too appealing to me either. I"m sure I wouldnt be the only one with this dilema. I could spoil my ballot like i'm sure a great number will do. I guess my point is that who is there really to vote for even if we do go to an election?


----------



## Reccesoldier (11 May 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> I for one can't bring myself to vote conservative, not when I know how they want to run things.



Just out of curiosity what about the CPC platform don't you agree with?


----------



## PuckChaser (11 May 2005)

That link for the CTV site shows the Conservatives in the lead. 

There is no doubt that the next government will be a minority like this one, and if the polls keep with the current trend, the Conversatives will make the ruling party, and I see the NDP becoming the official opposition, if not the Bloc (They could quite possibly take most of Quebec and have the NDP/Liberals split the rest of the country).


----------



## camochick (11 May 2005)

I can't bring myself to vote for a group of people who want to tell me who I can and can't marry. I also don't want them telling me if i can have an abortion or not. I cannot support a group who would rely on the bible to rule the country. I prefer to keep religion and politics seperate.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (11 May 2005)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity what about the CPC platform don't you agree with?



I was just going to ask the same thing.   As a social liberal and fiscal conservative, I've read their platform (after the great link provided by a_majoor yesterday) and was very impressed.   The other issue is that I actually trust Harper will deliver what he promises unlike Martin and unlike Dalton in Ontario.

My key assessment at this time is regardless of what the Liberal Party promises, they do it only to hold onto power and have no moral or ethical commitment to the cause.   That means ALL campaign promises are just matters of convenience and should they regain power they will be tossed aside as convenience dictates.

If you want to look at a great military example of this just check out the recent Sudan announcement.   Paul Martin needs the votes of the Independents.   David Kilgour has been complaining for years about non-intervention in Sudan.   Martin previously said that he would stand everyone down and get them rested.   He also said he would not deploy EVER with a UN Sanction.   Suddenly Paul Martin needs a single vote in the house and he turns his policy on its head.   He commits 150 soldiers to Sudan without a UN resolution and low & behold David Kilgour voted against the non-Confidence motion last night.   

Bottom Line:   Paul Martin is about the most unethical guy I've seen and I wouldn't trust him to carry my golf clubs.....



Matthew.    

P.S.   If you're interested, sometime look up what he did while Finance Minister when he closed all the tax havens, except the Bahamas where he happens to have Canadian Steamships located.   In essence, he made a decision affecting his own business that has resulted in $millions going directly into the pockets of he and his family instead of into Ottawa tax coffers.   How that didn't result in corruption charges I'll never understand.


----------



## George Wallace (11 May 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> But what if the liberals are re-elected. Who is to say they can't win in another election. I for one can't bring myself to vote conservative, not when I know how they want to run things. I guess my only choices would be the green party or NDP and those choices don't seem too appealing to me either. I"m sure I wouldnt be the only one with this dilema. I could spoil my ballot like i'm sure a great number will do. I guess my point is that who is there really to vote for even if we do go to an election?



Everything you have stated here is that you are in fact going to cast a vote for the Lieberals.   You don't feel comfortable in voting for the only legitimate Party that could defeat them.   You don't want to vote for the Lieberals.   You would rather vote for a minority party or spoil a ballot or not vote at all, which in turn allows the Lieberals to once again garner the majority of votes in a riding.   

Step up to the plate; make a "command decision" and make a decision to oust what you feel is an improper government by making a change to a credible opposition party that stands a chance of gaining a majority in Parliament on a National scale.   We all know the Green and NDP parties are not able to do that.   We know a spoiled ballot and not exercising your right to vote does no good.   Have the courage to invoke change.   Remember, if they don't do anything to benefit the Nation, we are still a democracy and they will loose big time in the next election.   I am sure that any responsible Party would be more conscious of how they govern.

Your Call

Your vote should count for something "credible".

{Edit:  Don't you just love Spell Check screwing up your post  ;D}


----------



## Horse_Soldier (11 May 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> I can't bring myself to vote for a group of people who want to tell me who I can and can't marry. I also don't want them telling me if i can have an abortion or not. I cannot support a group who would rely on the bible to rule the country. I prefer to keep religion and politics seperate.



This is an example of why corrupt clowns like the liberals get re-elected.   You've bought into the fear-mongering lies, distortion and mud-slinging liberals are good at.   You would be amazed to find out how many liberal MPs oppose abortion or gay marriage.   You'd also be surprised to find out how many conservative MPs support these two items.   Nowhere do I see in the conservative platform a roll-back of abortion rights, and the right to same-sex marriage is so controversial among canadians themselves that this discussion is far from over, even among conservatives.   Finally, saying that the conservatives would rely on the bible to rule the country is asinine in the extreme.   Yes, the conservatives have members who are more right wing than the rest, but they're a fringe, just like the wing-nuts in the liberal party, and would never be allowed to dictate party policy.   Sorry to say, but you've been hoodwinked by the liberals.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (11 May 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> I can't bring myself to vote for a group of people who want to tell me who I can and can't marry. I also don't want them telling me if i can have an abortion or not. I cannot support a group who would rely on the bible to rule the country. I prefer to keep religion and politics seperate.



You've fallen for the Liberal "branding"....of which I have to them credit, they're a *very* good at.

Seriously, read the new policy document.  They are moving strongly towards the centre and away from the previous socially conservative "Reform Party" policiies.



M.


----------



## Joe Blow (11 May 2005)

> I can't bring myself to vote for a group of people who want to tell me who I can and can't marry. I also don't want them telling me if i can have an abortion or not. I cannot support a group who would rely on the bible to rule the country. I prefer to keep religion and politics seperate.



As I understood it Harper stated at the policy convention that his government will bring forth no abortion legislation, and that the party policy concerning gay marriage is that civil unions should be recognized (along with all attendant spousal benefits).  (Pls correct me if I am wrong about these points.) 

It also bears mentioning that the separation of church and state was meant to keep one institution our of another institution.  So that foreign and domestic policy would not be decided in Rome ...or by the archbishop of Canterbury ...that kind of thing.  It was not intended to keep religious people from governing or to keep them from doing so according to their conscience.

That said, if you ready for change and don't like Conservative platform (keeping the corrections above in mind), and you don't want to go so far left as the NDP (or the Greens), then I'll admit you have a problem there..


----------



## camochick (11 May 2005)

I'm not brainwashed by the liberals and I don't like the fact that people here are basically calling people who would vote liberal a bunch of brain washed idiots. I can guarantee anyone we put in there will have some sort of corruption, it's the nature of politics. When a party is in power, those who are against them  just dig a little deeper to find the wrong doings of the party. We all know that a party can say one thing and do another, even the conservatives. Civil unions, what a joke, let's deny a part of the population the rights of another. I can't and won't vote conservative. I've seen what the conservatives have done to NB, my home province and I would rather bludgeon myself to death with a spoon then vote for them. I am undecided as the where my vote will go or if I will even exercise my right to vote. To me the election is picking the lesser of a bunch of evils. Does the natural law party still run


----------



## George Wallace (11 May 2005)

Joe Blow said:
			
		

> As I understood it Harper stated at the policy convention that his government will bring forth no abortion legislation, and that the party policy concerning gay marriage is that civil unions should be recognized (along with all attendant spousal benefits).   (Pls correct me if I am wrong about these points.)
> 
> It also bears mentioning that the separation of church and state was meant to keep one institution our of another institution.   So that foreign and domestic policy would not be decided in Rome ...or by the archbishop of Canterbury ...that kind of thing.   It was not intended to keep religious people from governing or to keep them from doing so according to their conscience.



On the point of separation of Church and State; it is this Lieberal Government who have crossed the lines.   They have interfered in the Catholic Churches policies on marriage.   They have instructed all CF Chaplains that they"WILL" conduct same sex marriages, even though their Religion may be against it.   They have insisted on the Chaplaincy Corps of the CF change their Cap Badge, due to their false impressions on the significance of the Maltese Cross.   They are the ones interferring in Church policies and politics.   The Conservatives are stating their personal beliefs, but not making them Party Policies.   I find it more honest to allow the Party members to vote on their personal morals and beliefs, rather than what the Lieberal Party policy or caucus dictates.   The corruption has been allowed to go for too long and now they believe they can do as they please.   

I don't know why NS voters think that the Conservatives are Bigots or Racists.   I have a brother in Halifax, who is like a fanatical Hockey Fan, who just despises the Conservatives from his feelings that the Reform Party were nothing but a bunch of Prairie Redneck Racists.   He wouldn't even investigate their platform or policies, falling for all the Lieberal lies and innuendo promulgated during press releases throughout the years.


----------



## Kal (11 May 2005)

Joe Blow and GW - Good posts


----------



## Infanteer (11 May 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> I'm not brainwashed by the liberals and I don't like the fact that people here are basically calling people who would vote liberal a bunch of brain washed idiots.



Well, judging by your branding of the CPC as a bunch of biblie-thumpers, I'd say you are.   Talk about painting with a broad-brush.



> I can guarantee anyone we put in there will have some sort of corruption, it's the nature of politics. When a party is in power, those who are against them   just dig a little deeper to find the wrong doings of the party. We all know that a party can say one thing and do another, even the conservatives.



Yes, sure - but the bottom line is that the Liberals are wearing it now; I'm unsure of why people are willing to toss Peace, Order, and Good Government aside because they won't give the Opposition the chance.



> Civil unions, what a joke, let's deny a part of the population the rights of another.



Yeah, I agree .   Bottom line is that gay people will be together before being permitted to marry and they'll be together after, so I don't see this as an issue vital to our health right now.

However, I'm NOT interested on seeing the 19-Seat NDP get a huge say in the budget and having my fellow soldiers sent to Sudan, with the possibility of loss of life, for the simple purpose of buying a single vote in Parliament.



> I can't and won't vote conservative.



Don't then - it's a democracy.   But don't come on a debate forum, express your views, and expect everyone to let them go unchallenged.



> I've seen what the conservatives have done to NB, my home province and I would rather bludgeon myself to death with a spoon then vote for them.



Don't confuse Provincial and Federal Parties - they are always different.   For example, the BC Liberals are actually a conservative party.



> I am undecided as the where my vote will go or if I will even exercise my right to vote. To me the election is picking the lesser of a bunch of evils. Does the natural law party still run



Well, it seems that people like you are who the CPC is relying on - so disgusted with the Liberals that they won't show up.


----------



## Joe Blow (11 May 2005)

> Civil unions, what a joke, let's deny a part of the population the rights of another.



I'm not sure I understand how marriage is a right.  My understanding of it is as a social convention that many people are privileged to enjoy,, the defining nature of which is that it is between a man and a woman.

In my opinion there is no reason that other kinds of unions should not be recognized (with all attendant spousal benefits), but arguing that failing to artificially extend the word 'marriage' to cover other sorts of unions is an impingement of someone's rights ...well it rings a bit hollow for me.

That said however I think we're past the point of rational discourse here.



> I would rather bludgeon myself to death with a spoon then vote for them.



 :


----------



## Astalos (11 May 2005)

Does it really matter who wins the next election?   It will most likely be a minority (Conservative or Liberal), unless one party can pull off a majority which would be a long shot.   If the conservatives win they will still have to write up a budget and if it does not wet the tooth of the Bloc, Liberals, and the New Democrats, then there will most likely be another election.

I think that if the conservatives win the next election with a minority, we will face the same problems we are now.   Nothing will get done in the house of commons, it will just be petty bickering like the Judy Scrow exotic dancer scandal and the free pizza that was brought up every day for a month in question period (just an estimate I do not know if it was a complete month).   

They only party I have a real problem with is the Bloc.   Otherwise I doubt it really matters who is in charge.   Someone will always do something for someone and something else will get get the shaft, I just hope the military does not get it this time around.

I think the people of Canada should give the conservatives a shot at it, and if they miss it we will not be anyworse than what is going on in Parliament right now.


----------



## camochick (11 May 2005)

I think it's funny that people on here are basically calling people who are not into the conservatives a bunch of idiots brainwashed by the liberals. I'm not brainwashed, I watch the news, read the papers, do independant research on things. I even took the time to research the adscam stuff when the publication ban was on. Who is to say that the conservatives won't let the country down. Politicians are politicians no matter what party they are from.


----------



## Infanteer (11 May 2005)

First off, let's not turn this into a gay marriage debate - I'll simply take that stuff down.

Secondly, Camochick, if you haven't figured it out by now, you are getting tagged for this:



			
				camochick said:
			
		

> I also don't want them telling me if i can have an abortion or not. I cannot support a group who would rely on the bible to rule the country. I prefer to keep religion and politics seperate.



Are you going to substantiate these statements, despite the fact that the contrary has been pointed out already?


----------



## camochick (11 May 2005)

Yeah the contrary has been pointed out. I just think that a party can say one thing to get elected and do another once they are actually elected. The liberals said they would get rid of GSt, I'm still paying it. I don't want this to turn into a gay marriage debate, but for me that is a major issue if we go to an election. I don't think that civil unions are good enough, i think that everyone deserves the same rights.

On another note, the prime minister just did a press conferance and said that he will call a confidence vote next week on the budget and if he loses that he is going to call an election.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (11 May 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> I'm not brainwashed by the liberals and I don't like the fact that people here are basically calling people who would vote liberal a bunch of brain washed idiots.



How else would you describe people who hold such a strong hatred for a party who haven't even read their platform?   By the way I should add that I'm for gay marriage and abortion, but based on recent policy from the new CPC (influenced in large part by the people like Stronach/McKay), and I would contend they are a very different party than they were only 2 years ago.  It's up to you if you're willing to do the research or not or keep the 'brand' you have identified them with, but if you're going to vote you should do your due diligence.  

Link to the new policy document which was just released on March 19, 2005 and as such hasn't gotten a lot of play in the media yet about what has fundamentally changed:
*http://www.conservative.ca/documents/20050319-POLICY DECLARATION.pdf*

I should add at the end of the day that means you vote NDP because that's closer to your ideology, knock yourself out, but the Liberal Party (and in particular Paul Martin - see Canadian Steam Ships) has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt they are liars and cannot be trusted.



Matthew.     

P.S.  See link to NDP affiliate site with a pretty accurate chronology of Martin's dealings with Canadian Steamships which lists the money Martin & family pocketed as opposed to paying taxes at $103 million between 1995 and 2002 which was based on a CBC town hall meeting.  Link: * http://www.flyourflag.ca/chronology/*


----------



## George Wallace (11 May 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> ....... Who is to say that the conservatives won't let the country down. Politicians are politicians no matter what party they are from.




Who is to say that they are?   The Lieberals say that, and if you fall for their logic, then we who think differently would naturally come to the logical conclusion that their "Brainwashing" has been successful.   This "Vote for the Devil you know, rather than the Devil you don't know" logic is truly faulty.   Who says the other guy is a Devil; he could be a Saviour.   It amazed me that that saying has such an effect on Canadians voting in the last election, yet they contradicted that philosophy when commenting on the US election, perferring the Devil they didn't know (Keary) over the Devil they did know (Bush).   What a confused lot we are! 

I personally don't care how you vote, but hope that you will exercise your rights to make a 'valid' vote, not spoiling your ballot.


----------



## Joe Blow (11 May 2005)

Are we establishing something close to a consensus that it is time to go to the polls?

[Edit: Curses.. That's what I get for tempting fate and moderators..]


----------



## Infanteer (11 May 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> How else would you describe people who hold such a strong hatred for a party who haven't even read their platform?     By the way I should add that I'm for gay marriage and abortion, but based on recent policy from the new CPC (influenced in large part by the people like Stronach/McKay), and I would contend they are a very different party than they were only 2 years ago.



Same here, I'm all for gays marrying and not touching Morgenthaler - I don't think the Conservatives would do that with the old PC element (Stronach/MacKay - I actually like MacKay and think he'd be better than Harper) in it; the party would melt down if it gave into the small bible-thumping portion.


----------



## George Wallace (11 May 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> I don't think that civil unions are good enough, i think that everyone deserves the same rights.



I look at this as nonsense.   I am about to celebrate my twentieth Anniversary.   We had a Civil Ceremony, no Church ceremony, and it has not affected our marriage.   

On a slightly different tangent......Common law marriages don't even require a Civil ceremony to be considered "Legal".


----------



## Reccesoldier (11 May 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> I can't bring myself to vote for a group of people who want to tell me who I can and can't marry. I also don't want them telling me if i can have an abortion or not. I cannot support a group who would rely on the bible to rule the country. I prefer to keep religion and politics seperate.



From the policy paper:



> The Conservative party believes that Parliament through a free vote and not the courts should determine the definition of marriage. A Conservative Government would support the freedom of religious organizations to determine their own practices with respect to marriage.



There is absolutely nothing in the Conservative paper on abortion. AAMOF the leader has said that a conservative government would NOT introduce any legislation with regards to abortion.

As already stated your statement about "rely on the bible to rule the country" is completely off the mark.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 May 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> I can't bring myself to vote for a group of people who want to tell me who I can and can't marry. I also don't want them telling me if i can have an abortion or not. I cannot support a group who would rely on the bible to rule the country. I prefer to keep religion and politics seperate.



I think thats a pretty broad statement, and without links to policy or quotes, you're just tossing flames around. 

As to the bible thing, the Republicans in the US are far more Conservatives than our Conservatives, I don't think they'd even try to tamper with abortion or combining Church and State. Opening up those things in this campaign would just ruin their chances for election.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (11 May 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Same here, I'm all for gays marrying and not touching Morgenthaler - I don't think the Conservatives would do that with the old PC element (Stronach/MacKay - I actually like MacKay and think he'd be better than Harper) in it; the party would melt down if it gave into the small bible-thumping portion.



Agreed on MacKay (this time I'll spell it right).  I think he will be PM one day....



M.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (11 May 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> On the point of separation of Church and State; it is this Lieberal Government who have crossed the lines.  They have interfered in the Catholic Churches policies on marriage.  They have instructed all CF Chaplains that they"WILL" conduct same sex marriages, even though their Religion may be against it.  They have insisted on the Chaplaincy Corps of the CF change their Cap Badge, due to their false impressions on the significance of the Maltese Cross.  They are the ones interferring in Church policies and politics.



This is exactly the point: having a situtation where the State issues diktats to the Church under the aegis of "separation of Church and State" is hypocricy of the highest order (OTOH, legitimacy and democracy aren't exactly Liberal strong points)!


----------



## Reccesoldier (11 May 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> They have instructed all CF Chaplains that they"WILL" conduct same sex marriages, even though their Religion may be against it.



George, do you have a source for this? I've heard it before but I've nevwer seen it in writing and I am sent all the CANFORGENS here in D-Land North.


----------



## FredDaHead (11 May 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> I don't think that civil unions are good enough, i think that everyone deserves the same rights.



So, you want religion to stay out of the state, but you want the state to tell religion what to do? How hypocritical is that? What's next? Ordering church officials to sing 'Oh Canada' before each service, and wear maple leafs instead of crosses?

I want religion and state to be separated, because I don't want a skewed interpretation of the Bible to be used to run my country, and I sure as hell don't want the state to tell my church what it can and cannot do. If catholics don't want gay marriage, that's their/our right. But I guess freedom of religion only applies to bringing weapons into schools, and depriving women of their rights, eh? Oh, and of course, giving terrorists a 'get out of jail free' card.

I guess my point more or less ties in with what I_am_John_Galt said... Just needed to vent.


----------



## George Wallace (11 May 2005)

Don't know of the CANFORGEN, but here are a couple of links dating back to the New Year:



> Wed, January 19, 2005
> 
> 
> A gay old time on base
> ...



http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/OttawaSun/News/2005/01/19/903105-sun.html

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25879.0.html


----------



## Infanteer (11 May 2005)

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

Well, looks like the 19th is the date set for a real confidence vote.  Looks like the two independents may have some swing - I'm pretty sure Kilgour is pimping out his vote for more leverage in his old party (the guy is a two-time turncoat), but Cadman's vote may be key; he's stated that he'll go with his constituents in Surrey, who he claims have been phoning and emailing him with demands of non-confidence.

Reminds me of something I said almost a year ago:



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> *The Strategic MP; Chuck Cadman:*  This is the one that has got me thinking the most, and I haven't seen much about it so far in the media; maybe they'll wise up to it.  A few squeakers in British Columbia finished up in the Conservatives favour, giving them 99 seats in the Commons.  Chuck Cadman, ousted from the Conservative spot in a Surrey riding by another candidate signing up some "instant Conservatives" from his ethnic community, managed to show that alot of residents in his riding still believe in the importance of the term *representative* in our representative democracy.  Good on them for voting for a candidate that will represent them in Parliament instead of voting for what has become in recent times a party front man.  Cadman has stated that he will poll his constituents to see what party, if any, they are interested in forming; with the way the seats turned out, Cadman can probably have the option of staying neutral and being a factor in the House.  Either way, hopefully he has the stones to keep his word and stay free of a party or go with his constituants wishes, because I guarantee you all three parties would be willing to "buy" him.
> 
> Anyways, three big implications from this:
> 
> ...


----------



## camochick (11 May 2005)

> So, you want religion to stay out of the state, but you want the state to tell religion what to do?



I never said anyone should tell the churches what to do.

And it's all good and fine that the conservatives are saying this stuff now, but what happens when they are elected. We have endured many years of politicians saying one thing and doing another. Who really knows what their policies will be like if elected. I for one do not want to find out. To me there isnt really a choice. I guess I will have to follow the election , do my research and then make a decision.


----------



## FredDaHead (11 May 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> And it's all good and fine that the conservatives are saying this stuff now, but what happens when they are elected. We have endured many years of politicians saying one thing and doing another. Who really knows what their policies will be like if elected. I for one do not want to find out. To me there isnt really a choice. I guess I will have to follow the election , do my research and then make a decision.



We've been lied to enough by the Liberals, don't you think? Maybe it's time to "give a chance" to someone else, instead of giving a gazillionth chance to the Liberals, no?

If we're gonna get screwed over, why not try something new? Each new term to the liberals gives them more confidence to steal our money.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 May 2005)

"Brain-washed idiot" is not appropriate simply because someone supports a party other than the CPC.

"Brain-washed idiot" is, however, appropriate for someone who believes in myths about the CPC.

I grew up in the '70s and '80s.   My parents grew up in the '50s and '60s.   My grandparents etc.   I have a pretty good idea how "bad" things were in the "old days".   Tell me, to what decade do you imagine the CPC is going to roll us back?   Are we one CPC majority away from realizing a shift in time and space to Dickensian England or the segregated southern US?   Get real.

I am not sure what opinion I should form of someone who believes that marriage is the defining and pressing federal policy issue of our time.   I expect a rational and intelligent human being to behave like one and accord to matters of the federal state the import they warrant - assuming they are matters of the federal state in the first place.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 May 2005)

Quotes,
I never said anyone should tell the churches what to do.
I prefer to keep _religion and politics seperate_. 
I can't bring myself to_ vote for a group of people who want to tell me who I can and can't marry._
_Civil unions, what a joke_, let's deny a part of the population the rights of another

...is it just me or are you so wound up about the Reform party that you bounce around like a superball where they are concerned?

...so if the churches got together and said they would not marry gays what do you think the govt. should do?....Make them?

Sorry for the off-topic but I think its relevent in the political way she see's the Conservatives.


----------



## jerrythunder (11 May 2005)

hello

As a conservitave supporter, i just couldnt pass up the chance of watching  Steven Harper bash the Liberals over many opf their shortcommings. i thought that Harper gave a marvelous speech.

come on guys give me some imput back on how you thought he did!


----------



## camochick (11 May 2005)

If I don't want to vote conservative, I'm not going to vote conservative. I don't care if they promised me a BMW and a monkey butler, I still wouldnt do it. That is the choice I make. I am not dumb, or brainwashed. I am not going to vote based solely on the gay marriage issue, nor am I going to vote solely on any one issue. I will make my decision when the time comes based on what party I think is going to best serve my country and the people in it. Yes, we need a change in Canada, but I just don't feel that the conservatives are the answer. I've seen the conservatives at work in NB , why do you think I now live in Alberta( I know the government is conservative here, but atleast I can get affordable housing and actually make a living here)


----------



## Joe Blow (12 May 2005)

> And it's all good and fine that the conservatives are saying this stuff now, but what happens when they are elected. We have endured many years of politicians saying one thing and doing another. Who really knows what their policies will be like if elected.



That's not really an argument against voting Conservative, it's an argument about trusting anything that any politician says.  If you are just generally cynical then you're *really* in a pickle.  Why vote for anyone at all?  After all; 'We have endured many years of politicians saying one thing and doing another. Who really knows what their policies will be like if elected'.

Sure it's possible that any politician could deviate form their word.  However, as voters all we can do is look at what they are telling us now and hold them to account if they deviate from it while in power. (MP recall legislation anyone?)

I've heard this business of "oh.. sure they say that now but..." leveled at the Conservatives before.  I still don't understand it. Why are you singling out the Conservative Party for possible misrepresentation?  Do the same doubts not apply to every party?

I have a dark suspicion that it might amount to something like "their a bunch of evil extremists and as such are more prone to misrepresenting themselves then golden hearted left leaning parties".  Please prove me wrong.


----------



## camochick (12 May 2005)

I'm not against any one party, I am sure that every party has it's good and bad points. I just don't like the conservatives, I never have and I never will. I don't know if i have to put this in french for people to get or what. It's not because I think they are evil, or because I like the liberals, or because I have been brainwashed. They do not reflect my morals or my values. I don't think they would best represent me. If others want to vote conservative, then go right ahead. That is the great thing about being in a democracy ,we all have the right to chose.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 May 2005)

I think what is hard to understand is this,

_I just don't like the conservatives, I never have and I never will._

That second part is just stupid for a voting age adult to say....................


----------



## George Wallace (12 May 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I think what is hard to understand is this,
> 
> _I just don't like the conservatives, I never have and I never will._
> 
> That second part is just stupid for a voting age adult to say....................



I don't know......I pretty well felt that way when Mulroney was killing the PC Party and its' credibility.  Perhaps they are the "Conservatives" she is talking about?  Different animal, I know, but some people tend to have Alzheimer's, remembering the old times, but not what happened recently, when it comes to politics.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (12 May 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I think what is hard to understand is this,
> 
> _I just don't like the conservatives, I never have and I never will._
> 
> That second part is just stupid for a voting age adult to say....................



Agreed, that may be one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a while and ranks up there in absurdity with the old classic: "Don't bother me with the facts, I've already made up my mind...."

Perhaps she's just too "tolerant" and "open-minded" for the rest of us. [gently removes tongue from inside cheek]


M.    :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 May 2005)

George,
I meant the " and I never will" quote in reference to ANY party,.... it obvious its just the name she hates,[ or the not en vogue to be a Conservative factor] and like I said "pretty stupid for a voting age adult to say".


----------



## Joe Blow (12 May 2005)

1) The abortion thing has been addressed:


> Harper stated at the policy convention that his government will bring forth no abortion legislation



2) The religion and state thing has been addressed:


> the separation of church and state was meant to keep one institution our of another institution.  So that foreign and domestic policy would not be decided in Rome ...or by the archbishop of Canterbury ...that kind of thing.  It was not intended to keep religious people from governing or to keep them from doing so according to their conscience.



3) The denying the rights of gay people wishing to marry thing has been addressed:


> I'm not sure I understand how marriage is a right.  My understanding of it is as a social convention


 with characteristics x, y and z ...not a, b and c.  One of those characteristics is that it is between a man and a woman. 





> arguing that failing to artificially extend the word 'marriage' to cover other sorts of unions is an impingement of someone's rights ...well it rings a bit hollow



4) The 'what's their real agenda' thing has been addressed:


> That's not really an argument against voting Conservative, it's an argument about trusting anything that any politician says.





> Why are you singling out the Conservative Party for possible misrepresentation?  Do the same doubts not apply to every party?



However rather than point out flaws in the replies to your objections you come back with:



> I would rather bludgeon myself to death with a spoon then vote for them.


and


> I just don't like the conservatives, I never have and I never will.


and


> I'm not going to vote conservative. I don't care if they promised me a BMW and a monkey butler, I still wouldn't do it.



Although I liked the monkey butler quip I have say that I am beginning to sympathize with professors of the 'brainwash' (...or rather victim of effective rhetoric) theory.  It's because you are not responding to rational replies to your objections.

I think it's fine that you vote with you conscience.  All I'm saying is I don't think we're really having a conversation here.  What's happening is that you have voiced objections, they have been replied to, and rather than reply to them in turn ...you just restate your position.

I'm sure you're a cognizant and reflective voter but I have to ask,[edit] in this particular conversation [end edit]; 'Is it a wonder that the 'brainwash' theory is carrying so much currency?


----------



## a_majoor (12 May 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> I'm not against any one party, I am sure that every party has it's good and bad points. I just don't like the conservatives, I never have and I never will. I don't know if i have to put this in french for people to get or what. It's not because I think they are evil, or because I like the liberals, or because I have been brainwashed. *They do not reflect my morals or my values.* I don't think they would best represent me. If others want to vote conservative, then go right ahead. That is the great thing about being in a democracy ,we all have the right to chose.



God help us if the LIBERALS reflect our morals or values....

Frankly it is difficult to see how a rational person can respond to these sorts of statements. They are obviously driven by emotion rather than fact (as a read of the Conservative Party convention papers would have shown). If only the Conservative party really went on a drive to sell these policiy proposals to the public and let people see for themselves (as opposed to hearing the Liberal whisper campaign version) then we would hear far less of this sort of statement from anyone.

As for who is promoting these "spun" versions of the Conservative platform, kindly look to the Canadian MSM, which dilligently ignores stories like Adscam, Shawinigate, the Billion Dollar Boondoggle, Mr Dither's private doctor (who also runs a thriving private clinic for those of you who would like to avoid waiting lines) and so on until they become simply impossible to ignore. Even then, the memory hole closes like a trap door, any bets to how fast the Gomery Inquiry would have vanished from the media radar after the report came in (about 1.5 seconds, lots of time for Mr Dithers to have covered his tracks in the begged for "30 days after the report").

Final analysis; if you don't want to vote for a particular party, then be up fron as to what you are looking for and which party actually represents YOUR morals and values. If it turns out to be the Marxist Lenninists, then fine. If you find there is no exact match, then start reading the platforms very closely to see what is promised, then look to the historical record to see if they have delivered in the past. 

Analogies are useful: for a taste of Jack Layton's NDP, read up on Bob Rae's Ontario (or look at Jack's Coup attempt on the budget). How many Liberal "Red Book" promises ever came to pass? Mike Harris and Brian Mulroeny actually did the things they said they would do (which turns out to be a negative in politics, cest la vie).

We still live in a notional democracy (even if the Liberal govenment refuses to leave now trhey have been ousted by Parliament), so do the work and make a difference by voting. People who are not service members can make an even bigger bang by working for their chosen party, so get out there people!


----------



## Joe Blow (12 May 2005)

> Shawinigate, the Billion Dollar Boondoggle, Mr Dither's private doctor


a_majoor - Thank-you.  I thought everyone else had forgotten those...


----------



## George Wallace (12 May 2005)

Well......As I said before:   "Some people tend to have Alzheimer's, remembering the old times, but not what happened recently, when it comes to politics."


----------



## a_majoor (12 May 2005)

A media analysis from a Canadian blogger:

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000244.html



> May 10, 2005
> Media bias?
> 
> CBC - House passes motion calling on Liberals to resign - The House passed a motion that opposition parties claim should topple the government ïÂ¿Â½ but the Liberals have dismissed it as nothing more than a procedural matter.
> ...


----------



## Reccesoldier (12 May 2005)

Camochick. I can sympathise with you. I could never bring myself to vote Liberal. 

They are all a bunch of criminals who spend all their time pandering to special interest groups. 

They have cornered the market on hypocracy and inaction, they promise the world and deliver only unto their friends. 

Personaly, they could offer me a Senators position (like they did to try to buy off Inky Mark) but I wouldn't vote for them if they were indeed the last vestage of democracy (like they claim) left in Canada. 

They bend over backwards, while they bend the nation over frontwards to gain more votes. Brown envelopes stuffed with cash, all expense paid trips to liberal friendly corporate hideaways (iI can just imagine what government "policy" was decided in that company's favour), weak on child pornography the list goes on and on. 

I don't need to read their policy paper to know that they are unaccountable, untrustworthy, corrupt, mismanagers who only exist to satisfy their own lust for power and the taxpayers money.





Now that I've stated this vaccuous diatribe, do you see the point that is being made?


----------



## PuckChaser (12 May 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "Brain-washed idiot" is not appropriate simply because someone supports a party other than the CPC.
> 
> "Brain-washed idiot" is, however, appropriate for someone who believes in myths about the CPC.
> 
> ...



You have a vary alarmist view of the CPC, its almost scary. I certainly don't appreciate the brain-washed idiot comment, as would anyone else, no matter what party they support. So maybe if we stuck to debating the issues at hand, like most have done, an intelligent and informative topic will come of this.

Which Conservative party do you speak of, when you believe they'll roll us back to the 50s? The governments that lead during those times had very different issues, and very different views on things such as segregation, women's rights, and marrage. This is a different decade, century, and millenium. None of those things apply. Do you honestly think that a party could get elected now with a platform of re-introducing segregation, decreasing women's rights, or putting more religion into the running of the State? You forget that we in Canada are a democracy, and such bills have to be voted into law via Parliament. I know we've been stuck with the Liberals pushing any little bill they feel like (Gay marrage? That's been fast-tracked beyond belief), but this next government WILL NOT be a majority. Canada needs a few years of minority governments, which are not lead by the Liberals. They have become to complaincent with the positions they hold, and do not want to let go. A minority government is where the real will of the people is shown, as MPs now have to pay attention to constituants instead of towing a party line.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (12 May 2005)

I am set in my voting ways but I would like to hear from those on this site that are anti-conservative as to exactly what is so scary about the conservative party.Honestly all I have ever heard were the unsubstantiated fear mongering by liberals but exactly why are people believing the whispers from the same polititions that have stolen from Canadians or filled their heads with empty promises for years.

   I would like a direct conservative platform quote that should make me think twice about voting conservative........anyone,anyone, bueller???


----------



## JBP (12 May 2005)

I don't think any of the major parties are responsible or honest enough to be our leaders. They've all dipped thier hand in the collective ass of the Canadian people and pulled our intestines out. We've been raped repeatedly by the Liberals, Conservatives (slightly before my time, I was young but I remember) and NDP; not that they've been able to gain much power in the last couple decades to have an incredible influence, but nontheless. I don't know much about the Bloc Quebecois really, EDITED: Correction, I know the party is a seperatist movement, but I am not current on all thier policies. Except that at one point they were basically trying to tear Canada apart. (Not sure if thier still doing that...)

Stephen Harper is basically the Canadian version of G.W. Bush, which, we could actually possibly use to bring Canada back onto the world stage. Mr.Dithers is just that, (Crap, will the Canadians love me if I do THIS? Ohh, but that's quite devastating to our relationship with the US and really harmful for the country... O well, we'll do it anyway! They voted me in to do what they want, not to be responsible or anything!!!)

Just my $0.02, yes, needs some modifying and I'm still educating myself about the individual parties to try and come to a decision before sh*t hits the fan. But there it is, in a nutshell, I am NOT satisfied with any of the major political parties or leaders in Canada at the moment, and haven't been appeased in the last couple years really.

PS> Okay, whoever wants to flame me or rip my post apart and try to convert me, just PM me unless you have constructive critisizm, for that, I'm all ears. Food for thought.



[EDITED FOR CONTENT: THIS IS THE SECOND TIME I'VE HAD TO DO THIS HERE.  IF YOU KIDS WANT TO TALK POLITICS, ACT LIKE BIG BOYS AND BE AWARE THAT YOU ARE SOLDIERS REPRESENTING CANADA AND SERVING UNDER THE QUEENS REGULATIONS AND ORDERS.  READ SECTION 103.15:

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/qr_o/vol2/ch103_e.asp#103.15

LAST WARNING - INFANTEER]


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (12 May 2005)

Stephen Harper is basically the Canadian version of G.W. Bush





Can you explain to me what the similarities are??


----------



## Joe Blow (12 May 2005)

> Stephen Harper is basically the Canadian version of G.W. Bush


That's the kind of thing that really needs a supporting argument.


----------



## a_majoor (12 May 2005)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> Stephen Harper is basically the Canadian version of G.W. Bush




Now that the Martin government has fallen but pretends otherwise (aka ignoring the vote of non confidence in the house), *who would like to compare Mr Martin to?* Fransisco Franco? Joseph Stalin? (no, wait, Stalin was decicive), Juan Peron? Adolph Hitler?

Face it, *Mr Martin gave up his Prime Ministerial position the second he acceded to Jack Layton's blackmail* (pass my budget or you loose the next vote in the house), and ignoring a recorded Parliamentry vote on spurious grounds simply puts Martin farther into the rougues gallery of petty and not so petty dictators. Whoever wins the next election should spend a lt of time examining how this governmental system is put together and propose some drastic changes to prevent a similar constitutional crisis from happening again.

The only bright spot in the entire affair: They can't call out the Army to keep them in power like some crazed Junta, because they have destroyed it! The irony of it all keeps me laughing all day......


----------



## Reccesoldier (12 May 2005)

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> I don't know much about the Bloc Quebecois really, except that at one point they were basically trying to tear Canada apart. (Not sure if thier still doing that...)



Okay, I switched off right here. If you do not know enough to know that the Bloc are a separatist party then perhaps you should remain silent lest you as the man said "open it and remove all doubt"


----------



## Thirstyson (12 May 2005)

Am I the only one that wants to see this budget passed, THEN see the liberal lose a confidence vote.

This is a pretty good budget for all Canadians, CF included.


----------



## RCA (12 May 2005)

Whether we go now or go later all depends what side of the line you fall on. The conservatives can smell blood, and going sooner rather them later is better for them electoral-wise then waiting for the Gomery commission. Therefore, I would conclude, from them, that the commission no longer matters, and can be wrapped up now. What would be the harm from waiting? If the election is called, the Commission dies, and we, the people we never get the full accounting of the scandal. As well Martin would be a suicidal fool to go back on his very public promise. What is more important, finding out what happen, or Harper's quest for the Prime Ministership? Will a few more months really make a difference to the Liberal party fortunes. Probably not, if the commission keeps getting the information it is getting. And we, the public, would have more information, never a bad thing.

   The money the Liberals are throwing around is not committed funds, but promises of spending (and over a couple of years I would suspect) so the treasury is not running dry.   If people fail to elect the Conservatives, it is not Liberal fear mongering, but failure of the party to clearly articulate their position on how they are better able to run this county then the Liberals, or just   the country may not ready for their brand of politics. 
There is a lot of talk about electoral reform, but nothing will be solved, because the problem is the nature of politics today. We see it in the States, and we see it here, where everything is partisan, and a take no prisoners approach is more valued then compromise (which was the art of politics before). The VE Day debacle is a prime example. What Martin should have done is gone any way, and if Harper had played politics and brought the gov't down, then he would have paid the price. Minorities use to work, now will not. Guaranteed, if we get either a Conservative or Liberal minority, nothing will get done due to constant political maneuvering to bring it down.   

As I said before, all is viewed through whatever prism you have. If you fall on the right of centre line, The NDP has high jacked the government, whereas cozying up to the Bloc is just business (quote from Inky Mark). However if you fall on the left, the NDP took advantages of an opportunity (their platform isn't secret) and the Liberals could have said no. And the last time the Conservatives got tight with separatist was Mulroney and does anyone remember how that went. And if the Conservatives get a minority, what compromises will they make?

This will be one of the dirtiest campaigns coming up whenever it is, and that is because of the winner take all, stomp the opponent into the ground mentality. A lot less issues, and a lot more bashing. No one will gain and all will come out smelling a lot less sweet. Is this the chicken or the egg. Did we as the public come to expect this, or is what politicians perceive we want. What the election will be about is a tired worn out government against a party that wants to win at all costs. Not going to be a pretty sight. (You can already see by the some of the partisan comments made here and elsewhere)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 May 2005)

Quote,
_Am I the only one that wants to see this budget passed, THEN see the liberal lose a confidence vote.
This is a pretty good budget for all Canadians, CF included._

Very good point, for me anyways, as I really haven't checked out the meat of the budget yet. Its sad when the side shows trump the "big top",...oh well such is the life of the circus politition.


----------



## Prariedawg (12 May 2005)

I do not want to wait a week,a day or another ten minutes to see this "goverment"act like it has some responsibility towards this country and call an election.I want no more of my tax dollars that I thought were going into shoddy social programs going into fat-cat liberal pockets,I want to see a leader with some morals and conscience in the drivers seat,not some mindless goon bought and paid for by MINORITY special intrest groups,the tail has wagged the dog for too f******g long in this country and it is my fervent hope we will have the leader we need in control when all this has died down.As for some comments being made about this budget being good for Canadians all I have to say is that do you really think that if re-elected this provenly corrupt goverment will honor any of those promises?They made a deal with the NDP and promised to break it before the ink was dry,are you so morally jaded as to think being bought with your own taxes which should have been used for the programs the libs are now promising years ago becouse it was thier DUTY as the elected goverment to do so is a good idea?The only reason they are promising to spend OUR money correctly now is becouse they got busted,how can you not see that?If you know anything about budgets all these fairy-tale handouts the libs are promising are slated for 4-5 years from now,if re-elected you wont see a thin dime and yes im willing to bet on that.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 May 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Now that the Martin government has fallen but pretends otherwise (aka ignoring the vote of non confidence in the house), *who would like to compare Mr Martin to?* Fransisco Franco?



This just in:  GENERALISSIMO PAUL MARTIN STILL DOES NOT HAVE THE CONFIDENCE OF THE HOUSE ... further updates as necessary.

(Sorry, old SNL joke - couldn't resist)   ;D


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 May 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> I never said anyone should tell the churches what to do.



Um, then you support the Conservative (rather than the Liberal/NDP) position.  Seems kind of shame that you would vote against something you believe in.


----------



## old medic (12 May 2005)

http://www.caglecartoons.com/preview.asp?previewType=download&imageID={89B03B65-DD89-4AC8-B54F-4A2956D86908}


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 May 2005)

>They do not reflect my morals or my values.

So, what are your morals and values?  I am particularly interested in whether you believe individuals have any rights that should be completely or nearly beyond the power of the state to infringe.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 May 2005)

I continue to come across opinions that the CPC has failed to make its position and policies well-known.  The first step in an election campaign is to have the election called.


----------



## mover1 (12 May 2005)

I wish there was a vote coming on soon. I don't believe that the liberals can effectively govern now. The quicker it comes, the quicker we can get on with our lives.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (12 May 2005)

Just for those who are interested, as you may or may not know this vote will come down to the 3 independent MP's because the Liberals and NDP have 150 MP's, the Bloc and Conservatives have 153 MP's however in the case of a draw the Speaker of the House (a Liberal) breaks the deadlock.

In short, unless one of the independents leans towards the CPC/Bloc then the Liberals could hang on....

The three independents are:
Carolyn Parrish - former Liberal who leans left and will support the Liberal/NDP block
Chuck Cadman - don't really know his history
David Kilgour - former Liberal who although originally backing the non-confidence motion now appears to have been bought by Paul Martin's promise to deploy troops to Darfur.

Bottom Line:  I'm don't consider myself a political activist but I'm so pissed right now I'm willing to do things I otherwise wouldn't.  I've already emailed Mr Kilgour and will be emailing Mr Cadman as well.  (Carolyn Parrish is waste of time).  The interesting part is it appears as though I'm not alone.  I was just over on Tanknet and members there posted two letters they had emailed to Mr Kilgour and Mr Cadman.  I suggest anyone who really cares and wants their voice heard to step up now, because if this does go the other way and Martin hangs on, things are going to go from bad to worse....

For reference purposes here are the two letters with Mr Kilgour and Mr Cadman's email addresses for those who wish to try to make a difference (I will post my letters later tonight).



Matthew.   

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


> letter to Chuck Cadman 'Cadman.C@parl.gc.ca'
> 
> Dear Mr. Cadman
> 
> ...




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



> Kilgour.D@parl.gc.ca
> 
> 
> Dear Mr. Kilgour,
> ...



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


----------



## Andyboy (12 May 2005)

He should realize that he has a better chance of getting what he wants if he backs Harper.


----------



## civvy3840 (12 May 2005)

old medic said:
			
		

> http://www.caglecartoons.com/preview.asp?previewType=download&imageID={89B03B65-DD89-4AC8-B54F-4A2956D86908}



lol that's pretty good


In my opinnion they should have had a confidence vote a couple weeks ago... If the Liberals don't get booted out completely (which I hope they do!) then at least get rid of Martin.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (12 May 2005)

civvy3840 said:
			
		

> lol that's pretty good
> 
> 
> In my opinnion they should have had a confidence vote a couple weeks ago... If the Liberals don't get booted out completely (which I hope they do!) then at least get rid of Martin.



Just to streamline things because this cartoon is classic, here's where the link was going....


Matthew.


----------



## civvy3840 (12 May 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Just to streamline things because this cartoon is classic, here's where the link was going....
> 
> 
> Matthew.



That is a classic.... I didn't know the significance of the steam boat until someone told me that Martin used to own a line of steam boats or something and now his son does. Makes it even better.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 May 2005)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2005/05/12/1036740-cp.html
Parliament shut down again

By ALEXANDER PANETTA
     
OTTAWA (CP) - Gov. Gen. Adrienne Clarkson has spoken with Prime Minister Paul Martin and consulted constitutional experts this week as Parliament descends into chaos. 
"The Governor General is monitoring the situation very closely," said an official. Martin's office would not confirm the conversation but pointed out that they speak often about her schedule. Clarkson has been thrust into the midst of a political storm with the opposition calling on her to take control of what they call an unworkable Parliament. 

The opposition grabbed control of the House of Commons on Thursday, shut it down, and asked for Clarkson to help trigger an election. 
The one-day walkout was the boldest move yet by the Bloc Quebecois and the Tories to demonstrate that the minority Liberals no longer hold power. 
"We've now demonstrated three days in a row (that) the government does not have the confidence of the House," Harper said. 

"It could go on until the government or the Governor General is forced to admit that the government has lost its mandate to govern the country." 
The Governor General has the authority to dissolve Parliament and order an election - or consider whether the Oppostion is capable of forming a government - if she deems the House has lost confidence in the ruling government. She can also advise the prime minister. 
But democractic convention stipulates that the government should first test the confidence of the House, which Martin has said he will do next Thursday. 

A federal official said the prime minister called Clarkson this week but he wasn't aware of what they discussed. 
He also said she has consulted "well known and reputable" constitutional experts. 
The prime minister has promised two confidence votes on the federal budget next Thursday but the opposition wants a vote immediately. They're worried that a Tory MP with cancer - Darrel Stinson - won't make it to a late-week vote because he needs surgery. 

A senior government official said the prime minister won't be taking any direction from Clarkson. 
"The Governor General receives advice from her first minister. She doesn't tender it," the official said. 
The opposition's appealed for Clarkson's intervention after they shut down most of the workings of Parliament on Thursday. 
First they boycotted some parliamentary committees, then they powered through a motion to close the House of Commons just before noon. 

Martin had to suspended a cabinet meeting and his ministers scurried down the Centre Block staircase to vote on the motion. 
The government lost 152-144. 
Within minutes, tour guides were escorting camera-toting visitors across a barren lower chamber as the daily theatre of question period was scrubbed. 
Martin responded to the opposition with a new $170-million aid package for Sudan and cited it as proof his government is still functioning. 
"Canadians get up in the morning and they go to work," he said. "I think parliamentarians should do the same." 

The Conservatives and Bloc say the Liberals can't govern until they allow an immediate vote of confidence. 
The Conservatives will fight the Liberal plan to delay the votes until Thursday. They want them by Monday at the latest and say they will vote against any motion to schedule a confidence showdown for Thursday. 
Stinson's vote could be critical in a deadlocked Commons. The vote will be so tight that the result depends on how three Independent MPs vote. 

But the prime minister said he will not change the date of the confidence motion and a possible election call. 
"There is an election in British Columbia (on Tuesday)," Martin said. 
"The Queen is arriving on Tuesday and Wednesday (for a visit to Saskatchewan and Alberta) and I think it's very important that we respect that."

Liberal whip Karen Redman says her party and the NDP are still showing up for work. 
"There is work being done," she said. 
"We're reporting into work - we're punching the clock. We're here doing what Canadians sent us less than a year ago to do, and that's to do the business of government." 

A defeat of the budget next Thursday would pave the way for a June 27 election. 
The Bloc and Tories say they're not willing to wait. 
They say the Liberals lost the confidence of the House in a vote earlier this week and they're determined to prove it by shutting down Parliament. 

The Liberals' frailty was underscored when Independent MP David Kilgour demanded 500 Canadian soldiers be sent to Sudan. 
He warned that the Liberals might not get his key vote on the budget unless he sees enough Canadian boots on the ground in Darfur. 
He said he was unimpressed with Martin's promise to deploy up to 100 Canadian Forces personnel and hinted he might vote to defeat the government.


----------



## Infanteer (13 May 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> The Liberals' frailty was underscored when Independent MP David Kilgour demanded 500 Canadian soldiers be sent to Sudan.
> He warned that the Liberals might not get his key vote on the budget unless he sees enough Canadian boots on the ground in Darfur.



This is what really bothers me - all issues of Darfur aside, the deployment of soliders should be based on geneuine concerns of National Security; I'm not really interested in going over there so that Paul Martin can get David Kilgours vote.... :rage:


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (13 May 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> A senior government official said the prime minister won't be taking any direction from Clarkson.
> "The Governor General receives advice from her first minister. She doesn't tender it," the official said.



The mask slips ...



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> This is what really bothers me - all issues of Darfur aside, the deployment of soliders should be based on geneuine concerns of National Security; I'm not really interested in going over there so that Paul Martin can get David Kilgours vote.... :rage:



Kilgour was on Canada AM this morning and said that "the government" hasn't done enough to secure his vote ... this whole thing is scary in so many ways (kind of a "Perfect Storm" of everything that is wrong with the Canadian poliitcal system).


----------



## PuckChaser (13 May 2005)

I don't think troops should be used as a bargaining chip.


----------



## canadianblue (13 May 2005)

> Tell me, to what decade do you imagine the CPC is going to roll us back?  Are we one CPC majority away from realizing a shift in time and space to Dickensian England or the segregated southern US?



Aw yes, thats an age old argument always made. Well I would'nt mind reversing alot of Trudeau's policies, and bringing back pride in our country again, that would always be nice. My grandfather grew up in the 40's and 50's, and this wasn't that bad of a country to him, I mean 100,000 Canadian's died for that awful country you are referring to, and I doubt they died for a country which was oppressive and evil which you seem to think it was. 

It really bothers me about Sudan because Paul Martin originally said we couldn't send troops their, now that his government is in trouble he can send troops to Sudan. Sorry to say it but thats a bargaining chip their, and he's just trying to save his government. I remember when everybody thought Paul Martin was going to be the best prime minister ever, as it turns out he'll probably be the worse PM Canada ever had.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 May 2005)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> Aw yes, thats an age old argument always made. Well I would'nt mind reversing alot of Trudeau's policies, and bringing back pride in our country again, that would always be nice. My grandfather grew up in the 40's and 50's, and this wasn't that bad of a country to him, I mean 100,000 Canadian's died for that awful country you are referring to, and I doubt they died for a country which was oppressive and evil which you seem to think it was.
> 
> It really bothers me about Sudan because Paul Martin originally said we couldn't send troops their, now that his government is in trouble he can send troops to Sudan. Sorry to say it but thats a bargaining chip their, and he's just trying to save his government. I remember when everybody thought Paul Martin was going to be the best prime minister ever, as it turns out he'll probably be the worse PM Canada ever had.



Actually it wasn't just that we wouldn't send troops.  It was that we wouldn't deploy without a UN resolution.

I haven't seen a UN resolution.  Anyone else seen a UN resolution?

Newest oxymoron: "Liberal Commitment"



Matthew.   ???


----------



## Horse_Soldier (13 May 2005)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> I remember when everybody thought Paul Martin was going to be the best prime minister ever, as it turns out he'll probably be the worse PM Canada ever had.


No, that distinction will go to Trudeau, since he actively screwed the country with his policies and landed us where we are now.   Close second will be his lapdog, Chrétien.   Martin hasn't really done anything of importance as PM, compared to those two, and will likely end up in the same historical league as John Turner and Kim Campbell.


----------



## Danjanou (13 May 2005)

Horse_Soldier said:
			
		

> No, that distinction will go to Trudeau, since he actively screwed the country with his policies and landed us where we are now.   Close second will be his lapdog, Chrétien.   Martin hasn't really done anything of importance as PM, compared to those two, and will likely end up in the same historical league as John Turner and Kim Campbell.



Hopefully 8)


----------



## canadianblue (13 May 2005)

> No, that distinction will go to Trudeau, since he actively screwed the country with his policies and landed us where we are now.  Close second will be his lapdog, Chrétien.



Thats true, however to most Canadian's unfortunately he is considered the greatest Prime Minister, more or less because they don't know anything about Canadian History before Trudeau. I hate Trudeau, what the hell did he even do, he screwed the country over it. Besides that, where was he during Korea and World War, I can tell you for certain that he wasn't supporting Canada during those two engagements. 



> [Actually it wasn't just that we wouldn't send troops.  It was that we wouldn't deploy without a UN resolution.
> 
> I haven't seen a UN resolution.  Anyone else seen a UN resolution?
> 
> ...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 May 2005)

RE:  The need for a UN resolution, I was referring to a comment Paul Martin had made personally in the last little while.  There was no resolution on Kosovo, but obviously that was a different guy.

My point is that Mr Martin appears to change positions based on his perception of his ability to save his own skin as opposed to based on a moral or ethical imperative.




M.


----------



## canadianblue (13 May 2005)

> My point is that Mr Martin appears to change positions based on his perception of his ability to save his own skin as opposed to based on a moral or ethical imperative.



Well thats politicians for you, especially the Liberals they screw over anybody to stay in power. Hell, Paul Martin would probably prostitute himself to Ron Jeremy to keep power.


----------



## larry Strong (13 May 2005)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> Well thats politicians for you, especially the Liberals they screw over anybody to stay in power. heck, Paul Martin would probably prostitute himself to Ron Jeremy to keep power.




Geez that would be one butt ugly film - no pun intended.


----------



## Slim (14 May 2005)

What bothers me so much about this whole situation is, even if we have an election, the Liberals have managed to scare the majority of Canadians into voting Liberal, through Conservative fearmongering.

I believe that the average Canadian knows that the Libs are crooks, who want nothing more than to stay in power at any cost. Its just that no one will vote for anyone else.

And now, through a none-confidence vote, the Libs are refusing to turn over the govt power even though the vote went against them!

Isn't that dictatorship?!

Jesus...Someone please get these clowns out of powewr before they completely destroy the country!

Slim

P.S. They can take the gun registry with them...


----------



## a_majoor (15 May 2005)

We are in some sort of unstable transitional period in Canadian history. I forget where I heard this exactly, but the Liberal party was characterized as a "brokerage party" which attempts to gain and maintain power by patronage games, regional deals, total lack of defining vision and all the other things we have come to loath.

The other part of the description is that brokerage parties are common in weak and immature democracies, and sooner or later, they pass out of existence (there may still be a Liberal party after the transition, but they will actually represent something. As a bonus, they may be *actual liberals*, committed to individual rights and responsibilities and limited Government [that is the correctly political meaning of the word liberal, after all]).

For the next five years or so, I would expect a turbulent period of unstable minority governments, with the left wing axis defined by the Liberals, NDP and perhaps the Green Party, with the Conservatives and Bloc forming an "economic conservative" coalition, perhaps resembling the Mike Harris government in Ontario. The only hope for breaking the deadlock in either direction would be the increasing radicalization of the left alienating large blocks of voters (similar to the current self immolation of the Democrats), or a large enough block of left wing voters creates the conditions for a socialist coalition government (hello Green Card!).

My own thoughts as to how to make real changes to Canada would be to concentrate on the cities. Civic government has the potential to be the nexus of a political revolution. In my home city of London, city council spends like Liberals and has given us a combined 13% tax hike in the last two years alone. If the right sort of people could be elected with the drive to commit to deep spending cuts and tax roll backs, millions (I estimate up to $100 million, one Adscam) could be released back into the productive economy in London alone. Imagine if major urban centres started going this way in response to high tax bills; the Canadian economy would receive a real boost, with perhaps billions of dollars returned to the productive economy, and the taxpayers would be able to see without any shadow of a doubt this is entirely due to local politicians and has nothing to do with the provincial or federal levels of government.

After a while, the same taxpayers might decide this same program of deep spending cuts can be applied to the other levels of government as well.......


----------



## PuckChaser (16 May 2005)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/14/sudan-canada050514.html

Sorta on the same topic... I wonder what Kilgour is going to use to secure his vote now that Sudan doesn't want troops on the ground. I guess maybe the government should ask the country involved before we start sending troops all over the place without a UN resolution?


----------



## a_majoor (16 May 2005)

SuperSlug said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/14/sudan-canada050514.html
> 
> Sorta on the same topic... I wonder what Kilgour is going to use to secure his vote now that Sudan doesn't want troops on the ground. I guess maybe the government should ask the country involved before *we start sending troops all over the place without a UN resolution?*



Wanting to send troops wherever we want is the mark of an Imperial power...Lets see Martin square that away (among all the other contradictions)


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 May 2005)

SuperSlug said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/14/sudan-canada050514.html
> 
> Sorta on the same topic... I wonder what Kilgour is going to use to secure his vote now that Sudan doesn't want troops on the ground. I guess maybe the government should ask the country involved before we start sending troops all over the place without a UN resolution?



We shouldn't kid ourselves.... Paul Martin would promise a $2 billion grant to build Disney North in Yellowknife if he thought it would get him this confidence vote.



M.


----------



## RCD (17 May 2005)

We need to do it NOW.An the dark horse in this race is 
 THE GREEN PARTY


----------



## Gunnar (17 May 2005)

I think you meant a PALE horse....the Green Party would be the kiss of death for what is left of this country.


----------



## scm77 (17 May 2005)

Belinda Stronach has crossed over to the Liberal side of the house.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/17/stronach-liberals050517.html


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 May 2005)

I just about dropped my tea when that came on the TV............and right to cabinet, methinks she is liking this power thing.....

EDIT...just noticed  that we have a thread going on that now, lets keep it seperate, if possible.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30793.0.html


----------



## a_majoor (17 May 2005)

I hope Ms Stronich gets tossed whenever the next election happens.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 May 2005)

So the answer to the question is that we wait for Gomery.  I am also waiting to see whether anyone else crosses; I doubt Stronach was the only person to whom an offer was presented.  The election campaign will last six months - perhaps longer if the promise to hold an election after Gomery reports is as solid as most other Liberal promises.


----------



## a_majoor (17 May 2005)

Good luck any of us waiting for the commision: either it gets closed down like the Somalia Inquiry or the "30 days after" keeps getting put back due to leagal challenges and other "procedural" trickery.

Bottom line, and this is the meme we need to push over evey available channel:

The government was defeated in a vot of no confidence last week, and chose to defy the will of the people


----------



## Gunnar (18 May 2005)

Why would they close the commission down?  The Gomery Comission is FORBIDDEN from finding fault or assigning culpability as part of its mandate.  It's only supposed to investigate to come up with suggestions to stop it from happening again.


----------



## scm77 (18 May 2005)

David Kilgour is leaning towards toppling the government on Thursday.

Here's the article
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/18/kilgour-vote050518.html



			
				David Kilgour said:
			
		

> "At some point, you say to yourself, 'Does the government have any competence? Does it have any sense of what the correct thing is for the correct reasons?'


----------



## a_majoor (18 May 2005)

Old Dave is probably angling for a cabinet seat as well. Even if he was to vote on the side of the angels, we need one of the other independent votes, or have a true miracle happen (backbench Liberals breaking ranks and voting down their corrupt and incompetent leadership).

I won't be holding my breath.


----------



## a_majoor (19 May 2005)

Andrew Coyne has written some great stuff on the ongoing Adscam revelations and games in the lower house, link here and start reading:

http://andrewcoyne.com/


----------



## Slim (23 May 2005)

*Grits stall on contract
ORDERED TO RE-EVALUATE BIDS FOR MOVING STAFF*

OTTAWA -- The Liberal government has yet to comply with a Canadian International Trade Tribunal order to re-evaluate bids for a lucrative moving contract. 

Public Works spokesman Mario Baril said federal officials are picking through the May 16 ruling that chastised the feds for mishandling the awarding of a $154-million contract to move public servants and soldiers. 

"The government officials are presently reviewing the CITT ruling," Baril said. "No decision has been taken at the moment." 

The CITT gave the feds 15 days to set up a fresh re-evaluation committee and comb through all the bids again. 

The ruling is the latest in a war waged between real estate giants vying for the lucrative contract awarded to Royal LePage Relocation last year. 

The ruling came after one of the bidders, Envoy Relocation, complained that the public servants charged with scoring the bids failed to apply the rules. 

Envoy asked to be compensated for the cost of making the bid, pointing out that there's no way it could have won because the competition wasn't fair. 

MOVING CONTRACT 

The CITT sided with Envoy, ordering the feds not only to cut a $2,400 cheque, but to re-evaluate the bids. 

The massive moving contract has been mired in controversy since Royal LePage Relocation first won it in 1999. 

The feds pulled the contract in 2003 after the CITT backed allegations the competition was tilted in Royal LePage's favour. 

An internal probe found some members of the selection committee had accepted gifts from the real estate giant. 

Public Works had a new selection committee re-evaluate bids last year, and Royal LePage again won the contract. 

Conservative MP John Williams, who chairs the public accounts committee, questioned Public Works' claims that they've cleaned up contracting since the sponsorship scandal. 

"Their rhetoric about doing things by the book isn't backed up by their actions," Williams said. "We're concerned about political ties, political influence." 

Conservative MP Dean Allison plans to bring a motion before the public accounts committee May 30 asking Auditor General Sheila Fraser probe the relocation contract. 

*Can we PLEASE get these lying bastards out of power!!*


----------



## Fideo (24 May 2005)

*WAIT FOR GOMERY!!l*lol speaking of which with all the turn of events....I think all the wind has been knocked out of em sails Harper had.....replace Harper with Tory then them red letters might turn BLUE . Im just way to curious to make a decision till Gomery completes his...fair to say at least for some Ontarians. I was one that was happy that knapkin budget got passed. It was a great knapkin! ;D Cheers!


----------

