Netherlands

It should be that if you cross the floor, you have an immediate by-election.

Non-sense. It just makes sense to have a Vancouver minister. In skill, there are alot of people that could fit in just fine. We also have the Tory back room boy who is now Public Works Minister, yet was not elected (or even ran) as a MP. To be appointed to the Senate. Apparently he is the representive of Montreal - I am sure the city is very proud. If getting people from all parts of Canada was so important to him, why is there no one from PEI (traditionally there is always one) or from Toronto, or from the north. That means Harper decided that he needed two people outside of his own caucus to serve in his cabinet, and apparently people like Ablonczy aren't competent enough. I saw her on CBC being interviewed - she looked so disappointed. This was a terrible mistake by Harper - almost insane - that very few people are defending.

I watched the whole debate, and here are my thoughts: I was very impressed with Martin, especially in the last half of the debate. He came off very well when he confronted Duceppe about Quebec separation. Now, I am a Liberal supporter, so take my comments for you what will, but that is my honest opinion. Harper did come off as lacking emotion and somewhat dry. His answer came across as lacking passion, and more interested in saying we have so-and-so running as a candidate. Others might see him as coming off cool, or relaxed, and would see this as a positive. Duceppe's performance was quite poor in my opinion - he had much more trouble with English than usual, not making sense on some answers ('fiscality' - I don't think that is a word). Layton did not perform well either, as I thought he would take too long to get his message across, and several times he was cut off by the moderator. All leaders had trouble in keeping to the question asked, and would veer off to talk about something else.

One more: The debates are extra boring for those of us who are pretty much set into supporting one party (the true believers). We agree with everything that our leader says, and think about all the little errors his opponents make. We only really watch to see fireworks, and when you don't have any, it was a waste of time. But we will all still watch tomorrow's debate, cause were suckers for politics!

Two thoughts: The media will certainly not be happy about this style of debate - no chance for arguing, fighting, bickering, etc, which is the kind of stuff that makes it easy for them to report. Can't say their were any winners or knockout blows. But for the undecided viewer, this is what is needed - a fairly civil dialogue, where the leaders get a reasonable chance to get their message across. Secondly, it is unreasonable to expect that you will have politicians coming out and making great statements and being super eloquent - to be like Trudeau. Very few people are comfortable with public speaking to begin with. I get nervous when I have to talk to class of kids, so I would melt into the floor if I had to talk in front of millions of Canadians. So, all the leaders should be given credit for just showing up. Moreover, all four of these men are intelligent and savy enough not to make glaring mistakes or come off as a fool. When you are at this level, you are not incompetent and won't leave room for others to exploit you. If you want to hear a more interesting kind of debate, where someone can really make a monkey of their opponent, go to the local riding debates. You have good odds that you will hear some funny stuff there.

Wow, this little post generated more replies and debate than I thought it would. A few points to clarify: The article was from CP, not Toronto Star, and it was picked up by all news media. The Conservatives did confirm that it was Harper we all know and love who gave this speech, and not some other 'Steven Harper' You can probably find the speech using a cached version from Google. As for my take on it, and I am a Liberal supporter: The fact that he gave it 8 years ago does not make it irrelevant. In politics, that is not a long time. It does not matter if you were a member of political party when you said it, nor if you were speaking to a non-Canadian audience. If you make a statement before the public, you can't ignore later. I get the impression from this speech that Harper sees himself as a kind of Republican Party member who lives in Canada - he clearly believes that neo-con values and ideas are the way to go. Now here is the question of the day - does Harper still hold these views, or has he changed in his beliefs? I think deep down that Harper still holds these same ideas, but he believes (correctly) that Canadians would never elect him if he does. This gives rise to the whole hidden agenda thing and the thinking that whatever the conservatives put on their website as their platform, it is just window dressing while they would implement far more drastic changes when they get into office (ie. do away with social programs, break down the government, bring in private health care, etc) That is my view. The other view is that Harper's own views have mellowed, and that he understands that Canada is not, nor should be, a clone of rightwing America. If you believe that, then you can accept the Conservatives at their word when they say they will uphold medicare, etc. Any thoughts?

The speech can be found here: http://www.policycounsel.org/18856/39901.html It is not a 'tongue-in-cheek' remarks, but a serious policy speech. Here is the CP article: Ottawa — An eight-year-old Stephen Harper speech, which praises American conservative values, disparages Canada as a “welfare state” and says the jobless aren't worried because they have generous benefits, could provide fresh ammunition to his critics. The speech was delivered to a 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a little-known right-wing American think tank. Mr. Harper's speech went unreported at the time and sat unnoticed on the council's website — with Mr. Harper's first name misspelled as Steven — until an opponent of his social policies began shopping it to reporters on Wednesday. That opponent pointed The Canadian Press towards the speech on condition he not be identified. How each of the parties would conduct the relationship with the United States has become an election issue. A spokesman for the Conservatives confirmed Mr. Harper made the speech but said he made the remarks as a private citizen and intended them to be tongue-in-cheek. At the time, Mr. Harper was between stints as an MP and was vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition and a senior adviser to the old Reform party. Tory strategist Tim Powers says the remarks have “zero relevance” to the Conservative party or its platform. Powers says the speech was similar to the irreverent addresses made by politicians and the Governor-General during the annual press gallery dinner. “It was very familiar, it was very much tongue-in-cheek and that's the nature of that particular speech even as a private citizen,” Mr. Powers said. But at least part of Mr. Harper's speech appears quite sincere. He was invited to speak on the subject of the Canadian political scene. “Your country, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world,” he said in his introduction. He goes on to describe Canada as “a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term.” He adds: “Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States.” However, he tells his audience not to worry about the country's 1.5 million unemployed. “They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.” In the speech, Mr. Harper goes on to dismiss bilingualism, among other things: “The important point is that Canada is not a bilingual country. It is a country with two languages. And there is a big difference.” Among his observations in the speech and a subsequent question-and-answer period: —“Forgive me jesting again, but the NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men.” — The Liberal party has “put sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act and will let the courts do the rest.” —“The leadership of the Conservative Party was running the largest deficits in Canadian history. They were in favour of gay rights officially, officially for abortion on demand.” —“Canada is ... a troubled country politically, not socially. This is a country that we like to say works in practice but not in theory.” —“Canada, in spite of its ongoing social democratic, welfare-state mentality, will continue to move to the right on fiscal, economic and social policy.” New Democrat spokesman Jamey Heath, who limited his comments to Mr. Harper's 1997 remarks on the NDP, said he believes the speech is relevant in the context of the current campaign, but that there are more important issues to discuss. “I think Canadians have figured out where Stephen Harper stands on issues and I'll let Stephen Harper speak on where he stands today,” Heath said. “I think there are more important things to talk about in the election campaign than an eight-year-old speech from somebody who's failed to deliver a thing in this Parliament

Making a broad guess, I would say that there are between 10 to 15 reporters working for all four groups of the CBC in Ottawa. CPAC also has at least two English reporters, and presumably 2 French ones. CTV has at least 2, Global 1, and 1 representing lesser networks (i.e CITY, the A Channel, etc). You would also have a couple more generic radio reporters, a couple more correspondents working for Canadian Press, at least 3 reporters for the Globe and Mail, a couple for the National Post and the Toronto Star, probably about 5 or 6 representing other papers. My guess is that we have about 40 reporters working full time on the Hill, but this is just a guess.

As a resident of a Toronto-suburb, I have to come to the defence of this small town. I think you can find a wide varierty of views here, from all across the political spectrum. The city is always changing, in terms of demographics and neighbourhood redevelopment. As for media, I don't think anywhere else in Canada has as many choices as we do: I can watch the nightly news on at least seven local channels (it would be eight, but I don't know Mandarin); I can read 6 daily newspapers; and my radio has dozens of stations. That gives a lot of diversity. As for Vancouver, I've never been there, but just from seeing pictures of it, it has to be Canada's greatest city. It looks just gorgeous - a backdrop of mountains on one side, the ocean on the other. I would love to live there, and I hope to go there for the Olympics, if not sooner.

In my campaign to be voted as the Best, I will make the following promises to all members: 1. I will bring more attention to issues concerning provincial politics in PEI. Our smallest province deserves more indepth discussion over their concerns, whatever they might possibly be (Will Confederation Bridge collapse? Is this year's potato crop going to be stellar?) 2. I will add in a translation program to this site to allow our Newfoundland cousins to be able to read our posts and make their own comments. 3. I will not raise your taxes 4. I will embark on a 5 year program to be the spokesperson (or more accurately poster boy) for the promotion of Maple Leaf Web Forum to the Canadian and International media. My goal is that after these 5 years our forum will have at least 8% more traffic to our site. 5. I will not run a deficit. 6. I will be a listener. 7. I will forgo any titles like King or Emperor, and be content with being permanently known as the Right Honourable Netherlands. Thank you for your support! Vive le Canada! Vive le Forum!

"Doctor's run private practices now! 100% of Doctor's practices are private right now!!!!" Let me rephrase it a bit. In private practice, I mean one where the user will personally pay (or the charge is paid for by a privately held medical insurance plan), not one where the government pays the bill.

What can you possible mean by a 'fair compromise'? Whose interests are we compromising the public interest for? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If we were to allow some level of private service, I think one necessary feature is to make sure that all doctors have only limited participation in their private practice. For example, a specialist might have to work 66% of the time for patients in the public system, and then can use the other 34% to run a private practice. The big worry is that highly skilled physicians will all go to a private practice, leaving people who rely on the public system with even longer waiting times. Any thoughts on this?

That's not really an accurate, or fair, statement. Many of the "oppressors" are quite honest leaders trying to help their countries. Not all, but many. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Our country's recent foreign aid plans aims to direct funding to these countries: In Africa: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Zambia. Other: Bangladesh, Bolivia, Cambodia, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, and Vietnam. According to Freedom House [http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2005/table2005.pdf] 6 of these nations are considered free; 15 partly free, and 4 as not free. These last four are Cambodia, Pakistan, Rwanda, and Vietnam. The only one of these nations that I would question giving aid to is Vietnam. But all the rest are probably very good choices, as I think our efforts will both boost people's daily lives, and strengthen their freedom and democracy.

"Insurance is a matter of choice in the US and many choose not to buy it." A person who would actually choose not to have health insurance in the US must be an idiot. Even if you have made the best lifestyle choices, that is no guarantee you can avoid medical problems. From tripping and falling, to real serious diseases like multiple sclerosis and types of cancer, all sorts of things can happend that you don't have control over. I think anyone who 'choose' not to have medical insurance for their own families is not a fit person to be a parent. Oh, by the way: "Sixty-five percent of Americans support the U.S. government guaranteeing health insurance for all citizens, even if it means raising taxes, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opin...28_lance03.html

I would not begrudge Harper spending some time with his son on Saturday (although his choice of Toronto was not by accident - he could have been with his son anywhere else, like his backyard in Ottawa, in his riding in Alberta - but what is he doing attending a religious meeting that condemns homosexuality and SSM at the exact same time of the gay pride march? It seems to me that the kind of impression he wants to make is that he came to Toronto just to mock and belittle gay and lesbians in our city [i live in a suburb of Toronto]. Absolutely pathetic.

For more information, please see: http://www.decima.com/en/pdf/news_releases/050623E.pdf

They actually brought out Mr. Grewal for this vote, although he was supposed to be on stress leave. Let's see if he goes back into hiding after this.

Poor Steven Harper. His Bloc Quebecois allies betray him, and he gets caught without all his MPs in Parliament (5 were missing) for the vote. As they lost the vote, I could see some Tory MPs tearing up pieces of paper and throwing them on the floor (very mature). The budget is now passed, and that just leaves the SSM issue to be debated for the next few days. Here is the article from Canadian Press: Paul Martin's Commons corps dusted off a rarely used procedural tactic just before midnight Thursday to bamboozle furious Conservatives and pass contentious Liberal-NDP budget amendments. The Conservatives could only sputter and fume after their unofficial partners in the Bloc Québécois deserted them to join the Liberals and the NDP to cut off debate on the budget and move up a vote on same-sex marriage. The realization of what had occurred only dawned on the Tories as they gazed around the shuttle buses that normally ferry MPs back to their offices and realized there wasn't a Liberal in sight. Every available Liberal MP was cloistered in the Commons lobby waiting to spring into a vote to cut off debate. The Liberals, the Bloc and New Democrats made extraordinary use of a rule allowing for cutting off debate on the budget if they agreed the Conservatives were being obstructionist. Conservative Leader Stephen Harper poured scorn on the alliance. "When push comes to shove the Liberals will make any deal with anybody," Mr. Harper said after he was forced to rush back for a midnight vote. "And it doesn't matter whether it's with the socialists or with the separatists or any bunch of crooks they can find." Though the Bloc stood with the Tories in the midnight budget balloting, the Liberals still mustered five more votes than the Tory-Bloc alignment; several Conservative MPs were absent. The Liberals were taking a monumental gamble. A loss on the vote would force the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament and call a summer election. But Liberal strategists were confident they had caught the Conservatives unawares and decided to risk their government for a decisive victory. "I hope they can count," Liberal MP Shawn Murphy said of Liberal strategists as MPs milled around before the vote. The Tories, who had boldly predicted they could topple the Liberal government on the budget vote, were suddenly complaining they had members missing. A few Conservatives were missing from their seats in an earlier vote Thursday evening. More could been seen racing back up Parliament Hill when news broke of the impending budget showdown. They reacted with unfiltered rage. Conservative deputy leader Peter MacKay described his foes as a menage a trois between separatists, socialists and power-hungry Liberals. Liberals claims of making the minority Parliament work was "all just one big, fat stinking lie" and then went further, comparing the Liberals to one of Hollywood's most heinous homicidal cannibals. "We have to start thinking that Hannibal Lecter is running the government and they'll do anything they have to do to win." Liberals could barely contain their glee in response. "Its not surprising that Hannibal Lecter should spring to mind for Mr. MacKay given the growing number of Conservatives who believe the party should soon eat its own leader," said Scott Reid, the Prime Minister's spokesman.

I have been watching news clips about the scandal over Agent Orange being sprayed at the Gagetown military base in New Brunswick, but I haven't come across any real claims that there is significantly higher cancer rates in that area. I have heard a host of local people saying that they know of a lot of people who have died or suffer from cancer, which they now blame on Agent Orange. But using statistics from the Canadian Cancer Society, it belies their claim that NB is suffering a rash of abuse from cancer. The CCS states that 149 000 people will have cancer in 2005, with New Brunswick's share being 3950, or 2.65%. NB's share of Canada's total population is 2.43%. Can someone point out a scientific study on cancer rates in the Gagetown area, if one exists?

If an election is forced upon us right now, then the Conservatives will see another drop in support, as they will be blamed for causing the vote. Many people already have a belief that the Tories are power hungry, and this would confirm it that notion for them. But that issue just lasts a couple of days into the campaign, and more important issues will take precdence. I would imagine that the big issue in the campaign will be same-sex marriage.

When we talk about the bias of newspapers, you can look at it from two ways - most journalists would probably be left of centre on most issues (in my view because they are more educated than the average public and would have a more indepth knowledge of issues and the people involved in them). This would mean that newspapers tend to have a liberal bias. The other view is that most newspaper owners tend to be right of centre (in my view because they come from the wealthiest members of our society who tend to have conservative values). Newspaper owners can, and often do, have a huge say in the ideological bend of their paper since they can select their editors and other important people within their companies, and can set guidelines for the paper as a whole. For example, Conrad Black had a reputation for hiring editors who were like-minded, while the Aspers made sure that their media outlets were pro-Israel. Changes can be more subtle too, for example instead of having a reporter work on the labour issues beat, they put them on reporting crime. Basically you have to believe that either the owners & editors determine a newspapers ideological views, or that its reporters and columnists do. I would argue that the owners and editors have more power here, but I am sure that others will disagree. As for TV, I think it is a lot easier to appear neutral. Politics with Don Newman is a good example of this - they will have an issue and put two guests on it, one for, the other against. They also have roundtables were an MP from the four parties argue back and forth. It is hard to complain of bias here, since one can see various views being represented. I am not sure that we need more expose for fringe parties in Canada on TV. The four main parties, along with the Greens, probably represent 90 - 95 % of the Canadian public. The remaining views just come from people I would consider borderline crazy, like Marxists or right-wing religious fundamentalists. I don't think we need the CBC to be giving any time to that kind of viewpoint.

Saskatchewan has a lot of natural gas, and quite a bit of oil too. According to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Saskatchewan has a reserve of 3119 billion cubic feet of natural gas. Alberta has a reserve of 42 548 billion cubic feet. (Yes that's right 42 548!) BC also has more natural gas in reserve at 9225 billion cubic feet. Sadly, the people of New Brunswick have no reserves (funny that they actually point that out in this document - must have done it just for kicks) http://www.capp.ca/raw.asp?x=1&dt=NTV&e=PDF&dn=80632 It seems that Saskatchewan is much closer to Alberta in the level of crude oil reserves - and it looks as if they are finding new reserves. http://www.capp.ca/raw.asp?x=1&dt=NTV&e=PDF&dn=80633 I take it that these figures are probably right, so I have to give I miss Reagan some credit for being paritally right, but I think Alberta is the province that got the luckiest in this department. I agree with the point on Sask's stupidity over legislation against oil producers though - such a move is bound to destroy investment.

CFRB, which is the main talk radio station in Toronto, supports Conservative policies in general. Their mid-morning host, Bill Carroll is usually biased in favour of the Conservatives, and routinely as their Provincial leader John Tory as a guest. We have another talk radio station, AM 640, but I don't listen to it enough to know their take on issues.

It is ridiculous to compare Saskatchewan's economy to Alberta's, since the latter depends upon oil and without it they would be the same as their neighbours, or even worse. It would be like comparing Saudi Arabia or Kuwait with Jordan and Yemen. Moreover, it seems that the NDP has done well enough in Saskatchewan that they have held government for numerous years. As for British Columbia, it would be fair to say that the NDP represents the broad left while the Liberals represent the broad right.

I think Ontario's flirtation with the provincial NDP in the early 90s have left voters in our province with the idea that NDPers, while being well-meaning, are not competent enough to run government. I don't think that such a statement is true, but it will take a long time before Ontarions will see otherwise. The one big problem with the NDP when they were elected into government was that they went into the campaign thinking they would have no chance at winning that election. It was a big surprise for them, but the group of MPPs they elected did not have much experience in government and they made mistakes.