normanchateau

This has nothing to do with federal politics. As pointed out in the link you provided, it is the responsibility of provincial governments and how they choose to spend their dollars. Some provincial governments, e.g. that of British Columbia, have chosen to double their number of available residencies. Other provinces have not.

Since when does CPC come up with cost-effective plans? Even their 2% cut in the GST was condemned by most economists incuding those from the fiscally conservative Fraser Institute. You know and I know that Harper offered $25 a week for one reason only...he thought it would produce more votes. Clearly his plan backfired judging by his current standing in the polls.

Sounds like a Harper plan.

Yup, CPC supporters see this as a Liberal strunt just as the rest of Canada sees Harper's announcement in BC last week that he'd jail young people for simple possession of marijuana as a stunt to get the CPC vote. I wonder which stunt will be more effective? Hmmmm....

I'd say Harper is rather intolerant.

Just like his planned announcement for jail time for simple possession.

It seems to me that many who are outraged that the government would dare to ban handguns are not outraged at the notion of permanent criminal records and even jail time for simple possession of tiny amounts of marijuana. Statistics on deaths by hand guns are plentiful but deaths due to marijuana consumption are not. There is something completely irrational about laws, first introduced in the 1920's, to decriminalize a harmful substance like alcohol and concurrently criminalize a less harmful substance like marijuana. Should hand guns be criminalized? I'm not sure but hand guns certainly kill more people than marijuana consumption does. Why do people think it's perfectly acceptable for the government to arrest their citizens for possession of a relatively harmless plant but it's not acceptable to ban lethal weapons like hand guns? Both involve government intrusion into citizens' affairs.

Speaking of the US, how does Harper's position on softwood lumber differ from Martin's position?

Get real. The media did not create his position. Harper did. When asked about the issue by the media, Harper could have said that C-38 is a past issue and he will not revisit it. But he chose not to. And do you blame the media for Harper blurting out in BC last week that he opposes decriminalization? In other words, he favours jail time and permanent criminal records for simple possession of a relatively harmless substance. He could have taken a more rational position. But he chose not to.

Harper has no choice but to focus on adscam. He can't even mention the economy for fear that Canadians will be reminded that Canada has the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years or that Canada leads all the G-8 nations in economic growth and debt reduction. On second thought, he does have a choice. He can remind Canadians that he stands with the US Republicans on some issues. For example, he blurted out in BC that he opposes decriminalization of marjiuana, i.e., favours permanent criminal records and jail time for possession. Harper makes Garneau look like a brilliant politician.

I disagree. I can see voting strategically if you know your preferred candidate doesn't stand a chance. For example, in my riding the Reform and Liberal candidates were neck-and-neck in 1997 and a vote for the NDP would have meant a higher probability of election of the Reform candidate. There are regional differences in whether strategic voting is likely to occur. I expect more of it in BC than in Ontario where a Liberal majority is a certainty. In BC in 2004, CPC took a remarkable 22 out of 36 seats with only 36% of the popular vote. In other words, they took more than 60% of the seats because parties to the left of Harper were split. Polls released in the last few days show CPC anywhere between 24 and 34% in BC meaning less than 22 seats next time but still the possibility of vote-splitting contributing to many CPC seats. Yet only a third of BC voters are right wingers.

Why not just stick with the issue rather than resorting to name-calling?

Actually Martin ran his leadership campaign against Sheila Copps and John Manley. Manley then withdrew from the race.

"unreliable tricky dicky polls"? Wasn't US President Richard Nixon referred to as Tricky Dicky? What do unreliable Richard Nixon polls have to do with the Liberal Party of Canada?

I agree with you that the Reform/PC split contributed to Chretien obtaining a majority with less than 39% of the popular vote, and therefore it's not sufficient for a Liberal majority if CPC remains at 30%. Note, however, that the numbers suggest a dramatic transition in the nature of the discussion. Previously it was a question of CPC vs Liberal minority. Now the question is Liberal minority vs Liberal majority. I believe that a Liberal majority is possible if the SES numbers for 12/07/05 hold up. Here they are: Liberals 40% CPC 26% NDP 18% BQ 11% And here's how Chretien won an impressive 172 seats in 2000: Liberals 40.8% Alliance 25.5% PC 12.2% BQ 10.7% NDP 8.5% Note that Alliance and CPC numbers are now remarkably similar. This suggests to me that if the Liberals achieve a majority, it's not because Canadians like the Liberals but rather that they see in today's CPC leader, the last leader of the Alliance.

Here are the results of the llatest Leger poll: Liberals 39% CPC 27% NDP 16% BQ 12% Source: http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Election/2...08/1344640.html Interesting numbers in light of the fact that Jean Chretien formed a majority government with 155 Liberal seats in 1997 when the numbers were as follows: Liberals 38.5% REFORM 19.4% Progressive Conservative 18.8% ndp 11%

Yes, how sad if someone were to hamper his "efforts" to create a better Canada!

Let's look at your "logic" for a moment. If someone introduces into a thread that he opposes putting young people in jail and giving them a criminal record for life, then that person must be "stoned", i.e., use marijuana. Using the same logic, if someone opposes Harper making homophobic comments about Svend Robinson, as Harper did in the House of Commons, that person must be homosexual.

Yes, this does indeed support your point quite well. Actually, I never challenged your point. I merely wanted to call to your attention that the NAFTA appeal process has run it's course.

You're right Jack. Keith Martin is a good example of how MPs should switch parties. Just prior to the 2004 election, he abandoned CPC and ran as a Liberal candidate because of how offended he was by Harper's ongoing social conservatism. Keith Martin was re-elected as a Liberal in 2004.

Yes, any attempt to raise an issue which Ontario Liberal supporters might have an opinion on is clearly an attempt to hijack a thread on the topic of "Ontario Liberal supporters explained." No doubt in Ontario those voters don't care whether Harper wants to put users in jail and give them a permanent criminal record. Only issues which put the Liberals in a negative light can be fairly described as relevant. Anything else is off-topic.

Good point Scriblett. Harper's announcement this weekend in British Columbia that he favours the ongoing criminalization of marijuana, in contrast to the NDP, Liberal and BQ position, shows that he favous putting young people in jail and leaving them with a permanent crimininal record merely for possession of a relatively harmless substance. This has a far greater impact on a much larger number of Canadians.

But anyway...Bush would have lost if Nader had not run. And I have no argument with your point that Layton and the NDP are far more principled than Martin and the Liberals. And I favour legalization not decriminalization but at least the latter beats the status quo. By the way, Layton has told Marc Emery he favours legalization. Is legalization part of the NDP platform?

Scare tactics like implanting subliminal messages in the brain of Stephen Harper forcing him to utter words against his free will...words like decriminalization of marijuana: NO, jail time for simple possession: YES. Martin and the cunning Liberals will stop at nothing including forcing Stephen Harper to sound like he actually means what he says.

I'm sure Stephen Harper supporters will be more than happy to try to convince NDP supporters to keep voting NDP. George Bush was more than happy to sing the praises of Ralph Nader.