myata

Right, right. And calling it "fixed election date". And boasting of it. Thats our clean, honest and completely transparent "family people". One more time, who did they want to fool with it? While economy sheds quality manufacturing jobs, nothing zero nada done for the environment (our big priority agenda), big scary booga the only action on crime (another big priority - but notice how shy Harper suddenly looked when asked about prohibiting semi automatic assault guns), and as to the international position, nobody even needs to bother checking anymore - it'll be the same as that of Bush's with couple of day independence delay. Resounding yes to all because we'll see only what we want to see, no matter what.

OK, for the obtuse (deliberately and otherwise): You pass a law stating that country will have fixed date elections, unless you want otherwise. Question 1: what would be the point of such "voluntary" law? I mean, do you want fixed dates for elections? Or you only want them when you want them? And how would that be different from what was there before? Question 2: who are you trying to fool with it? That episode alone is sooooooooo telling of Harper's strategy of little Friday night deceptions, ploys and tricks. Betcha will be the same with carbon emissions, crime and whatever else our mild family guy Conservative turn his eye to. On the paper, we have it. In reality - here, look, a booga, booo. And all to achieve what, exactly? Economic prosperity (look around)? Better quality of life for Canadians? Progress with the environment? Respected international position? No, wrong. Getting to the power lever, big time!

Indeed, if the message was that every law could be broken for a good (or at least, good enough, ... to me) excuse. And now's the time to go and preach the importance of law obedience.

Well, if that's the only way to carry his message across, I guess it's allright. Right, Harper? Every law can be broken, if we could find a plausible excuse.

No, won't work in a majoritary system. New party vying for the same (more or less) vote with several others is a strong strenghening factor for the opposite side of the spectrum. The only way a new party could step in in any serious way is if another one, from the same side of political spectrum, would disappear. Much more likely scenarios are that either one party becomes dominant in each part of the spectrum, or multiple parties on the same side split the vote to lend a disproportionate majority to the opposition. This is what's been seen with the Reform/Progressive conservatives, or now with Liberal/Green/NDP.

Well, if don't want (and support) social programs like quality childcare, investing in urban infrastructure, emergency drug assistance, and so on, your choice must be crystal clear. Get your $100 (before tax, till age of 6) check in your hand, and ahead - to opportunities and successes of unrestrained capitalism.

The spirit of the law has been broken and there should be no doubt about that in anybody with a speck of independent thinking. Now, you and Harper may profess all you like about how everybody else needs to have fixed election dates while you should be able to sneak out of it. We all know what the result would be though. Probably applies to the rest of his programme. "The result is not important, laying their hands on the power is".

Except of course, they aren't going anywhere. If they do get one seat, it'll be a stellar achievement. Till the electoral system changes (i.e till blue whale swims to Ottawa), it's up to the mainstream center/left parties: Liberals, NDP, Bloc in Quebec, to stop Harper's crowd from laying their hands on their coveted majority.

You mean, people who genuinly and honestly respect the spirit of the law, will "move to a four year term"? That wouldn't apply to this current government, would it? It hasn't moved anywhere, no matter what they said, or what law they got written. Just more of that self-serving hypocritical "law is for everybody else but us" stuff that's become a hallmark of this bunch in the government. As Elizabeth May put it in the French debate yesterday (tranlation is approximate and mine) "Mr Harper you want our youth to obey the law, but what example are you showing them with your own actions? On Kyoto, fixed election dates ... " Good question. In the minds of these people, the law is always for somebody else.

I wouldn't care to argue about what constitutes an attack ad, no would I bother if Liberals say something like that or not. If I misunderstood something in your post, then apologies. What I do care about is for Canada to have it's own independent voice among the nations, and to avoid getting drawn into disastrous adventures like those in Iraq or Afghanistan. Something that I can't be sure about with Harper in power. Neither by his track record, nor through revelations in the speech.

Who cares? Everybody knows who broke the spirit of their own law. It's up to the court, not Web educated upstarts with unknown qualifications, to decide on the letter.

And who was that who visited Governor General to get around his own law? Remember still? These our socio conservative games. Who cares about (my own) law, if I want it so badly.

The court will say whether it was or not. The law introduced by Harper's conservatives calls for the fixed election dates. Remember?

Nothing in particular, as long as the source of their inspiration is clearly presented and explained. E.g. if Harper said, openly, transparently and honestly "we should go in Iraq because G.Bush and J.Howard think so", rather than passing it for his own pondering on the matter, I'd have no problem with that. Of course, I'd then raise concern whether a politician taking cues from leaders of other countries would be fit adequately represent his own. Did you mean that independent critical thinking should be an exclusive trait of a Liberal? Please do not offend many citizens of this country (myself included) who did or do not vote for Liberals, but still wouldn't relinqiush their right (or should it be made responsibility, for everybody's good?) to use their own brain to decide on matters of importance for the country.

Well, laws are made to be followed, are they?

I'd suggest to them to think why Harper parrotted ideas put forward by another, foreign politician without contributing anything original from himself. Regardless of who prepared the speach, Harper was supposed to read and understand what he was saying, was he? I believe they should focus on understanding the position Harper supported in that speech, and how it have affected / would affect Canada if he were to make such a decision again. Finally, I'd suggest them to consider international acts of Harper's government over their years in power, and ask themselves whether they really want to see this country, that used to have its own independent and respected voice, continue to trail unquestionnably and sheepishly in somebody else's footsteps?

The "last" government, among other things, like recovering economy from pitysome condition, having more or less balanced and independent foreign policy, signing up to important multilateral international initiatives like International Criminal Court, Kyoto environment accord, Landmine Treaty, etc., has invested (thrown) some $200 million in miscellaneous activities of promoting Canada in Quebec (if that's what you're alluding to). The objective has been achieved, Quebec is still in Canada (and even if it were to separate in some future from now, the process would be much more predictable), but some of the money weren't accounted for while some more (some millons) were stolen. For comparison, the annual snow removal budget in Calgary for one season is 50 million. Not to diminish the responsibility in any way, but to put things in perspective, it was one of the greatest threats to the existence of the county in the century. The party heading the last government itself established a public enquiry in the abuses, and paid with being kicked out of the government. Now Harper as leader of the Official Opposition delivered a speach that restated, without no original analysis, the ideas of a foreign politician, not to mention textual plagiarization of the report. When a politician in an independent country uses foreign inspiration to their policies to such an extent, it should be a matter of public concern, and yes, most definitely, is a scandal. In a country that values its independence and sovereignty, that is.

Obviously, it can be challenging (for a supported of a neoconservative government) to grasp the difference between criticizing (their) government and the reputation of the country. That line is very well known by e.g accusations of critics of Iraq war in unpatriotism. And so on. But I'm really interested in developing that line of thought further (and deeper). When else critical analysis of official's and/or government's actions should be contained for the concern of hurting "reputation"? Does it extend to situations when other parties happen to be in power? Please elaborate.

An interesting approach to argumentation. Proving your reference a "waste of time"? I wouldn't deny a proven fact, nor whitewash Dion or anybody else of anything. If Website used parts of somebody else's speech, its deplorable and should be corrected. The important differences remain: 1) Harper's was an official speech delivered in the Parliament; 2) It hinged position of the official opposition on a critically important for the country foreign issue on a position of a foreign politician. No matter issues with the speech itself, it's obviouis for everybody that Harper's foreign policy is in lockstep with that of neoconservative Bush administration, and the report is only one, though very telling, demonstration of that fact. This is what I consider the real issue that needs to be discussed.

The reports are indeed making international splash: BBC News front page. Something that Harper failed to achieve with his international policies, lockstepped with Bush's administration.

I wonder about all the people with strange notions have serious problems with basic reading comprehension, which in no way prevent them from making statements in public forums. Do you understand "reference to the source of the citation"? Or should somebody (not me) translate it for you??

He didn't cite anything as proper citing includes reference to the source of the citation (as learned in junior high - my two cents).

Given the volume of manipulation in and around the election process, the question about what constitutes a true democracy cannot be simply dismissed out of hand. Everybody knew that the Iraq affair was a bogus from the start. There was a qualified team of independent experts that operated onsite with virtually unlimited access and it rejected all claims of presence of WMD in Iraq. That did not prevent US administration from manipulating the majority of country's population into acceptance of an unjustified illegal agression. As it has been reported in the news, companies of Wall Street were major political contributors to both main political parties in the US. Both parties that in some way failed to take measures to prevent current financial shakeup. Just two examples that illustrate that the question of manipulation is not the obvious one. Certainly, the democracy in Russia is less than perfect. The question is, what about ours here? And should we go on instructing others about their errors and failures, until we fix the problems of our own?

Do we have any references, anything, confirming this, or we have to take you on your word? Including the foul language?

The plagiarism part itself is so outrageous that it rightfully deserves an international scandal. Drawing international policy of the Official Opposition by a foreign script cannot be a triffle affair - in a country that values its sovereignty and independence that is. But even more important is that this incident just illustrates what Harper's government has been putting into practice ever since it was elected into power. I.e tiptoeing the line of neoconservative Bush's administration as close as one possibly could. Every major international decision by this government has echoed US position point to point. As a result Canada has completely lost its independent international position, and has been relegated to a member of the US led pack. Not even a major member at that, with other having more beef (Britain), or louder shout ("new democracies"). If we now let ourselves be corralled into supporting more of this, by the boogies of economy, crime, etc, we fully deserve our major, important and honourable role in whatever future adventures that will be invented by the world liberation crowd.