noahbody

I dunno. Do you think that guy who masturbated at the Banff Centre of the Arts displayed talent?

So basically Quebecers are saying, "We wish we had known your views on clarity before we voted, because we're against clarity before we vote." No irony there at all.

That's exactly how the Liberal Party would like you to think. But the Liberal Government no longer gets to define what a majority Harper-led Government will be like. The Liberal brand is flaky. They stand for the centre, but don't know where it is.

I wonder what Obama would say to the proposal that the native land that Canada improperly turned over to the USA when the border was formed be returned to its rightful owners.

It's a little hard to believe that this was a staffer error since it happened before. Instead of a dishonest MP it now looks like the party has chosen to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the public. Turn the matter over to the RCMP and charge whoever is responsible with fraud. "Cheaters prosper" is a pretty sad message to Canadians.

That sounds like a practical, common sense approach.

Insulting is when Chretien completely ignored Alberta's elected choices for the Senate. As far as Smith goes, he was first appointed in December. I don't recall anyone disapproving of his selection. As far as the election goes, he was running against an incumbent. People rewarded him with another term in office. Voting for a candidate doesn't mean you disapprove of the other.

Isn't limiting terms to 8 years a good idea? That didn't even get past the House.

One of the "e's" of senate reform was to make it more effective. As is, it's pretty much full of people loyal to their political party, similar to the American senate. Politics to often ends up stalling or preventing progress. Though the optics aren't great of the re/appointments, they're really just votes for change. If government becomes more effective/fair, we all win.

Senators are supposed to represent their region.

To accept the Canada Act of 1982, they were required to sign... the Constitution.

A hybrid is exactly what is in place. Quebec receives the benefits of equalization payments though they never signed on to it. There really no need for Quebec to sign the Constitution. Not signing is more or less symbolic.

Actually, you can pretty much bet that all of the senators he appoints are believers in senate reform. That's the only way senate reform will happen. Heck, his bill to limit their term to 8 years couldn't even make it though the House. The NDP has sat a grand total of 0 days as Official Opposition. Harper has sat as the leader of a majority government for 0 days. Which senators specifically are you referring to?

Because you underline is, does that make your unsupported opinion fact? Scrapping the gun registry is party policy because it was voted upon. Anti-choice has nothing to with the Conservative Party. The last member to bring forward a private members bill on abortion was a Liberal. By your reasoning, the Liberal Party is anti-choice. The agenda of every political party is to be elected/reelected. Every party has a few wing nuts on the fringe. If Harper runs a tight ship, it's perfectly understandable. He did lose an election because the media attributed the personal views of Randy White to the party before they could have a policy convention due to the snap election call.

It was pretty clear that they didn't want the government to fall on the budget vote. That's why they brought them down just days before the scheduled vote. If they felt it was in their best interest as a party, the opposition party(s) would've voted in favour of the budget, but still criticized it. That's just politics.

The opposition didn't bring the government down on the budget.

It was at the expense of the people of Alberta. Thousands lost their jobs and homes. The bankruptcy rate in Alberta rose 150%.

I think the great irony here is that the people who have for years painted Harper as a scary person with a hidden agenda seem to be the ones who are saying "how dare you prejudge this NDP MP." People have been sold the line that politicians deserve high compensation, to ensure we send the best and brightest to Ottawa. I think this is why there's been a lot of outcry about this. I don't think many see the ability to sell alcohol to college students qualifies he as "best and brightest." So far all we know about her is she didn't take this election seriously. She likely also did well on tips. I don't know many people who fly to Vegas to celebrate their 27th birthday. It's not really a milestone.

I object to it because it's a moronic political solution that costs a lot of money and accomplishes nothing. Police always have to assume people have a firearm or it endangers their lives. Registered long gun homicides aren't a problem anyway. There's only 12 per year (on average). I would expect the vast majority of those are domestic disputes.

When people are worried about the essential issue in life, such as employment, the need to associate oneself with Liberalism or Conservatism isn't a big motivating factor. With a majority, the Conservatives will have the opportunity to build their brand as a governing party. The Liberals will have to wait until the time people get tired of the Conservatives.

The NDP really needs to release the staffer's name. Has he or she been fired?

The Bloc is responsible for its collapse. It forgot why people had voted for them and started talking up separation.

Mandatory minimums can be used to get gang members off of the street and stop them from going though a revolving door so the police have to keep fighting the same battle over and over. I mentioned this on another thread, but a law, stating any serious crime that is committed while in possession of a gun, gets 5 years. All Harper did here was disagree with the interpretation of the staffer's report. Just because mandatory minimums haven't been effective in lowering the crime rate doesn't mean that they can't play an important role like in the example above, as a form of punishment, and/or to correct problems that can occur due to the abuse of legal precedents.

Quebec is like a couple that's been living common law forever. Canada thinks it's necessary to make it official, but the marriage certificate is really only a piece of paper. Quebec really isn't interested in walking down the aisle because right now it can have its way with Canada any time it wants. That always ends after marriage.

Jack did say he was running for Prime Minister. He just failed to mention he meant the PM of Quebec.