Progressive Tory

All that mattered were their polling numbers? Hmm. Interesting. Let's just say I wish he was running the country now during this economic crisis. The only good news is that there's no more money for Flaherty to steal. I want them to wear this for awhile, and just have the Coalition as a united Opposition. It won't make the Conservatives honest, but they'll have to do their jobs and the Social Conservative agenda will remain on the backburner.

What? Embezzled hundreds of millions? From where? Mulroney left a 42 billion dollar deficit and Paul Martin turned it into a 13 Billion dollar surplus. Harper and Flaherty have now turned that into dust.

I'm reading the responses before they're even posted, but while I may not think that Paul Martin was the best Prime Minister Canada ever had, he was definitely the best Finance Minister. I'm so glad that he will be working behind the scenes if the Coalition has to take over. "Our derided ex-PM set a fiscal course that could save Canada from the worst of this meltdown" http://www.thestar.com/News/Ideas/article/557552 "Martin was disliked even more by the left than by the right. They thought his approach to deficits was savage and inhumane. Now we know that because of his discipline in the 1990s we are about to go into a recession from a position of strength." Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger.

That's definitely one on the pro side. If the Federal Fisheries Minister is in Newfoundland or PEI, how can they identify with BC or vice versa. Good point.

I agree. That is the way it should work because at the end of the day we all are Canadians. However, if you peruse online newspapers and read local comments on a variety of topics, you see just how split we are. For instance when a Calgary newspaper reported the Auto bailout, there were 197 comments, and only 3 in favour. In Ontario it was pretty much the exact opposite. Now we have a Prime Minister who has intentionally divided the country to save his job. We cannot believe that the Province of Quebec being dismissed as 'Separatists' will not leave lingering anger, and we could soon be looking at the Separation issue. Federalism will change even if we don't. I was interested in getting opinions good or bad, regarding the future of Canadian Federalism. I share your beliefs, but wonder if we're in the majority.

So I gather you like the idea of this new Federalism. However, your support of only regional governments within the former provinces I question. Shouldn't there be a cental government (other than federal), over these regions? I see chaos without it.

I'm not fond of weakening the Federation either, but is that just my Patriatism or is it founded on logic? The idea is to have the Federal Gov't responsible only for foreign policy and defense. The Brisith Empire was able to convince nations to 'Fight for King and Country", despite the fact that we have a PM, not a king. My biggest fear is that the new nations/provinces might look elsewhere, like the US, and Canada would sink into oblivion.

Why would you think that? I'm just curious. I think that some of the larger provinces like Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, have enough industry and natural resources to survive, especially if they are allowed to keep more of their tax revenue. I'm not really saying it's a good idea, but it is an idea, and one that is being considered. When I first heard of it I was very agitiated and spoke with a longtime friend. "Did you see what he wants to do now"? With many choice explitives. I expected her to be as upset as I was, but instead she thought it might be a good idea. I thought she'd lost her mind but once I calmed down, we discussed it and I've pondered the situation ever since. It may have it's merits but I'm still not really sold. Just wanted to get others' opinions.

There is no simple solution. The writer asks, "what would the US do"? We already know what they would do. And: "Undoubtedly, the US would seek out every single member of this terrorist organization and destroy it. Nobody would be outraged because this would be the expected course of action." This has proven to be impossible. They are already engaged in a "War on Terror" but it is a daunting task. This is a war with no 'front' or definable enemy. Terrorist cells can and do exist everywhere. It's difficult for Canada or any country to take sides without first learning all the facts; but ultimately diplomacy, not bombs must prevail. Aggression is getting us nowhere. JFK said "Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind." (Speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 25, 1961).

I'm originally from New Brunswick, and believe it or not many Easterners feel the same way; though their bias is mostly against Toronto for some reason. Maybe it's because our capital is in Ontario. Who knows? The fact that canada is so diverse culturally is one of the things I love about this Country. However, it also creates it's own set of problems. No easy answers I guess. I do notice how opposed people in Alberta are to the auto bailout. This may be hard to justify. Good news for Alberta though. I just read: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0101?hub=Canada

I didn't know you were keeping a list. How do you have me put down?

It doesn't sound like a bad one. No more equalization payments because each province would handle their own finances. I just don't know if it would work and how the Federation of Canada could hold onto the support of the Nations under their helm. For the most part Quebec is opposed to war so may not agree on foreign policy. Ontario is split. I'm sure that Harper and Flannigan have worked out the details, but I wish they were able to share them. I'm still holding back though because of my Canadian pride, but still....If Alberta is fiscally responsible why should they suffer for Provinces who are not? Why should provinces be so divided on things like handling crime, gun control, etc. They can decide for themselves. Damn. I wish it didn't make such sense.

Exactly. They were given a 13 billion dollar gift and spent through it during good economic times. A boondoggle tank scheme with equipment no one knows how to repair, and a bunch of junk tanks for parts that won't fit on any of the equipment, that no one knows how to repair. I only want the Coalition to remain strong and united so that the Conservatives are forced to do their jobs. This will be a year full of Party scandals from the new revelations re: airbus scheduled for February and the possible convictions of 65 Conservative MPs who tried to defraud taxpayers with forged receipts and fraudulent documents in the "In and Out" scam. I'm sitting back with Iggy and an apple martini to watch the show. It will be sweet.

It was not the time for more public displays so for the good of the country they had to put their differences aside and stand united; and united they will stand until Harper can prove that he is capable of running this country. I have my doubts but I'm willing to give him a chance.

Yes, once all Liberals realized that they had to be united, he joined the Coalition. Harper left few options.

Actually, I like Alberta and respect their system of taxation and pay as you go. I do have concerns about the long term with 'Dirty Oil' being spurned by environmentalists. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...0,2866770.story You won't get any arguments from me though and I can understand why they are so upset over the auto bailouts.

The list of Conservative scandals is growing faster than the mold under my sink. Maybe the Coalition should take power immediately if it's scandals you're worried about.

Exactly. I'm all for him staying on as Prime Minister so long as he remembers that he is the Prime Minister of Canada first, and the leader of the Conservative party second. He has to regain the confidence of the majority of the house or step aside. For the record, Iggy never supported the Coalition but is quite willing to keep it in the background so that Harper remembers what (he thinks) he was elected to do. It's all on him now. However the hypocrisy thing stands only because Harper says he would NEVER make a deal with 'separatists' and 'socialists', but the signed letter proves otherwise. Both attempts at a 'coup' were right or both attempts at a 'coup' were wrong. Iggy's the only leader who's 'Coupless' because he didn't support it.

I hoped to stress that I find the whole 'hidden agenda' thing nonsense, but do wonder about the future of Federalism. Harper has definitely ignited 'Separist' talks again in Quebec, by dismissing the Bloc as un-Canadian, so this could very well be in the forefront again. I just wondered if anyone liked the idea, hated the idea, or just weren't sure. Some of the logic is quite sound, but I agree it would not happen overnight. As to getting their hands on the cash. It's unfortunate that the Conservatives were able to get their hands on the 13 Billion dollars in cash left by the Liberals because they magically made it disappear. Poof!

Very good, though I live in Ontario and I think we're already a welfare state. Also Alberta is now in a deficit so unless oil starts to rise again they may be in trouble. I read a posting awhile ago with something called the 'Albertans Prayer". It went something like "Dear God, please let the price of oil rise again and when it does please God don't let us piss it all away again."

Ha ha ha. I can't say I agree with the talking toaster oven but that was a very funny line.

Again, and I hate to have to say it again, The Coalition is just as legal in 2008 as it was in 2004 when Harper himself tried to form a Coalition with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton. http://nickcoulter.posterous.com/harper-le...o-clarkson-2004 But that is NOT THE POINT. I wanted to discuss the future of federalism in Canada. I believe you're from Alberta. How do you feel about Alberta becoming a Nation within the Federation of Canada? Running your own affairs and creating your own laws, while the Federal Government, with the help of elected representation from your province, merely handles foreign policy and Defense. We can all agree that the boogey man hidden agenda is off the table. This has long been a goal of Stephen Harper's, so unless you're calling him a liar, let's stick to the topic. Do you agree with him or not? I have stated that I agree on some of the initiative, but still hold onto my old fashioned values of one Canada. That's me. What about you?

How is reminding you that Stephen Harper tried to form the same kind of Coalition with the Bloc and NDP, slamming Harper? You've slammed the Coalition as being unDemocratic or whatever, but Harper's using the whole 'Separatists' and 'Socialists' thing is hypocritical. That's a fact. It can't be spun any other way. You believe in Coalitions or you don't. You believe that the the Bloc and NDP are legally elected Parties or you don't. It's that simple. There's specualtion, not unfounded, that Jack Layton actually got the idea for this Coalition from Stephen Harper, who convinced him of it's legality in 2004. Go figure.

Unless you've been living under a rock you've all heard the accusations of Harper's hidden agenda. This has given rise to speculation that runs from distinct possibility to the absolutely absurd. However, I would like to have an open discussion on the not so hidden agenda, a new federalism, to see what other people think. I'm of two minds. My knee-jerk reaction is that no one is going to split up my country, but then the conservative part of my nature says, he may have a point here. But before we can proceed, I'll start with the absurd, so that it doesn't have to enter into the discussion: "We've all heard of Stephen Harper's "Hidden Agenda." Harper and the Conservatives insist that there isn't one and the other parties keep warning us about it." http://www.publicbroadcasting.ca/2008/09/h...snt-hidden.html "Perhaps Harper's opponents were correct - perhaps the Conservative leader does harbour a hidden agenda. But rather than being an extreme right-wing conservative, Harper has cleverly hidden that he is a liberal, or, at best, a pragmatist who is willing to buck any principle for short-term political advantage." http://theinterim.ca/2008/nov/03harpers.html Harper does not hide his Social Conservative views, but I don't think he's as right-wing as many believe. He often clashes with the old Reform/Alliance members, such as we've recently seen on the abortion issue. Where we become closer is on the Belgium model of federalism, which is no longer working in Belgium: "Conservative MPs are defending an idea put forward by Stephen Harper to model the Canadian federation after Belgium..." http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/10/20/harper041020.html "He also endorsed parts of Action democratique du Quebec leader Mario Dumont's plan for Quebec. Dumont wants to change the name of the province to "the autonomous state of Quebec....If that's what the government of Quebec wanted to do, it frankly wouldn't give me a big problem.” http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor..._93612031/?hub= Canada "The first section makes the argument that transposing Belgian-style federal structures to Canada, as proposed by Stephen Harper..." http://www.queensu.ca/iigr/working/archive...ic/papers/7.pdf "Harper held up Belgium as the model he personally would be emulating for renewed federalism in Canada if he took power." http://www.vigile.net/Beware-Belgium-s-example Belgium government collapse... http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/...nment-collapsed This agenda isn't hidden either, just not sound. But now on the issues I would like to discuss. A new federalism by creating autonomous regions out of the provinces. http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/418176 This would mean a much smaller federal government, that would only look after foreign affairs and national defense, while the newly formed nations (formerly provinces) would control their own affairs. Much of this makes sense. Many services overlap and create bureaucratic nightmares. The individual nations under the Federation of Canada would control the revenues from their natural resources and industries; collect their own taxes with a much smaller portion going to the federal gov't., and provide their own services based on need and viability. Justice systems would also best refect the will of the people and not divide Canadians on issues like young offenders or capital punishment. I like the idea of smaller government (which is why I was amazed that Harper is adding 30 more seats to the House of Commons. There are already too many) and support an elected senate provided that it allows for proportional representation from all provinces/nations and all political parties (though the voters would decide that). I also agree to set terms of at least eight years but no more than twelve, to allow for fresh ideas. However, while it looks good on paper, is it do-able? You would need an awful strong leader to hold it together. Alberta, Ontario and Quebec could function quite well on their own, but what about PEI or Newfoundland? Also, what would prevent the Nations of say Ontario or Alberta from leaving the federation, if it wasn't to their liking, and joining with the US? More on Harper's views can be found here: “Earlier, speaking to a meeting of the National Citizens Coalition on May 24, 1994, Harper said: "Whether Canada ends up with one national government, or two governments or 10 governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangements of any future country may be. "... an alliance with the Bloc Québécois "would not be out of place. The Bloc are nationalist for much the same reason Albertans are populists – they care about their local identity ... and they see the federal government as a threat to their way of life." http://rightofcenterice.blogspot.com/2008/...-butterfly.html At the end of the day, I am a proud Canadian and probably prefer a federalism that includes all provinces and territories, but I owe it to myself to at least consider the alternative. Any thoughts?

I believe this is the link for the first part. Second one doesn't seem to be online yet. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2008/12/30.html I'm pretty techno-challenged myself so don't be surprised if it doesn't work. Cheers.