Dave_ON

Not entirely true, while your point about what I presume to be Trudeau's introduction of multiculturalism is indeed valid. The Sentiment of "not American" by far and in large predates that by quite a bit. Actually this notion would truly have started with the erstwhile right, the then Tory party of which Sir John A MacDonald was a prominent member. The very notion of the Colonies banding together in the face of manifest destiny and American Imperialism is the reason Canada even exists today. The threat of American invasion was a rather unsavory notion to the loyal British colonies. The British were far to busy was a myriad of other imperial problems to be of any real assistance should an invasion occur so we had only each other to rely upon. It's also interesting to note that this could be said to go back even further to a radically conservative political element from the US. The politely termed Royalists (though now they are considered traitors to the US) who fled to the colonies, fleeing persecution or possible execution by the American revolutionaries. The Loyalists as they were called in the Maritimes, founded a number of towns the most famous of which is Saint John NB, still termed to this day the Loyalist City. One further interesting note, in their infancy the Americans were very much defined by the notion "we're not British", since that time they have outgrown this. Whereas our ancestors wished to maintain their British heritage and this likely contributed to the rather slow development of our own culture. The slow and steady dismantling of our British heritage began before Trudeau, though many agree he marks a certain tipping point. All subsequent PM's (yes even the right wing PMs) have slowly but surely obfuscated the primacy of the crown and vacuumed up much of the crown's powers. Surprisingly Mr. Harper is one of the exceptions if only on a surface level. The reintroduction of Royal to several areas from whence it was stripped has been a nice touch.

Ok so in summation it seems this view is heavily weighted toward economic and wealth distribution if I take your meaning. So then my next question would be must one reject all these items you've listed in order to not be considered a leftist? Is there no middle ground? Can one not support some of these items but not all? Is it truly fair to brand someone a "leftist" simply because they may support one of the items you've listed above? Many would posit that your concerns over economic restrictions held by the left are offset by social liberties, which as a general rule the right often rejects. ie. Equal marriage, abortion, etc. These two topics in particular Mr. Harper has wisely avoided and kept his party under wraps in order to ensure they do not interfere with their economic goals. I suppose my central point is, it's very difficult to so easily categorize people as left or right as both "philosophies" comprise a number of different beliefs and address a number of different issues that arise from various frames of reference. Some are economically centred, while others are socially centred. The role of government in the economy vs. role of the government over personal freedoms.

Woah is it 2005 again? In answer yes, as I recall it seems to me only the Liberals had a whipped vote on that little bit of legislation. Way to hit up current events. While we're addressing these items at the height of their relevance... did you hear about that utterly scandalous King-Byng affair?

Then so be it, if that's the case they govern by happenstance and it was purely fools luck that got us through. Let us hope that fools luck holds true for the remainder of their term... I'm now going to invoke the often used line by those who are avid supporters of Mr. Harper and the CPC. "They didn't have a choice, the opposition forced them to do it".

Point of order here. Your analogy falls apart somewhat. Emperor Nero was largely insane and was directly responsible for Rome burning. He wanted Rome to burn as this was necessary so that he could rebuild it as he saw fit. The CPC by contrast did not cause the economic crisis. They didn't actually start to address it either until it came down to a choice between sticking to their principles or power. Choosing power they realized that meant they had to actually compromise with the other parties. Hence we're in our current situation today for better or for worse.

At the time Mr. Harper made his statements that there was no impending economic crisis, only someone in Grade school would have believed him. The US stock market took a massive crash, the US and Canadian economies are so closely linked, it was inevitable that a hit in the US was going to have rather a large ripple effect in Canada. We saw this most of all in Ontario, the manufacturing sector is still embattled and beleaguered to this very day. Other commodity and resource based economies like those of Alberta, SK and to a lesser extent BC fared quite a bit better. Long story short Bill, it was disingenuous at best of Mr. Harper to launch a statement that there was no economic crisis in Canada. This above all is what bothers me about the whole scenario, as the saying goes "don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining". This is a rather fortunate turn of events for the CPC of the time, their original budget was doing nothing to address the crisis that didn't exist. This way they can claim all the credit, and none of the criticism because the devil (ie. the opposition parties) made them do it. Untrue, they did have a choice. What they didn't have was, as is ALWAYS the case with minority governments, was the ability to do as the pleased as a majority government does. They could have chosen to proceed as they were and lost the government as a result. The reality is they DID have choice. They chose power over principle. I don't fault them for this in the least, it's the choice most would make given the choice, but to say "they didn't have a choice" is utterly untrue. And so it cuts both ways. The CPC chose power over principle, because they didn't stick to their principles they have to deal with the fallout of that. They CHOSE to spend into deficit. Yes there are a myriad of reasons and justifications for it, but at the end of the day this is what they CHOSE. They are to be held responsible for their choices. Let us never be so naive as to absolve them of this simply because they were in a minority situation. "They had no choice" is drivel, they had a choice of sticking to their principles and likely pay the price of losing government. They chose to keep government at the cost of compromising their principles. That too has a cost, and a little bit of criticism, whether it is undue or not, is getting off easy.

I have two sincere questions for you. I've only read a few of your posts and I don't feel I can adequately gauge what your perception of Left vs. Right is. These are terms that I'm a loathe to use as they are all too often used as trump cards to refute arguments that may be contrary to one's own views. "Well that's just part of the neo con agenga" or "That's leftist drivel". Neither of these statements engage nor do they even address the points in each particular point of view. So what in your view is the Left vs. the Right? Is it purely distribution of wealth? Are there social aspects to these views? Ethnic, cultural and economic contributors? In all honesty I'm trying to gain a frame of reference for your statements. Saying something is "exclusively leftist in origin" while to you may be quite a clear statement, for the rest of us it's rather vague without an understanding of your perception of "leftist" Finally, what specifically are you referring to in terms of restriction of freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is not a right in Canada as defined by the charter of rights and freedoms nor by the constitution itself. In the US it's a constitutional amendment but not so here. Could you elaborate on this?

Technically you're wrong. Dominion is a more archaic term for country. Specifically a large area of land that is self ruled. Here's the dictionary definition of dominion take special note of numbers four and five. 1. the power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority. 2. rule; control; domination. 3. a territory, usually of considerable size, in which a single rulership holds sway. 4. lands or domains subject to sovereignty or control. 5. Government . a territory constituting a self-governing commonwealth and being one of a number of such territories united in a community of nations, or empire: formerly applied to self-governing divisions of the British Empire, as Canada and New Zealand. ie. read GB's quote you posted. Whereas Canada is indeed a parliamentary democracy, which is headed by a constitutional monarch, Sovereign or if we really wish to wax archaic a dominus which is precisely where the word dominion is derived. Dominion is quite an apt description ot our nation, as opposed to a republic which adds a far different flavour. It's similar to how the United Kingdom is considered a country, this is somewhat of a redundancy in that Kingdom is again in modern terms synonymous with country. The UK is a Kingdom because it is subject to a monarch, tradtionaly a king. Much like an Earldom is subject to an Earl, a Barony is subject to a Baron, and a Duchy to a Duke. My God it's almost as if there's a pattern, but I just can't quite place it...

The simple answer: No, he doesn't have that kind of power. The constitution and the crown protects us from dictatorship as it were. The long answer: Is Mr. Harper autocratic? Well most certainly of that there is no doubt, is he more autocratic than Chretien, Mulroney, or Trudeau? Not at all, he's just taken the next step in an ongoing process. Slowly over the past 30 years or so, the PMO has vacuumed up many of the erstwhile powers of the crown. This is an unfortunate turn of events, and has subsequently made the PMO far more powerful than the office was ever intended to be. In many ways it has superseded, in the case of a majority at least, the supremacy of parliament; that combined with party discipline being what it is in Canada, does give the PMO seemingly unlimited power. This is not a direct result of Mr. Harper himself, as mentioned he’s merely continuing the long tradition of Canadian PM’s that preceded him. There is hope however, and thankfully the fathers of confederation had the foresight to limit the power of the legislative body. We do have the Court that ensures laws made abide by the constitution, we also have the executive branch in place, which gives the provinces direct redress with the crown should they object to any law in which the Federal government does not have direct jurisdiction. The provinces are in a confederation in which the queen is the head of state, but the provinces too each have the queen as head of state.

Why must everyone fit into neat little boxes? Is it not possible to agree with some policies the CPC has broght in while disagreeing with others? Does voting for a party mean you agree with their platform lock stock and barrel? You never disagree with a single thing they do ever? This is the problem with many political "debaters". Calling someone a "leftist" or a "right winger" summarily dismisses their arguments wholesale and shuts down debate as clearly using those terms refutes all possible counter points. In reality we simply cannot make sweeping statements like "no liberal would xyz". Many Canadians do not self identify with one party over the other, they vote one way in one election and an entirely diferent way another. Often the doubt and ambiguity favours the incumbunt.

Hmmm, I dare say your assessment is likely a bit premature. I mean in reality, the CPC has not been in power for a full year, and if Mr. Harper holds to his 4 year election law, of which I’m not entirely convinced that he will, he has more than enough time “screw up” enough that his tenuous hold on a majority could slip. Now is not the time to be heavy handed with his majority, but Mr. Harper is merely the latest in a rather long line of autocratic PM’s that began with Trudeau. Let’s be realistic, as has already been pointed out the CPC pulled off a majority sans Quebec, this is no mean feat, however it gives them a rather tenuous grasp on their majority and almost no margin for error. They’ve already sacrificed all the seats they can spare which means they have to hold on to every single seat they have in Ontario. Ontario, is the king maker in all of this, and Ontario is far from firmly in the grasp of the CPC. Many of the ridings were won narrowly, because of the LPC/NDP split; my own riding among them which hadn’t had a Conservative elected for the better part of 3 decades. If Mr. Harper and the CPC want to govern from west that’s all well and good, that does require a great deal of pandering to Ontario. If they can keep Ontario happy, then yes you may well be right, they may pull off another majority, but if they falter in Ontario, they’re back to at best minority status and at worst official opposition.

Agreed, the LPC and NDP are politically disparate enough that a merger wouldn't really work. The LPC are more centrist than the NDP, though granted it appears that the NDP are starting to be viewed as more mainstream than they were previously and seem to be the natural successors to the LPC’s former place as alternative to the CPC. However, until they put away some of their more extreme ideas, such as directly interfering in how businesses do business I don’t think I could support them. I fully expect the CPC war machine to basically ignore the LPC next election, and focus mainly on their current rival the NDP. This will be interesting as this is a very different creature that was the LPC.

Which both have precisely 0 bearing or relevance to Canadian Politics whatsoever. In case BC hasn't chimed in on this one already and I paraphrase him.... "No Canadian political discussion would be complete without a reference to the US"

Other than our stockpile BMD's (Beavers of Mass Destruction), absolutely not.

We can go on all day about how anyone can fall for any number of schemes that exist in the world. Fact remains they work regardless of whether or not they should. Why do people by things from pop up ads on their computers? Why do they give their Credit Card numbers to strangers over the phone? Why do elderly people have their entire life savings wiped out through various cons? Truth is there's a sucker born every minute, and not everyone is as involved or aware of politics as perhaps the average poster is here. Indeed nothing is proven at all at this point, but there are many lose ends that are tied to the CPC that make it look suspicious. Why the sudden resignation of the CPC campaign staffer? Was he acting autonomously?

As pointed out that's rather immaterial, what would have happened cannot be known, however what is known is that the election was not allowed to run its natural and unfettered course and thus the results, regardless of the outcome or intentions of those who did not manage to vote for whatever reason, cannot be considered accurate; Even if one single vote was not cast, whether for or against the CPC the results are not accurate. It is a disservice to democracy to allow such antics, if they did in fact occur, to go without redress. Because we cannot know what the outcome would have been had interference not occurred, I see no other alternative other than to hold a by-election. Because we cannot verify the results we must assume them to be an inaccurate representation of the will of the people and thus we must revisit the affected voters. The only alternative is to consider the result completely accurate and allow them to stand, better to err on the side of caution. You're right, the will of the voters may very well have changed since the last election, and if the CPC are shown to be linked to this it's a pretty safe bet that it will change if it hasn't already.

Clearly you're missing the point, whether it was over 100 years ago or a decade ago it can in no way be considered as relevant as something that is currently happening, your "ad scam" red herring is just as ludicrous to bring up as the rail road scandal is. There's plenty to choose from if we look at the last time the PC's were in power back in the 80's. Nice try though, you clearly have nothing intelligent to add to the conversatoin.

I agree absolutely, however some of these were closer than others, the 18 vote variance for instance is a shoe in, others like my own London North Center which is also in dispute was a variance of 1000 votes. Still farily close but harder to demonstrate that there was sufficient interference. Elections are not turned over on a whim, a judge will weigh the evidence on these instances as they would any case.

They are different but equally deplorable. The major difference is adscam is close to two decades old and is a terrible angle to take; the story broke close to 10 years ago. Sheesh PIK I see your Ad Scam and raise you a conservative Rail Road scandal of 1862. We may as well discuss these "hot" topics while they're at the height of their relevance. Be that as it may, what is entirely likely to happen is a series of bi-elections. There would not be a general election called, nor should there be. Many of the ridings had very clear winners and as upsetting as the whole affair may be, there's no need to plunge the entire country into another general election so soon after the last. The GG would not do this, nor should he. For a bi-election to be held they would need to prove that there was potentially sufficient interference to alter the election results. In some ridings it's highly likely that bi-elections will be called, especially if there was a margin as small as 18 votes. However, I'd be sincerely surprised if all of the 38 ridings currently claiming possible electoral interference will see bi-elections. Regardless this is not good for the conservatives, they have a majority but by no means is it a landslide, they can't afford to lose a ton of seats. The upshot for the CPC in this instance is that 2015, if they stick to the 4 year election "rule" that is, is still a long ways away, and Canadian voters have surprisingly short memories.

The 407 is paved with good intentions... and His Tie never clashes with his shirt!

The Senate already does server a critical political role, as has been outlined on numerous occasions on numerous threads regarding the senate. Suffice it to say, politicizing the role of the senate will not fix the issues most people have with it. The will of the people is already expressed via the commons, they represent the will (whim) of the day, that is why they have short terms as the will (whim) of the people changes frequently. The role of the senate is to take a long term view of legislation and compare evaluate it against regional concerns, the constitution and their own individual political experience. There is nothing wrong with long senate appointments, in fact in order to function as intended the senate must be long term and unassailable. Yes they may have been party hacks when appointed, but they can tell the PM to STFU and there's nothing the PM can do about it. Even if they do feel some loyalty to the current PM, that will pass when a new PM is elected in a 5-10 years.

I'm certain the letter asks for warm thoughts and prayers only. That's also not quoted in the article What other kind of support would their supporters offer?

Umm did either of you follow the link? Very first sentence and I quote.

Oh come on KIS, are you honestly going to tell me that North Bay which is close to 100 k from the summit needed over 1 Million dollars to prepare for the G8? Are you honestly going to say that Clements didn't make hay with the G8 Funding? Presumably they landed in North bay and drove to Huntsville, and every small town and settlement between the two got a piece of the 50 Million pie. It's not that I have a problem with this, I just don't like when people make the CPC out to be saints in all this. The AG did say they mislead parliament, as if that's a surprise, about where/how the funds would be spent in the interests of expediency. This is precisely the kind of the things the LPC of yore used to do. Liberal or Tory same old story.

Hah actually you're right, it would behoove Mr. and Mrs. Harper to meet with the Jean and Aline apparently. That's one feisty family.