Dave_ON

So tell me does maintaining the status quo make them better or worse than the Liberals? I get so very tired of the CPC line that the Liberals are the ruination of our country. If they felt so strongly about it, they'd change it, truth is it's easy to critisize how the man is charge is doing a horrible job and how if you had his job you'd do so much better. Well the CPC has had the job for nigh on 3.5 years and so far it's the status quo. Now queue up the slew of "they tried but the Liberals wouldn't allow it" posts, this excuse is also wearing rather thin. When will the CPC start taking responsibility for their own actions, or perhaps more accurately inactions?

Here's the link to the poll I could find, it was from the Political Polls thread on this forum. I personally am getting quite tired of this Conservative power play. Clearly it's not resonating with most Canadians and I expect that as he becomes even more well known in the country it will become even less of an issue. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/fp/G...5148/story.html I can accept the fact that you don't like Ignatieff, and that's all well and good. But at least save us the tired diatribe that somehow Ignatieff is the only selfish and somewhat ignoble politian to ever darken the halls of parliament unless you can demonstrate how Harper has not displayed these faults himself. That Harper hasn't been the least bit mean spirited or partisan and that he hasn't put his personal vendetta against the Liberals and all the opposition parties above governing the country. If you don't like him fine, but don't say it's because he's a self serving politian, because they're all self serving. Yes even the conservative messiah himself Mr. Harper is not the PM for the good of Canada or out of the kindness of his heart. If you're expecting a human being to be noble and selfless in the political realm you will only be disappointed time and again. The best we can hope for is that the person who gets elected does as little damage as possible. Oppinions on what constitutes damage is a matter of perspective and varies from region to region. I personally like Ignatieff. Is he arrogant and somewhat elitist? Absolutely he is and that's not the end of his list of faults, and I can accept these because he is only human. But I also believe his heart is in the right place and that he does wish to work towards a more unified and more prosperous confederation. This is no small task and in reality quite impossible to fully realize, but that doesn't mean we still shouldn't strive for it. The unity card is going to go a lot further than many Conservatives and even Mr. Harper himself would care to admit.

You are quite correct that the government is, and IMV should be, endowed with certain privileges over and above the rights of an individual. These are necessary that better part of society can benefit as a whole. The point I think is important not to forget that while they do have this power, they also have the responsibility to make restitution when mistakes are made. Wrongful imprisonment is far easier to make up for than is a wrongful execution. The question remains who is to be held responsible for what would essentially be a state murder? How is the family of the wrongfully executed to receive justice? We have seen many examples of wrongful imprisonment that have cost the taxpayers dearly. How much more would this cost the taxpayers to try and make up for a wrongful execution? No amount of money would fill the void left in the lives of the family of the wrongfully convicted. My concern for capital punishment is not for the guilty, it’s the potential and irrevocable damage it could do to the innocent and the lives of their families. For this reason we have to remain cool headed about such things, and as angry as cases like Tori Stafford can make us, we can't let our emotions get in the way of our better judgment. The high probability of the wrong person being executed is too high a price to pay for what limited deterrent and sense of justice capital punishment would bring us.

I feel there is ample documentation out there for the consumer to take advantage of. IMV the problem is that many consumers do not avail themselves of it. Further if they are having issue understanding the documentation they can visit a bank branch or even call into the customer service line for further clarification. I think there is more than enough information out there, what I think is lacking is something the government can't legislate, self motivation to educate one’s self. I have no problems with the Banks making money, and the attitude that banks are evil and wealthy institutions that don't have a right to make money irks me. Regulations are needed absolutely, but this legislation doesn't really bring anything new to the forefront, other than the way payments are to be applied. Really the legislation just forces banks to make it even more clear how the system works. This won't solve the fundamental issue, and people who neither have the time nor the inclination to learn about the system still won't be any more aware of it. As for the CPC's motivation for introducing this now I'm still not sure. It comes on the heels of strikingly similar legislation from the US and after much harping on the issue from the NDP. Fortunately the CPC's are fiscally responsible enough to not include the rather inane interest rate caps the NDP were pushing for.

Yes that struck me as odd too. But Atla4ever makes a good point that many Canadians, likely not as few as 1 in 20, have no idea who the GG is. I think many of the names were selected because of how well known they are, not so much that they are trusted. I mean how else do you explain Michael J Fox in spot number 5? I guess all those Back to the Future and Teen Wolf movies really struck a cord with many Canadians. I personally am biased towards Rick Mercer, it's not too often that one of us political junkies achieves that level of success in the area of political satire. Poor Keifer Sutherland "Stand by Me" and "The Lost Boys" never got its due.

Here's the link. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/21/...laherty021.html So the Tories have introduced their new rules for credit cards. Most of them seem relatively reasonable and are distinctly consumer driven. However I'm left to wonder why this has been introduced. The NDP have been pushing for this for quite some time though they of course aren't happy with the CPC version of it. This type of regulation seems quite out of character for the CPC so I do wonder what the reasoning is behind it. Will this actually do what it seeks to achieve? Prevent the consumer from being taken advantage of that is. I sincerely doubt that it will, as the banks will make up for lost revenues by either cutting back reward programs or adding additional fees. I for one feel the rules are completely unnecessary. If you are borrowing the banks money, they're the ones in control not you. Nothing gets you nothing and credit cards are no different. Free use of the banks money comes at a price and that comes in the form of fees and interest. I guess I'm of the mind that if you don't like it, you don't have to use the credit card.

Actually you may want to speak to your friend again. Genesis is part of the Old Testament and as such was originally written in Hebrew and subsequently translated into Koine Greek many, many years later. In Hebrew Adam was the proper name given to him and as with most Hebrew words there are several meanings depending on context, the most common use is Human or people, or mankind if you wish to wax archaic. It is derived from the Hebrew word Adamah which means red soil, as an aside Dam which means blood is also derived from Adamah. Hebrew is a fantastically consistent and contextual language unlike English. As for the kill vs. murder quote that is a Greek affectation. In Hebrew words can have several meanings depending on context. In Ancient Hebrew to my knowledge, there was only a word for kill Harg. There is no distinction between killing an animal or a human; it's the same word Harg. Another example of this is the Hebrew word for day Yom. Depending on context it could mean a literal 24 hour time span, the time between sun up and sun down or could mean a longer period of time, all using the same word to indicate what you are attempting to say all of which is determined by context. You are quite correct about the myriad of mistranslations however, and King James isn't the only one. The thing most people forget is that each translation is an interpretation of the meaning of the text. The Ancient Hebrews were so rude to not have written it in English. However I digress. I'm quite against the death penalty and frankly I don't feel the Bible has any place in affairs of state. Church and State are and should remain separate. I can't simply accept that innocents are a necessary casualty to server justice. If we espouse this, then any innocent who is killed by the state was in fact murdered by definition. Therefore those who are responsible for his conviction and execution are also murders and would need to be put to death. I'm certain that if we took this hard line lawyers, judges and juries would be inclined to avoid mistakes at all cost. If an innocent is killed SOMEONE has to be held responsible and put to death. Otherwise how would the family of the falsely accused ever achieve "justice"? In the end execution of the murderer doesn't bring the victim back. It also doesn't fill the emptiness left by their absence. It's also not a very effective deterrent, if it were our neighbors to the south would have long ago eliminated the problem.

Hmm interesting poll. I find i interesting that the Queen is playing second fiddle to Dr. Suzuki. Also I'm suprised that Rick Mercer is in the 10th spot. I also find it odd that the GG is absent or is she ranked in the list but not listed here? Also could you please post number 100? Just curious.

Clearly you have no love for Quebec but any PM that wishes to survive in Canada needs to or at least maintain the appearance that he does. The shame of it is Mr. Harper and the CPC were actually making inroads in both Ontario and Quebec. However, various and sundry political bungles and the slumping economy led to a rather disastrous end to this love affair. My point simply is that Mr. Harper can’t even hope for a minority government at the rate his support is dropping in Ontario and BC combined with the losses he’s already suffered in Quebec. This is not to say his fortunes cannot be changed in Ontario and BC, and if he’s going to get his party back into government he’ll certainly have to work toward changing them. This of course means there is going to be a lot of pandering to Quebec and Ontario which of course won’t sit well with Alberta. The outcome of the next election doesn’t look good for Mr. Harper at this point, however who knows when that will be. The outcome is dependent on many factors not the least of which is timing.

I agree with you 100% race, religion, orientation etc. should not be the reason you get a job, by the same token it should also not exclude you based solely on the aforementioned criteria. I'm not speaking of forcing anyone to hire a certain number of minorities I'm speaking of ensuring that the various minority statuses don't exclude people from employment. This is indeed a real issue in our society and it needs some form of redress. This is not to say that all claims made are valid, this is the reason the HRC was created. To determine the veracity of the claims made. Now in its current incarnation it is utterly incapable of fulfilling its mandate, and as such needs to be reformed. The idea is good even though the implementation was poor. As mentioned forcing employers to hire X amount of X minority group is ridiculous and unrealistic, however so is not hiring a member of X minority even if they are qualified just because they aren't a WASP.

Clearly you’re missing the point. You’re working from the premise that discrimination happens and we should just accept it and move on. That in my mind is no different than accepting the fact that crime happens and we should just move on and quit whining about it. Why bother with our expensive judicial system it clearly hasn’t eliminated crime entirely so let’s just scrap it. Truly this is no less ridiculous. I’m not suggesting affirmative action, that minorities get special treatment or that companies should have to actively recruit minorities. What I am suggesting is that the HRC fulfill its true purpose as a watchdog to ensure EQUAL treatment. Honestly all the criteria you listed are in fact qualifications. That’s why especially in a city the size of Toronto that it is nigh on impossible that there is not even one qualified black man in the entire city to work at this much cited hypothetical factory. Do you honestly believe that to be a realistic line of thinking?

Well Borg hate to break it to you but that day will NEVER come so I would advise against holding your breath. The reality is roughly 62% of the population of Canada lives in Ontario and Quebec. 23% of which is in Quebec alone. The rest of Canada doesn’t even have to vote as the election is determined in these two provinces , toss in the sliding support he has in BC and Harper’s hope of achieving anything more than official opposition are dim at best. To lose Quebec is a major political blow that Mr. Harper will never recover from. I’ll grant you he’s had one of the longest running minority governments in history, however that doesn’t necessarily indicate it was successful. He definitely has political guile of that there is no denying. However, guile will only take you so far and despite all your inane and ridiculous aspersions toward Mr. Ignatieff he has nowhere to go but up. Combine the fact that he’s a new face, and consequently most Canadians could care less where he’s lived the past 30 years, he’s not Mr. Harper and the fact that he’s gaining popularity in both Ontario, Quebec and BC and it’s pretty much a done deal. The only core of support Mr. Harper and by extension the CPC has left is in the Prairies and that constitutes just over 17% of the Population.

You don't think it's odd that in a city the size of Toronto that there would not be at least one truly qualified black person to work in the factory? That doesn't strike you as odd? Come on be realistic about this. Does the HRC require reform? Absolutely, but scrapping it does not equal reform we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water as it were. Clearly Argus and others from a similar school of thought have never experienced discrimination or prejudice on a significant level. Now I’m sure we’ll have a flood of “but now white Anglo straight protestants are the ones being discriminated against” arguments that will be forthcoming. Be that as it may the CPC really needs to get out of the mindset that everything the Liberals did was wrong and needs to be rescinded. It's not productive and it's not at all realistic. Instead they should realize the merit in it and work to correct the perceived problems with the system. The HRC definitely fills a gap that existed previous to its creation. The problem is it isn’t sufficiently regulated and according to many critics lacks adequate investigative resources. To use Argus’ example again the absence of a black factory worker in Toronto is statistically unlikely but not necessarily indicative of wrong doing. It is however, at the very least a red flag and does warrant a thorough investigation. To assume that all people are fair minded, well intentioned and law abiding citizens is naïve to say the least. We’ll never be able to eliminate discrimination entirely, but that doesn’t really give us an excuse to stop trying simply because our first attempt at it was somewhat lackluster. Argus if we allow the rights of one individual or group to be infringed upon what it to stop the rights of any individual or group to be infringed on?

Correct only the lifespan of parliament is mentioned in the constitution as being unable to excede five years. The PM is a tradition setup to keep the government stable, and he doesn't even have to be a sitting member of parliament and can "govern from the hall" as it were. The ball is truely in the GG's court as she is our head of state on behalf of the Queen.

It was a similar situation but not quite the same. The difference is King requested Byng dissolve Parliament and trigger an election to avoid a confidence vote which Byng refused to do citing that an election had happened quite recently and that the Conservatives should be given an opportunity to govern if King no longer had the confidence of the house. Again this was different as the Conservatives were the single largest party in parliament at the time, after the Liberals of course, and they didn't require a coalition to govern from a minority stand point. This was short lived however, as the Liberals and the Progressives got together and defeated the Conservative government which in the end resulted in the desired election. Of course at that point it was too late as a PM that doesn't have the confidence of the house must either drop the writ or resign and if I recall correctly King had lost his seat in the house prior to the whole affair taking place. Prorogation of parliament with an active confidence motion on the floor is highly irregular and many were surprised the GG didn't use her reserve powers to overrule Harper. Granted the last time a GG ever did invoke those reserve powers was during the King/Byng affair in 1925. The concern I have about this particular precident is that what is to stop any future PM's from doing the same thing any time there is a confidence motion on the floor they know they will lose? This in effect circumvents the checks and balances that are in place for minority governments. Confidence motions are an essential part of minority government and demonstrates the general competance of the ruling party to govern effective. Of course this is slightly different in that an election had just recently concluded and had it been six or so months after the fact it likely would have ended quite differently. However, it is odd that the GG didn't use the King/Byng affair as general guide in making her decision. A privilege of her station is she doesn't have to explain or justify her decision though I'm quite curious what she based it on.

I hardly go with offended, just an observation that for all his diatribes Mr. Harper is no different than those who he so vehemently decries. The line between hypocrisy and politics is thin indeed. I appreciate that you can look at him and see that he is simply playing politics like any good politician should, it's those who continue to defend him as the harbinger of all that is good and holy in Canada despite his many gaffes and flip flops that really drive me crazy. To be the PM is to be the centre of criticism Mr. Harper can clearly handle this or simply dismisses it, either way the end result is the same. Let’s call a spade a spade, Harper is a Politian and he will do anything and everything to stay in power, principles be damned. I can accept this, but what I cannot accept is that Mr. Harper is doing this out of the goodness of his heart and because he’s a noble son of the west.

Honestly I think this is little more than EU protectionism to bolster their own fur trade under the guise of humane and rationale thought. I read the CBC article on this and these were two quotes that popped out at me. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labr...#socialcomments "While we of course have sympathy for those particular groups of people, the reality is that we sit here in the European Parliament and that millions of our citizens would like us to do the right thing and ban the cruel trade. They do not want to buy these products," McCarthy said. Yet earlier in the article it states. Canada's East Coast seal hunt is the largest of its kind in the world, with an average annual kill of about 300,000 harp seals. It exported around $5.5 million worth of seal products to the EU in 2006. So nobody wants to buy these products yet the EU alone imported 5.5 million worth of seal products? Something doesn’t add up. The reality is one seal consumes a ridiculous amount of fish. With our fishing industry already under duress do to over fishing, largely from illegal European trolleys, we can't afford the additional strain. The only natural predator seals have other than humans of course, are Polar bears which largely don't venture in those regions and are themselves in decline. So what remains to be done? The only logical and rational solution is to cull the population ourselves. At least this way the animals are being put to use, in fact more so then any cow, pig or chicken that is harvested. If the products aren't sold the killing will still have to continue, the only difference will be the carcasses will be left to rot rather than be put to use. All the EU ban will really achieve is to create a rather lucrative black market for seal products. Of course the legitimate seal hunters won't profit from this and the current regulations of not killing baby seals will be ignored because likely the baby pelts would sell for a higher price. When will the world learn that prohibition in its various and sundry forms do not work, it only creates an underground economy. All in all this only serves to further damage an already battered Atlantic economy, I seriously doubt our government will do anything to rectify the situation.

I don't think that "It's never worked that way" is truly a valid argument. Irregularities occur all the time. Never before in the entire history of parliamentary democracy in the entire British common wealth had a PM ever requested a prorogation of parliament whilst a confidence motion was on the floor. Even more surprisingly the GG consented to this unprecedented and highly unusual request. But that is at the very heart of what Mr. Harper is doing. I'm certainly not assigning blame here but his recent "playing nice" attitude does give me pause. When Mr. Harper was elected in fall '08 he failed to learn from history and the mistakes that Joe Clark made. You can't govern as a majority when you have a minority parliament. Fine lesson learned, Dion grew a pair and things got kind of dicey. How does Mr. Harper react? He goes on national TV in an American style address and decries the ills of making deals with separatists and socialists. If the GG had chosen not to grant the PM's request we'd have had a minority Liberal parliament propped up by the NDP and the Bloc. For better or worse she did grant the request, Dion was replaced and the coalition died. Now we have a kinder gentler Harper at the helm and it appears he's learned from his mistakes in the fall. With the Liberals in such a strong position they have neither the need nor the inclination to prop him up. So what do we have? We have a conservative minority propped up by the NDP or the Bloc, in effect we are in the same position we would have been in if the coalition had be successful. Reality is he needs the support of one other opposition party if he is to survive. If he's going to get that he has to be prepared to bring his check book. If he doesn't concede to their exorbitant demands it's game over. Many criticized Dion for grabbing at power; I say Harper is no different except he's trying to hold onto it by any means necessary. He knows his days are numbered and I'm not sure how likely it is that his government will survive far into 2010. You can dress it up any way you like, Harper needs an opposition party's support to survive, and they need the CPC to push their agenda through. Issue by issue consensus, coalition call it what you will it all equates to making a deal that is mutually beneficial. There's nothing wrong with that, but at least let's be up front about it.

I think you're confused as to how Parliamentary politics work. It is tradition that the party with the most seats forms the government, if they happen to be a minority then so be it. All members of parliament are duly elected by the people and therefore each and every one of them is representing the people that elected them. Because a party won the most seats, but still does not have the majority of seats and by extension does not have the confidence of the majority of the country, does not mean they remain in government or cannot be replaced. Any number of duly elected officials may form the government. This includes a coalition or a single party. It is highly irregular but not unheard of. Now the only difference between what Mr. Harper is doing and what Mr. Dionne did is that one was official and the other is not. Do the means truly matter if the end is the same? I'm in complete agreement with Jdobbin, Harper has become everything he so vociferously opposed just 5 short months ago. The only difference is in semantics, a coalition by any other name...

I would tend to disagree. While you are quite correct that the form is quite different, the result is really the same. It's governing from a coalition standpoint regardless of whether it is formal or not. The only difference is bringing the other party into the cabinet solidifies the agreement a great deal more than the current rag tag situation. Be that as it may Mr. Harper has clearly departed from his usual "voting with another party on an issue by issue basis is entirely different then forming a coalition." If you always pass bills presented by the opposition party so that they don't topple your government, I guess I don't see how that differs from making it official and stating it on paper that you will do so. The result is exactly the same. This is far more than issue by issue synchronicity, it's an unofficial coalition. While the Liberal, NDP coalition supported by the BLOC was ill fated and ill conceived it served the greater good. I can respect that the Liberals were up front about their intentions, the CPC however are not and the irony that they have in effect become everything they fought so desperately to prevent provides me no end of amusement. You're right but I would purport this was not based on his skill alone. Just as with the King/Byng affair the fate of the PM in such situations rests solely in the hands of the GG. King gambled and lost, Harper gambled and won. I would also agree about the federal election not occurring in fall '09. I've said all along that it will likely occur in the winter or spring of 2010. Harper and the CPC will only go so far, Harper is too partisan to pander to the NDP and the Bloc all the time. The grits are in too strong a position to feel the need to pander to the CPC on anything. Given enough time Mr. Harper will do something that will upset both the NDP and the Bloc and the Liberals will be there to table the no confidence motion.

Interesting indeed; I find it quite amusing and almost poetic that essentially Mr. Harper has become all that he criticized Mr. Dionne for being. This could definitely give the Conservatives the breathing room they need to hold on long enough for us to see some economic recovery. But at what cost to the CPC? The amount of money they're throwing at PQ is shocking and the same can be said about ON. Obviously they're aware that without the support of these two provinces they have no chance at holding onto their minority. This won't bode well in the west at all and Harper will never regain his lost ground in Quebec. His national address against such an "unholy union" as so many conservatives are want to say will not soon be forgotten. I doubt he'll ever form an official coalition with the NDP and the BLOC but in the end official or not it will be no different then what Dionne was trying to achieve. I think in the end this will hurt the CPC more than it helps them. They won't be able to distance themselves from what they're doing in order to placate the Bloc and the NDP. How far will Mr. Harper go to hang on to power? Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe smell the scent of death for the CPC and are taking full advantage in exchange for their ongoing support. It's really too bad Mr. Harper didn't realize how very weak his "strengthened minority" was in the fall of '08 as this time could have been used productively. I guess he has never heard of a former conservative PM named Joe Clark.

We all know that Calgary is the centre of the universe. But suffice it to say it's quite presumptuous how so many Albertans claim to speak for "the west". They speak for Albertans; it has been my experience that the rest of the west doesn't agree with Alberta by default. BC especially is culturally distinct from the Alberta and they tend to swing politically and in terms of population are a larger percentage of "the west". Albertans also tend to squawk a lot about what the majority of Canada wants out of one side of their mouth and out of the other side criticize what Ontario and Quebec wants, which just happens to constitute the majority of Canada, 63.2% of the population to be exact. Sorry but that's the reality of the matter. My question to you is this, if as you say the majority of Canadians (i.e. those who live in Calgary and the greater tar sands area) want such drastic social reform, why is it that the CPC who wished to save us from the socialist plight that has plagued us for nigh on 60 years were unable to pull off a sound majority? Even when their strongest opposition was a divided, leaderless and essentially broke liberal party? The logical answer would seem to be that in fact the majority of Canadians do not want this change, hence they didn't vote for it. Finally Hydraboss we're all well aware that Albertans are the only people in all of Canada that pay federal income tax. That doesn't explain why a good chunk of my paycheck, and the rest of the working Canadians in other provinces, goes missing every pay. edited to correct a typon on population percentage

That's very true, though support for the BQ is flagging somewhat. In fact until Mr. Harper's ill fated Arts cuts the Conservatives were gaining quite nicely on the BQ. I think that Ignatieff is definitely on the right track to making serious inroads into Quebec. He's certainly striking a cord with Quebec with the whole; Quebec should be in charge speech. They know the BQ will never really hold any national power and the best they can hope for is official opposition status. If a Grit comes along that's willing to show them some attention, I think they'll throw their support behind him quite readily. It appears that a Liberal minority is quite likely at this point and they may even be edging towards majority territory. If they continue their gains in PQ, ON and BC it's all but over for the CPC.

The problem with this counter argument is in the fundamental difference between a gun and a car. The primary purpose of a car is transportation, that is its intended use and that's the primary reason they are manufactured; If you choose not to utilize it in that fashion that does not change the fundamental reason d’être of a car. Guns by contrast are intended to be used as a weapon, whether it is on animals or people it is still intended to be used as a weapon. Again if you choose not to use them this way that does not change their fundamental functionality. So in response to your talking points. You cannot prohibit me from buying a car. - Correct, because of the reason above, a car is not intended as a weapon a gun is. It is the primary function of an item that should determine how restricted its availability is. I can have an unregistered car on my property - Correct, but you cannot drive it off of your property if it is not registered and you are not licensed to operate a car. Essentially you can't use it for its primary function. I cannot be forbidden from transporting my car. - Correct, provided you are not operating the unregistered vehicle to do it. I do not have to have family or ex family permission to own a car - Correct, but you often need references to get a job, rent an apartment and many other things in life. I don't think it is unreasonable to need references from people who can attest to you mental stability when you're looking to purchase a weapon. Police do not have the right to enter my house because I own a car - Correct, again a car is not designed as a weapon. I don't see the issue in registering guns, at its heart it's a great idea and can be every bit as useful to police as the current car registration system is. It all leads back to who is responsible for the weapon, car, pet, house or whatever. If a gun is stolen it can be reported just like a car, if it's not that's suspicious. It doesn't restrict your freedom to own a gun, it regulates it. Restricting who can and cannot legally obtain a gun is just common sense, just like restricting who can and cannot legally operate a vehicle is.

I honestly doubt we'll have a Fall '09 election. IMV and based on recent information from various bankers and economists they are predicting that recovery will not start until the 4th quarter of this year. This of course means it won't be truly felt or have registered in the minds of the electorate until about the 2nd or 3rd quarter of '10. It's more likely that we are up for an election in Feb '10. This will have given the economic downturn sufficient time to really sink and have maximum impact on the CPC's receding support. As for the NDP supporting the CPC for any extended period of time I find that to be unlikely, Layton will attempt to milk it for all it's worth as he is the consummate opportunist. But like all opportunists his loyalties only extend until a better opportunity comes along. Jdobbin brings up an excellent point, the NDP's mandate since winter '08 has been to vote very much against the CPC, to come to even an informal agreement with the CPC would cause dissent in the ranks of the NDP. Not to mention all appearances at this point would seem to indicate a Liberal minority is on the horizon. The NDP's objectives would be far easier to achieve in working with the Liberals over the CPC.