ticker

"In the wake of 9/11, after the initial shock wore off, it was common to hear some Canadians voice the opinion that Americans had finally gotten what they deserved. The attacks were just deserts for years of interventionist U.S. foreign policy, the increasing inequality between the world's poorest nations and the wealthiest one on Earth, and a generalized arrogance." It only took the panel of 'unbiased experts' on the CBC a couple of days to come to the conclusion the US deserved it.... or did they reach that conclusion the same day but had to wait a coupe of days for the CBC to put a program together : :

To who Mr. Dithers or Wacky Jack. I vote for wacky Jack... the BC economy is getting too strong and it is time to bring back the NDP to ruin it again.

That is just because BC has this hang up with the word conservative. The provincial liberals are right wing to repair the damage done by the NDP. But that is ok because they do not use the word conservative. With all that salt water scent acting like marijuana you can't set your exptations too high Wow...you just don't like outsiders don't you? Quebecers are bad, BC'ers are bad too now. But you are right about BC's aversion to 'conservative'. BC is not a conservative province. Polls show that our citizens are socially liberal on all counts. They support the legalization of marajuana, support same-sex marriage, oppose the "war" in Iraq. it is only the BCers close to the salt water that seem to be affected by the salt. must be nice to have 25 fed liberal seats in BC

So the number one issue is the environment.... greenhouse gases are not the same as smog. But the politicians are prepared to let the public think Kyoto will improve the environment if it will help them sell the idea. A few years down the road when there is even more smog caused by all the plants in Ontario the citizens will be saying 'but you told us it would help the air if we went along with this Kyoto thing'

Since 1968 the PM has come from Quebec except for 9 months of Clark and a couple of months for Kim Campbell. It is that old political correctness. You are not allowed to tell the truth. After 35 years of having a Quebec PM is it unreasonable to have a PM from somewhere other then Quebec. There are 9 other provinces to choose from.... It is not like we had a PM from Quebec for 3 years and the reform said ok it is time for another province to have its turn. You forgot about the short term of Vancouver MP John Turner. Also a non-Quebecois. The 1993 campaign slogan of Reform was as wrong headed...would a overtly bigotted headline be any better? I mean, imagine if some party leader used "no more Jews in the public service!"...oh wait, that was done already...Adolf Hitler used that one. So are you suggesting we use a quota system for choosing prime ministers? And what happened to the demographic realities that you seem to ignore? Quebec has 7 million people - just about as much as all of the western provinces and territories of western canada combined. Is it any wonder why Quebec has a powerful poltical influence? I mean, there are more voters in Montreal than ALL of BC. I mean, the Reform party and its ilk since have resorted to emotional or social wedge issues when the rest of their platform is illogical. We see this political stunt being pulled at this very moment with "same sex marriage". In America, the Repugs did a wonderful job to use that wedge issue as a trojan horse so they could use a legislative crowbar to remove FDR's New Deal. Unfortunately for Canadian Conservatives, same-sex marriage is politically sellable in Canada, thanks to our nation being FAR more open minded. The conservatives, and Reformers beforehand just didnt have the issues and policies that could get them elected. Quebec leaders or not. But - thanks to the Reform party painting all of Quebec as the villian, Quebec will never trust a western based conservative ever again. Especially one that is specifically linked to the Reform and Alliance party. What were reformers thinking? they were in the game to form a majority government...how can you do this when you attack your own citizens? Is it wrong to have a leader of a party from a certain area of the country? What if the party you are considering voting for has a Quebec leader? Or Newfoundland? or Sask...get the picture? Why should it matter where the leader is from? The leader could be from Yellowknife for all that matters, but if the party platform is something that I like and want in office, I'll vote for it...and I will not withold my vote because of the ethnic/cultural background of the leader...and it shouldnt matter to the enlightened, educated person. But i can see how it might sway the thinking of a racist. I thought you would bring up Turner so the claim can be made there has been more then 1 year of non Quebec PMs when they are added up As far as conservatives picking a leader from Quebec we went through that with Mulroney and him giving the cf18 contract to bombardier which should of gone to Bristol of Winnipeg with the lower bid but Mulroney let the voting numbers of Quebec take priority over making decisions based on right and wrong. For some unknown reason some places put a higher priority on making decisions based on right and wrong instead of making the decisions based on voting numbers.

Even if Fahrenheit 9/11 was a pro bush movie it would still fall under the category of a dull docu drama.... Moore makes Jacque Cousteaus’ films look like they deserve an academy award. At least Jacque Cousteau doesn't try to pretend his films are a must see blockbuster.

That is just because BC has this hang up with the word conservative. The provincial liberals are right wing to repair the damage done by the NDP. But that is ok because they do not use the word conservative. With all that salt water scent acting like marijuana you can't set your exptations too high

Since 1968 the PM has come from Quebec except for 9 months of Clark and a couple of months for Kim Campbell. It is that old political correctness. You are not allowed to tell the truth. After 35 years of having a Quebec PM is it unreasonable to have a PM from somewhere other then Quebec. There are 9 other provinces to choose from.... It is not like we had a PM from Quebec for 3 years and the reform said ok it is time for another province to have its turn.

Fahrenheit 9/11 was a waste of money. For all the advertisement hype it wasn’t worth the time. Take away the true/false arguments and you are left with a dull docu drama of Moore walking around the streets interviewing people ... hardly a must see academy award movie. Only those who hate bush and are looking for any dirt would consider they were getting value for their money.

Or how about the feds keeping that 5 billion to maintain the percentages of payments required... just give Ontario 5 billion using the back door. What’s that you say the feds are 5 billion short ... lets look in Alberta’s cupboard and see if there is some loose change ... after all it is only a couple of seats.

I am a little fuzy on my Quebec politics and Rene Levesque's first election. is a valium a good thing or a bad thing

shakey has been standing too close to the radar towers again

Shakey is ignoring the silent threat factor. With the voting numbers in Quebec and Ontario there is no reason for the premiers of those provinces to send a vocal reminder to the feds.

Even if they don't elect any liberals. Well there is always next election.

As August says the NEP was a dumb idea. If the liberals tried it in Quebec or Ontario the conservatives would be in power the next 15 years.... but no politician is that dumb. eureka you forgot to mention the back in rule where the feds took 25% of revenues away from oil the companies. Or the bit about the rigs going from 650 to 150 (the lowest number since the 60s) to find a friendlier climate in the US. Ignore the lost jobs that were directly related to the oil companies like the employees. There was also the spin-off jobs like the rig equipment suppliers that didn't have customers left to help pay the bills. Economist say Alberta would have gone through a mild recession if it wasn't for the double whammy of having to deal with the NEP also... and those were not Alberta economist. The liberals liked to make a big deal of how the reform and alliance wasn't a national party because they didn't have support from Quebec. Does that mean the liberals weren't a national party in the 80s when they didn't have support from Alberta or is the present liberal government not a national one because it doesn't have support from Sask.

It is more like the other way around Canadian’s have been brainwashed that it is the left way to do things. There are 3 countries in the world that won't allow private Medicare to co exist with the public system they are communist Cuba communist North Korea and Canada - the place that claims to be more free enterprise then allot of European countries. Why is it when someone brings up the word private the left points to the US and says it would be terrible? There is still France and Sweden with a 2 tier Medicare setup but it doesn't have the same scare value as saying that terrible US setup.

If an Ontario Premier mentioned private Medicare the most he would get is a one time ‘this is not the liberal way of doing things’ instead of trying to drive the point home everytime there was a chance to say something to the media and risk offending voters if they liked their Premier.

No I know what I saw not hearing from Albertans of what it was like back in the 80s. I remember skyscrapers that stopped and ended up being just holes in the ground for a couple of years. The province that provides 10 times as much as Ontario in equalization on a per person bases was reduced to recovering a few years after the Maritimes. You will never convince Albertans it was all propaganda. The NEP was discrimination on a massive scale. The damage done to Alberta's economy was debilitating and pervasive. Its effects weren't immediate but by 1983 thousands of businesses had gone broke or just given up. The real estate market collapsed forcing thousands of people to just walk away from their investment. There were 2000 engineers that lost their jobs in 1983 and I was one of them. Just imagine the furor in Ontario if an act of parliament cost 8000 engineers their jobs. The effect lasted long past the end of the NEP. I considered myself lucky that I also had a business education to fall back on. I signed on to help a very good friend save his business which employed 25 people. We had to impose 30% wage cuts and drop all benefits just to stay alive. And before any of you commies think we just put it on the backs of the workers, my friend and I collected salaries of $15,000 per year and worked about 80 hours a week for the next 3 years. The economy was finally strong enough by 1986 that the business started growing again and I moved on. How about an ex liberal premier from the Maritimes during the election saying they should scrap a funding program to the Maritimes I never heard a bit of coverage from the media on that one. But if haprer or anyone of the conservatives said it the media would have their mics in front of harper the same day demanding clarification.

then take 1905 or 1930 if you don't like the word confederation

Take last election where Klien spoke about Medicare and privatization during the election. If an Ontario premier did the same would the liberals bash Ontario and use them as the bad boy example. Or how about Quebec with its existing private Medicare setup; I didn't here a peep from the liberals about Quebec because those possible voters are too important. But it is ok to bash Alberta as the bad boy. It goes both ways when it comes to blaming the other party. You can't say the feds are civil but only those bad Albertans are the ones making insinuations.

And as far as Alberta leaders stepping out of line to send Ottawa a message as you are implying... it is crystal clear to any party leader that if they offend Ontario they haven't got a chance of being elected. So any threat from Ontario is automatically implied and there is no reason for an Ontario premier to send vocal signal to the federal government

Point A) Ontario is Canada as far as federal elections go so there is no sense in saying Ontario has a different mindset in what makes up Ontario vs. Canadian policies. Point The different treatment the west got in the past going back to confederation were minor grievances added to the list. It was Trudeau and his determination to show he could bring Alberta to its knees with his NEP that raised the stakes and not provinces saying lets start rebelling for the sake of it.

There's a distinction that you seem to gloss over, "pride in" vs "proud for". What is "proud for" supposed to mean? Are you "proud for" the Ukrainians who forced a new election to be held? I'm respectful of, admiring of, and even somewhat inspired by what they did. But not "proud", even with my half-Ukrainian ancestry. I'm sorry, but I disagree with what you are saying here... an association or connection with something is, as I see it, an integral part of the very concept of pride. Well, if we're going to do body-part analogies, then suppose the cells in my liver declared themselves "proud to be a Liver," proud to be playing an important role in the overall success and continued health of Kimmy. Is that an affront to Kimmy's Kidneys? A slight against Kimmy's Stomach? A poke at Kimmy's Pancreas? A declaration that the Liver wishes to separate from Kimmy and be an independent organism? Or can Kimmy's Liver be proud of the role it plays in Kimmy without offending the rest of Kimmy? I suspect you won't like the analogy; feeling that the Liver, Stomach, Pancreas, and Kidneys are not distinct enough to be considered separate organs; the Lungs being the only part of Kimmy being sufficiently distinct to merit being proud of their role in Kimmy. Rest assured that my Kimmy includes Lungs, and despite my current disagreement with my lungs I intend to remain a unified Kimmy, even while many individual bronchioles are currently in an inflamed state and spew virulent mucus that's causing unrest throughout Kimmy, and particularly in other parts of the Lungs. I would still appreciate it if you could further comment on why you feel that Quebec is something to be proud of (or have "pride for", if you really insist...)as an entity, while Alberta is not, and what you feel is the distinction-- please be specific. I would also appreciate if you could explain which other provinces are distinct enough to be proud of as entities. Bob Rae, for one, feels that his province is distinct enough to be "proud of" as an entity: http://www.ryanswell.ca/order_ont/Expositor.htm Do you agree? Or is Ontario just one lobe of a larger liver? -kimmy kimmy you should of been a doctor or a poet

I would like to see Canada try to maintain Trudeaus' social engineering project if Ontario was the only have province and picking up all the costs.

So Alberta has ownership of resources.... you sure couldn't tell from Trudeau and his NEP policy. I would like to see any federal party treat Ontario or Quebec the same way. I seem to recall a few months ago someone pointed out the statement was made "we made you... you owe us" It was the US that made the investments at a critical time early on in oil development and we have been paying Ottawa ever since 61. In the dirty 30's there was help from the Maritimes but Alberta was just a low priority province to Ottawa. Kimmy is right about how elections are a waste of time watching in the west except for the last election where Layton might end up being a king player from Vancouver support.