E James

I misread the Liberals not having to hire consultants and assumed it was him again. Sorry.

.

That makes absolutely no sense what so ever. What proof do you have that the NDP develops policy from watching Michael Moore or David Suzuki? How about you contribute rather than lend to taking swipes at shadows.

Your logic that it would be done already is flawed. For the time being it is more cost effective. However, in hindsight the long term cost of Canadian workers could be astronomical if we miss the boat now developing policy that encourage investment in a complete end-to-end energy production network in Canada. The companies seek to profit themselves not a particular country that is why governments can develop policy that encourages the hand of business.

You are talking about a group nation wide of about 700-800 people. What does occupy have to do with unproductively and how do you back up asserting that the reason we have a deficit is because there are too many people depending on the government?

Reading this and the hyper-partisan comment you made toward WWWTT make me laugh.

It's a little more complicated than that. Countries all around the world are running deficits right now as a result of the financial crisis and now uncertainty in Europe. It is all inter connected. But Harper certainly has not made any wise economic decisions while in government and he will never balance the budget. Especially with Flaherty at the helm in finance.

1. This is fine. Harper has a majority and he would like to pass legislation that gave him the mandate to do so. But that is not a reason to cut debate time short. It also isn't a reason to cut debate because it was debated in the past. If Harper really doesn't like the timeframes established for debate he should seek to amending the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. If we take his logic to its logical conclusion in that a majority government has a mandate and ability to pass the legislation than why even have a House of Commons? That is a scary thought. 2. I said I was more conservative...not Conservative. What I am also not is ideological. I believe the RCMP and hundreds of other police forces when they say that there is value in the LGR. If I was a Conservative I would have opposed their scrapping it because I am not tied to an ideology. Then again that may also be part of the reason I am not a Conservative. 3. I do not recall any Prime Minister saying that a certain province should build a firewall to protect from the federal government. I do not recall a Prime Minister who has said so many negative things about homosexuals and homosexual marriage even from those who may have opposed it themselves. I have never heard of any politician say that when he would be finished with Canada you wouldn't recognize it. Harper has said some over the top things that I believe in many respects legitimizes a fear of Harper. 4. Bad governments can get re-elected. Pundits have already wrote of the teflon that surrounds Harper and the Conservatives. A lot of governments under other parties would not have lasted through those periods of minority governments with those decisions and those high profile resignations and firings. The man understands politics, he can win majorities. That most certainly does not mean he can run the country properly. There is significant evidence to assert that the Harper government opposes professional opinion especially when it is pitted again their ideological pursuits. 5. There is nothing dumb at all about that comment. Stephen Harper has always been regarded as overly partisan. Even when he was working for Jim Hawkes. Many of his policy decisions as PM have been tailored to have unfavourable political consequences for the opposition particularly the Liberal party. His constant assertion on issues concerning justice and national defence that one is either for or against, black or white is just more proof of how Harper sees the world as us and them and that is exactly what makes him partisan. 6. See number 2.

I never said the NDP would (in fact to be honest they have never had their feet on the fire). I am just saying that as much as you can speculate on how the NDP would run the country fiscally the Conservatives and the Liberals both have actual track records that proves they have dropped the ball in the past. And in fact the past shows that it is typically moderates who balance budgets.

SF/PF I am curious about your logic in it not being feasible to refine our own bitumen here in Canada. I get that a lot of different products are created out of the process. And I get that it would take a vast network of infrastructure in order to transport the refined goods across the world. However, what I do not get is why it is impossible for us to do it but it's not impossible for the country who is going to receive the bitumen. Sure the US may have the existing refineries to take in the extracted bitumen and refine it into the various petroleum products consumed all around the world and distribute them but why not with some real investment and leadership (including from the PMO) can't Canada be bold and develop the infrastructure required and do it ourselves end-to-end?

No federal conservative party has balanced the budget since the 1800s. So be careful when throwing around the ability to make the country prosperous along partisan lines.

Socialist? I am probably more conservative than the majority of the Conservative caucus. Check yourself before you start attacking my character. Now if you have a real rebuttal to my list of reasons to fear Harper I would like to hear it, otherwise just sit down.

- he stifles debate (re: Gun Registry bill, Wheat Board bill) - he has said some pretty outlandish things in the past (re: Alberta firewall) - he does not adhere to professional opinion (re: Stats Canada, Nuclear Commission, the GST) - he is overly partisan (re: typical Conservative rhetoric) ...want me to keep going?

You can't say that this came at the Conservatives because of some type of Liberal majority in the Election Canada world. If anything the tight grasp and sudden Conservative flip that has overtaken Ottawa has proven true with nothing being laid on the heads of any Conservative top brass workers. We know that they are guilty of the charges because they plead guilty. We also know that they didn't take any of it seriously largely no doubt because they had already made headway in the election because of it. It was after all effective. The fact is that we do have a government that plays short and fast with the rules. It will remove almost any opposition especially that from professional opinion. This whole affair I think is yet another example of the Harper government showing it's disregard toward the Ottawa establishment.

I am sorry I think that given the fact that the pipeline would pass through an aquifer that supplies over one million people with water is reason enough to have another look. We have seen the possibilities in the devastation on the environment that can occur when errors are made in the oil industry. Setting up for failure by running the pipeline over a significant source of fresh water or-- in the case of the Canadian pipeline-- ending it at the ocean just does't make much sense to me.