fellowtraveller

Sure. It gets the press off their backs for several months , and allows them to visit their pals and potential supporters without constant monitoring by the media. Which is exactly what McKana was doing before the election, and what he'l return to doing soon. Remember, the convention is likely one year from now. Politcis is like comedy, timing is everything. The only people that need a year in the spotlight are political unknowns, and neither McKenna or Tobin fit that description. They have zero to gain from a long long campaign, and much to lose. There is not a chance in the world that a "New Reform' will gain traction in Alberta. And there is not a chance that Harper will lose any significant support in AB by playing Prime Minister. In fact, he will gain support by doing so. Ask yourself, what does Harper need? Answer: he needs more seats. Q: Where will he get them? A: Not in Alberta! And so on....

You're kidding, right? Harper has been given a free ride by the media this campaign. What makes you think thats going to change if the Conservatives form the government? Michael Enright is an outright disgrace. His vicious, wild tirades against America in particular are repugnant in the extreme. This thread is illustrative of the problem with CBC. The apprehension of bias is universal, unanimous. And completely unacceptable in a public broadcaster, paid for with taxpayer money. Really, the only solution is to pull the pin, and allow the many fiercely loyal CBC supporters - who seem to vastly outnumber the actual watchers and listeners - to pay for the service directly themselves. They can then broadcast anythng they wish. Problem solved.

There are several questionable points here but the most serious is that this is not a legal question, it is a political question. FTA, you don't seem capable of making that distinction. That has happened. Bombardier has just cancelled a project for which it received government subsidies. None of those subsidies will be returned to the taxpayers, yet the money was never used for purpose that it was given.Your arguments make make it seem so simple and so black and white. It's not. One political party should be very cautious in accusing another political party of a crime. The reason we have democracy is to provide an ultimate judge of politicians. Courts cannot and should not fulfil that role. Given the recent election results, if need be, Harper should issue, if possible, some kind of pardon. Because it has happened elsewhere and not pursued has no bearing on the discussion. Great, let us sue Bombardier too if our money has been taken there. . We have many lawyers at Justice Canada to handle just this sort of thing. If they are not up to it, we could contract it out on the usual contingency basis. It is not necessary or may not be desireable, as you point out, to 'accuse another political party of a crime'. I'm referring to a civil proceeding, which can succeed independently, with or without a criminal element. A pardon? Perhaps our resident lawyer can advise whether a pardon covers both criminial and civil liability. Perhaps a pardon would be judicious, but only after Chretien, Martin and all the crew down at liberal HQ provided full and complete disclosure. Given the lack of cooperation and disclosure so far, I see no reason at all to be magnanimous. Most of all, I want my money back, the stuff that was pilfered. We can talk about the rest after that essential first step.

Does anybody know how well Ralph Goodale speaks French?

I count at least 4 strawmen and two false premises. Anybody care to up the ante?

OK, but can you explain why you think that way? Another example: Say the government establishes a secret fund to provide Bombardier with money, lots of money, to legally market their aircraft. A group of civil servants and Bombardier employees conspire to redirect(steal)a lot of money to Bombardier employees for their own use, a use certainly not intended by the provider of the money.. Some of the civil servants and Bombardier employees are charged criminally, but none of the public money is recovered, and no attempt is made to recover it People would be outraged, yet are not when it is a political party that benefits. Puzzling. I want my money back, now.

I don't think Jack will be hitting the road anytime soon. He has increased the NDP visibility immeasureably, across Canada for a long time now. He added 10 seats. He actually got the Liberals to implement some NDP measures. On the other hand, he only increased popular vote by 2% despite the golden opportunity presented by the Liberal catastrophe of the last 2 years. In ba;lance, they would be crazy to replace him. He's the best leader they've had for a long time.

For Alberta autonomy=money. For every province, it's about the money. Nobody wants to leave Canada with the only just possibility of Quebec - they just want their share plus a bit more. When the Council of the Federation gets together, do you think they spend 10 seconds talking about the Charter, or governance or any of that? It may be on the agenda, but really it is all about carving up the pie. Certainly Martin was aware of this reality, and Harper no less so.

Relax, it is a year until the leadership convention.

The last letter I read like this was from Nigeria and advised me of an amazing and confidential business opportunity. I wish I could tell you more, when the big money arrives in my account I'll share the full story.

autonomy, schmautonomy. It's about the money.

Why would Harper try hard to please Alberta? Don't lose sight of the longer view, which is the next election. In that election, Alberta is going to vote overwhelmingly for Harper anyway. Harper must focus on Ontario and Quebec. I put as much credence in Tobins 'withdrawal' as I do in McKennas - which is none at all. Keep in mind, the leadership convention will not be until late 2006 soonest, more likely in early 2007. It would be dumb to declare now, and risk losing aall momentum over the next several months of nothing happening. It's bad planning , and both of these guys know it. All they need to do publicly is wait until an opportune time to declare : " I have been overwhelmed by the urging of thousands of supporters that my country needs me now". In the meantime, they will have been working quietly getting support and money. That is how these things are done. That is what McKenna has been doing for a long time already, Tobin to a lesser degree. They will not and are not walking away from that effort- privately.

I don't think Dion could win Quebec, much less the rest of Canada. Bill Graham strikes me as the Robert Stanfield of our times.

Gerry, fess up! Is this your site? this one?

If he is good and fortunate, Harper will be able to do just that - pick the time of his demise. But firsdt he must accomplish as mcuh as possible, and the time is now.

Sparhawk, what do you see as the purpose of the CBC today, in 2006, its reason for existence? For simplicitys sake, just English language services. Why must it be a publcly funded braodcaster. What are the specific advantages to me, what added value does the CBC provide that are not freely available from so many other sources? It is scarcely an instrument of unity, just look at this thread. Their ratings in most major markets are abysmal, you're right that nobody is watching is hyperbole, but not by much. Do you think the ratings are lies? If it is so loved by Canada, why don't more people listen to radio or TV? Personally, I'm not agaisnt the CBC, but I do not want to pay for it except by personal subscription, just like I pay for all the rest of the news and entertainment sources out there.

Yes, he should govern like a majority, minus the arrogance. He has a golden opportnity to ram through his legislation, a relatively narrow window. The other parties do not want another election, and he should press that advantage until he no longer can. If nothing else, it will give a record of achievement to point at when he inevitably falls.

The best punishment for a politician is to lose power. We should think twice before imposing great penalties on politicians or political parties. Even Richard Nixon was pardoned. ---- "In War: Resolution, In Defeat: Defiance, In Victory: Magnanimity, In Peace: Good Will". I'm not talking about punishment. Punishment is mainly a criminal procedure. Losing an election is neither punishment or payback, not when all that money is mssing. Gomery of course had no mandate to name names or initiate further criminal investigations. I have no idea why the RCMP did not seize Party files and find out who exactly stole the money. It is hard to make $40 million just disappear without a trace. What I'm talking about is recovering money that was taken from taxpayers. OJ Simpson is an example of the process. The criminal courts found him guilty, a civil court found him liable. Somewhere, somebody has $40 million of MY money, and I'd like to know who it is, exactly. I'd like them to be fully obliged to give it back. I'd like to know the names of those people, and what their role was in the theft. In other words, I'd like to know what happened here, just as any case involving this much money going missing would involve. There are no 'penalties' involved, other than somebody being forced to return what is not theirs. I'd have a different attitude if it was simple negligence, the usual bungling we've come to expect. But this is not about that.

Funny, what I remember if all the people who lost their homes. I'd bet they haven't forgotten either.

Looks like about 65% want it abolished or pruned, 35% leave it alone. I liked the comment: 'we're all obliged to pay for something nobody is watching'.

Isn't it obvious? Looks to me like Gerry himself is sole proprietor and sole contributor. It is just me, or is the entire content of the site two pieces, one of which is only a few sentences?

Great thread, thanks Kimmy. That is an excellent summary of Alberta sentiment.

The President has considerably less power than the Prime Minister in Canada.

Haven't the Liberals proven umpteen times that they have no need at all for AB and SK when it comes to forming majorities? I stand corrected on the cod Thelonius, it was indeed a turbot. They both have fins and scales and stuff, bloody suspicious if you ask me.

The number kicked around is $40 million . Harper was asked this question recently and dodged it. What do you think, are the taxpayers entitled to their money back, or is this vindictive partisanship?