Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.

[jbg]

When will we hear Ignatieff say that separatist parties are divisive and harmful to national unity? We won't. Because if he did that would mean Ignatieff controls his caucus and senate members, and commands discipline within his ranks. He does neither. Add to that his push for popularity in Quebec.

You won't.

The LPOC has no firm convictions.

[Progressive Tory]

So you just hate Harper and that's about the extent of your political principles.

I don't hate Stephen Harper but he lost the right to run our country when he chose his Party over us. If his 2004 coalition attempt had been made more public, I don't imagine Canadians would have been too impressed then either. Harper made the 2008 coalition a huge issue because he didn't want to play by the rules, so started a campaign of hatred. I think had it been anyone but Dion heading it up, Canadians might have been more accepting. However, being against the coalition didn't mean you were for the Conservatives. Canadians on both sides wanted another election.

The only way he could make his campaign work was to lie and misrepresent the facts; because Duceppe was no less a 'separatist' in 2004 then he was in 2008.

[Progressive Tory]

I agree CB, it's ludicrous. Harper calls the Bloc what they are, separatists. It is the existence of the Bloc that is a threat to national unity, not Harper saying the obvious. I haven't heard Ignatieff call out his Liberal Senator, George Baker, for advocating a Bloc Newfoundland Labrador.

If Harper wants to call the Bloc 'separatists' that's one thing, but why wasn't he calling them 'separatists' in 2004 when he needed them to make up a majority in his coalition to oust Paul Martin and become Prime Minister? The Bloc's platform hasn't changed in those four years. It's called hypocrisy. We have the documents and videotape to prove his lack of integrity.

As to George Baker, for advocating a Bloc Newfoundland Labrador, he is complaining, as all provinces have from time to time, that with Quebec having so much representation, everyone else becomes a second thought. Alberta has been complaining about this for years, and it was one of the reasons for the formation of the Reform Party. Did you ever read Harper's Firewall speech? He wanted the exact same thing.

[Progressive Tory]

You won't. The LPOC has no firm convictions.

He spent a great deal of time covering the National Unity issue in Quebec and dedicates a chapter to it in his book 'Blood and Belonging'. It is insightful and gave me a better understanding of the issues. Blustering over spin is just blustering over spin.

[Molly]

There's Newfoundland resentments, and there's PQ sovereigntists... and then there's the Alberta firewall.

In order for Harper worshipers to legitimately call anyone else a separatist, then Harper must personally wear that label, too.

Hyperbole is not constructive. Over-labelling is divisive-- much more divisive than honest expressions of discontent from folks with darned good reasons to be discontented. Conservative thoughtless, shameless name-calling, as a substitute for thought and conversation, is one of the reasons I've come to so wish us rid of them.

It's a schoolyard bully game, not governance.

[Progressive Tory]

In order for Harper worshipers to legitimately call anyone else a separatist, then Harper must personally wear that label, too.

Exactly. When he first won his seat as MP in Calgary, in his victory speech he said "I'm for Alberta first and Canada a distant second. A distant second?

Provinces threatening to leave is like a kid saying they're going to run away from home if they don't get their own way. It's posturing. Quebec has just done it best, because they are the kid who went out and got their own apartment to prove they weren't kidding.

[g_bambino]

It's called hypocrisy. We have the documents and videotape to prove his lack of integrity.

Not only does a comparison of the 2008 and 2004 scenarios raise questions about Harper's tolerance of separatists, but also - and what was more immediately glaring to me - his take on how parliament, and indeed our very constitutional system, operates. In 2004 he was perfectly happy to play by the rules, because they were in his favour: gather the opposition MPs together to collectively give their vote of no-confidence in Martin and offer the Govenror General the option of calling on Harper to govern with the support of the NDP and the Bloc. Four years later, however, he commandeers the national airwaves to feed the Canadian populace an absolute load of BS about how he was elected by the people to be their leader and any attempts by opposition parties to have him removed from office were essentially attacks on democracy and akin to a Colombian coup. He then proceeded to drag the Crown - the very body it is his job to advise and guide - into the political fray and placed the non-partisan governor general in a very awkward situation.

To her credit, Jean handled the matter very well, and her leaving Harper to wait in a Rideau Hall salon for two hours - thereby causing him to miss an engagement he had kept in the arrogant assumption that the vicereine would simply kiss his signet ring and immediately carry out his bidding - was just icing on the cake.

[Progressive Tory]

In 2004 he was perfectly happy to play by the rules, because they were in his favour: gather the opposition MPs together to collectively give their vote of no-confidence in Martin and offer the Govenror General the option of calling on Harper to govern with the support of the NDP and the Bloc. Four years later, however, he commandeers the national airwaves to feed the Canadian populace an absolute load of BS about how he was elected by the people to be their leader and any attempts by opposition parties to have him removed from office were essentially attacks on democracy and akin to a Colombian coup. He then proceeded to drag the Crown - the very body it is his job to advise and guide - into the political fray and placed the non-partisan governor general in a very awkward situation.

You put it beautifully and succinctly.

His supporters are relying on him to use the 'coalition coup' next election campaign to discredit opposition parties, but if he is silly enough to try, he should just bend over and kiss his butt goodbye. Hypocrisy is not a trait you want to play on.

[neutralguy]

As I mentioned in another thread, I think the fact that the electorate is misinformed about how our system works, Harper used that to his full advantage.

[Progressive Tory]

As I mentioned in another thread, I think the fact that the electorate is misinformed about how our system works, Harper used that to his full advantage.

You are so right. I joined a coalition group at the time, to try to get Harper to start acting like the Prime Minister of Canada and not the leader of the Conservative Party; or step aside. That topic was discussed regularly. We couldn't believe how many people had no idea how our system works.

It worked to Harper's advantage and he was able to convince many Canadians that he was right and everyone else was wrong. He counted on ignorance and unfortunately we didn't disappoint. However, since then more people have made themselves aware, so he will no longer have a free pass. He has to behave or get out.

[Canadian Blue]

Conservative thoughtless, shameless name-calling, as a substitute for thought and conversation, is one of the reasons I've come to so wish us rid of them.

It's a schoolyard bully game, not governance.

Hold on, weren't members of the Canadian Alliance called holocaust deniers, racists, and bigots, by the Liberals in 2000, or in 2004 when people were warned that the CPC would be anti-abortion and pro-US, or in 2006 when the Liberals stated that the Conservatives would have soldiers in our cities, with guns.

Exactly. When he first won his seat as MP in Calgary, in his victory speech he said "I'm for Alberta first and Canada a distant second. A distant second?

Mind getting a cite for that.

Provinces threatening to leave is like a kid saying they're going to run away from home if they don't get their own way. It's posturing. Quebec has just done it best, because they are the kid who went out and got their own apartment to prove they weren't kidding.

Actually it was meant to support provincial rights against a central government which has no concern for the provinces outside of Ontario and Quebec.

He then proceeded to drag the Crown - the very body it is his job to advise and guide - into the political fray and placed the non-partisan governor general in a very awkward situation.

You mean, the opposition dragged her down. After all they were the ones who started this whole mess since they can only survive off the tit of the taxpayer.

If Harper wants to call the Bloc 'separatists' that's one thing, but why wasn't he calling them 'separatists' in 2004 when he needed them to make up a majority in his coalition to oust Paul Martin and become Prime Minister?

Probably because most people actually knew they were separatists, something which wasn't known by the left leaning posters on this board.

There's Newfoundland resentments, and there's PQ sovereigntists... and then there's the Alberta firewall.

In order for Harper worshipers to legitimately call anyone else a separatist, then Harper must personally wear that label, too.

Actually, the firewall isn't a separatist agenda. You've obviously never actually read the document. All it states is that if the Liberals attempt to steal the wealth of western Canada to buy votes we should become more independent of the government in Ottawa.

[Progressive Tory]

Mind getting a cite for that.

Meet the real Stephen Harper MacLeans May, 2005

"Just about everything you hear repeated about Stephen Harper does more to obscure than reveal him. He's said to be a policy wonk at heart. But isn't his main accomplishment to date, orchestrating the merger of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives, the work of a master tactician? He's often described as icily unemotional. But how does that square with his more impulsive gestures, such as his op-ed outbursts after the 2000 election, in which he essentially declared himself for Alberta first, the rest of Canada a distant second -- a recklessly hotheaded move for a man with national aspirations?

If you read publications from the time after Harper won in 2000, you'll see what MacLeans is talking about. It was an 'outburst' not a speech.

In the firewall letter, he advises Ralph Klein to opt out of federal programs, and build a wall around Alberta (figurative) to protect them. Sounds very much like what the Newfoundland senator is saying. Different speech, same sentiment.

[jbg]

Did you ever read Harper's Firewall speech? He wanted the exact same thing.

If I recall correctly it was the Firewall Letter, not the Firewall Speech.

[jbg]

Provinces threatening to leave is like a kid saying they're going to run away from home if they don't get their own way. It's posturing. Quebec has just done it best, because they are the kid who went out and got their own apartment to prove they weren't kidding.

Like a kid threatening to run away from home? Really?

When effectively Ottawa's writ doesn't run in a province? When a battlefield re-enactment has to be cancelled because of a threat of violence? When anti-Jewish violence is routinely tolerated by the QCC and Montreal police? That isn't quite like a kid threatening to run away from home.

[Canadian Blue]

He's often described as icily unemotional. But how does that square with his more impulsive gestures, such as his op-ed outbursts after the 2000 election, in which he essentially declared himself for Alberta first, the rest of Canada a distant second -- a recklessly hotheaded move for a man with national aspirations?

Which wasn't when he was an MP, he served as Reform Party MP from 1993-1997. Before that he was one of the strongest voices that supported the Reform Party expanding into eastern Canada and dropping populism. Once again, research your facts.

In the firewall letter, he advises Ralph Klein to opt out of federal programs, and build a wall around Alberta (figurative) to protect them. Sounds very much like what the Newfoundland senator is saying. Different speech, same sentiment.

Not really, the difference is that Newfoundland feels entitled to Ontario's money, Alberta simply stated that if the Liberals were going to go out of their way to scapegoat Alberta during the election they shouldn't expect said provinces where they described individuals as holocaust deniers, racists, bigots, and xenophobes, to prop up their election promises.

Just out of curiosity if you're apparently for national unity, then why do you have this odd belief that it's perfectly acceptable for the Liberals to bash western Canada during an election to pick up votes in the east. After all even Liberal MP's stated that the carbon tax was a way to shift wealth from Alberta and Saskatchewan to Ontario and Quebec.

[Progressive Tory]

Which wasn't when he was an MP, he served as Reform Party MP from 1993-1997. Before that he was one of the strongest voices that supported the Reform Party expanding into eastern Canada and dropping populism. Once again, research your facts.

First off, I was quoting MacLean's Magazine and I don't care what he was doing when he said it. I assume MacLeans has fact checkers so take it up with them. He's for Alberta first, we get it.

Could I have a cite for when an election campaign bashed Alberta. That's news to me.

Back to Harper and George Baker

Harper "We believe the time has come for Albertans to take greater charge of our own future. Intelligent use of these powers will help Alberta build a prosperous future in spite of a misguided and increasingly hostile government in Ottawa..

Baker - "People will soon be advocating, you know, that we can't remain in the Confederation in which we're discriminated against and not respected"

Harper - "Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan ... permit a province to run its own plan, as Quebec has done from the beginning. If Quebec can do it, why not Alberta?"

"Collect our own revenue from personal income tax, as we already do for corporate income tax. Any incremental cost of collecting our own personal income tax would be far outweighed by the policy flexibility that Alberta would gain, as Quebec’s experience has shown."

Start preparing now to let the contract with the RCMP run out in 2012 Like the other major provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

"Resume provincial responsibility for health-care policy. If Ottawa objects to provincial policy, fight in the courts. If we lose, we can afford the financial penalties that Ottawa may try to impose under the Canada Health Act. ... replace Canada Health and Social Transfer cash with tax points as Quebec has argued for many years.

Use section 88 of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Quebec Secession Reference to force Senate reform back onto the national agenda.

Baker - "his province might be better served by supporting a party similar to the Bloc Quebecois to defend its interests at the federal level.

He is not wanting to take Ontario's Money, but just wants Ottawa to respect the terms of the Atlantic Accord and like Harper, uses Quebec as the guide.

[Molly]

Jeepers, Blue! For someone who so often asks for a cite, you sure throw out a lot of doubtable statements!

BUT... even you have to admit that Reform, no matter how many good ideas it carried, also had quite a burden of 'holocaust deniers, racists and bigots', and the Conservative Party still provides a welcoming home for anti-abortion, pro-US, and excessively militarist sentiments.

I don't recall ever needing the LPC to point out any of those things, since Reform and CP displayed them well enough all on their own... but feel free to provide cites to confirm the assertions.

[Canadian Blue]

First off, I was quoting MacLean's Magazine and I don't care what he was doing when he said it. I assume MacLeans has fact checkers so take it up with them. He's for Alberta first, we get it.

Yes, you just didn't know when it was said or in what context.

Could I have a cite for when an election campaign bashed Alberta. That's news to me.

Ever hear of Jean Chretien's quip about how westerners are "different types." Or for that matter pretty well every policy the Liberal from absurd gun control policies, the CWB, to ignoring Senate Elections. As well I still recall all the shreiking from the opposition about how big oil would destroy the nation.

Harper - "Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan ... permit a province to run its own plan, as Quebec has done from the beginning. If Quebec can do it, why not Alberta?"

"Collect our own revenue from personal income tax, as we already do for corporate income tax. Any incremental cost of collecting our own personal income tax would be far outweighed by the policy flexibility that Alberta would gain, as Quebec’s experience has shown."

Start preparing now to let the contract with the RCMP run out in 2012 Like the other major provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

So you're saying that Alberta can't do any of these things, even though both Ontario and Quebec have similar policies.

"Resume provincial responsibility for health-care policy. If Ottawa objects to provincial policy, fight in the courts. If we lose, we can afford the financial penalties that Ottawa may try to impose under the Canada Health Act. ... replace Canada Health and Social Transfer cash with tax points as Quebec has argued for many years.

Use section 88 of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Quebec Secession Reference to force Senate reform back onto the national agenda.

Which isn't calling for western separatism, but instead stating that Alberta should be granted some independence from Ottawa and attempt to get more clout in Ottawa. To think that this is separatism is idiotic at best.

He is not wanting to take Ontario's Money, but just wants Ottawa to respect the terms of the Atlantic Accord and like Harper, uses Quebec as the guide.

Actually, he does want Ontario's money. That's why Newfoundland has stated they should still be entitled to equalization despite being a have province.

All this proves to me is that you think it's fine and dandy if Quebec [and Ontario with the OPP] have put in place all these measures, yet if Alberta does your up in arms.

You do realize that even the colonies are provinces right?

Listen Progressive Tory, just because some people don't want to constantly get rear ended by Ottawa it doesn't automatically make them separatists.

[Canadian Blue]

Jeepers, Blue! For someone who so often asks for a cite, you sure throw out a lot of doubtable statements!

BUT... even you have to admit that Reform, no matter how many good ideas it carried, also had quite a burden of 'holocaust deniers, racists and bigots', and the Conservative Party still provides a welcoming home for anti-abortion, pro-US, and excessively militarist sentiments.

I don't recall ever needing the LPC to point out any of those things, since Reform and CP displayed them well enough all on their own... but feel free to provide cites to confirm the assertions.

No, I have no problem with allowing people that are pro-life the ability to speak freely. I'm not really into the thought control aspect that the left preaches. As for being pro-United States, I really have no clue what that means, outside of perhaps not having a blind hatred of everything American. As for militarism, theirs a large difference between saying the military should be given the tools it requires to do a job, and treating our soldiers like sh*t as the LPC did.

With the abortion debate, I hold to the maxim that those who are neutral should be sent to the hottest part of hell once they die. I'll be quite frank I find pro-choicers to be far more despicable, simply because they don't even engage in a debate. Their main goal is to use the state to shutup people who disagree with them.

But their weren't many holocaust deniers, racists, or bigots, in the Canadian Alliance or the Reform Party. The holocaust deniers is fairly moot since the CPC is strongly supportive of Israel. Usually it would be isolated statements that were taken out of context by the media. However I will say this, atleast you don't see Conservatives marching under Hezbollah and Tamil Tiger flags.

Now I will admit that most conservatives [small c] find holocaust deniers to be fairly despicable. The difference is that we don't think you should be able to jail people for opinions that are deemed offensive by Liberals. I don't believe the government owns a persons tongue like you and Progressive Tory do, nor do I think government bureaucrats should become the defacto thought police in Canada and attempt to punish journalists and newsmagazines for voicing a difference of opinion.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[Progressive Tory]

Listen Progressive Tory, just because some people don't want to constantly get rear ended by Ottawa it doesn't automatically make them separatists.

You mean like George Baker?

[fellowtraveller]

When he first won his seat as MP in Calgary, in his victory speech he said "I'm for Alberta first and Canada a distant second. A distant second?

Actually as an MP he should be for his constituents first.

As a Minister he should put his country first, though of course he was not a Minister then.

Who can ever forget Ignatieffs well documented references to 'we Americans"?

[Progressive Tory]

With the abortion debate, I hold to the maxim that those who are neutral should be sent to the hottest part of hell once they die. I'll be quite frank I find pro-choicers to be far more despicable, simply because they don't even engage in a debate. Their main goal is to use the state to shutup people who disagree with them.

I would go to the hottest part of hell, but it's already filled with people who call themselves Christians but then wage war for oil or profit. They're actually keeping that entire section open for the Bush Administration.

Again, I don't know why you can't grasp the concept, that pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. I support positive campaigns and counselling. But if a woman decides to have an abortion anyway, there should be a safe place with a licensed doctor.

Pro-equal marriage does not mean you march in Gay Pride parades, though I would drive a float if they asked.

[Oleg Bach]

I would go to the hottest part of hell, but it's already filled with people who call themselves Christians but then wage war for oil or profit. They're actually keeping that entire section open for the Bush Administration.

Again, I don't know why you can't grasp the concept, that pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. I support positive campaigns and counselling. But if a woman decides to have an abortion anyway, there should be a safe place with a licensed doctor.

Pro-equal marriage does not mean you march in Gay Pride parades, though I would drive a float if they asked.

If you dupe and stupify the female population with on going propoganda for a most of a generation - those people do not have a choice because they have not been offered the full spectrum of choices - so there is no such thing as pro-choice - just pro-uninformed. "if a woman decides to have an abortion" means she has decieded not to be a woman when it suits her - so at the moment of so-called decision is has the spirit of a male...maybe the "pro-choice" females are actually males...I firmly believe that souls have a sex - and some men are woman and some woman are men - and men do not like having babies so they kill them - especailly if they invade the female body they inhabit.

[Progressive Tory]

Who can ever forget Ignatieffs well documented references to 'we Americans"?

I hope you can do better than that. I'll make sure next time he lectures at Harvard he says 'You Americans and me". Ha ha ha ha.

Yep, five years teaching at Harvard have turned him. Those damned Americans!

Do you think Canadians care now? We like Obama and are looking to America as a welcome partner during this economic crisis.

I'm going to google his lectures and look for everytime he used the word 'we'. I think it was a secret code and am going to suggest that Canada removes the word from all correpondence, as a threat to national security.

So get all your 'we we's' out now before it becomes law. Do you realize how silly that is, when he was writing a paper for the American people?

Edited March 9, 2009 by Progressive Tory

[Oleg Bach]

I hope you can do better than that. I'll make sure next time he lectures at Harvard he says 'You Americans and me". Ha ha ha ha.

Yep, five years teaching at Harvard have turned him. Those damned Americans!

Do you think Canadians care now? We like Obama and are looking to America as a welcome partner during this economic crisis.

I'm going to google his lectures and look for everytime he used the word 'we'. I think it was a secret code and am going to suggest that Canada removes the word from all correpondence, as a threat to national security.

So get all your 'we we's' out now before it becomes law. Do you realize how sill that is, when he was writing a paper for the American people?

You sure admire this guy. Personally I have little faith in professional professors and acedemics in general - apparently you are one of them. Do us a favour - IF you are going to continue to make a study of Ignateiff - and promote him - do your duty and report back what is negative about the man also...Being an Ignateiff follower as it seem you to be - please do some writing on the man - the warts and the roses!