Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[Wild Bill]

First of all, the whole notion of a "coup" is an unlawful seizure of power. Nothing the erstwhile Coalition tried to do was unlawful. It has happened before, though it's been over 80 years since the last time a GG asked another party to form a government without an election. So, we can pretty much dispense with the inflammatory and utterly false claim that what the Coalition was attempting was a coup.

Secondly, regardless of the direction of the public will, the electorate does not select the government. Parliament does.

We've been round and round this point for months. It always comes back to the same thing.

Yes, a coalition would have likely been legal. So what? The real question would have been how Canadians felt about it the FOLLOWING election!

Polls overwhelmingly showed that a majority of Canadians did NOT like the idea of a coalition! Especially one headed by Dion, who had just been decisively rejected by the electorate.

To try one now would be a new scenario. Dion is gone. Ignatieff may not be as popular as Harper but at least he doesn't seem to be considered a total idiot in the polls. Again, it all depends on the price to be paid. If enough people are unified in disliking Harper and not offended by the idea of a coalition then the Opposition parties might get away with it.

However, no amount of scolding mainstream Canadians about what's legal or how our political system actually works will mean diddley-squat when they get their chance to vote! If enough of them don't like the idea then those involved may have won a battle and totally lost the war, for a few terms to come! This is the part that those calling for a coalition never seem to think about.

You can achieve a coalition but if you upset Canadians by doing it then no amount of lecturing will save your ass NEXT election!

[ToadBrother]

So if the opposition parties show up on the 25th of Jan, what will or could happen?

Nothing much, from a constitutional point of view. Parliament is in recess, and the GG is the only one who can reconvene it, on the advice of the PM. I believe the date has been scheduled for March, so I imagine the GG already has the go-ahead to reconvene it.

The opposition parties returning at the end of this month is somewhat symbolic, but in a way represents what John Pym and his followers did when Charles I dissolved Parliament and tried to rule on his own (this is the source of Andrew Coyne's reference to the Short Parliament of 1640). Since Iggy is referring to this more as a continuation of some committee work and not as any sort of quorum, it means nothing constitutionally. I admire him for herding his MPs back to Ottawa, but what I'd really wish he would do is rent some assembly space (doesn't matter, could be a tennis court, wink-wink-nudge-nudge), and like John Pym before him, insisted upon doing some of the business of Parliament. Heck, if he had real balls and wanted to be the real successor John Pym (probably one of the greatest Parliamentarians of all time), he'd send a challenge to the GG, as the vice-regal representative of our Sovereign, insisting that Parliament still had business to attend to, and demanding its reconvening. He'd need the support of the Bloc and NDP, but so what? Rather than wringing their hands and moaning about how rotten them damned Tories are, they might be able to create their own little constitutional crisis that would require Harper to stop watching speed skating competitions and come back to Ottawa.

But that's asking for too much. MPs of days past had a lot more fire in their bellies and were a lot more willing to flout convention and Authority in the name of their rights.

Edited January 6, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

We've been round and round this point for months. It always comes back to the same thing.

Yes, a coalition would have likely been legal. So what? The real question would have been how Canadians felt about it the FOLLOWING election!

Polls overwhelmingly showed that a majority of Canadians did NOT like the idea of a coalition! Especially one headed by Dion, who had just been decisively rejected by the electorate.

Polls don't decide who forms a government.

To try one now would be a new scenario. Dion is gone. Ignatieff may not be as popular as Harper but at least he doesn't seem to be considered a total idiot in the polls. Again, it all depends on the price to be paid. If enough people are unified in disliking Harper and not offended by the idea of a coalition then the Opposition parties might get away with it.

However, no amount of scolding mainstream Canadians about what's legal or how our political system actually works will mean diddley-squat when they get their chance to vote! If enough of them don't like the idea then those involved may have won a battle and totally lost the war, for a few terms to come! This is the part that those calling for a coalition never seem to think about.

You can achieve a coalition but if you upset Canadians by doing it then no amount of lecturing will save your ass NEXT election!

And that's perfectly fine. Let the voters have their say. That's how are system works. Popular votes and polls have no formal role in our system. If they did, Harper would not be PM now. The Tories and their astroturfing supporters are the ones that used the term "coup", which was immoral and dishonest, because it wasn't a coup (again, a coup is an unconstitutional and illegal seizure of power by an illegitimate group from the legal governing authority).

In practical terms, yes, the popularity or unpopularity of the Coalition by the general public would inform any such move, but you seem to want your cake and eat it too. Harper gets in without a plurality, or even the magic 40% of the popular vote, and that's okay, but the Coalition, which represents a plurality in the House and well over 50% of the popular vote, is wrong, because a couple of polls suggest somehow it is. Polls no more decide who forms the government than popular vote.

Now perhaps some day we will reform our electoral system, and find some means by which the popular vote more clearly translates into overall seats, then we might be able to dispense with this dichotomy.

And let's not forget that those polls in part reflect the dishonest campaign the Tories used to suggest a coup was underway. On another forum I was on at the time, there were at least two posters who showed up out of nowhere, who were even going so far as saying the Coalition was illegal, that it was coup. Both were obviously Tory astroturfers, and they were lying. When a number of us patiently pointed out how our system in fact works, they called us names (I was even called a traitor by one of them, no doubt one Mr. Canada's mental twins) and then buggered off.

[myata]

All true. I merely reiterate that Harper could have been destroyed by the opposition when parliament reconvened. Alas, as we've discussed, party politics obviously made them decide otherwise.

And one other thing you always forget to remember, and I'll always remember to bring back, until it finally settles in, is that the threat of an unnecessary and costly election by the government that has lost confidence of the elected House, is little short of political blackmail. That was by far the strongest consideration that propped (and continues to prop) this government in power.

[nicky10013]

We've been round and round this point for months. It always comes back to the same thing.

Yes, a coalition would have likely been legal. So what? The real question would have been how Canadians felt about it the FOLLOWING election!

Polls overwhelmingly showed that a majority of Canadians did NOT like the idea of a coalition! Especially one headed by Dion, who had just been decisively rejected by the electorate.

To try one now would be a new scenario. Dion is gone. Ignatieff may not be as popular as Harper but at least he doesn't seem to be considered a total idiot in the polls. Again, it all depends on the price to be paid. If enough people are unified in disliking Harper and not offended by the idea of a coalition then the Opposition parties might get away with it.

However, no amount of scolding mainstream Canadians about what's legal or how our political system actually works will mean diddley-squat when they get their chance to vote! If enough of them don't like the idea then those involved may have won a battle and totally lost the war, for a few terms to come! This is the part that those calling for a coalition never seem to think about.

You can achieve a coalition but if you upset Canadians by doing it then no amount of lecturing will save your ass NEXT election!

Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it. Towards the end of the prorogment the opinion polls had completely turned around. Some showed around 57% supported it. Think about how Canadians would feel if they GG allowed a coalition and a week later, a new budget and stimulus package appears in parliament while just a week ago the old PM was trying to shut everything down during the worst financial crisis since the great depression?

He HAD to prorogue because if he didn't he would've been ousted as leader and the party would've collapsed. An election is the second best option but if all you have to go to the polls with is an attack on Quebec you've got SERIOUS issues. You can't just look at one opinion poll and say the coalition parties would've been doomed. A) You don't know how they would've performed and opinion polls aren't static. I guess from their own experience, Conservatives have a hard time understanding how people can actually change their minds.

Edited January 6, 2010 by nicky10013

[ToadBrother]

Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it. Towards the end of the prorogment the opinion polls had completely turned around. Some showed around 57% supported it. Think about how Canadians would feel if they GG allowed a coalition and a week later, a new budget and stimulus package appears in parliament while just a week ago the old PM was trying to shut everything down during the worst financial crisis since the great depression?

He HAD to prorogue because if he didn't he would've been ousted as leader and the party would've collapsed. An election is the second best option but if all you have to go to the polls with is an attack on Quebec you've got SERIOUS issues. You can't just look at one opinion poll and say the coalition parties would've been doomed. A) You don't know how they would've performed and opinion polls aren't static. I guess from their own experience, Conservatives have a hard time understanding how people can actually change their minds.

It's important to note that governments will often start out on an unpopular foot, but providing they've got the time, they can often find ways to buy themselves some popularity if they want. I mean, if polls truly counted as much as some folks thought, then Harper would have been out on his ear. There seems to be selective application of polling popularity contests surrounding the Tories vs. the Coalition. The Tories own relative unpopularity at the time seems to go ignored, whereas the much more divided view on the Coalition was declared by the Tories as somehow being an absolute rejection.

But what really defeated the Coalition wasn't the polls or Tory BS about coups. It was dissension in the Liberal ranks, in part because a lot of Liberal MPs didn't want to get in bed with Layton and the NDP, or in any way be beholden to that rabble, and in part because they wanted Dion gone, and viewed him as the head of any kind of Liberal lead government as ludicrous, considering the utter loss of confidence in him.

[nicky10013]

But what really defeated the Coalition wasn't the polls or Tory BS about coups. It was dissension in the Liberal ranks, in part because a lot of Liberal MPs didn't want to get in bed with Layton and the NDP, or in any way be beholden to that rabble, and in part because they wanted Dion gone, and viewed him as the head of any kind of Liberal lead government as ludicrous, considering the utter loss of confidence in him.

I couldn't agree more. Though, I feel I have to add that the NDP base wasn't happy getting in bed with the Liberals either. I'm sure th NDP caucus members were excited. They could go back to their constitutencies with real government experience; something no NDP MP has ever been able to do. The base, though. Yikes. Considering the NDP policy and leadership is directly voted upon by members at the convention, it wouldn't have been great for the Layton gang. I know a lot of people who are dippers and let me tell you, they're vicious partisans. When you're consistently only polling at 15% you've got to be.

[ToadBrother]

I couldn't agree more. Though, I feel I have to add that the NDP base wasn't happy getting in bed with the Liberals either. I'm sure th NDP caucus members were excited. They could go back to their constitutencies with real government experience; something no NDP MP has ever been able to do. The base, though. Yikes. Considering the NDP policy and leadership is directly voted upon by members at the convention, it wouldn't have been great for the Layton gang. I know a lot of people who are dippers and let me tell you, they're vicious partisans. When you're consistently only polling at 15% you've got to be.

Anyone in the NDP base who thought this was a bad idea is probably the kind of person the NDP should be sending over to the Greens. They don't need those kinds of supporters, no one with any aspirations needs those kinds of supporters. But I didn't get the same sense of rage out of the NDP or Bloc camps that I did out of the Liberals. The NDP was excited just to be noticed, and the Bloc, well it's already a kind of coalition centered on separatism, so compromise isn't new to them. But the Liberals, well, whatever else they are, are Federalist and no lovers of the NDP. But I think they might even have been able to get past a menage a trois with the NDP and Bloc, if only to stick it to Harper, but I think the Coalition presenting Dion, a man who even at his height of popularity as leader was disliked by huge swathes of the Liberal caucus, and was pretty much discredited in the aftermath of the election, was too much. I mean, the knives had been out for Dion weeks before election day, and there was a hangman's noose waiting for him afterwards.

[Mr.Canada]

And it is well within our rights to vote out CPC MPs for their lack of work ethic and desire to extend their Christmas Holidays from Mid December 2009 until March 2010.

CLM.

Career Limiting Move.

That is certainly possible but not likely. Who will beat Harper in an election? Ignatieff? Layton? I don't think so.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That is certainly possible but not likely. Who will beat Harper in an election? Ignatieff? Layton? I don't think so.

We shall see....

[bush_cheney2004]

That is certainly possible but not likely. Who will beat Harper in an election? Ignatieff? Layton? I don't think so.

That's the funniest part....so pissed off at PM Harper, but no contenders can be found in all the land.

[nicky10013]

Anyone in the NDP base who thought this was a bad idea is probably the kind of person the NDP should be sending over to the Greens. They don't need those kinds of supporters, no one with any aspirations needs those kinds of supporters. But I didn't get the same sense of rage out of the NDP or Bloc camps that I did out of the Liberals. The NDP was excited just to be noticed, and the Bloc, well it's already a kind of coalition centered on separatism, so compromise isn't new to them. But the Liberals, well, whatever else they are, are Federalist and no lovers of the NDP. But I think they might even have been able to get past a menage a trois with the NDP and Bloc, if only to stick it to Harper, but I think the Coalition presenting Dion, a man who even at his height of popularity as leader was disliked by huge swathes of the Liberal caucus, and was pretty much discredited in the aftermath of the election, was too much. I mean, the knives had been out for Dion weeks before election day, and there was a hangman's noose waiting for him afterwards.

Well he had already announced his resignation which made it worse. How can you have a PM who was about to step down as leader of the leader of the coalition. Though, in my personal opinion, just going through with it could've been better for the Liberals than not. The Conservative party is really just an amalgam of different interests most prominently the PCs and Alliance/Reform. Harper is the guy who brought it together under one iron fist. I have a hard time trying to figure out which person in that caucus can replicate that. The Wildrose Party may end up saving the Canadian centre/left. The more popular this party becomes with Conservative politicians, the less stomach federal politicians may have for sticking around under what could very well be a PC leader.

[nicky10013]

That is certainly possible but not likely. Who will beat Harper in an election? Ignatieff? Layton? I don't think so.

Nobody knows until the last ballot is cast. Elections are won and lost after the writ is dropped. Assuming that Ignatieff couldn't pull it off is simply an arrogant statement full of hubris.

[Mr.Canada]

We shall see....

LOL, please tell me you aren't serious. So you think that Canadians will believe that Ignatieff and the Liberals, who have no plan or policy and haven't had for years, will be able to keep Canadians safe against Islamic terrorism?

It will never happen. Once parlaiment resumes the Tories will control the Senate and will be able to push anything they want through and the Liberals will have to vote properly from now on because they won't have the Senate to stall and change bills anymore.

Harper prorogued parlaiment for just this reason, he was sick and tired of having his bills changed and voted down at the Senate level after passing through the house. So that's over, Ignatieff doesn't have the luxury of pointing at the Senate anymore.

Everytime Ignatieff opens his mouth he drops in the polls. Canadians don't like him or trust him, they know he's only visiting and waiting to go back to Harvard. Canadians know that Ignatieff has only been in Canada 5 out of the past 40-45 years and they know that he cannot possibly understand what issues are important to Canadians. Here's a hint, they could care less about some Taliban that get tortured after killing dozens of Canadians.

Nobody knows until the last ballot is cast. Elections are won and lost after the writ is dropped. Assuming that Ignatieff couldn't pull it off is simply an arrogant statement full of hubris.

Really, what's he waiting for then? He said he was gong to bring down the House in the spring....and said it again in the fall. What did he actually do? Nothing, he just keeps proving that he's just a lot of hot air.

If he's so confident then why do his numbers drop everytime he speaks of an election?

Edited January 6, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[ToadBrother]

It will never happen. Once parlaiment resumes the Tories will control the Senate and will be able to push anything they want through and the Liberals will have to vote properly from now on because they won't have the Senate to stall and change bills anymore.

I'm not going to comment on the rest of your post, which is just more homo-erotic Harper adoration, but this is kinda cool. What precisely has been the grand plan the Tories have put forward, other than nudie sensors at airports (which I'm not necessarily against, BTW)? Are you guys seriously thinking about going into the next election with the cry "We'll keep you safe from the terrorists!"?

Last election Harper showed up on TV trying to look like Mr. Dressup. What's he gonna dress up like this time, Mark Harmon from NCIS?

Edited January 6, 2010 by ToadBrother

[nicky10013]

LOL, please tell me you aren't serious. So you think that Canadians will believe that Ignatieff and the Liberals, who have no plan or policy and haven't had for years, will be able to keep Canadians safe against Islamic terrorism?

It will never happen. Once parlaiment resumes the Tories will control the Senate and will be able to push anything they want through and the Liberals will have to vote properly from now on because they won't have the Senate to stall and change bills anymore.

Harper prorogued parlaiment for just this reason, he was sick and tired of having his bills changed and voted down at the Senate level after passing through the house. So that's over, Ignatieff doesn't have the luxury of pointing at the Senate anymore.

Everytime Ignatieff opens his mouth he drops in the polls. Canadians don't like him or trust him, they know he's only visiting and waiting to go back to Harvard. Canadians know that Ignatieff has only been in Canada 5 out of the past 40-45 years and they know that he cannot possibly understand what issues are important to Canadians. Here's a hint, they could care less about some Taliban that get tortured after killing dozens of Canadians.

A poll said 6/10 Canadians are deeply concerned about the Afghan issue. I wonder what the poll would look like if they were asked if they thought the government was being honest.

Wedge politics is a favourite of conservatives of all stripes. Liberals are tax and spenders and bad on defense. As I recall it was the Liberal Party who balanced the budget and sent troops to Afghanistan. That's two of your points shot down right there. About the most popular decision made in the decade was done by Jean Chretien when he refused to send troops to Iraq.

Furthermore, your points about Ignatieff are semi-true. Canadians don't seem to trust him but it isn't because they've seen too much of him but not enough. The guy has been touring the country and has been getting no press. I've only seen one interview and I only caught the end of it. However, that's just the way it goes when you're in opposition. The government gets the lions share of attention and as we've seen with the proroguing of parliament every now and again you get a gem you can go on. The answer to this is that no one will trust him until he gets more camera time and the only way that'll happen is when he leads the party into an election. He needs to get onto the road, announce policy and get headlines. Furthermore, the debate during the election will be key, as well. Everyone hates him but when they see him skate circles around that failure of an economist, that could be the match.

There are SO many different variables that like I said, we'll see when this is all over. As for the policy, though I agree the party needs to release a new redbook, they can't until the writ is dropped. The minute the Liberals release their platform is the minute attack ads go on TV.

[nicky10013]

Really, what's he waiting for then? He said he was gong to bring down the House in the spring....and said it again in the fall. What did he actually do? Nothing, he just keeps proving that he's just a lot of hot air.

If he's so confident then why do his numbers drop everytime he speaks of an election?

I can't speak for the man. I have no idea how confident he was. I was specifically warning Conservative supporters not to get over confident. The PCs in Ontario couldn't wait for the last provincial election but John Tory blew a gigantic lead going in and handed the Liberals one of the largest majorities in provincial history.

[Alta4ever]

Nobody knows until the last ballot is cast. Elections are won and lost after the writ is dropped. Assuming that Ignatieff couldn't pull it off is simply an arrogant statement full of hubris.

Barring some monumental shift, you are dreaming. The trends over the last year show it. For someone polling so poorly in the approval polls to lead his party to a victory of 60 more seats is fantasy.

[Wild Bill]

In practical terms, yes, the popularity or unpopularity of the Coalition by the general public would inform any such move, but you seem to want your cake and eat it too. Harper gets in without a plurality, or even the magic 40% of the popular vote, and that's okay, but the Coalition, which represents a plurality in the House and well over 50% of the popular vote, is wrong, because a couple of polls suggest somehow it is. Polls no more decide who forms the government than popular vote.

Now perhaps some day we will reform our electoral system, and find some means by which the popular vote more clearly translates into overall seats, then we might be able to dispense with this dichotomy.

And let's not forget that those polls in part reflect the dishonest campaign the Tories used to suggest a coup was underway. On another forum I was on at the time, there were at least two posters who showed up out of nowhere, who were even going so far as saying the Coalition was illegal, that it was coup. Both were obviously Tory astroturfers, and they were lying. When a number of us patiently pointed out how our system in fact works, they called us names (I was even called a traitor by one of them, no doubt one Mr. Canada's mental twins) and then buggered off.

So in YOUR opinion Harper is dishonest and doesn't deserve popular support! Well, you know the old saying about opinions.

Me, not really being a Conservative my only concern is that we end up with something WORSE than the CPC! I truly feel that a coalition would have hurt my country more than helped and certainly an NDP government would be the worst thing that could ever happen to us. My opinion is not a casual one. I've been watching the NDP since I was a teenager and in all these years I have never heard them express a credible theory of wealth creation. They totally take that for granted, as if capitalists are somehow genetically programmed to create wealth and all the NDP would have to do is skim it off and re-distribute it. They never seem to understand how capital can flee a country, taking jobs with it.

I had hopes for them with the Laxer Report back in the 80's. Laxer was obviously a very intelligent man who warned his party that they were in danger of becoming dinosaurs as the world changed. His party couldn't shut him up fast enough! Yet it would seem Laxer was proven right.

Being an Ontarioan who lived through Bob Rae's NDP government also colours my opinion, I must admit.

Whatever, my primary concern is that our representation be as direct as possible. If my fellow citizens enable a Liberal or NDP win I truly wouldn't complain that much. It has been said that "democracy is a system where the 'little guy' knows what he wants and deserves to get it, good and hard!"

If anything I am a populist. I want a government that truly represents the will of the people. Which is why I was totally against the proposed PR systems I've seen so far. They all seemed contrived to give more power to the parties with the least popular support. The idea always seems to dilute the power of whatever party had the majority of the votes.

Still, if I absolutely had to I could have lived with that but the breaking point for me was the idea of parties choosing MP's from their own slates, rather than being directly elected by the people. There is no way I could ever respect an MP who was simply appointed by his own party. If the people never got a chance to vote him in then he should be tarred, feathered and rolled out of town in a barrel, as far as I'm concerned!

An MP unelected directly by the people of a riding is simply a usurper, by my lights. If someone came up with a system where extra MP's WERE still chosen directly by the people I might actually support it but oddly, that seems to be the LAST thing the proponents of PR want to offer! I consider that suspicious in itself!

Anyhow, sorry to hear some Tories called you names but I'm afraid I have little sympathy. I'm tired of being called a Tory when I'm not! If anything I'm a classic Liberal but it's one of the ironies of Canadian politics that I'm left with the CPC as the least objectionable choice. As a classic Liberal I would actually be more comfortable even with the NDP than the modern Liberal party!

What's more, I spent a few days a couple of years back on "rubble.com", the home of the left wing

"progressives". I've never heard a worse bunch of foul mouthed name calling ad hominem oafs in my life! I truly believe that the left is by far the worst example of name calling. From what I read you are treated far more civilly on MLW than any right wing person would be treated on a "leftie" board.

[nicky10013]

Barring some monumental shift, you are dreaming. The trends over the last year show it. For someone polling so poorly in the approval polls to lead his party to a victory of 60 more seats is fantasy.

I can't speak for the man. I have no idea how confident he was. I was specifically warning Conservative supporters not to get over confident. The PCs in Ontario couldn't wait for the last provincial election but John Tory blew a gigantic lead going in and handed the Liberals one of the largest majorities in provincial history.

It's a double post but I figured it was needed.

[ToadBrother]

So in YOUR opinion Harper is dishonest and doesn't deserve popular support! Well, you know the old saying about opinions.

Ummm, I didn't say he was dishonest. I'm saying he has a great deal of contempt for Parliament. And I'm not saying he doesn't deserve popular support, I'm saying he doesn't have it. Since popular support seemed so important to you in trashing the now-dead Coalition, it strikes me as somewhat odd that the Tories, whose popular support was lower than that for the Coalition, somehow, in your minded, enjoyed popular support.

[Wild Bill]

Ummm, I didn't say he was dishonest. I'm saying he has a great deal of contempt for Parliament. And I'm not saying he doesn't deserve popular support, I'm saying he doesn't have it. Since popular support seemed so important to you in trashing the now-dead Coalition, it strikes me as somewhat odd that the Tories, whose popular support was lower than that for the Coalition, somehow, in your minded, enjoyed popular support.

You're not gonna imply that you can add up all the other party's votes and assume they represented one big total of people who supported a coalition?

The idea of taking the votes of people who did not vote for your rival as supportive of your own favourite is absurd!

[Alta4ever]

A poll said 6/10 Canadians are deeply concerned about the Afghan issue. I wonder what the poll would look like if they were asked if they thought the government was being honest.

Wedge politics is a favourite of conservatives of all stripes. Liberals are tax and spenders and bad on defense. As I recall it was the Liberal Party who balanced the budget and sent troops to Afghanistan. That's two of your points shot down right there. About the most popular decision made in the decade was done by Jean Chretien when he refused to send troops to Iraq.

They sent them in to combat without the correct equipment. Real nice liberal policy. The liberal party didn't balance the budget Nafta did. They simply continued collecting more taxes of a growing economy, and gutted core services and military spending. They downloaded costs onto the provinces without making tax room for the provinces to pay for these services. Then bribed the havenot provinces with equalization money. Do you remember in the nineties why they were going use some of the money to subsidize NHL teams?

Better go ask you high school social studies teacher for another argument.

[nicky10013]

They sent them in to combat without the correct equipment. Real nice liberal policy. The liberal party didn't balance the budget Nafta did. They simply continued collecting more taxes of a growing economy, and gutted core services and military spending. They downloaded costs onto the provinces without making tax room for the provinces to pay for these services. Then bribed the havenot provinces with equalization money. Do you remember in the nineties why they were going use some of the money to subsidize NHL teams?

Better go ask you high school social studies teacher for another argument.

Unlike a lot of the people here I seem to actually hold a specialist degree in political science from the University of Toronto which, from some of the posts on here, others simply do not have. Am I a snob about it? You bet. However, I worked for it so I suppose that means something. Bringing it up is bad form, but when someone calls me a 14 year old, well, I couldn't resist.

[Oleg Bach]

Our status is that of a natural citizen entity, within a legal citizen entity known as Canada............

As such we are responsible for the legal actions of that legal citizen entity, Canada, and accountable for the debts and liabilities of that legal citizen, Canada.

We are Canadians....right?

Yes more than that- you and I are part of the corporate. We are not just citizens but share holders in a thing called the Common Wealth. All of us contribute in one way or another..no one with in the national body gets a free ride. As a Nation when we bring in immigrants the make an oath to the family - the national corporate entity and become part of that body. In other words some are wards that are adopted in and some are natural born...It is our duty to be loyal to the whole and to the individual...I just wish that someone would make it clear to the upstarts in big buisness who have gone international and have forgotten their obligations and duties - Conrad Black was a prime example..he was disloyal and now he pays the price.