Gomery to target Chretien team.

[shoop]

From Jim Travers' article in today's Star.

Justice John Gomery will report in less than two weeks that the Quebec sponsorship scheme was a narrowly held secret with broadly dangerous implications for government integrity. After months of conflicting testimony, the Quebec Superior Court judge will load much of the blame for the mutant $250-million program on a group of loyalists clustered around former prime minister Jean Chrétien. But in the first of two reports, Gomery will also conclude that controls to protect taxpayers failed under political pressure, making it child's play for rogue civil servants to direct contracts to Liberal-friendly advertising firms. Gomery will lay bare what many Canadians suspect: An elite few routinely and for ruling party advantage abused a system that buckled and then failed.

Shades of the 1984 election here. Harper can go after Martin for not doing his job as Finance Minister. When Martin replies "I had no choice" it will work as well for him as it did for John Turner.

Poor, poor Mr. Dithers....

[tml12]

From Jim Travers' article in today's Star.

Justice John Gomery will report in less than two weeks that the Quebec sponsorship scheme was a narrowly held secret with broadly dangerous implications for government integrity. After months of conflicting testimony, the Quebec Superior Court judge will load much of the blame for the mutant $250-million program on a group of loyalists clustered around former prime minister Jean Chrétien. But in the first of two reports, Gomery will also conclude that controls to protect taxpayers failed under political pressure, making it child's play for rogue civil servants to direct contracts to Liberal-friendly advertising firms. Gomery will lay bare what many Canadians suspect: An elite few routinely and for ruling party advantage abused a system that buckled and then failed.

Shades of the 1984 election here. Harper can go after Martin for not doing his job as Finance Minister. When Martin replies "I had no choice" it will work as well for him as it did for John Turner.

Poor, poor Mr. Dithers....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shoop,

I am not attacking your point here but you seem to assume, I dare say, hope that what happens in 2006 will be the same as what happened in 1984. Keep in mind the following:

1) Considering charisma, Harper is no Mulrooney.

2) The Conservatives will likely not take one seat in Quebec.

3) Canada, in general, is more prone to vote Liberal with an aggressive American president.

4) Conservatives have their work cut out for them in B.C. unlike last election.

I am a swing Liberal-Conservative voter who generally votes Liberal...but all I am saying is that we need to consider the differences here. Stephen Harper may claim Martin had the option, but Canadians will not consider that chance as the only issue in the next election...

[shoop]

Shoop,

I am not attacking your point here but you seem to assume, I dare say, hope that what happens in 2006 will be the same as what happened in 1984.  Keep in mind the following:

1) Considering charisma, Harper is no Mulrooney.

2) The Conservatives will likely not take one seat in Quebec.

3) Canada, in general, is more prone to vote Liberal with an aggressive American president. 

4) Conservatives have their work cut out for them in B.C. unlike last election. 

I am a swing Liberal-Conservative voter who generally votes Liberal...but all I am saying is that we need to consider the differences here.  Stephen Harper may claim Martin had the option, but Canadians will not consider that chance as the only issue in the next election...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A lot of what you are saying is with 20/20 hindsight.

1) In terms of charisma, Mulroney pre-1984 was no Mulroney, at least in the minds of the chattering classes of the time.

2) If the CPC can stay on message they could take a handful of seats in Quebec.

3) Oh I forgot the U.S. didn't have an aggressive President in 1984. Oh wait, Reagan was President at the time...

4) Yes and no. They fared much better than expected going into 2004. It won't be easy but they have a realistic shot at holding all their seats in BC.

[tml12]

Shoop,

I am not attacking your point here but you seem to assume, I dare say, hope that what happens in 2006 will be the same as what happened in 1984.  Keep in mind the following:

1) Considering charisma, Harper is no Mulrooney.

2) The Conservatives will likely not take one seat in Quebec.

3) Canada, in general, is more prone to vote Liberal with an aggressive American president. 

4) Conservatives have their work cut out for them in B.C. unlike last election. 

I am a swing Liberal-Conservative voter who generally votes Liberal...but all I am saying is that we need to consider the differences here.  Stephen Harper may claim Martin had the option, but Canadians will not consider that chance as the only issue in the next election...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A lot of what you are saying is with 20/20 hindsight.

1) In terms of charisma, Mulroney pre-1984 was no Mulroney, at least in the minds of the chattering classes of the time.

2) If the CPC can stay on message they could take a handful of seats in Quebec.

3) Oh I forgot the U.S. didn't have an aggressive President in 1984. Oh wait, Reagan was President at the time...

4) Yes and no. They fared much better than expected going into 2004. It won't be easy but they have a realistic shot at holding all their seats in BC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Canada-U.S. relations were much better in 1984 than now (unless I am crazy...I am only in my 20s) and Reagan was much less polarizing than Bush. And do you really think that Harper has a chance to win more than two seats in Quebec??? (I am not challenging you because I am seriously considering voting Conservative)...I am just considering the facts...

[shoop]

Canada-U.S. relations were much better in 1984 than now (unless I am crazy...I am only in my 20s) and Reagan was much less polarizing than Bush.  And do you really think that Harper has a chance to win more than two seats in Quebec???  (I am not challenging you because I am seriously considering voting Conservative)...I am just considering the facts...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Relations between Trudeau and Reagan were terrible in 1984. Not good at all.

I think if things break well for the CPC, and I do mean best case scenario, ten seats on the island could occur. That would require a massive shift in public opinion, but it could happen.

[err]

A lot of what you are saying is with 20/20 hindsight.

Which we can extend to being foresight this time around...

2) If the CPC can stay on message they could take a handful of seats in Quebec.

back seats ???

3) Oh I forgot the U.S. didn't have an aggressive President in 1984. Oh wait, Reagan was President at the time...

Reagan wasn't quite the warmonger... he didn't invade other countries to get their natural resources....

[shoop]

Reagan wasn't quite the warmonger... he didn't invade other countries to get their natural resources....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

His invasions of Nicaragua and El Salvador weren't for natural resources. So does that make him less of a warmonger?

Enough of the distraction. The point made by tml12 was that relations between Canada and the U.S. weren't that bad in Trudeau 1984. Not true at all. Trudeau and Reagan detested each other every bit as much as do Martin and Bush. I will give Trudeau credit for controlling his MPs and staff from public insults of the United States.

[Riverwind]

Enough of the distraction. The point made by tml12 was that relations between Canada and the U.S. weren't that bad in Trudeau 1984. Not true at all. Trudeau and Reagan detested each other every bit as much as do Martin and Bush. I will give Trudeau credit for controlling his MPs and staff from public insults of the United States.

The public obscenities by Parrish could not have been 'prevented' by any leader. She is a loose cannon and will thankfully be gone from politics soon. In terms of Martin and Bush, any bad blood is a result of Martin's vacillating and an unwillingness to make hard decisions. The bad blood between Trudeau and Reagan has ideological undertones which made it impossible for them to reconcile.

[shoop]

The public obscenities by Parrish could not have been 'prevented' by any leader. She is a loose cannon and will thankfully be gone from politics soon. In terms of Martin and Bush, any bad blood is a result of Martin's vacillating and an unwillingness to make hard decisions. The bad blood between Trudeau and Reagan has ideological undertones which made it impossible for them to reconcile.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A Prime Minister that sets a tone of respect and professionalism sets the tone for his government. Dealing with Francine Fox when she called the Republicans a**holes would have been a good step in the right direction.

Maybe, just maybe, Parrish would have acted differently if she would have known without a doubt that she would have been kicked out of caucus *before* making those remarks.

[Riverwind]

Maybe, just maybe, Parrish would have acted differently if she would have known without a doubt that she would have been kicked out of caucus *before* making those remarks.

I can agree with that. The anti-US wing of the Liberal party has always bothered me.

[kimmy]

A Prime Minister that sets a tone of respect and professionalism sets the tone for his government. Dealing with Francine Fox when she called the Republicans a**holes would have been a good step in the right direction.

I don't recall a Francine Fox... are you referring to Mme Ducros?

Maybe, just maybe, Parrish would have acted differently if she would have known without a doubt that she would have been kicked out of caucus *before* making those remarks.

I think that in fact, Parrish being kicked out of the Liberal caucus wasn't a result of her anti-Bush comments, but of her anti-Martin comments.

Recall that Parrish was evicted only after the tirade where she said that she would not obey Martin's requests to tone down her behavior because she had no respect for Martin or his authority. She basically dared him to take action against her, and he had no choice but to respond. If Parrish had not publically challenged Martin's leadership, I doubt he'd have taken action against her.

-k

[tml12]

Enough of the distraction. The point made by tml12 was that relations between Canada and the U.S. weren't that bad in Trudeau 1984. Not true at all. Trudeau and Reagan detested each other every bit as much as do Martin and Bush. I will give Trudeau credit for controlling his MPs and staff from public insults of the United States.

The public obscenities by Parrish could not have been 'prevented' by any leader. She is a loose cannon and will thankfully be gone from politics soon. In terms of Martin and Bush, any bad blood is a result of Martin's vacillating and an unwillingness to make hard decisions. The bad blood between Trudeau and Reagan has ideological undertones which made it impossible for them to reconcile.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ideological differences are understood and don't usually involve cross border bickering. What makes this current situation unique is that you have a truly polarizing and not very charismatic leader like Bush and a CEO-businessman Martin who isn't extremely political. For all their faults and ideological differences, Trudeau and Reagan were seasoned politicians who understood the name of the game and didn't rely on cross-border spin doctors for their own political advantage

[shoop]

I don't recall a Francine Fox... are you referring to Mme Ducros?

Could be.

I think that in fact, Parrish being kicked out of the Liberal caucus wasn't a result of her anti-Bush comments, but of her anti-Martin comments.

Recall that Parrish was evicted only after the tirade where she said that she would not obey Martin's requests to tone down her behavior because she had no respect for Martin or his authority. She basically dared him to take action against her, and he had no choice but to respond.  If Parrish had not publically challenged Martin's leadership, I doubt he'd have taken action against her.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That was part of the point I was trying to make. But I didn't do it as eloquently as you did. Thanks k.

[FTA Lawyer]

I am a swing Liberal-Conservative voter who generally votes Liberal...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

tml12,

Maybe you can provide some insight then to a small "c" conservative who would vote for anyone who would just stop stealing from and lying to me...

What will it take for voters like yourself to actually NOT vote Liberal?

I mean a small sampling of the Liberal highlights include:

Redbook promises broken...including immediate abolishment of the GST.

Jane Stewart misplaces a BILLION dollars (that's a thousand million you know) at HRDC - she's not disciplined by the party...and she's re-elected?!?!?!?

Liberals budget a couple million for the Gun Registry...and spend a few BILLION (and counting) without keeping Parliament in the know.

Healthcare...hundreds of millions in studies...not a single identifiable action / policy change / initiative to implement anything of substance.

Paul Martin vehemently pledges to reduce Western Alienation and promote democratic reform...then enforces strict party discipline on the "Gay Marriage" question. (Stephen Harper by the way allowed a free vote...and didn't punish those members of his party that voted against their official position...my Lord he's scarrrryyy!!!)

ADSCAM - We'll see next month just what Gomery J. has to say...

I'm sure other posters will add to this list, but I don't want to belabour the point.

I'm not an old-timer, but cannot think of a time in history when RCMP investigations and criminal prosecutions related to a governing party have ever been so commonplace.

The notion of the "scary Conservatives" is laughable. Much like a combat-hardened soldier who has actually been to hell and therefore is no longer scared of anything, Canadians should fear nothing ever again having endured the wrath of the ruling Liberals.

Don't get me wrong, this is not just a Conservative vs. Liberal rant (although I traditionally vote on the right side of the table). Vote for some other party if you please, but at some point when you have been outright lied to and stolen from repeatedly, shouldn't you pull your vote?

Truly, it's the only direct action you can take in a democracy to police politics.

To bring this back to the topic here, what does it matter where Gomery specifically places the blame...the only thing no-one doubts is that he will find indisputable corruption.

Isn't the fact that the only debateable question is WHICH government minister (including present or former PM's) will get the finger pointed at him the most and not IF a government minister will be implicated enough to conclude that we've got a problem requiring a change in government?

As a member of a democracy, I cannot fathom casting a ballot in support of proven contempt for the system and its participants. No matter who benefits from the fallout of Gomery, don't all principled persons have to agree that the loser in the whole scenario MUST be the Liberal Party of Canada?

Now, it may not seem like it, but if you can put together a logical explanation of why I should vote Liberal in the next election (despite the above) I could in fact be convinced...but It's gonna have to be pretty good to overcome the really bad taste I have in my mouth over all of this.

FTA Lawyer

[shoop]

FTA,

Although I am a pretty strong Con on this board I have voted for both the Liberals and the PCs federally, also voted CPC this past election.

Here is my take on your post.

The Liberal scandals haven't been sticking. Why? Who knows? Best for the party to keep on Gomery while also putting forth it's vision of a CPC government. If it is just corruption-corruption-corruption, that plays into the Liberals' hands.

The 'scary' thing is sad and has been overplayed. This election is the chance for Harper to get past it. There is a real chance for the Conservatives to break through in this election. If he can't do it, he has to be replaced because he will never shake that label.

I personally like a lot of what the Green Party stands for. I voted CPC last time because I was voting in a riding that has been historically close. The Liberal won by 11 votes once. I will watch local polls very closely and if my riding doesn't appear to be close I will vote Green.

tml12,

Maybe you can provide some insight then to a small "c" conservative who would vote for anyone who would just stop stealing from and lying to me...

What will it take for voters like yourself to actually NOT vote Liberal?

The notion of the "scary Conservatives" is laughable.  Much like a combat-hardened soldier who has actually been to hell and therefore is no longer scared of anything, Canadians should fear nothing ever again having endured the wrath of the ruling Liberals.

Don't get me wrong, this is not just a Conservative vs. Liberal rant (although I traditionally vote on the right side of the table).  Vote for some other party if you please, but at some point when you have been outright lied to and stolen from repeatedly, shouldn't you pull your vote?

FTA Lawyer

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest eureka]

Actually, I see it as a Conservative vs Liberal rant. Most of it you should be able to be a little more understanding about if you ignore the Party directives.

Corruption has always been with us: with every party. It always will be. And, as I have pointed out before, the Mulroney government used the same tactics with the SAME Ad agencies to a greater exrent. Almost the first act of the Chretien government was to clamp down on this sort of government pork.

This was a well intentioned program that was just not overseen adequately.

The Liberals promised to get rid of the GST certainly. Does it not seem reasonable to you that, when they found the alternative of bringing back the Manufactures' taxes, was impractical and not efficient, they changed course. That is intelligence not lying.

Srewart did not waste or lose a billion dollars. That was spent by HRDC, mpst of it properly and likely productively. The accounting was a little awry, perhaps.

The same goes for just about all of your criticisms.

And, whatever the Liberals are, the Conservatives, in the past, have been worse. Mulroney did lie about free trade. The Mulroney government was far more corrupt. That more things come to light now is simply because we now have a watchdog office with the power to actually call the government to account. That is a Liberal institution.

Anyone who would vote Conservative; for any Conservative party of the past twenty years, has his head deep in the sands. The party has all the failings of the Liberals with the bonus of attempting to make this country ungovernable as a country. It also has the avowed aim of making our society more like the America: that is destroying all the edifices we have built to try to bring about some of the equalities that we have - not enough, BTW.

[newbie]

The notion of the "scary Conservatives" is laughable. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://members.shaw.ca/consciencecanada/co...0406lumley.html

And some of Harper's many quotes from http://www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca/d...article378.html

"Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack o­n our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society…It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff." (BC Report Newsmagazine, January 11, 1999)

“These proposals [government programs] included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of “child poverty” and for more business subsidies in the name of “cultural identity”. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects.” (The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997)

"Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy…These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party…” (Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994)

"It is to take the bricks and begin building another home – a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta."

“Whether Canada ends up as o­ne national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion"

"There is a dependence in the region [Atlantic Canada] that breeds a culture of defeatism," (CBC News, May 30, 2002)

I do find Stephen Harper scary in that I believe he is hiding what his true objectives are. He has spent most of his time demeaning the other parties, to the point where anger has become his trademark. And FTA lawyer, it was a rant if I've ever read one. "What will it take for voters like you to actually NOT vote Liberal?" You sound almost desperate. But to answer that question, I'm willing to let Gomery produce its report and decide. I'm certainly not going to let partisan rhetoric and rants influence me.

[shoop]

Newbie,

Change 'right' to "left" in your signature and that is a great way to approach your "quotes" about Harper. Thanks for the perfect way to deal with your comments outta contest.

[newbie]

Shoop, I think you mean out of context. They are quotes and that's why I provided the link. These comments speak for themselves and how Harper thinks. And I don't happen to agree with him.

[Canuck E Stan]

Eureka,

You're beginning to make me sick. You're perpetual references to Mulroney and the corrupt Conservatives of(when,how long ago?) as an excuse for the Liberals to also be allowed to be corrupt is pathetic.

Almost the first act of the Chretien government was to clamp down on this sort of government pork.

This was a well intentioned program that was just not overseen adequately.

So what you are saying is that Liberals have to be watched because they don't have the ethics to control themselves.

The Liberals promised to get rid of the GST certainly. Does it not seem reasonable to you that, when they found the alternative of bringing back the Manufactures' taxes, was impractical and not efficient, they changed course. That is intelligence not lying.

Don't be so stupid,the Liberals won their election on the basis of the promise to get rid of the GST.

Once in, they realized they were wrong about the GST?

Bullsh*t,they used the GST to get in power and lied,lied,lied to the voters to win that election.

The intelligence part was fooling the public into believing their intentions,then denying they made a promise about the GST that was a lie.

Where was the Liberal intelligence prior to the election about the GST?

The accounting was a little awry, perhaps.

Give me a break,a billion dollars a little awry? Grow up man, it's called mismanagement. They f*cked up big time...again.

That more things come to light now is simply because we now have a watchdog office with the power to actually call the government to account. That is a Liberal institution.

And there you are proud of the watch dog institutiion the Liberals created.Once again stating that the Liberals NEED a watch dog because they are unable to manage themselves.And you are right,having a watch dog telling them they are corrupt and out of control has become a Liberal institution time and time again.

Anyone who would vote Conservative; for any Conservative party of the past twenty years, has his head deep in the sands. The party has all the failings of the Liberals with the bonus of attempting to make this country ungovernable as a country. I

Considering that the Liberals have been governing this country for the last 14 years you must have sand between your ears if you feel that the conservatives have done anything in failing the taxpayers of this country in the last 20 years.

The Liberals have been in power for how many fo the last 50 years? Why stop at Mulroney,go back to Diefenbaker as an excuse for the way the Liberals are today.

How much longer do Canadians have to wait til they turn professional and give up their amateur governing status?

The Conservatives of the Mulroney era have paid the price when they were brought down to 3 seats in government.

You keep making excuses for this party of corruption,unaccountable,waste and mismangement as being the way they are because of the Conservatives of 15 years ago and because of trivial little mistakes.

Support your party,but give up on the lame excuses,and admit the Liberals have big problems caused by their own incompetence.

[Guest eureka]

So go away and be sick, Canuck: purge yourself. When you come back your comprehension may be improved as well as your understanding. You may even not attribute to others the faults you display for yourself.

Why the H... would I not demonstrate that the Conservatives were more "corrupt" than the Liberals? Why would I not demonstrate that it was provable corruption by the Party and its leader? Sonce you and a few others who have no policy gifts to bestow can do nothing but scream about Liberal corruption, why should the hypocrisy not be shown?

You are quite wrong about the GST. The Conservatives had every opportunity during the election to show the fallacy in the Liberal position. They did not and could not for they knew that open debate would show it for the regressive tax that it is.

I am not saying that the Liberals do not have the ethics to control themselves: I am saying that no political party has those ethics. That is why the Liberals are to be commended for setting up the machinery to oversee political behaviour. I am saying that you and all those fiery partisans like you. should use your brains for thinking instead of reflexive anti-Liberalism..

Mismanagement is not the same as corruption. And that is something that is also endemic in politics. It is not a billion dollars for HRDC. It is a billion dollars that was not properly controlled. There may well have been no loss in that.

Every government needs a watchdog. I am not proud of that and why should I be. I did not create one. It is one of the achievements of Chretien though and you might be better to think of politics in a balance rather than posing as an attack dog trained to salivate at the word Liberal.

Sometimes I do feel as though I have "sand between my ears." Usually after reading such thoughtless tripe as you just posted. I make excuses for no corruption or mismanagement. I do like to see a little truth here and there in these so-called political discussions.

And, the Liberals are not my party.

[kimmy]

You are quite wrong about the GST. The Conservatives had every opportunity during the election to show the fallacy in the Liberal position.

The charge is that the Liberals campaigned under a promise they never had any intention of keeping. I don't see that showing a "fallacy in the Liberal position" was possible. Short of a time machine, I see no way that the PCs could have shown the Liberals had no intention of scrapping the GST.

They did not and could not for they knew that open debate would show it for the regressive tax that it is.

People here have recently argued that the GST is a regressive tax; they came away looking quite foolish.

Every government needs a watchdog. I am not proud of that and why should I be. I did not create one. It is one of the achievements of Chretien though and you might be better to think of politics in a balance rather than posing as an attack dog trained to salivate at the word Liberal.

What watchdog are you crediting Chretien for creating?

If it's the auditor general, you're mistaken. Chretien arrived on the scene over a hundred years too late to take credit for that accomplishment.

If it's the "independent ethics counsellor", then "lapdog" might be a more apt description than "watchdog". Typical of Chretien's "achievements", creating the "independent ethics counsellor" was meaningless except for creating public perception. One of the few issues that all 5 parties agreed on during the day-- Alliance, PC, NDP, BQ, and Liberals outside of Chretien's circle-- is that Howard Wilson was a joke. Paul Martin deserves some modest amount of credit for attempting to amend the ethics post to be more like what the Red Book originally promised, however Bernard Shapiro's performance in the job has so far inspired little confidence.

-k

[shoop]

Shoop, I think you mean out of context. They are quotes and that's why I provided the link. These comments speak for themselves and how Harper thinks.  And I don't happen to agree with him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yet, you've seen fit to remove your signature? Perhaps I hit the nail on the head?

And yes I did mean out of context.

[tml12]

The notion of the "scary Conservatives" is laughable. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://members.shaw.ca/consciencecanada/co...0406lumley.html

And some of Harper's many quotes from http://www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca/d...article378.html

"Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack o­n our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society…It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff." (BC Report Newsmagazine, January 11, 1999)

“These proposals [government programs] included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of “child poverty” and for more business subsidies in the name of “cultural identity”. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects.” (The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997)

"Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy…These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party…” (Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994)

"It is to take the bricks and begin building another home – a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta."

“Whether Canada ends up as o­ne national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion"

"There is a dependence in the region [Atlantic Canada] that breeds a culture of defeatism," (CBC News, May 30, 2002)

I do find Stephen Harper scary in that I believe he is hiding what his true objectives are. He has spent most of his time demeaning the other parties, to the point where anger has become his trademark. And FTA lawyer, it was a rant if I've ever read one. "What will it take for voters like you to actually NOT vote Liberal?" You sound almost desperate. But to answer that question, I'm willing to let Gomery produce its report and decide. I'm certainly not going to let partisan rhetoric and rants influence me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Harper does not favour big government and this drives him, at least in part, to make many of those comments. Now whether, as PM, he would feel that way about the country breaking up is certainly grounds for further discussion...

[newbie]

Shoop, I think you mean out of context. They are quotes and that's why I provided the link. These comments speak for themselves and how Harper thinks.  And I don't happen to agree with him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yet, you've seen fit to remove your signature? Perhaps I hit the nail on the head?

And yes I did mean out of context.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shoop, here you go.