Conservatives, Harper & Quebec

[August1991]

I looked for another thread and didn't find one that covers generally this topic. I don't like thread proliferation but I decided to start this one.

The following is a letter published in the Journal de Québec:

"Comme beaucoup de Québécois, j’ai assisté au spectacle de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste sur les plaines d’Abraham. Étant un contribuable du généreux système québécois, je deviens de moins bonne humeur lorsque j’entends sur scène le discours politique arriéré et d’exclusion que livrent certains artistes. Ayant moi aussi payé le party, et étant Québécois, je suis frustré de constater le peu de respect que les Cowboys Fringants ont pour les autres Québécois qui ne pensent pas comme eux à propos de Stephen Harper, de Kyoto, de la guerre au terrorisme ou de la sécession du Québec du reste du Canada. Cela gâche ma fête. Ce n’est pas à des artistes subventionnés, des bébés gâtés, de venir me dire quoi penser et me faire sentir coupable de ne pas être un "bon Québécois" séparatiste, gauchiste, anti-Bush et péquiste. Ce discours politique qui divise devrait être exclu de la fête et non pas moi, qui suis aussi un Québécois, qui d’ailleurs paie le party.

Jean-Philippe Bélanger, Charlesbourg"

The letter was posted on line by http://keepright.blogsome.com/ which is worth a peek.

I can't say that this is a trend but it's certainly a viewpoint that existed hidden before. The Internet has given people like this a chance to express themselves. (Talk Radio in Quebec City was taken over by entertaining loudmouths.)

[Charles Anthony]

Étant un contribuable du généreux système québécois, je deviens de moins bonne humeur lorsque j’entends sur scène le discours politique arriéré et d’exclusion que livrent certains artistes.

I agree. (Not that I am one to support publicly funded parties -- even national ones!) It is highly disrespectful for performers to spew out one-sided political rants in front of a crowd at a national holiday given that tax-payers paid for the celebration.

Harper referred to Le St-Jean-Baptiste as being a holiday for all Canadians to celebrate and he is right. Nobody is excluded. If you look at the history of the holiday, it can conceivably be described as a proud national holiday for Catholics, too.

[jbg]

Especially since when France colonized Quebec they did so in the name of the Catholic Church, not in the name of the French monarch.

[August1991]

I have often said that if Harper wants a majority he has only two ways to get it: women and Quebec. An appeal to women would mean extra votes across the country and presumably winning some close ridings. Success in Quebec would mean concentrated votes in certain ridings.

The Liberals in Quebec are currently polling third, at 20 per cent, behind the Conservatives with 31 per cent and the Bloc Québécois at 30 per cent.

The Gazette

Ian MacDonald notes that this poll is based on a small sample (true) but he mangles the basic fact on the ground:

The Conservatives established their 2006 Quebec beachhead in the 418, and now hold 10 seats there. The other 418 seats are all shaping up as competitive races between Bloc incumbents and the Conservatives. The Liberals, by their own admission, are not even in the game in the 418. Only in the Montreal region, and particularly on the island, are the Liberals in a strong position.

National Post

In fact, Harper's support extends outside 418. The Tories won seats in 819 in 2006 and they may get seats this time in 450.

Outside of Montreal, the Tories are now a credible choice for Quebecers. Lawrence Cannon announced in Quebec City a whack of money to be spent (ugh) and Harper will shortly launch his campaign from there. How many seats will the Tories win in Quebec? From 20-30 is possible if hard to believe now. It's not as if Harper's Conservatives are popular; it's just that the alternatives are worse. The BQ is past its expiry date and the Liberals are too Dion.

In Montreal, the Tories will get nothing. The Liberals may even lose the left wing/anglo/urban/federalist vote to the NDP. Seats to watch: Mulcair in Outremont and Dowson in Westmount. The BQ will keep its urban, eastern strongholds. Justin will likely get elected.

Stephen Harper is the Canadian WASP PM who has a legitimate persona in Quebec. He is the first WASP PM who can speak comprehensible French. The Conservative support in Quebec comes largely from unilingual francophones who see Harper as a typical bloke. Harper has presented himself well in Quebec and having smart francophones such as Cannon, Verner and Fortin around him has helped. Bernier? He'll get re-elected (assuming he runs which I think he will) and it won't hurt Harper. I think Bernier will come back into Cabinet. (Look what happened to Charest after a similar faux-pas.)

Stephen Harper has created a place where people outside Montreal can place a vote that is both for Quebec, for Canada and not Liberal. The ideology of these voters is a work in progress but they don't entirely like the PQ/union social engineering approach to society. Harper offers them a trustworthy alternative.

-----

To understand how successful Harper has been, let me put this into an American electoral context (since everyone is now talking about it and with the knowledge that Obama will likely get around 95% of the US black vote). Imagine, some time in the future, a white candidate runs against a black candidate for president and the white candidate gets 30% of teh black vote.

Harper is a remarkable PM, Canada is a remarkable country and Quebec is a remarkably civilized place on the earth.

Edited September 6, 2008 by August1991

[Bryan]

Harper's inroads into Quebec are probably the biggest reason the Liberals are thinking "oh shit" right now. I'm thinking that never in their wildest nightmares did any hard core Liberals ever think that would even be possible.

Even I never thought CPC support in PQ would ever rise to these levels. Even with the Bloc, and ahead of the Liberals? That's some sort of dream world.

[August1991]

Harper's inroads into Quebec are probably the biggest reason the Liberals are thinking "oh shit" right now. I'm thinking that never in their wildest nightmares did any hard core Liberals ever think that would even be possible.

Even I never thought CPC support in PQ would ever rise to these levels. Even with the Bloc, and ahead of the Liberals? That's some sort of dream world.

Quebec is now a problem for the Bloc, not the Liberals.

Par ailleurs, le Bloc devra aussi composer avec un adversaire qui envahit le champ fertile de l'autonomisme. Rassurés par un gouvernement qui a tenté de résoudre le déséquilibre fiscal, qui a reconnu symboliquement la nation québécoise et qui tente de respecter l'autonomie des provinces, les Québécois pourraient être tentés de croire que le Bloc a fait son temps.

Le Devoir

This federal election has the potential to be disastrous for the Bloc. It could be reduced to 10 or 15 seats. Duceppe might turn it around. (Marois is now hospitalized with appendicitis but I would expect her to say something as well as Landry and Parizeau.)

[betsy]

Harper is a remarkable PM, Canada is a remarkable country and Quebec is a remarkably civilized place on the earth.

If Harper gets his majority, he'll do much more for Canada. I think he envisions how it should've been after the second world war...how Canada should've been up there, if not much more, with the US, Britain and Australia.

[betsy]

I cannot understand French so I am not sure if this issue had already been mentioned in any of the french articles above.

Charest is supporting Harper.

Dumont(?) from the other conservative paryy (ADQ?) is also supporting Harper.

And today, there will be a scoop from La Presse announcing that a prominent former Bloc minister had stated that Bloc is now irrelevant, and that he is going to vote for Harper.

[capricorn]

And today, there will be a scoop from La Presse announcing that a prominent former Bloc minister had stated that Bloc is now irrelevant, and that he is going to vote for Harper.

This may not be the same dude but Jacques Brassard, a former PQ minister, had some choice words about the Bloc and Gilles Duceppe in the following article in La Presse.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20080910...88/CPACTUALITES

The National Post picked it up.

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe came under fire from a leader of the sovereigntist movement Wednesday after former Parti Quebecois minister Jacques Brassard accused him of turning the Bloc into a clone of the New Democratic Party

----

“It seems to me that the Bloc is bewildered to have lost its dashing warhorse of the sponsorship scandal and the fiscal imbalance,” he wrote. “So he is taking the old left wing nags out of the stable. I’m not sure that these old nags will cross the finish line in the electoral race that is starting.”

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/p...-ndp-clone.aspx

Brassard is right on the mark.

In his response, Duceppe proves Brassard's point that the Bloc has become the NDP's twin:

"In an early morning radio interview, Duceppe shot back by accusing Brassard of having supported all out war in Afghanistan."

Asked about who he will vote for, Brassard did not specifically endorse the Conservatives. He replied who he will vote for is a secret. But he will vote in the advance poll because on October 14 he will be out moose hunting.

[jdobbin]

If Harper gets his majority, he'll do much more for Canada. I think he envisions how it should've been after the second world war...how Canada should've been up there, if not much more, with the US, Britain and Australia.

If you mean in war or peacekeeping, Canada has been there.

The two fights we decided not to participate in or were not asked to participate were Vietnam and Iraq. Is it your contention we should have been at both?

[betsy]

If you mean in war or peacekeeping, Canada has been there.

The two fights we decided not to participate in or were not asked to participate were Vietnam and Iraq. Is it your contention we should have been at both?

I mean reaching the full potentials. Becoming a real significant major player in the world stage.

Edited September 10, 2008 by betsy

[blueblood]

I mean reaching the full potentials.

You'll have to explain why Canada hasn't reached it's full potential. I am seriously interested.

[jdobbin]

I mean reaching the full potentials. Becoming a real significant major player in the world stage.

I don't think I understand. Do you mean to become a nuclear player?

[betsy]

Blueblood and JDobbin,

A competent military that is able to defend our nation ourselves. We had that at the end of world war two but down the road, we unified our armed forces. We haven't got the resources to defend ourselves in the north. We rely from the USA. It leaves us vulnerable to being told what to do by the USA.

We've let our economy be resource-based instead of using our own resources to building our own manufacturing industry in various areas. Our main manufacturing industry in Canada are mostly off-shoot from the US, not that there's anything wrong with that but that's all we've got. We didn't really set up our own.

We pursued an "open-door " immigration policy for our country despite evidences that shows it is the wrong way to go....instead of basing our immigration policy on our internal needs.

We spent the most part of the last 50 years arguing whether we should have two countries instead of one. For those of you liberals who loves "co-relations" inspite of the fact that they're often meaningless, here's one that fits: Liberals have led to Canada's demise.

Harper seems to be trying to take us out of that hole. Just look at what's happening in Quebec. All of a sudden, Bloc is nothing. For the first time in such a long time, separation is not an issue.

When was the last time before Stephen Harper that a PM stood up before world leaders and stuck to his position?

[jdobbin]

A competent military that is able to defend our nation ourselves. We had that at the end of world war two but down the road, we unified our armed forces. We haven't got the resources to defend ourselves in the north. We rely from the USA.

Most smaller countries don't have the resources alone to do it all themselves. That is why past governments have joined alliances such as NATO and NORAD.

It leaves us vulnerable to being told what to do by the USA.

What have we been told to do by the U.S.?

We've let our economy be resource-based instead of using our own resources to building our own manufacturing industry in various areas. Our main manufacturing industry in Canada are mostly off-shoot from the US, not that there's anything wrong with that but that's all we've got. We didn't really set up our own.

I thought you were a conservative. Are you suggesting the government is responsible for Canada not building its own car for its own market? Many companies did do that at the turn of the century but Canada is a market economy and those companies were either bought over or lost market share to the U.S. car companies as Canadian consumers chose to buy those products.

We pursued an "open-door " immigration policy for our country despite evidences that shows it is the wrong way to go....instead of basing our immigration policy on our internal needs.

The U.S. also had a very open immigration policy and it has been responsible for a large population that helps fuel the largest market and industrial economy.

However, I don't know that this has anything to do with our military.

We spent the most part of the last 50 years arguing whether we should have two countries instead of one. For those of you liberals who loves "co-relations" inspite of the fact that they're often meaningless, here's one that fits: Liberals have led to Canada's demise.

Seems to me that in the 1980s we saw a decline of separation in Quebec and Mulroney invited separatists into his party, tried to bully his into a constitution deal twice, saw the split of his party and the rise of separation again in the 1990s.

So...it seems that the blame Liberals argument should be re-examined in this matter.

Harper seems to be trying to take us out of that hole. Just look at what's happening in Quebec. All of a sudden, Bloc is nothing. For the first time in such a long time, separation is not an issue.

You can thank Dion for the intellectual debate between Dion and Bouchard that Dion won and the resulting Clarity Act for setting the terms of separation.

When was the last time before Stephen Harper that a PM stood up before world leaders and stuck to his position?

On what issue are speaking about in regards to?

How about Dion in

[Moonbox]

Most smaller countries don't have the resources alone to do it all themselves. That is why past governments have joined alliances such as NATO and NORAD.

Except most (almost all) comparably modern countries with comparably less resources and wealth than Canada have much more robust militaries than us. I don't think we need a big military, but the lack of spending under the Liberal government and then their subsequent decision to send our troops to Afghanistan with equipment that dates back to the 60's and 70's is a little hard to justify.

I thought you were a conservative. Are you suggesting the government is responsible for Canada not building its own car for its own market? Many companies did do that at the turn of the century but Canada is a market economy and those companies were either bought over or lost market share to the U.S. car companies as Canadian consumers chose to buy those products.

I would consider that Canada's manufacturing industry isn't competitive even compared to the USA yes. Having pretty much the highest corporate tax in North America in Ontario certainly isn't helping.

Seems to me that in the 1980s we saw a decline of separation in Quebec and Mulroney invited separatists into his party, tried to bully his into a constitution deal twice, saw the split of his party and the rise of separation again in the 1990s.

Trudeau helped win a referendum. Mulroney borked everything up you're right. With that said, Seperatism remained a significant cause from 1993 pretty much until the Harper government. Now most of Quebec doesn't even think it's relevant.

You can thank Dion for the intellectual debate between Dion and Bouchard that Dion won and the resulting Clarity Act for setting the terms of separation.

It wasn't an argument won with any difficulty. The argument was won (with the help of international lawyers) on some very basic assertions that you or I had probably already come up with ourselves. The Clarity Act didn't defeat the spirit of separatism, nor did a francaphone Prime Minister over something like 10 years. It was a Prime Minister who could show Quebec that they were better off staying in Canada.

[betsy]

Most smaller countries don't have the resources alone to do it all themselves. That is why past governments have joined alliances such as NATO and NORAD.

We're a small country because we've been thinking small for the past fifty years. We talk "big"..."from sea to sea to sea..." but that's just platitudes. Liberals think small!

What have we been told to do by the U.S.?.

We're talking about vulnerability! It's not what we've been told. It's being vulnerable to being told!

Anyway, remember the DEW LINE in the North? That's basically an example.

I thought you were a conservative. Are you suggesting the government is responsible for Canada not building its own car for its own market? Many companies did do that at the turn of the century but Canada is a market economy and those companies were either bought over or lost market share to the U.S. car companies as Canadian consumers chose to buy those products.

The U.S. also had a very open immigration policy and it has been responsible for a large population that helps fuel the largest market and industrial economy.

The entrepreneurship in this country is stifled from the get go. How do you expect us to compete when wings are clipped? It's the attitude that's clipping our wings! We want to be looked after. Everything should be done for us...we want everything to be controlled. And the Liberals had taken advantage of this attitude.

If we're not adjacent to the US, we'd probably be just another Denmark or Finland or Sweden.

Yes the US has an open immigration policy...but it's a melting pot over there! Successful immigrants in the US are the ones who assimilate....not the ones who "retain their identity." Just like the successful immigrants here who assimilated.

Here, they are vigorously encouraged NOT to assimilate.

Anyway, speaking of identities....What? Do we all need a "label?"

This is like the attitude of a kid prancing about with spiked purple hairs.

However, I don't know that this has anything to do with our military.

This is not all about the military. I gave you various points explaining what you asked me to explain.

Seems to me that in the 1980s we saw a decline of separation in Quebec and Mulroney invited separatists into his party, tried to bully his into a constitution deal twice, saw the split of his party and the rise of separation again in the 1990s.

We're talking about Harper!

And how he had successfully made Quebec separation irrelevant in just 2 years of being in office. Actually it speaks so well of Harper. Imagine what several PMs had tried to do over the years...and Harper clinched it in just two!

The NDP should be thankful to Harper for opening the door to their chance in Quebec. Sepeartion has stifled us for so long.

Now, Quebecers can truly choose from all the parties vying for votes without the usual pressure of separatism. We all feel as one and as one we should proceed to move on.

How about Dion in

...in where? When?

Let me re-phrase my question again:

When was the last time a Prime Minister of Canada stood up to world leaders to insist on his own demand, AND GOT THE WORLD LEADERS AGREEING TO HIS DEMAND?

Edited September 12, 2008 by betsy

[Argus]

Except most (almost all) comparably modern countries with comparably less resources and wealth than Canada have much more robust militaries than us. I don't think we need a big military, but the lack of spending under the Liberal government and then their subsequent decision to send our troops to Afghanistan with equipment that dates back to the 60's and 70's is a little hard to justify.

Just for a start, the size of our military was reduced from about 125,000 to 82,000 under Trudeau, to just about 55,000 under Chretien. During that time, our population has grown by about 1/3.

The Harper government has made some progress in reequipping the military - too slowly and too little, mind you - but nothing whatsoever in increasing its size, though he's made a few mouth noises about perhaps adding 5,000 men someday, though it's clearly not a priority. He's also made a lot of mouth noises about defending sovereignty in the north, but again, no real money committed and no real efforts undertaken. The military remains underfunded, under equipped and grossly undermanned.

Edited September 12, 2008 by Argus

[jdobbin]

Except most (almost all) comparably modern countries with comparably less resources and wealth than Canada have much more robust militaries than us. I don't think we need a big military, but the lack of spending under the Liberal government and then their subsequent decision to send our troops to Afghanistan with equipment that dates back to the 60's and 70's is a little hard to justify.

I should remind you that it was the Conservatives that sold the heavy lift helicopters and the bought the Iltis.

The Liberals can take the blame for the uniforms taking so long but they rushed G-Wagons into the field and bought the LAVs and Coyotes.

I would consider that Canada's manufacturing industry isn't competitive even compared to the USA yes. Having pretty much the highest corporate tax in North America in Ontario certainly isn't helping.

Untrue. Canada's business tax is lower than the U.S. on several fronts and it started under the Liberals. You really should read the KMPG study. For manufacturing, Canada had and continues to have the third lowest business tax in the industrialized world.

Canada's overall business tax in 2005 was 5% below U.S. taxes.

Even Ontario has a competitive tax rate. Toronto ranked 7th among 35 cities from 10 countries for tax structure.

Trudeau helped win a referendum. Mulroney borked everything up you're right. With that said, Seperatism remained a significant cause from 1993 pretty much until the Harper government. Now most of Quebec doesn't even think it's relevant.

I think we can say that separation started to fade faster than that. Remember the election of a Liberal government in Quebec?

It wasn't an argument won with any difficulty. The argument was won (with the help of international lawyers) on some very basic assertions that you or I had probably already come up with ourselves. The Clarity Act didn't defeat the spirit of separatism, nor did a francaphone Prime Minister over something like 10 years. It was a Prime Minister who could show Quebec that they were better off staying in Canada.

The spirit of separatism was broken under the Liberals. The antagonism for that stand and the humiliation was the Liberals to bear.

Edited September 12, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

We're a small country because we've been thinking small for the past fifty years. We talk "big"..."from sea to sea to sea..." but that's just platitudes. Liberals think small!

Do they now. Is that the same Canada that lead the G8 in growth and was considered one of the best places to live in the world? That wasn't platitudes. It was the facts.

We're talking about vulnerability! It's not what we've been told. It's being vulnerable to being told!

It seems to me that that you will have to show me examples of how this is happening.

Anyway, remember the DEW LINE in the North? That's basically an example.

Explain.

The entrepreneurship in this country is stifled from the get go. How do you expect us to compete when wings are clipped? It's the attitude that's clipping our wings! We want to be looked after. Everything should be done for us...we want everything to be controlled. And the Liberals had taken advantage of this attitude.

How, by having a business tax that is 5% lower than the U.S.?

If we're not adjacent to the US, we'd probably be just another Denmark or Finland or Sweden.

I don't even know how to respond to such a hypothetical question. It is like asking Harper what sort of vegetable he would be.

Yes the US has an open immigration policy...but it's a melting pot over there! Successful immigrants in the US are the ones who assimilate....not the ones who "retain their identity." Just like the successful immigrants here who assimilated.

Here, they are vigorously encouraged NOT to assimilate.

I don't know if you how much immigration difficultly the U.S. faces in its immigration policy. I don't know that it is superior as it is different.

I think we have been pretty successful integrating immigrants into Canada. In any event, you don't seem to be able to point to anything the Tories are doing differently. They are increasing immigration.

They have tried to make some changes but there is always tinkering. I don't see a sweeping change.

This is not all about the military. I gave you various points explaining what you asked me to explain.

You talked about being vulnerable and I have no idea what you mean and what the Tories are doing that the Liberals didn't.

We're talking about Harper!

And how he had successfully made Quebec separation irrelevant in just 2 years of being in office. Actually it speaks so well of Harper. Imagine what several PMs had tried to do over the years...and Harper clinched it in just two!

Which ignores the defeat that was handed to the PQ under the Liberals. Remember that?

The NDP should be thankful to Harper for opening the door to their chance in Quebec. Sepeartion has stifled us for so long.

Now, Quebecers can truly choose from all the parties vying for votes without the usual pressure of separatism. We all feel as one and as one we should proceed to move on.

The Liberals had taken separation off the table a long time ago. You can that Mulroney and the PCs for re-opening that door. The Liberals closed it again.

Don't let Harper open it up again. He think he can open it just a crack for things like the Senate but it is likely that every person queued up for changes will want in because of fear it will be shut tight again.

...in where? When?

Montreal. The Kyoto agreement's next round overseen by Dion.

Let me re-phrase my question again:

When was the last time a Prime Minister of Canada stood up to world leaders to insist on his own demand, AND GOT THE WORLD LEADERS AGREEING TO HIS DEMAND?

Canada doesn't demand anything. They suggest and hope the power of its argument sways people.

Edited September 12, 2008 by jdobbin

[Argus]

I think we have been pretty successful integrating immigrants into Canada

How do you integrate immigrants into Canadian society when half the people in Toronto and Vancouver are immigrants? I mean, does there not come a point where there are so many immigrants that there is little of Canada to be integrated into?

[jdobbin]

How do you integrate immigrants into Canadian society when half the people in Toronto and Vancouver are immigrants? I mean, does there not come a point where there are so many immigrants that there is little of Canada to be integrated into?

Since Harper has increased immigration even with changes to the act, you will have to ask him.

My opinion is that the Feds need to work more with provincial governments and their provincial nominee programs. They have been quite successful in bringing in immigrants to communities that have jobs they need to fill and programs in place to help immigrants settle in.

You'll have no argument from me that the government can do more to help immigrants integrate in. I don't believe the process ends when people enter the country.

[M.Dancer]

How do you integrate immigrants into Canadian society when half the people in Toronto and Vancouver are immigrants? I mean, does there not come a point where there are so many immigrants that there is little of Canada to be integrated into?

45% of Toronto are foriegn born...

A majority of Torontonians claim their origins from as either in whole or part from Britain and Ireland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto

Toronto is one of the best places to integrate into. Last night we went to a back to school party. My daughter has two friends who are of Iraniandescent (they are Canadian Born). We were talking to their mother and she was saying that when the girls were young, they spoke to them in Pesian, but switched to english as they got older. Now when a family member speaks to the girls in Persian, the girls understand, but reply in FRENCH!!! How does one get more integrated into Canadian life than being trilingual?

Edited September 12, 2008 by M.Dancer

[Moonbox]

Just for a start, the size of our military was reduced from about 125,000 to 82,000 under Trudeau, to just about 55,000 under Chretien. During that time, our population has grown by about 1/3.

The Harper government has made some progress in reequipping the military - too slowly and too little, mind you - but nothing whatsoever in increasing its size, though he's made a few mouth noises about perhaps adding 5,000 men someday, though it's clearly not a priority. He's also made a lot of mouth noises about defending sovereignty in the north, but again, no real money committed and no real efforts undertaken. The military remains underfunded, under equipped and grossly undermanned.

Harper is also severely constrained by the debt that Trudeau, an overspending Liberal, accumulated with the help of Mulroney AFTER he cut back our military spending. It's hardly an effective argument to say that Harper hasn't spent 'enough' money when his opposition's plans are to spend decidedly less or nothing. The fact of the matter is that the Chretien and Trudeau Liberals let our military deteriorate into one of the most ineffective independant fighting forces in the western world. What troops we have are highly trained and effective fighters from what i've read but that hardly matters when they don't have the equipment to keep themselves safe.

How sad is it that one of the richest countries in the world doesn't even have a few helicopters to move their troops around in Afghanistan?

I think it's despicable that the Liberal government would slash military spending, then send our troops to Afghanistan unequipped and then make a stink about them dying AFTER they're voted out of office.

Our troops aren't just soldiers. They're Canadians as well and the sooner people realize how badly we've let them down the sooner they'll allow Stephen Harper to spend MUCH NEEDED money to help them out.

Edited September 12, 2008 by Moonbox

[Argus]

Harper is also severely constrained by the debt that Trudeau, an overspending Liberal, accumulated with the help of Mulroney AFTER he cut back our military spending. It's hardly an effective argument to say that Harper hasn't spent 'enough' money when his opposition's plans are to spend decidedly less or nothing. The fact of the matter is that the Chretien and Trudeau Liberals let our military deteriorate into one of the most ineffective independant fighting forces in the western world. What troops we have are highly trained and effective fighters from what i've read but that hardly matters when they don't have the equipment to keep themselves safe.

How sad is it that one of the richest countries in the world doesn't even have a few helicopters to move their troops around in Afghanistan?

I think it's despicable that the Liberal government would slash military spending, then send our troops to Afghanistan unequipped and then make a stink about them dying AFTER they're voted out of office.

Our troops aren't just soldiers. They're Canadians as well and the sooner people realize how badly we've let them down the sooner they'll allow Stephen Harper to spend MUCH NEEDED money to help them out.

Harper has the money. He just hasn't made it a high priority. The rest of what you say is pretty much true, so that despite my dissatisfaction with what the Tories have done for the military I'll still acknowledge they have treated them better, and shown more respect to them, than any government since Pearson.