|
|
Post by duster on Apr 7, 2011 15:26:33 GMT -5
What I see so far is $300 million being flushed for no good reason. Harper and Ignatieff are pretty much Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, the Bloc only cares about Quebec, and Layton still believes in Keynesian economics as a solution to everything.
After all is said and done, the average Canadian will not be better off. The only change will be the possibility of a different crew in the Langevin Block going at the public coffers. It's hard not to be cynical.
Until we get an elected Senate that can provide balance, nothing changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 7, 2011 16:04:06 GMT -5
do you really think an elected Senate will make a difference? wish I had your faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 7, 2011 17:17:53 GMT -5
What I see so far is $300 million being flushed for no good reason. Harper and Ignatieff are pretty much Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, the Bloc only cares about Quebec, and Layton still believes in Keynesian economics as a solution to everything. IMHO, I think we need to sort out our political leadership first and foremost. I mean, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum sums it up very well. After that maybe we can have some objective changes to the Senate. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 7, 2011 17:32:08 GMT -5
Energy trading is a little more complex then that. I don't know the details of what happens between Quebec and NFLD, but I do know that demand varies by 30% between day and night and baseload prices collapse. Just to give you an idea, open market prices can go as low as one cent a kilowatt a night and 50 cents in high demand days. While I glazed over the complexities, the bottom line is that Quebec (or its energy company - I'm not sure if its an independent company or a crown corp or what have you) uses the flexibility of Churchill Falls to put Ontario utilities (and the general public) over the barrel. By making electricity from Muskrat Falls available to markets south of the border this will force Quebec to offer their extra production to other markets, reducing price to the consumer. (By the by, on a reread I noticed I said night was high and day was low - that's obviously backwards, but anyways...) My word is my bond too but you would NEVER vote for me. Ever. If you asked me for money for Churchill Falls, I would simply say NO and explain why. Why would you vote for me if the next politician says yes? You really believe or even care that my reason is valid and understandable if the other guy promises free money? And in case you said that you still vote for me, then you are amongst the very few. In a vacuum? No, I wouldn't vote for you. But we don't vote in a vacuum and there are countless factors in play. If your opponent had a history of dishonesty, particularly when it comes to making false promises during a campaign then I'd be more likely to vote for you. What about your platform? Hey - I love the ideas of the NDP. Free money and love for all sounds great, but a quick read of their platform reveals that they have the same understanding of economics as my dog. Your word - the word of politicians - is one thing. One factor among many. But in the case of Mr. Harper it is the only one that matters for me. We as a society create and deserve what we get. Too true.... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 7, 2011 22:49:05 GMT -5
No, I wouldn't vote for you. You really wouldn't vote for me? Really? You wouldn't vote for me? ME? Okay. |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Apr 8, 2011 11:23:53 GMT -5
ok, but ego-centric definitions do make conversations difficult. And the conservative party only has about 1/3 of the popular vote. that whole argument slays me. I've been listening to it for the last couple of years: the Conservatives only have a third of the vote: 67% of the people of Canada don't like them, so vote Liberal [or NDP]. the fact that the Liberals polled at 26% in the last election and the NDP at 17 1/2% [conversely, 3/4 of Canadians didn't vote Liberal and over 80% didn't vote NDP] doesn't seem to matter -- it only matters that a certain percentage didn't vote/don't like the Conservatives. ya gotta look at the whole thing. Where do I say any of this? I have no problem with a government with 1/3 forming a government. My point is simply that the Conservative party is on the right of the political spectrum, if such a thing exists. I guess the assumption is that voting preference follows a normal distribution but I think its reasonable. I have friends who think the conservatives are a left wing party, but that doesn't make it true for the population as a whole. |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Apr 8, 2011 11:59:19 GMT -5
So, I did support the Conservative Party the last few election. But probably will not this time around. Nonetheless, I was trying recently to determine the greatest accomplishment over the past 5 years of Harper government and am at a bit of a loss. So I would like to pose the question to greater minds than mine. What would you say is their greatest accomplishment? What is the greatest accomplishment is what you didn't suffer. It's a hard sell to people who say "nothing changed in my life". Well, tens of millions of Americans would take that instead of begging to keep their homes and jobs. Let's leave the Canadian hubris of "we're Canadian" on the side of the road. Canadians are as deep in debt as Americans and could of suffered as much, BUT, by not having a reactive government, we kept chugging along while most Western countries suffered. I think the only two Western countries that came out of this with a "shrug" is Germany and Canada. Part of that was the oil sands. They inject tens of billions into the Canadian economy. It's also the same sands that the NDP and Liberals call "dirty". Let's not even talk about provincial Liberals who go out of their way to spit venom about the oil sands.....while grabbing with both hands the equalization payments that "dirty oil" provides. Talking about uber hypocrisy. The Conservatives encourage it's development and it's paying off handsomely. Then there is the carbon taxes were not paying. Again, it's one of those things that we don't see so it doesn't exist and the Conservatives get no credit for it. Well, ask the British families. It's costing them more then a couple of thousand dollar a household as their carbon tax has permeated through their infrastructure. It get's worse for those who earn a decent living. They have to pay for those who don't since those who can't are getting grants from the government. We are getting a taste of what that green agenda cost in Ontario electricity rates. They are sky rocketing and it's only the very beginning of it. Plus the government is subsidizing those who can't pay from those who can. Plus the hidden costs of EVERYTHING going up. It's an affront to anyones intelligence to be told that they are part of an evil conspiracy of carbon emmiters......while trying to put food on the table.....keep warm....or breath. Then there is the military. We are now a respectable player on the world community versus a bit of a delusional one playing referee. Decades of "peacekeeping" in Cyprus was sold to Canadians by Liberal governments as "serious" duty....while the locals laughed. We're not heading the Libyan mission by accident. Bottom line, what we don't want and didn't suffer is what was accomplished by the Conservatives. That may not be fancy or boastful but it's as real as food on the table and a roof over our heads. Thanks for the interesting reply. To your first point, I don't think Harper can take credit neither the financial health of Canada's banking system (which did not require a bailout unlike the US) nor the Federal government's budgetary surplus which he inherited (and squandered into a structural deficit by cutting the GST). As an aside, the German government did have a sizable role in the German recovery (i.e. Kurzarbeitszeit program). I am a bit confused by your point on carbon taxes. Can I take it to mean that you agree with Harper's plan to “develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gases.”? I accept your point about the military. Still, I wouldn't call ourselves respected world player given the lack of interest by the Harper government in foreign policy. For my part, the core reason I won't be voting conservative this election is that I am profoundly disturbed by their lack of openness and general contempt for the parliamentary process (and I didn't care for bill c-64 either which they just pledged to reintroduce without changes). p.s. I am not an expert by any means, but I thought the financial problems of Ontario hydro we mostly caused by the forced premature shutdowns of the nuclear plants. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 8, 2011 12:50:15 GMT -5
To your first point, I don't think Harper can take credit neither the financial health of Canada's banking system (which did not require a bailout unlike the US) nor the Federal government's budgetary surplus which he inherited (and squandered into a structural deficit by cutting the GST). As an aside, the German government did have a sizable role in the German recovery (i.e. Kurzarbeitszeit program). I beg to differ. Much to my chagrin, he spend billion on infrastructure at a time at a critical point. Sure, he may have been forced to spend more then he liked, but he did. But no more then he had too without putting us way deeper into debt. He cut the GST and my wallet and many who bought big ticket items thanks him for that. He supported the oil sand which are a massive tax contributer. He spend way too much to bail out GM and Chrysler. I am a bit confused by your point on carbon taxes. Can I take it to mean that you agree with Harper's plan to “develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gases.”? It's pretty hard to be confused on where I stand on carbon taxes. To be clear...I HATE them. As for Harper, he said that ONLY if the US forces us to. Otherwise we are simply going to pay through the nose in a very corrupt and useless system. Harper doesn't buy into the sky falling malarkey. He called it for what it was ten years ago when he said that climate change was nothing more then guilt tax for wealth redistribution. Now, as the main party, he is trying to play nice with greenies. I accept your point about the military. Still, I wouldn't call ourselves respected world player given the lack of interest by the Harper government in foreign policy. Harper lacks a foreign policy or presence? What is Libya? Afghanistan? What was Haiti? Maybe he is not leading the charge for whatever you like him to lead it for, but I'm fine with it. For my part, the core reason I won't be voting conservative this election is that I am profoundly disturbed by their lack of openness and general contempt for the parliamentary process (and I didn't care for bill c-64 either which they just pledged to reintroduce without changes). Did you send a letter to one of his ministers and din't get a reply? Have you tried to contact one of them by phone? You may be profoundly disturbed on your perception of openness but you likely got this from the mass media, who can't make a living digging up dirt and sound bites. Where you just as disturbed with Chretien government? Because it was no different. As for "contempt of process"? Why? He didn't let a coalition of fools take over? Something that more then two thirds of Canadians despised? p.s. I am not an expert by any means, but I thought the financial problems of Ontario hydro we mostly caused by the forced premature shutdowns of the nuclear plants. I'm not an expert but I'm in high school on energy matters simply because I put my money on it. There are NO premature shutdowns. ALL the nuclear plants are in full production (less occasional repairs/problems). There were some costs overruns on refurbishing them but that's all. The increases in electricity prices is a direct result of the "green" energy. And it's only the first step of a very expensive program. You don't like Harper/Conservatives. Fine. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 8, 2011 13:56:09 GMT -5
Reality check..... ~~~~~~~~~~~ Playing fairy godmother to Quebec not so fun Calgary Herald Sat Dec 19 2009 Page: A14 Section: The Editorial Page Byline: Licia Corbella Column: Licia Corbella Source: Calgary Herald Today, let's have some fun and play fairy godmother to Quebec. Let's grant the province the wish it articulated in Copenhagen. Wave the magic wand and poof, wish granted. Shut down Alberta's oilsands, except, since it's Quebec making the wish, we have to call it tarsands, even though it's not tar they use to run their Bombardier planes, trains and Skidoos. Ah, at last! The blight on Canada's reputation shut down. All those dastardly workers from across Canada living in Fort McMurray, Calgary and Edmonton out of jobs, including those waitresses, truck drivers, nurses, teachers, doctors, pilots, engineers etc. They can all go on employment insurance like Ontario autoworkers and Quebec parts makers! Closing down Alberta's oil industry would immediately stop the production of 1.8 million barrels of oil a day. Supply and demand being what it is, oil prices will go up and therefore the cost at the pump will go up, too, increasing the cost of everything else. But lost jobs in Alberta and across the country along with higher gas prices are a small price to pay to save the world and not "embarrass" Quebecers on the world stage. Not to worry though, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Nigeria can come to the rescue. You know, the guys who pump money into al-Qaeda and help Osama bin Laden target those Van Doos fighting in Afghanistan. Bloody oil is so much nicer than dirty tarsands oil. Shutting down the oilsands will reduce Canada's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 38.4 Mt (megatonnes). Hooray! It's so fun to be a fairy godmother! While that sounds like a lot, Canada only produces two per cent of the world's man-made GHGs and the oilsands only produce five per cent of Canada's total emissions or 0.1 per cent of the world's emissions. By comparison, the U.S. produces 20.2 per cent of the world's GHG emissions -- 27 per cent of which comes from coal-fired electricity. The 530 sq.-km piece of land currently disturbed by the tarsands (which is smaller than the John F. Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral, Florida at 570 sq. km) must be reclaimed by law and will return to Alberta's 381,000 sq. km of boreal forest, a huge carbon sink. Quebec, of course, has clean hydro power, but more than 13,000 sq. km were drowned for the James Bay hydroelectric project, permanently removing that forest from acting as a carbon sink. But fairy godmother is digressing all over the place. While the oilsands only produce five per cent of Canada's GHGs, it contributes much more to Canada's economy, with oil and gas making up one-quarter of the value on the TSX alone. Alberta is also the largest net contributor per capita by far to Confederation and there are only two more -- B.C. and Ontario. Quebec hasn't made a net contribution to the rest of Canada for a very long time. This is not to be critical (after all, fairy godmothers never criticize) it's just a fact. In 2009, Albertans paid $40.46 billion in income, corporate and other taxes to the federal government and received back just $19.35 billion in services and goods from the feds. That means the rest of Canada got $21.1 billion from Albertans or $5,742 for each and every Alberta man, woman and child. In 2007 (the last year national figures are available), Alberta sent a net contribution of $19.49 billion to the ROC or $5,553 per Albertan -- more than three times what every Ontarian contributes at $1,757. Quebecers, on the other hand, each received $627 net or a total of $8 billion, money which was designed to help "equalize" social programs across the country. Except, that's not what's happening. Quebec has more generous social programs, like (nearly) free university tuition (paid for mostly by Albertans) and cheap provincial day care (paid for mostly by Albertans). communities.canada.com/calgar...er-column.aspx |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 8, 2011 14:17:57 GMT -5
Ummm... huh? You're bringing up a two-year old article mocking the three-year old comments made by the most loathed premier in Quebec history for... what reason? To prove that Quebecer's are out of touch with economics and/or Alberta and/or oil and/or the environment? How about the poll last week that said 71% of Quebecers said Alberta should continue developing it's oilsands, and that 61% have a favorable view of Alberta and that 68% think Quebec needs to strengthen it's economic ties with Alberta? Despite rumours of 'bad blood' between Alberta and Quebec, a new poll by Leger Marketing says Quebecers view Alberta's oil sands in a positive light. The survey found 61 percent of people held a positive view of Alberta, while 71 per cent said Alberta should continue developing the oil sands, but limit the environmental impact. Michel Kelly-Gagnon, President and CEO of The Montreal Economic Institute says he was surprised at the findings. He says despite what people originally thought, the poll shows that people from Quebec have a 'positive view' of Alberta with 68 percent of people saying they should strengthen ties with Alberta. Kelly-Gagnon says the institute commissioned the poll after Premier Jean Charest criticized Alberta’s oilsands development during 2008’s Copenhagen Summit.www.am770chqr.com/News/Local/Story.aspx?ID=1394546and fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/01/national-post-editorial-board-quebecs-love-for-alberta-needs-better-expression/ |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 8, 2011 14:35:05 GMT -5
doesn't mater what the people think, BC, what matters is what that dreaded/loathed premier [who is still premier, and the one to follow will continue in the "we want more from TROC vein] does.
there is still a push to shut the tar sands down . . . even if it is just political posturing it's loud on the world stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 9, 2011 4:32:10 GMT -5
Ummm... huh? You're bringing up a two-year old article mocking the three-year old comments made by the most loathed premier in Quebec history for... what reason? To prove that Quebecer's are out of touch with economics and/or Alberta and/or oil and/or the environment? The article is consistent with with the cap and trade that Liberals/NDP of every stripe want and the tar and feathering of the the Golden Oil Goose. It also had relevent and interesting numbers. if you think it's "old news" then read on.... www.vancouversun.com/news/Oilsands+more+than+problem+Ignatieff/4576348/story.html |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 12, 2011 11:12:33 GMT -5
Tories G8 SpendingMy guess is that this will be a huge topic. I know....left wing, Toronto Star.... Kind of reminds me of the sponsorship scandal, though. Tony Clement's Parry Sound-Muskoka constituents made out quite well.... List of Projects Approved for G8 SpendingMuch of the $50 million the Conservative government allocated to the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund went to projects in Hunstville, Ont. that had nothing to do with the summit, according to newly released documents.
The finding comes on the heels of a report by the Canadian Press that describes how the auditor general was to table a report to Parliament on April 5 that says the Harper government misinformed MPs to get approval for the fund. The report goes on to state that such a process may have been illegal, according to the Canadian Press.
A list of approved projects — which came in response to a question on the order paper during the last day Parliament was sitting before the election call — was released by the Liberal Party Wednesday.
The 32 projects that received funding, many of which appear to have no connection to the needs of the G8 summit, were chosen by Industry Minister Tony Clement, the mayor of Hunstville, and the general manager of Deerhurst Resort.
Clements is MP for the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka.
“Recipients were not required to report to Infrastructure Canada which facilities were used by G8 leaders,” reads an addendum to the list in answer to a ministry inquiry by Welland MP Malcolm Allen.
“Funding was allocated to infrastructure projects that would help the region prepare for hosting the G8 Summit, support the effective and secure hosting of the Summit and as well as to provide a lasting legacy for local communities.”
Here is the full list of projects and the allotted funding:
• Muskoka Tourism gateway signs: $408,000
• Muskoka Tourism visitor information centre: $260,000
• Road improvements: $1,800,000
• Jack Garland North Bay Airport improvements: $3,510,745
• Highway 11 upgrades: $350,000
• Bracebridge Sportsplex emergency backup: $40,000
• Gateway signage: $150,000
• Annie Williams Park upgrades: $500,000
• Dowtown Bracebridge revitalization: $800,000
• Downtown Gravenhurst revitalization: $1,200,000
• Hunstville beautification and lighting: $106,100
• Port Sydney Beautification: $250,000
• Reconstruction of Deerhurst Drive: $1,989,088
• University of Waterloo G8 Centre expansion: $9,750,000
• G8 Centre: $17,110,912
• Town of Kearney Main Street beautification: $730,000
• Parry Sound beautification: $178,000
• Parry Sound downtown streetscaping: $1,143,750
• Town of Sundridge pedestrian crossing: $125,000
• Beautification of Sundridge: $750,000
• Burk’s Falls Town Centre improvements: $150,000
• Port Severn Gateway feature signage: $1,000,000
• Port Severn streetscape/linear parks: $1,000,000
• Roofed heritage plaque in Baysville: $38,500
• Baysville Community streetscape improvements: $117,000
• Lake of Bays Band Shell and public WC: $299,850
• Muskoka Lakes tourism signage: $250,000
• Bala Falls Road updgrades: $386,000
• Paignton House Road upgrades: $424,000
• Township of Perry road improvements: $100,000
• Seguin Township beautification/streetscapes: $745,000
• South River Community Beautification: $65,000
======================================================= Of course, Clement is denying any "involvement" with the budget designations/decisions. “At no time were any decisions made by Joseph Klein (general manager of the Deerhurst resort), Claude Doughty (mayor of Huntsville,) or me with regard to infrastructure funding and I am confident the final report will reflect this truth,” Clement said. Where does the buck stop, though...Mr. Clement? Don't you see $1.14 million for streetscaping in Parry Sound--or $730,000 going to the town of Kearney for Main Street beautification--and say, "Wait a minute....."? Many places far away from the Summit...but all within your riding. Politicians, all of them, always distance themselves from this kind of spending. Which means they know it's "wrong".
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 12, 2011 13:39:12 GMT -5
We all questioned the cost of the G8 Summit when it was being put off ... i mean other cities had the G8 Summit for a fraction of what it cost Canada - when it smells fishy, quite often it is pretty stinky. The worst of it though was the Conservatives tabled a report on the G8 Summit spending, and accused Sheila Fraser of supporting their spending during the G8 Summit. The report quoted the auditor general as saying: “We found that the processes and controls around that were very good, and that the monies were spent as they were intended to be spent.” Shelia Fraser did in fact say that. However, she said in 2010 during an interview on the Liberal spending on security measures after the September 2001 terrorist attacks. Oopsie  Fraser has wrote Tony Clement, telling him she was misquoted, and asking them to remove the quote from the report, she further reminded the government that she wasn't even calling before that committee ...  And I read right at this moment that Sheila Fraser is launching a probe into all these G8 leaks .... isn't it good that the public know they are being constantly misled, lied to, and decisions are being made on Parliament Hill though fraudulent means? Especially before marking their X in 3 weeks. The list of ways Harper's Government has shown contempt to the Canadian people and our democratic process is growing daily ... |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 12, 2011 14:06:37 GMT -5
Here's the article, Skilly. Tories used praise for Liberals to defend summit costs: FraserAuditor General Sheila Fraser says the Conservatives used a quote from her in a report that had nothing to do with the G8 and G20 summits. Canada's auditor general has rebuked the Conservatives for recycling an unrelated quote by her about a previous Liberal government's security spending in a parliamentary report on the costs of the G8/G20 summits in Ontario last summer, CBC News has learned.
The Conservatives' report, presented as a dissenting opinion to the Commons the morning Parliament was dissolved last month, quotes Sheila Fraser giving high marks to the Harper government for prudent spending on the summits.
The report quoted the auditor general as saying: “We found that the processes and controls around that were very good, and that the monies were spent as they were intended to be spent.”
But in a scathing letter addressed to members of a Commons committee on Friday, which was received by the clerk and members on Monday, Fraser said the quote had nothing to do with the summits.
Instead, she said, the Conservatives inserted a 2010 comment she made during a CBC News interview on security spending by a previous Liberal government after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
“The comments attributed to me in the [Conservative] report are completely unrelated to G8/G20 spending,” Fraser writes in her letter.
“I would appreciate it if the report could be modified as it is clearly erroneous.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 13, 2011 6:48:25 GMT -5
If someone deliberately / knowingly put that quote in the report .... then they should be fired.
The Auditor General in the Canadian Parliamentary process is one of the most repected positions. There is a huge difference between misquote and misleading too.
I heard Stockwell Day say that the Conservatives are launching an investigation into the matter - maybe the RCMP should, just to check partisanship out of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 13, 2011 8:14:17 GMT -5
We all questioned the cost of the G8 Summit when it was being put off ... i mean other cities had the G8 Summit for a fraction of what it cost Canada - when it smells fishy, quite often it is pretty stinky. I am on the side of G8/20 spending was way out of whack/over the top and that the was a LOT of money wasted [not just "unnecessarily spent]. I will say, though, that every country accounts for their expenses differently. Canada included the cost of security in their total cost; other countries didn't and that suggested that they spent less on the summit. in the end they may have, but who is to know? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 13, 2011 8:14:45 GMT -5
the 2011 election debate: a solid 2 hour nap.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 13, 2011 8:29:51 GMT -5
the 2011 election debate: a solid 2 hour nap. Only saw the highlights and post-debate scrums. Could have done without that as well. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 13, 2011 8:54:08 GMT -5
Ignatieff did ask Harper one question that Harper did not answer (I wont go so far as to say avoid).
He asked Haper how he plans on finding the money for the 11 Billion dollars in promises in his platform ... there is no suggestion on where the Conservatives plan on finding this money. He asked what services he planned on cutting, and if any of those services will be in the military? Harper responded by saying there will be no tax increases or cutting of the health care.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 13, 2011 10:13:53 GMT -5
Can someone clear this up for me, please?
1. The government was brought down because a "Contempt" charge against the Conservatives, by the Speaker. Yes or no?
2. The first time ever in Canadian political history?
==================================================
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 13, 2011 11:36:38 GMT -5
Contempt claims were leveled by the opposition.....
For not providing enough information.....no matter how much information the Conservatives gave them. We are talking BINDERS of information, not pages.
Bev Oda......a native woman who had no business running anything but was put there to help quiwt native accusations that they was no one representing them at the highest level. Harper made a mistake on good intents.
Contempt "charges", which are really claims, was the one and only, thing the Liberals could hang their hat on to spew the "don't trust Harper" campaign. So here we are, 300 million dollars later.
It's funny that an opposition leader who claims he did not get enough information is barely around to read what he claims he didn't get. .
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 13, 2011 11:43:37 GMT -5
1. The government was brought down because a "Contempt" charge against the Conservatives, by the Speaker. Yes or no? not by the speaker. it was a non-confidence motion presented by the Liberals, duly voted on and passed by Parliament [165-145]. the non-confidence motion stated the government is in contempt for its refusal to fully disclose the costs of its tough-on-crime agenda, corporate tax cuts and its plan to buy stealth fighter jets. yes. not the first time the thought was raised that a government was in contempt, but the first time it got through a parliamentary committee looking into allegations of contempt [other attempts failed because they were brought against a majority government]. all for . . . nothing. seems Harper was right: not enough people care. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 13, 2011 11:49:12 GMT -5
all for . . . nothing. seems Harper was right: not enough people care. Actually, the ones who "care" wouldn't vote for Conservatives to begin with so it's irrelevant. On the ground, in peoples homes, this is about jobs, economy, high price of oil. What the Liberals don't want to discuss, |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 13, 2011 11:50:34 GMT -5
Yeah, that was a real stinger from Layton on Ignatieff. 70% absentee rate in the House?
Did I hear correctly? Wow. Inexcusable. And Ignatieff could not refute it. Regardless of your party's platform, that is not a good example from the supposed leader.
What a dog's breakfast. They're all promisers, liars, and deflectors.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 13, 2011 11:57:05 GMT -5
Can someone clear this up for me, please? 1. The government was brought down because a "Contempt" charge against the Conservatives, by the Speaker. Yes or no? 2. The first time ever in Canadian political history? ================================================== Yes, the speaker ruled that the Harper government's "unsettling conduct" was in comtempt of parliament. Basically, the government was putting up road blocks and stonewalling the opposition's right to access to information. This ruling by the Speaker had to then go before a parliamentary committee, which upheld the Speaker's ruling. The opposition then had to file a non-confidence (since a contempt of parliament charge is not enough) motion to defeat the government. Not only is it the first time in Canadian history a government was found in contempt, it was the first time in the Commonwealth history. It is also the first time in Canadian history a cabinet minister was found in contempt. Under our parliamentary system, you are not allowed to accuse someone of lying in the House of Commons (the broad sweeping umbrella of parliamentary privilege) ... and ergo, it is also a no-no to lie while in the House - contempt for the parliamentary process. It is difficult to prove an MP knowingly lied ... but they caught Oda red handed with two hands in the cookie jar. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 13, 2011 11:58:55 GMT -5
Actually, the ones who "care" wouldn't vote for Conservatives to begin with so it's irrelevant. But when it involves the Liberals or NDP, it's automatically relevant.  Yes, and that's where Harper had the answers. Except on oil prices.....governments can't control that. Unless they lower the taxes they impose at the pumps. Or unless they keep their domestic oil for themselves at a reduced rate compared to their export rates. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 13, 2011 12:01:39 GMT -5
Yeah, that was a real stinger from Layton on Ignatieff. 70% absentee rate in the House? Did I hear correctly? Wow. Inexcusable. And Ignatieff could not refute it. Regardless of your party's platform, that is not a good example from the supposed leader. What a dog's breakfast. They're all promisers, liars, and deflectors. Layton flattened Iggy with that. Biggest blow of the night by far. www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkmF8B2651s&feature=player_embedded |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 13, 2011 12:09:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 13, 2011 12:09:52 GMT -5
Yeah, that was a real stinger from Layton on Ignatieff. 70% absentee rate in the House? Did I hear correctly? Wow. Inexcusable. And Ignatieff could not refute it. Regardless of your party's platform, that is not a good example from the supposed leader. What a dog's breakfast. They're all promisers, liars, and deflectors. Layton flattened Iggy with that. Biggest blow of the night by far. www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkmF8B2651s&feature=player_embeddedMissed 70% of the votes. Brutal. No excuse for that. |
|
