|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 13, 2011 12:26:25 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. Thanks, Skilly (and franko).... Well, they tried to hammer it home last night....but Harper just smiled it off with, "These three bozos are the reason we're having another unwanted election. Come on, Canada, give me a majority and this nonsense will stop....and we'll get things done."It's the only spin Harper can put on it.....and I dare say it has a great chance of working. Except of course, that majority governments are not immune from non-confidence votes and contempt charges. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 13, 2011 13:31:10 GMT -5
For someone who pretends this is about democracy, Iggy got crowned by the Liberal party and hardly ever show up to vote.
Do as I say, not as I do......
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 13, 2011 20:47:02 GMT -5
Of those key confidence votes in question, though, Harper was there for only 58% of them. Layton beat them all.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 14, 2011 10:26:24 GMT -5
beyond the fringe In addition to the Greens, 14 other parties registered this election have never had a member elected to Parliament. Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada• Registered: 2005 • A party for: Environmental and animal rights activists • Candidates: Expecting six • Web tidbit: “The Canadian government’s environmental policies are killing us, and they will never improve until environmentalists reward politicians who protect the environment and animals, and punish those who don’t. We can only do that in elections.” Canadian Action Party• Registered: 1997 • A party for: Those worried about U.S. encroachment and bookkeeping errors • Candidates: Expecting 13 • Web tidbit: “CAP calls on the Canadian government to follow a strict double-entry bookkeeping practice in order to keep track not only of the amortized debts of government investment but also of the depreciated value of its investments.” Christian Heritage Party of Canada• Registered: 2001 • A party for: People who really, really oppose abortion • Candidates: Expecting 43 • Web tidbit: Every major party is making itself family-friendly, with “family” used as a noun and adjective in almost every speech but the CHPC says it stakes out special territory: “The CHP is Canada’s only pro-Life, pro-family federal political party.” Communist Party of Canada• Registered: 1997 • A party for: Workers of the world, who want to unite! • Candidates: Expecting 20 • Web tidbit: “The party is calling for the defeat of the Harper Conservatives and for the election of a strong block of progressive MPs who are committed to real economic and social development for working people.” First Peoples National Party of Canada• Registered: 2005 • A party for: Those embracing Aboriginal values • Candidates: Expecting three • Web tidbit: Has a great sales pitch to attract candidates: “The First Peoples National Party is looking for daring and honourable people of all cultures to run as candidates in the upcoming election.” Libertarian Party of Canada CH for PM• Registered: 2004 • A party for: Those with too much government on their back • Candidates: Expecting 26 • Web tidbit: “We believe in a just, voluntary society that does not use government power to confiscate property or interfere with peaceful activities. Government should act only as our servant and never as our master.” Marijuana Party• Registered: 2000 • A party for: Those who’ve got the munchies • Candidates: Expecting two • Web tidbit: Despite being a registered political party and all, the MP doesn’t embrace the system, seeking candidates for “participating in so-called ‘democracy.’ ” Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada• Registered: 1990 • A party for: Down with Imperialism! Down with the rich! • Candidates: Expecting 70 • Web tidbit: “Canadians do not want a pro-war government. We call on them to recognize the need for an anti-war government by voting Marxist-Leninist,” which means electing “worker politicians.” People’s Political Power Party of Canada• Registered since: 2006 • A party for: Umm, everyone? • Candidates: None • Web tidbit: Despite the election call, still has a Yuletide greeting on its main page; “Today recognize the Gift to learn, to share love sacred and to become twins all together”; “The Whole World — You Are My Family.” Pirate Party of Canada• Registered: 2010 • A party for: Copyright libertarians and hackers • Candidates: Expecting 12 • Web tidbit: First of the fringe parties off the mark after the election call with release and call for candidates; young, tech-savvy members show their digital chops. Progressive Canadian Party• Registered: 2004 • A party for: Those with trouble letting go • Candidates: Expecting 10 to 20 • Web tidbit: By far the most politically experienced party leader — the Honourable Sinclair Stevens served in cabinet under Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney, back in the old Progressive Conservative days. Rhinoceros Party• Registered: 2007 • A party for: Francophones with a sense of humour • Candidates: Expecting 15 • Web tidbit: The Rhinos seem to be gunning more for Gilles Duceppe than Stephen Harper; French-only website says: “We don’t speak English very much, but we French very well!” United Party of Canada• Registered: 2010 • A party for: Mainstream folks not comfortable with big parties • Candidates: Expecting four • Web tidbit: “The United Party of Canada has come into existence to bring all the regions and all the people of Canada together to form a union that will bring the interests and opinions of all Canadians to the forefront.” Western Block Party• Registered: 2005 • A party for: Separatists who don’t speak French • Candidates: Expecting five • Web tidbit: “Referendums should be held to determine whether the West should secede from Canada, and B.C. should lead the way.” link |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 14, 2011 11:46:09 GMT -5
Don't nominate me yet, franko!  Still reading about it. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 14, 2011 16:50:45 GMT -5
Saperlipopetteharperdid.ca is an anti-Harper site ['cause there aren't many of them around, are there?]
[even in the hidden url the word changes, so you'll just have to type it for yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 14, 2011 18:08:11 GMT -5
Saperlipopetteharperdid.ca is an anti-Harper site ['cause there aren't many of them around, are there?] [even in the hidden url the word changes, so you'll just have to type it for yourself. That is a completely bullsh!t site. Their quoting blogs, opinion pieces, articles from free newspapers homeless people use for toilet paper, unions, The Guardian aka British Pravda, misquoting real papers, basically, a garbage site that some far left wing nut job is so proud off. But hey, it's a free country and anyone who wants to believe George Monbiot is free to do so. . |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 15, 2011 5:46:22 GMT -5
of course it is, HA . . . but it's sad that this is where politics is heading. so many complaints about Harper's "US style politics" and rants against the attack ads, and this is the response? waiting for "the Conservatives will eat your children" a la Mike Tyson.
I understand the site is a student-initiative, encouraging the under-25 crowd to vote [obviously in a certain way].
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 15, 2011 9:54:24 GMT -5
Saperlipopetteharperdid.ca is an anti-Harper site ['cause there aren't many of them around, are there?] [even in the hidden url the word changes, so you'll just have to type it for yourself. That is a completely bullsh!t site. Their quoting blogs, opinion pieces, articles from free newspapers homeless people use for toilet paper, unions, The Guardian aka British Pravda, misquoting real papers, basically, a garbage site that some far left wing nut job is so proud off. But hey, it's a free country and anyone who wants to believe George Monbiot is free to do so. . Shouldn't matter. To quote you....anyone who is swayed by that stuff wouldn't have voted Conservative anyway. And I'm not being a smart-a$$....that's true. Just asking: Are there any right-wing nut jobs? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 15, 2011 11:28:02 GMT -5
of course it is, HA . . . but it's sad that this is where politics is heading. so many complaints about Harper's "US style politics" and rants against the attack ads, and this is the response? waiting for "the Conservatives will eat your children" a la Mike Tyson. I understand the site is a student-initiative, encouraging the under-25 crowd to vote [obviously in a certain way]. The problem is that a lot of young people get their news/info from very stupid sources. On another board, their quoting Daily Show. When you challenge them about it their response is that they "don't really get their news from there"....and yet remember every line. To me and you, it's bullsh!t, to Maggy the Twetter, it's reinforcement to what she things are righteous beliefs. . |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 15, 2011 11:37:21 GMT -5
Just asking: Are there any right-wing nut jobs? Your looking at him.  I'm a wild and crazy guy in person but I just hide it well. I had breakfast with Franko and he was amazed how I could eat eggs with my fingers and slurp coffee without raising the cup. I consider those essential survivor skills when God comes down and starts shooting his ray gun. Vote Conservative. You're in good company. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 15, 2011 12:17:42 GMT -5
of course it is, HA . . . but it's sad that this is where politics is heading. so many complaints about Harper's "US style politics" and rants against the attack ads, and this is the response? waiting for "the Conservatives will eat your children" a la Mike Tyson. I understand the site is a student-initiative, encouraging the under-25 crowd to vote [obviously in a certain way]. The problem is that a lot of young people get their news/info from very stupid sources. On another board, their quoting Daily Show. When you challenge them about it their response is that they "don't really get their news from there"....and yet remember every line. To me and you, it's bullsh!t, to Maggy the Twetter, it's reinforcement to what she things are righteous beliefs. . To be fair, though....CNN is all about glamorous newsmodels and Fox News is blatant right-wing cheerleading. Where to find the truth or at least unbiased reporting? Very difficult anywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 17, 2011 11:19:12 GMT -5
F-35s....Some Assembly Required? Engines Not Included?And will the real cost for these 65 units please stand up? How can there be such a variance? Prime Minister Stephen Harper has labelled the F-35 as a good deal for Canada and notes that the aircraft will cost around $75 million per plane.
The Conservatives say the entire purchase will cost around $14 billion but a report from Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page puts the number at $29 billion.
The Government Accountability Office, the U.S government’s equivalent of the auditor general, has also warned about serious ongoing problems with the aircraft and rising costs. Mike Sullivan, a senior official with the Government Accountability Office, estimates that the F-35 model that Canada is buying will cost between $110 to $115 million (per plane).
U.S. defence specialist Winslow Wheeler, who has also raised concerns about the F-35, has warned that the extra cost of an engine could boost the price of an aircraft for Canada to around $148 million (per plane).
“If Canada’s government can get an F-35 for the mid-70 million dollars per airplane, well they should sign a contract right now and get it delivered,” said Wheeler, an analyst with the Center for Defense Information in Washington. “Because I can promise you nobody on this earth will ever get a flying F-35 for $75 million per copy. It’s pure fantasy.”
But former chief of the defence staff, retired Gen. Paul Manson, a strong supporter of the F-35 and a former chairman of Lockheed Martin Canada, has challenged Wheeler’s viewpoints in a letter to the Citizen. According to Manson, the F-35 project is progressing well and the plane is the right one for Canada. He said Wheeler lacks credibility because he is associated with a “left-wing” organization in Washington.
And I would say Manson lacks credibility because he is a former chairman of Lockheed Martin. I agree that we need an upgrade....but there are too many questions and conflicts here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 17, 2011 14:42:59 GMT -5
There is the cost of the planes and the cost of servicing them. The ones opposed are going to throw in every cost possible and the ones buying them will give you the price of purchase.
Any given car, one needs about an hour maintenance per 500 hours running. A fighter jet incredibly more. For every hour they fly they need from a few to a dozen hours of maintenance. I think the F-22 needs 12 hours per hour flown. Is any part of that included in the price?
Then there is the issue of parts availability, how much, how long, penalties, etc. A wind turbine contract runs 50-100 pages and spans 2 decades. A plane contract runs into dozens of binders and spans the same length. Sometimes known wearable parts are included in the deal.
I wonder if that contract is available on line?
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 17, 2011 18:09:22 GMT -5
There is the cost of the planes and the cost of servicing them. The ones opposed are going to throw in every cost possible and the ones buying them will give you the price of purchase. Any given car, one needs about an hour maintenance per 500 hours running. A fighter jet incredibly more. For every hour they fly they need from a few to a dozen hours of maintenance. I think the F-22 needs 12 hours per hour flown. Is any part of that included in the price? Then there is the issue of parts availability, how much, how long, penalties, etc. A wind turbine contract runs 50-100 pages and spans 2 decades. A plane contract runs into dozens of binders and spans the same length. Sometimes known wearable parts are included in the deal. I wonder if that contract is available on line? To me, that arguement is tangential to the real issue raised in CH's post. Yes, most Canadian citizens realizes the need to upgrade - most probably also approve of an upgrade. And heck, I will even agree with the so-called experts and say the F-35 is the plane for Canada, a perfect fit perhaps. But why hide the costs? You used a car to illustrate your point above. How would you feel if you went into your local car dealership and agreed to pay $30,000 for a vehicle, and the dealership asked if would you like to also purchase the engine for $10,000? Would you tell everyone that you paid $30,000? It would be highly misleading. Harper is quoted as saying it is $75 million for each plane ($19 Billion for all the planes) .... an estimate that is off by 100% is down-right terrible , no matter what sector or business you are in. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 17, 2011 18:16:25 GMT -5
No problem , i will see him this weekend most likely. I'm looking forward to it. Last night, I looked at your wind resources. WOW....you guys have an unbelievable amount of wind energy. To give you an idea, a given turbine can produce DOUBLE the amount of energy from the BEST wind sites in Ontario. Three times from an "average" Ontario wind site. Just for the record, with THAT much wind, wind energy can become very cheap. If your interested, I'll give you the numbers and you can figure out yourself how cheap it can be.... 2 MW turbine cost 5 million and will run for 20 years with one cents per kw maintenance/repairs. . It's residual is zerp. It will produce 12,000 Mw a year in places like Bonavista. I spoke to him tonight while down to his house for supper. I don't pretend to know what it all means, and I hope this answers someone of your questions but he told me that NL has if not the best, one of the best per capita wind capacities in the country. He said generate 57MW of wind energy with a total capacity of 130MW, but when the capacity gets that high there is problems with flicking lights and generation ... the main problem is that there is no way of regulating wind energy here, and there is no way to store wind energy, and of course you have the problem of what do you do when there is no wind? He did say that wind energy would cost them 80 cents per kilowatt hour, and they are still not convinced that wind energy can ever be as cheap in the long run as hydroelectricity ... ... I'll admit I got lost in the technical jargon, (I'm not an electrical engineer) and I may have recalled some of this incorrectly as I am trying to remember 3 hours after the fact. But thats the gist of our talk. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 17, 2011 21:08:29 GMT -5
I spoke to him tonight while down to his house for supper. I don't pretend to know what it all means, and I hope this answers someone of your questions but he told me that NL has if not the best, one of the best per capita wind capacities in the country. He said generate 57MW of wind energy with a total capacity of 130MW, but when the capacity gets that high there is problems with flicking lights and generation ... the main problem is that there is no way of regulating wind energy here, and there is no way to store wind energy, and of course you have the problem of what do you do when there is no wind? He did say that wind energy would cost them 80 cents per kilowatt hour, and they are still not convinced that wind energy can ever be as cheap in the long run as hydroelectricity ... ... I'll admit I got lost in the technical jargon, (I'm not an electrical engineer) and I may have recalled some of this incorrectly as I am trying to remember 3 hours after the fact. But thats the gist of our talk. 57Mw from 130Mw is 44% which is fantastic yield compared to 25% avg, in Ontario. The cost is probably 8 cent per Kw. There is a problem with too much wind energy. You have to have a very large "sink" to absorb the fluctuation because wind can go from zero to full speed and everything in between within several minutes. Just for the record, you guys use about 1800 Mw and Ontario uses about 19,000 MW per hour averaged out. From what I read, the lower Churchill falls will generate 825 MW which is about half of all the energy you use. It "should" provide energy in the 7 cent range although projects like these are always under quoted and "surprises" are the rule. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 17, 2011 21:26:14 GMT -5
There is the cost of the planes and the cost of servicing them. The ones opposed are going to throw in every cost possible and the ones buying them will give you the price of purchase. Any given car, one needs about an hour maintenance per 500 hours running. A fighter jet incredibly more. For every hour they fly they need from a few to a dozen hours of maintenance. I think the F-22 needs 12 hours per hour flown. Is any part of that included in the price? Then there is the issue of parts availability, how much, how long, penalties, etc. A wind turbine contract runs 50-100 pages and spans 2 decades. A plane contract runs into dozens of binders and spans the same length. Sometimes known wearable parts are included in the deal. I wonder if that contract is available on line? To me, that arguement is tangential to the real issue raised in CH's post. Yes, most Canadian citizens realizes the need to upgrade - most probably also approve of an upgrade. And heck, I will even agree with the so-called experts and say the F-35 is the plane for Canada, a perfect fit perhaps. But why hide the costs? You used a car to illustrate your point above. How would you feel if you went into your local car dealership and agreed to pay $30,000 for a vehicle, and the dealership asked if would you like to also purchase the engine for $10,000? Would you tell everyone that you paid $30,000? It would be highly misleading. Harper is quoted as saying it is $75 million for each plane ($19 Billion for all the planes) .... an estimate that is off by 100% is down-right terrible , no matter what sector or business you are in. I don't know for sure. I would have to read the contract and even then, 50% would go way over my head. As for the engine, are we talking replacement engines? Because I seriously doubt one buys a plane without an engine. Right now, it's all rhetoric rather then facts. It would not be beyond the Liberals to read that as a separate replacement item throw it out as "buying the engine". Half truths, or more likely, half LIES take a life of their own and the intent is to push the other party to talk about what you want them to talk about. This is also the issue with costs. The Liberals had binders of information about the purchase, they claim it's not enough, they get even more binders and then,, declare that Harper is hiding the costs while spinning to the public that maintenance and replacement costs as "hidden" costs. EVERY military program has maintenance costs that runs into the billions. Claiming it's a hidden cost is simply bullsh!t. And those costs run over decades, not up front. The Liberals need to pull the conversation away from the economy.because they suck there with the electorate. To do that, they need "fishing hooks" to things that they want to talk about. That is why you get the "engines", the sudden love for Gurghis, the student ballot issue and a thousand other irrelevant crap that takes a life of their own. . And the Conservatives do the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 18, 2011 6:54:29 GMT -5
He did say that wind energy would cost them 80 cents per kilowatt hour, 57Mw from 130Mw is 44% which is fantastic yield compared to 25% avg, in Ontario. The cost is probably 8 cent per Kw. This is probably true ... 2 screaming kids, a wife looking at me quizzically about my sudden interest in wind energy, and answering questions about my latest project ... well, I'm getting to the point I need a recorder or a pen and paper.  |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 18, 2011 8:07:13 GMT -5
It’s from the National Post so take your rightish grain of salt . . Though neither could be called a fun read, the platforms recently released by the Liberals and Conervatives are deeply revealing. obody could work their way hrough these two documents nd claim not to know what the arties are about. I can't believe that this paragraph made it through!They thus offer a clear choice for Canadians, perhaps as stark a choice as any since the Conservatives proposed a free trade agreement and the Liberals vowed to block it. After five years in office, Stephen Harper is stating, in as clear a language as politicians ever allow themselves, what he believes in. The Liberal version is far woolier, much less concise. But that itself is part of the message. First hint of what's to come: the Liberal document is almost one-third longer, at 93 pages to 66, partly due to the Liberals' need to couch every statement in windy declarations of the party's all-consuming high-mindedness, moral eminence and greater connection to Canadian values. But mostly it results from their determination to push government into far more areas of activity than Harper's Conservatives, with policies on issues of every stripe. Even when they have little or nothing to say, they mask it with lengthy attestations of good intentions, making clear that -even if they don't have a viable position -they want people to know they care. Both make room to demean their opponents. The Tories, again, are more concise. Rather than recognize Michael Ignatieff 's party by its proper name, the platform constantly refers to it as "the Ignatieff-led coalition with the Bloc and NDP." The Liberals get even by portraying "the Harper government" as mean-spirited, tight-fisted, dishonest, incompetent, intolerant, secretive and an embarrassment on the world stage. Tories also hate volunteers and activists, and cheat women out of a fair wage. On taxes and the economy, the government says flatly it "will not raise taxes on Canadian consumers and families, and we will not raise taxes on the businesses that create jobs for Canadians." It will "eliminate the deficit and return to balanced budget. We will achieve this without raising taxes." The party says flatly it will not cut payments to individuals or provinces for health care, education or pensions. The Liberals don't lock themselves in quite so tightly. They promise to reduce the deficit to 1% of GDP within two years "and set subsequent rolling targets" to eliminate it eventually. They pledge to make the rich pay, raising corporate taxes to provide money for social programs and restricting stock option plans for wealthy executives. They say there will be no increase in personal or small business taxes, or the GST. Both parties pledge to review government spending in search of savings, though the Tories have taken more heat for it by specifying a figure -$4-billion -without giving details. The Liberals don't give details either, but the Conservative pledge has been treated as more threatening, perhaps because pundits believe they're more likely to follow through. It is assumed the Conservatives will save money by reducing the size of the civil service to suit their view of a more compact government. The Liberals, in contrast, assert their faith in the civil service as "a cornerstone of our democracy and good government" and pledge to work with public service unions in pursuit of "renewal." One of the clearest areas of the difference in attitudes is health care. Neither party addresses the nub of the issue: How will we pay for the frightening escalation in costs at a time when aging baby boomers are about to put more pressure than ever on the system? But the contrast in mindset is stark. The Conservatives deal with the issue in nine paragraphs, the Liberals devote six pages. Mr. Harper pledges to "work collaboratively with the provinces and territories to renew the Health Accord," which expires in 2014 and calls for annual increases of 6% in Ottawa's payments to the provinces. He has pledged publicly to maintain the 6% elevator after 2014, though it's not in the platform. But he is careful to specify that health care is a provincial responsibility and Tories will "respect limits on the federal spending power." In other words, we'll keep sending the money, but health is a provincial responsibility and we're not going to interfere. The Liberals, on the other hand, want to interfere at every turn. Ottawa is "a major player in public health and health promotion," and the Liberals plan to keep it that way. They have ideas for a new "Canadian Health Promotion Strategy" to promote exercise and healthy food. There will be a "buy local fund" and new standards on transfats and salt. They're working on a Canadian Brain Health Strategy that will get $100-million to study Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease, among others. There will be a rural health-care strategy, with incentives for doctors and nurses to practice in rural areas (which the Tories also offer). Liberals "will work with the provinces and territories to ensure that all Canadians from coast-to-coast-to-coast have a drug plan" covering major illnesses. There will be "Pan-Canadian Collaboration on Quality Improvement, Innovation and Best Practices." While far more ambitious, Mr. Ignatieff gives no more idea than Mr. Harper on how to deal with the unsustainable costs. The system is already under intense pressure; Mr. Ignatieff adds more programs without explaining how to pay for the ones we have. Health care is just one of many areas where the Liberals want to do more, while the Tories want to concentrate on responsibilities they already have. The Liberal platform is absolutely jammed with ideas for more government. There will be access for the Internet for all Canadians; training for "digital life skills" for the elderly and those with lower incomes; a new daycare plan; refinancing for the troubled First Nations University in Saskatchewan; a Canadian Clean Energy Partnership with the provinces; a cap-andtrade system for greenhouse gas emissions; $1-billion in incentives for renewable power entrepreneurs; a Canadian Freshwater Strategy, more protection for marine areas; a "world-leading oil spill contingency plan"; a ban on new oil exploration in the arctic and oil tanker transport off northern B.C.; a "poverty reduction plan" (that includes "a renewed focus on volunteerism"); a 100% budget increase for the Canada Council for the Arts; the restoration of two little-used arts programs ended under the Tories; the reinstatement of the Court Challenges Program, which finances activist groups to sue the government; elevation of civil service pay equity to a human right; the revival of rural mail services curtailed for budget reasons; more aid money for Africa (and less for whoever the Tories are giving it to); and more. Much of it is only vaguely if wordily explained. For example, the Liberals "will engage with coastal communities, First Nations, provincial governments, tourism operators, ocean industries and other ocean users in decisions about how to reduce risks to oceans health." I wonder how much that will cost. The party believes in collaboration, and lots of it. Its policy on international engagement outlines a return to the traditional Liberal faith in multilateral talking shops like the UN, the Commonwealth, the Organization of American States, NAFTA, the Francophonie and the G20. "Multilateralism has been fundamental to the pursuit of Canadian interests and our contribution in the past. In new ways, it must also be key to our future," the platform argues, referring, once again, to the Liberal view that Canadian Forces should be devoted mainly to "peacekeeping," and hinting strongly at a return to the days of thin budgets for the military. Plans to buy new jet fighters for the air force will be cancelled and all military procurement put under review. Money will be key to all future decisions. The Conservatives see national security as a core responsibility and treat it as an extension of their crime program. They plan to buy the F-35s, crack down on human smuggling, strengthen the Coast Guard by giving it law enforcement powers and establishing armed boarding teams, toughen procedures for deporting foreign criminals, expand a program to prevent hate crimes, re-introduce anti-terrorism legislation and continue its northern strategy by adding education programs and building or extending two far-north highways. Mr. Ignatieff dismisses Mr. Harper's regular visits to the far north as "military photo ops and grandstanding." Liberals would "reverse the mistakes" by appointing an Ambassador for Circumpolar Affairs and a permanent secretariat for the Arctic Council to deal with other polar nations. The Tories stress plans for new free trade initiatives -agreements with eight countries have been signed since 2006 -including India and the European Union. They will continue talks with the U.S, on a "perimeter agreement" dealing with border congestion and security concerns. They pledge an unlikely "one-for-one rule" on regulations that requires elimination of an existing rule for each new one introduced, and would establish a new Air Expeditionary Wing with 550 military personnel at CFB Bagotville. They also do their best to one-up the Liberals on patriotism: While the Liberals promise a big celebration for Canada's 150th birthday in 2017, the Tories see their birthday party, and raise them several additional celebrations, marking the War of 1812, the Queen's diamond jubilee in 2012, the 150th anniversary of the Charlottetown conference (where Confederation was planned) and the 200th anniversary of Sir John A. Macdonald's birth. The Conservatives also put in writing their refusal to pay for professional sports facilities, a dig at the Liberals promise to help build an arena in Quebec city, and would insist courts impose a "victim surcharge" on convicted criminals -a requirement that is often ignored. For good measure, they'd double the surcharge. It's two very different views. The Conservatives believe Ottawa has a specific role in welldefined areas of responsibility and should stick to them; the Liberals see themselves ranging broadly over Canada, putting their hand in where they think there's a need. The Conservatives believe budget certainty is key to providing other services, the Liberals see it as important but not a gamebreaker. The Tories see Canada playing a strong, high-profile role in the world, the Liberals prefer a more muted, collectivist approach. Mr. Harper's government sees plenty more areas to come down hard on law-breaking, Mr. Ignatieff 's Liberals think the Tories are paranoid. You didn't need a debate to figure out what these parties are about. It's right there in black and white. It's a distinct choice, and an important one. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 18, 2011 10:28:33 GMT -5
First hint of what's to come: the Liberal document is almost one-third longer, at 93 pages to 66, partly due to the Liberals' need to couch every statement in windy declarations of the party's all-consuming high-mindedness, moral eminence and greater connection to Canadian values. But mostly it results from their determination to push government into far more areas of activity than Harper's Conservatives, with policies on issues of every stripe. Even when they have little or nothing to say, they mask it with lengthy attestations of good intentions, making clear that -even if they don't have a viable position -they want people to know they care.
Why even bother reading the rest when it's prefaced with such derision and sarcasm?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 20, 2011 10:21:48 GMT -5
If ANYONE had any questions on who wanted an election and why........... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ignatieff's minority plan
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has for the first time acknowledged he could try to form a government -without going back to Canadian voters -if a Conservative minority is elected on May 2 but subsequently defeated in the House of Commons.
Mr. Ignatieff had repeatedly and unequivocally ruled out a formal coalition. In an interview with the CBC's Peter Mansbridge, he repeated he would not form a coalition, but noted Canada's Constitution allows for the Governor-General to turn to others in a minority Parliament if the first-place party is defeated on a vote of confidence.
"If [Conservative leader Stephen] Harper wins the most seats, forms a government but does not secure the confidence of the House -and I'm assuming Parliament comes back -then it goes to the Governor-General. That's what happens. That's how the rules work," Mr. Ignatieff said. "And then if the Governor-General wants to call on other parties -myself for example -to try to form a government, then we try to form a government. That's exactly how the rules work. And what I'm trying to say to Canadians is, I understand the rules, I respect the rules, I'll follow them to the letter and I'm not going to form a coalition."
He added: "What I'm prepared to do is talk to Mr. Layton or Mr. Duceppe or even Mr. Harper and say: 'Look, we've got an issue here. How do we solve it? Here's the plan I want to put before Parliament, this is the budget I would bring in, and then we take it from there."
Mr. Ignatieff's comments promise to become one of the pivotal issues in the remaining two weeks of the campaign, as demonstrated by the Conservatives' immediate response: "Michael Ignatieff's ambition to be prime minister trumps everything: our economic recovery, what's best for families, even how Canadians vote."
A parliamentary showdown may be inevitable if the Tories win a minority government, as polls currently suggest is likely. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has said that if the Tories are re-elected, he will introduce virtually the same budget that caused the government's defeat. The three opposition parties have, in turn, already said they will reject that budget, the Conservatives noted Tuesday.
At the outset of the election, Mr. Harper described the idea of a second-place party seeking a mandate to govern as "illegitimate," prompting his frequent appeals over the past three weeks for a "stable," majority Conservative government to thwart the aims of what he has called a "reckless Ignatieff-led coalition."
Mr. Ignatieff's comments on the issue Tuesday follow similar views expressed by Mr. Layton in a CBC interview a day earlier.
If the Conservatives or any other first-place party is defeated, Mr. Layton told Mr. Mansbridge on Monday night, "some other party gets a shot at it. We shouldn't immediately go back to an election -that would be ridiculous." Mr. Layton added: "In the parliamentary tradition, what they call a Westminster tradition, the Governor-General, in our case, would turn to another party, and say, 'Can you form a government? Can you form a workable government that would have support of the House?' "
Mr. Layton's comments prompted a sharp response early Tuesday from Mr. Harper during a campaign stop in Thunder Bay.
"If we win a minority -I think all the signals are clear -the other three parties are going to get together in some form," Mr. Harper told reporters on Tuesday morning. "They may not call it a coalition, but they're going to get together in some form -Mr. Layton confirmed it again last night -to run the country instead. So there will either be a Conservative majority or it will be a majority cobbled together between the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois."
Also on Tuesday, Liberal candidate Bob Rae -a former Ontario NDP leader who helped construct a Liberal-NDP coalition government in that province in 1985 -said in Ottawa that Mr. Harper has been spreading misinformation about Canada's parliamentary traditions.
"Mr. Harper can do many things," Mr. Rae told Postmedia News, but "he can't rewrite the Constitution of Canada."
"It's very, very clear," he added. "You form a government because you have the most seats, and if you win the confidence of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly of a province, you continue in government. And when you lose confidence, you lose."
www.nationalpost.com/news/Ignatieff+minority+plan/4644400/story.html~~~~~~~~~~~ Basically, Iggy and company wanted to bring down the government on whatever bs and THEN defeating a minority government and take control by voting down the budget. So now it's a guarantee that if Conservatives do not get a majority, the NDP, Bloc and Liberals will take control of parliament. To expect or assume otherwise is a naive. If you're fine with cabron taxes stripping billions from tax payers....and make no mistake that YOU will be paying those billions in times of inflation .... If you're fine with Quebec getting several billion in payola for keeping Liberals in power.... If you're fine with the NDP and Bloc creating policy.... Then vote vote for them. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 20, 2011 10:49:25 GMT -5
And believing that Harper wouldn't get together with Layton and Duceppe to do the same thing in the event of a Liberal minority would also be naive.
Oh yeah, he did that in 2004.
This is a mess no matter how you look at it.
Might be time to revamp the electoral process in this country.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 20, 2011 11:02:11 GMT -5
And believing that Harper wouldn't get together with Layton and Duceppe to do the same thing in the event of a Liberal minority would also be naive. Oh yeah, he did that in 2004. This is a mess no matter how you look at it. Might be time to revamp the electoral process in this country. That's the narrative the NDP, Libs and Bloc want to sell to justify their intent. Harper could of done it is 2008 and 2011. Did he do it? Better yet, did Harper give Quebec 5 billion in extortion money Duceppe was demanding to keep Harper in power just two months ago? Or several billions that NDP demanded in fantasy programs? Bet on that money sprouting wings with a coalition. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 20, 2011 11:37:29 GMT -5
Did Harper not get together with Layton and Duceppe and sign a letter in 2004 to the GG...saying that they would agree to form a government with Harper as PM if they ousted Martin?
Always 3 sides to any story. Partisan politics are just that--partisan. And most people will see only what they want to see.
They're all a bunch of sell-outs to various corporate masters.
Promise makers/breakers....all of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 20, 2011 13:36:30 GMT -5
Promise makers/breakers....all of them. And don't forget lying and contemptuous .... Harper has done FAR FAR worse than Adscam in his 5 years in power. If you are a conservative you turn the cheek and say "but the Libs did it too". I voted against the Libs for their indulgence back then... and by skippy I am voting against the Cons for their contemptuous behaviour now. To do otherwise , IMO, is hypocritical ... just as well paint a dog blue (red) and vote for it if you vote conservative (liberal) bcause you always did, and don't care about corruption. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 20, 2011 18:17:43 GMT -5
Did Harper not get together with Layton and Duceppe and sign a letter in 2004 to the GG...saying that they would agree to form a government with Harper as PM if they ousted Martin? Always 3 sides to any story. Partisan politics are just that--partisan. And most people will see only what they want to see. They're all a bunch of sell-outs to various corporate masters. Promise makers/breakers....all of them. There is a vast difference between toppling the government to grab power and saying that you are an alternative. There is no middle here. All three opposition parties said they will NOT support the budget. Clearly, without question, they will vote non-confidence immediately to form the next government. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 20, 2011 18:21:14 GMT -5
I hope NFLD doesn't complain about no money for Churchill Falls if they don't cote for Conservatives. After all, you can't have your cake and throw it at their face too.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 20, 2011 18:55:25 GMT -5
Did Harper not get together with Layton and Duceppe and sign a letter in 2004 to the GG...saying that they would agree to form a government with Harper as PM if they ousted Martin? Always 3 sides to any story. Partisan politics are just that--partisan. And most people will see only what they want to see. They're all a bunch of sell-outs to various corporate masters. Promise makers/breakers....all of them. There is a vast difference between toppling the government to grab power and saying that you are an alternative. There is no middle here. All three opposition parties said they will NOT support the budget. Clearly, without question, they will vote non-confidence immediately to form the next government. Well, it would all depend upon whether or not the budget truly deserves a non-confidence vote. Regardless, that's the "fear factor" Harper is banking on....and I have to say, I don't like what I'm seeing from the Libs/NDP at all....so maybe that's the correct strategy for the Conservatives to take. That's nothing new. Any minority PM has that card in their deck during an election. If Ignatieff was the minority PM, wouldn't you want Harper to join the others to do the same? You know a lot more about the economics of this country than I do, HA..... Can you convince me that Harper's budget/plan is better? I honestly don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 20, 2011 19:05:33 GMT -5
There is a vast difference between toppling the government to grab power and saying that you are an alternative. There is no middle here. All three opposition parties said they will NOT support the budget. Clearly, without question, they will vote non-confidence immediately to form the next government. Well, it would all depend upon whether or not the budget truly deserves a non-confidence vote. Regardless, that's the "fear factor" Harper is banking on....and I have to say, I don't like what I'm seeing from the Libs/NDP at all....so maybe that's the correct strategy for the Conservatives to take. That's nothing new. Any minority PM has that card in their deck during an election. If Ignatieff was the minority PM, wouldn't you want Harper to join the others to do the same? NO. Not with he Bloc. I despise Conservative candidate Fantino for the coward that he is (Caledon) and I certainly would despise Harper if he bought power by bribing the Bloc. I'm fiscal conservative and libertarian but I'm no sell-out. |
|
Still reading about it.
