The Canadian Press
January 9, 2009 at 4:08 PM EST
OTTAWA — The Liberal Party has bounced back into contention with Michael Ignatieff at the helm, a new poll suggests.
The Liberals have moved into a statistical tie with the governing Tories, according to the Nanos Research survey provided exclusively to The Canadian Press.
Liberal support stood at 34 per cent, one point ahead of the Conservatives and up eight points from the Liberals’ dismal showing in the Oct. 14 election under the leadership of Stéphane Dion.
The Tories slipped almost five points from the election to 33 per cent while NDP and Green support was virtually unchanged at 19 per cent and seven per cent respectively.
The Liberal resurgence was particularly pronounced in Quebec, where the poll indicates the party vaulted into the lead with 39 per cent support to 29 per cent for the Bloc Québécois, 17 per cent for the Tories and 14 per cent for the New Democrats.
Voter enchantment with Mr. Ignatieff, who was hastily installed as leader last month, appeared to be the driving force behind the Liberal bounce.
Thirty-four per cent of respondents said they have a more favourable impression of the party since the change in leadership. Only eight per cent had a less favourable impression of the Liberals while 55 per cent reported no change.
Moreover, 23 per cent of those polled said Mr. Ignatieff would make the best prime minister — double Mr. Dion’s support, although still 12 points behind Prime Minister Stephen Harper. NDP Leader Jack Layton, who used to routinely best Mr. Dion, was chosen by 15 per cent.
In Quebec, 30 per cent picked Mr. Ignatieff as best prime minister, five points more than Mr. Harper.
Pollster Nik Nanos said the survey suggests Mr. Ignatieff’s ascendance to the helm has given the Liberal party a real opportunity for growth, particularly in Quebec. But he warned that honeymoons for new leaders can often be short.
“What I’ve found is whenever there’s a new leader, before people get to know who that leader is they project positive things onto that leader,” Mr. Nanos said in an interview.
“So I think for Michael Ignatieff it is positive news but he has to be very careful because he’s still a bit of a blank slate, so to speak.”
Nevertheless, Mr. Nanos said the poll indicates Mr. Harper, “who’s had a bit of a free ride” thus far, is now facing a serious contender for power.
As a result, he said Conservatives might be tempted to launch a campaign aimed at painting a negative picture of Mr. Ignatieff before he has a chance to define himself — a ploy they used successfully against Mr. Dion.
But Mr. Nanos predicted such a blatantly partisan tactic in the midst of a global economic crisis would likely backfire.
“Canadian are fixated on the economy. They’re worried about their jobs, they’re worried about their savings,” he said.
“I think if the Conservatives embarked on what I’ll say is a significant initiative to attack Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals, it will probably backfire because what it shows is Stephen Harper is focusing more on politics as opposed to jobs and the economy.”
Mr. Nanos said the survey also suggests Mr. Layton and the NDP should worry that support they picked up due to voter aversion to Mr. Dion may drift back to the Liberals under Mr. Ignatieff.
Indeed, he said the poll could foreshadow a return to a more traditional two-party, east-west dynamic in federal politics, wherein the Tories dominate the West and are competitive with the Liberals in Ontario while the Grits are strong in Quebec and Atlantic Canada.
“If the Liberals do manage to pick up support in Quebec, we’re actually going back the way Canadian politics was a decade ago,” he said.
According to the survey, Liberals expanded their lead in Atlantic Canada (44 per cent to the Tories’ 28) and regained a narrow lead in Ontario (39 per cent to the Tories’ 35 and the NDP’s 16).
The Conservatives continued to dominate western Canada, with 44 per cent to the Liberals’ 24 per cent and the NDP’s 23 per cent.
The telephone poll of 1,003 Canadians was conducted Jan. 3-7 and is considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points 19 times in 20.
So what do you think about the current political environment?
Cheers,
NJN
Remember to rate the views of others - to allow us to recognize the opinion leaders in our national conversation.
Individuals with the top ratings make it to Nik’s Leaderboard
RSS feed
Most Read Comments
Highest Rated Comments
This poll must reflect disenchantment with Conservatives as Michael Ignatieff is... more
gerry l (British Columbia) 09 Jan 22:11
The national numbers are not very different from those in the Nanos poll publish... more
Peter3 (Ontario) 10 Jan 00:57
Mr. Harper is losing credibility with Canadians. - He called an early electio... more
Hawker (Alberta) 10 Jan 07:49
And by his own admission, in writing, Iggy is more like Bush than Harper ever wa... more
MRM (Manitoba) 16 Jan 08:39
Peter3, The Liberals are almost completely unanimous on one issue -- they want ... more
RonaldODowd (Ontario) 10 Jan 12:20
Syl, The progressive side of the equation has no power base -- worse yet, no ch... more
RonaldODowd (Ontario) 10 Jan 22:45
Comments
gerry l
This poll must reflect disenchantment with Conservatives as Michael Ignatieff is still relatively unknown. These numbers are truly amazing - when was the last time the Bloc was displaced by 10 points in Quebec by any federalist party?
Harper burned bridges when he insulted Bloc MPs, and by extension Quebecers, and his party now pays the price.
[updated Fri Jan 09 22:11:02 -0500 2009]
09 Jan 22:11
28 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Dear Nik, What were the questions asked in the survey? I would like to know what they were before making a comment on the results.
Thanks again.
[updated Fri Jan 09 22:26:47 -0500 2009]
09 Jan 22:26
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Peter3
The national numbers are not very different from those in the Nanos poll published a month after the election. The Liberals are up a few, the BQ are down substantially. There are some regional shifts, but nothing that will make anybody especially comfortable.
I doubt that any of the war rooms see this as a long-term stable result. It will be a couple of months before a clear picture of how the various parties have fared in the post-election storm season comes into focus. Mr. Ignatieff is probably happy with the Quebec numbers for now, and hoping that the Atlantic numbers are not a statisitical artifact related to small sample size. Gilles Duceppe can't like these numbers much at all. Everybody else is somewhere in between, I think, although these numbers are likely not making Mr. Harper happy for reasons that are more complex than those confronting Mr. Duceppe. His (Harper's) leadership is greatly weakened by events of his own making, and he's going to need to show some support if he isn't going to go down sooner rather than later.
I don't like the "best PM" question. I think that the leadership index question that ran during the election gives a more detailed look at how people are viewing the respective leaders. The best PM is a horse race question that doesn't mean a whole lot when there's no election on.
I might agree with Nik's take on the NDP-Liberal trade-off if this poll had been done six months after Mr. Ignatieff's ascension, but at this point such conclusions are really just speculation. The next two weeks are going to have a lot to do with who, if anyone, gets to eat Stephen Harper's lunch. All things considered, I see Conservative bleed to the Liberals and Liberal bleed to the NDP as the more likely scenario if Mr. Ignatieff is able to keep his party on the rails (and as an academic with a tendency to ramble off topic, he has the potential for making gaffes that would be magnified in the current circumstances). Mr. Ignatieff needs to find a way to take the edge off his image with the left wing of his party, to be ok on that flank. That still looks like a tough sell at this point, especially without limiting his opportunities for growth on the right. If Mr. Ignatieff stumbles, his party could be in desperate trouble very quickly.
I think we have a few months of very interesting politics ahead. Don't bet the farm on any of these ponies just yet.
[updated Sat Jan 10 00:57:16 -0500 2009]
10 Jan 00:57
41 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Tom Good
The current political environment is anything but static---it is charged. Harper now has an articulate, viable challenger with empty pockets. That new face, though, has an easy smile, has a spring in his step, has a razor sharp repartee and has warmth without a sweater. Who said a leader's personna was without consequence?
Harper is the incumbent and all things being equal, politics favours the incumbent. I also believe the Canadian electorate is sick of indecisive elections over the last several years. I would suggest that if Harper has learned anything from the confrontation / crisis he provoked, he will open the House with a well thought out budget favouring middle of the road policies addressing Canadian domestic issues. If he does, he will be able to calm the storm that he stirred up before he gave new meaning to the word "prorogue"
I further believe Ignatieff would be reluctant to pull the plug on the government unless he is forced to do so and go to an election rather than go to a coalition. Mind you, Harper may feel he may have an electoral advantage in the Spring rather than allow the Liberals time to rebuild their organization and funds.
Harper has shown he is a Canadian politician, a smart tactician but he also prone to step into the quicksands of politics. His claim to the "highroad" is just that----a claim. He is fallible like the rest of us and that is possibly a shock to the strong partisans on that side of the road. With keen hearing, sincere compromise and a modicum of statesmanship for Canadians, rather than partisanship, I am sure Harper, if HE WANTS, could stay as the Government of Canada for the remainder of the year---maybe longer.
[updated Sat Jan 10 05:57:49 -0500 2009]
10 Jan 05:57
24 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Hawker
Mr. Harper is losing credibility with Canadians.
- He called an early election for the sole purpose of getting a majority;
- He ran a campaign with no economic platform, oblivious to the coming recession;
- He tabled a bill that he must have known the opposition could not support;
- He used divisive strategies to fan the flames of national unity;
- He insulted our intelligence by calling a coalition government 'undemocratic';
- With parliament locked-out to protect his power, he flip-flopped on Senate reform to make 18 appointments.
Canada has had enough!
[updated Sat Jan 10 07:49:26 -0500 2009]
10 Jan 07:49
104 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Bernie
I'm a bit surprised about the height of the bounce.( that's all it is). I would expect to see support rising for the Liberal party but at a more gradual rate.
Anything that makes trouble for the Harper government is a positive but I don't see support for Ignatieff as much a hopeful sign.
I could no more support a party lead by Ignatieff than I can with one lead by Harper. They are both too much more interested in saying and doing things that garner more votes for themselves and their parties than in doing good for the country.
Only yesterday Ignatieff displayed another of his poor judgement when he gave overwhelming support to the Israelis and their action re Palestine. I have little respect for a person in his position who a problem thinking things through properly.
Dion has more intelligence and good judgement in his little finger than Ignatieff will ever acquire in his whole body.
I feel sad that the Canadian voters would give either of these Harper or Ignatieff the opportunity to make decisions that would affect all of us.
I hope that when parliament opens again that all opposition parties will vote against the government at the first opportunity. I don't want another election but if the other parties can't reach an agreement for a year or two, then so be it. Bring it on!
[updated Sat Jan 10 10:23:58 -0500 2009]
10 Jan 10:23
21 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
MRM
I think that those making any predictions on this single poll are being somewhat premature. At the moment polls are rather meaningless and are varying widely. For instance here is one that will be released today if it has not been already:
“Amidst Deepening Economic Concern, Majority (55%) Still Believes Canada on Right Track
Tories (39%) Continue to Lead Grits (28%), NDP (15%), Green (9%) and Bloc (8%)
January 10, 2009
Contact Darrell Bricker at (416) 324-2001
Category Ipsos Reid/Global/National Post , Politics & Elections (National)
Location Canada”
Not that I think that this one is any more accurate or relevant than Nik’s is. This is not a criticism of the polling techniques rather a point on timing. There are just too many factors that are unknown at this point to make any kind of accurate predictions based on polling. For instance no one knows how the budget will be received or how the economy will go over the next few months? CIBC is predicting that the worst is over and that we will start to see a recovery by the start of the third quarter of this year so this will also have an impact on the polls. Of course we know that Iggy will not bring the govt down because he is simply not ready to fight an election and will not be until after the convention this Spring at the earliest. So if wants to go to the polls his window of opportunity is post Convention to about late summer in my view. After that his chances for success diminish as the economy gets better.
Nik is correct when he says that at the moment Iggy is enjoying a honeymoon with voters as they really do not know him yet. One has to wonder if the fact that the best he can do is a tie for a “honeymoon” bounce is a sign of future trouble for him. He should also be worried about these numbers for another reason. The Bloc and NDP will now be gunning for him. With his recent shift of LPC policy to the right he has given them plenty of ammo with which to attack him. They are also no longer bound by the coalition agreement which has now been all but formally scuttled by the Grit leader. So Jack and Gilles will go for the jugular in an attempt to bleed away the left wing of the party to their banners. Rae will also be working on the inside to gather the left wing supporters within the party to his side. This is precisely why the Tories do not have to risk a negative backlash by defining Iggy. The left will do it for them.
The game is afoot! It should be an interesting year.
[updated Sat Jan 10 14:53:05 -0500 2009]
10 Jan 14:53
109 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
MRM, nice post. This poll shows the same splits of others but without several back to back a trend will be impossible to spot.
Everyone agrees the "cash strapped" Libs can't afford to go to the polls until they get the Political Subsidy Cheque.
The Honeymoon will be short.
The NDP and Bloc attack ads will define the new Liberal leader. The CPC don't have to defend the Right of Centre Leader who will be propping up the CPC.
The Best Opportunity the opposition have is an ADSCAM level scandal.
[updated Sat Jan 10 16:06:46 -0500 2009]
10 Jan 16:06
RonaldODowd
MRM,
Respectfully, we both know that Bob Rae will do no such thing. Rae is sterling silver class personified. He demonstrated that when he endorsed Ignatieff's leadership (Leblanc did the same.)
Do you actually believe that a party which is on the verge of taking power will start torpedoing itself as momentum is building with the voters? Come on, I wasn't born yesterday. Get real.
The Liberals will be as tight as a drum unless the government manages to peel away several MPs which was predicted but has not yet materialized!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As for Jack and Gilles, when Canadians make up their mind that the PM's time is up in Ottawa, they won't be turning to the aforementioned leaders. They will move to the Liberals, and with enough force to insure that Ignatieff takes office. Some expect an eventual minority for Michael. I expect a majority if the timing is just right.
Harper had better keep in touch with you as much as possible. He will need your help. Badly.
[updated Sat Jan 10 17:19:37 -0500 2009]
10 Jan 17:19
MRM
Dowd – Respectfully, I think it is you that needs a dose of reality. Perhaps a little less naivety would also be in order? Liberals have been torpedoing each other for years. Keeping them together and on message is like herding cats. Rae is also not a fool; he is a realist and saw the writing on the wall. That is why prior to supporting Iggy on Dec 9th he said on Dec 8th:
"I think that it's in the interest of both Mr. Ignatieff and me to have a process that's democratic," said Rae, who was joined by supporter and MP Gerard Kennedy. Rae added that many Liberals reject the prospect that Ignatieff could be installed as leader without consulting with the party's grassroots. "It's something that outrages people," he said. "That's a very widespread feeling."
As for the leftists within the party, believe it or not there actually some Liberals who will not do anything to get back in power. Some actually have principles, many of which Michael Ignatieff does not stand for. They will leave rather than support him. Remember, somewhat like you claim to have done? These principled left wingers will not stay and support Iggy just to get rid of Harper because they view him as the same thing.
Here is an article from the NP you may find interesting:
Steve Janke: Ignatieff shift puts pressure on Liberal left
Posted: January 09, 2009, 10:00 AM by Kelly McParland
Full Comment, Steve Janke, Canadian politics
Here is an extract from it:
“But I'm more interested in the internal stresses building up in the Liberal Party. Under Dion, the left wing was ascendant. Left-wing Liberals must have thought it was only a matter of time before they owned the party. So much for that, eh? Are these Liberals going to allow themselves to be marginalized quietly? I don't think so, and mostly because of that coalition. These Liberals came so close, and now Ignatieff is throwing it all away talking like, well, a Conservative. Ignatieff has been in power for barely a month.
Bob Rae is still in the wings. And Rae was committed to the coalition. If Rae was leader, he'd be saying that the Liberal Party, like the NDP, would vote down the upcoming budget, no matter what.
So these Liberals (formerly Dion Liberals, now Rae Liberals) are going to be vocal. They can have power ...now. They can have high taxes...now. They can implement draconian environmental measures...now. That can massively increase spending on social programs...now. They can support terrorist organizations that are sufficiently anti-American...now.
Why wait? Indeed, why wait for May?
How is Michael Ignatieff going to marginalize these Liberals? And if he tries to, can the party contain the pressure that builds up until one side or the other emerges victorious, or will the party explode before that happens?”
[updated Sat Jan 10 18:22:57 -0500 2009]
10 Jan 18:22
RonaldODowd
MRM,
Nothing quite breeds caucus solidarity like a pending cabinet appointment. God knows you are well aware how Harper's cabinet is loathe to make waves even in the most dire of political circumstances, Stockwell excepted.
For Rae to get his choice ministry he has to toe the line if the Liberals are elected in a future general election. He can't afford to alienate the interim and future leader, Michael Ignatieff. Rae will keep his powder dry. He well remembers the complete chaos which followed the Chrétien-Martin civil war. He won't be anyone's lightening rod toward political disaster. Party discipline will win out. One leader has recently gone by the boards. No one is looking to repeat the experience. Just ask Jimmy K.
[updated Sat Jan 10 19:18:40 -0500 2009]
10 Jan 19:18
syl (suspended)
ROD, I have followed the Libs closely for many years and they have always had internal issues because they are an open party.
You have it right. Iggy will use potential cabinet positions to keep everyone more or less in line.
MRM cannot ever see things w/o his Tory blinders getting in the way.
I also think there is more likely hood of a Tory split than a Libs one. The progressives in the party have been muzzled for far too long to simply sit and take it much longer while the party tanks in the polls.
[updated Sat Jan 10 22:28:38 -0500 2009]
10 Jan 22:28
RonaldODowd
Syl,
The progressive side of the equation has no power base -- worse yet, no champion. No one in cabinet is able or willing to go to bat for that side of the party -- not even MacKay who led the PCP into this merger.
[updated Sat Jan 10 22:45:54 -0500 2009]
10 Jan 22:45
parnel2 (Suspended for misuse of forum)
ROD, I think that's where Mulroney is skulking around and why his name is being muddied again by the so called Schreiber pre-inquiry. There is some dirty pool being played by the reformers inside the party now t keep themselves in control.
[updated Sun Jan 11 07:04:18 -0500 2009]
11 Jan 07:04
Parnel2 - Did you ever learn the word "objective" in your life. Its the opposite of subjective and one you should learn about (Sound familiar?)
Can you try to follow your own advice, it would be a shame to lose you again for track record on this forum.
[updated Sun Jan 11 08:48:26 -0500 2009]
11 Jan 08:48
parnel2 (Suspended for misuse of forum)
uninfomed 1....I think you should watch your own back for a change.....you are not immune here.
Just answer the post or ignore it.
[updated Sun Jan 11 18:05:09 -0500 2009]
11 Jan 18:05
westerner (suspended)
Hi Parnel, TPQ, MBAGS, gohabs1 and now parnel2. Grow up and behave yourself.
[updated Sun Jan 11 21:50:31 -0500 2009]
11 Jan 21:50
MRM
Pornel - It is the opposition that is keeping the Schreiber affair alive and you and your ilk that have been defending them for doing it. It was not that long ago that you were accussing the Tories of trying to sneak him out of the country to avoid the enquiry. Now it is the "reformers" who are doing it. What a load of crap! Just like your fantasy about Mulroney trying to organize the removal of the PM. More nonsense that you just made up. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously?
Speaking of fantasies, how is that merger of the Bloc and the NL PCs with Danny Williams as the leader going anyway?
[updated Sun Jan 11 21:01:52 -0500 2009]
11 Jan 21:01
elf
hmm- McKay - what a guy -- there was a time years ago that I quite thought he might get ahead in the Prog. Con party - be groomed to lead - ? - then came that betrayal of David Orchard for all to see at the leadership convention - the promises made and broken - he is a wonderful example of why we have no faith in politicians. And don't forget his pitiful " little boy lost " display after the Belnda affaitr - I Ithink he should find another career
[updated Wed May 20 12:41:49 -0400 2009]
20 May 12:41
elf
don't know how my Peter McKay comment got in here - I was responding to a somment on another thread ?? !!
[updated Wed May 20 12:43:09 -0400 2009]
20 May 12:43
MRM
Dowd - I just watched Rae on Question Period undermining Iggy on the Gaza situation. Not bad for the Foreign Affairs critic and in record time.
[updated Sun Jan 11 12:01:03 -0500 2009]
11 Jan 12:01
RonaldODowd
MRM,
I prefer the terms nuance, context and perspective.
[updated Sun Jan 11 12:30:21 -0500 2009]
11 Jan 12:30
MRM
Dowd - Nice attempt at spin but Rae clearly has a different perspective of how Canada should view the crisis and how we should be dealing with it than Iggy does and BTW, the PM who both agree on this point. Besides, no mater how you prefer it, I doubt that Iggy will be to pleased that his Foreign Policy critic is publicly expressing party positions with a different "nuance, context and perspective" than the Leader's "nuance, context and perspective"?
[updated Sun Jan 11 13:35:30 -0500 2009]
11 Jan 13:35
RonaldODowd
MRM,
Touché.
[updated Sun Jan 11 13:50:15 -0500 2009]
11 Jan 13:50
MRM
Dowd - I agree with you that Rae is a very smart guy. He will be very careful and will as you say keep his powder dry, at least until he is appointed. My point was that he is not the pillar of virtue that you would have us believe he is and he has not given up his hopes of being leader. He will quietly gather support within and await his opportunity to lead. Likely after the next election.
[updated Sun Jan 18 07:54:36 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 07:54
RonaldODowd
MRM,
There aren't any pillars of virtue in politics -- it's a contradiction in terms to the definition of a politician. Ignatieff and Rae were once the best of friends -- they are almost like a couple -- they know each other very well and some level of friendship still remains between them. In other words, Rae like the rest of us knows that Michael is our shot at power. After Michael will come generational change, and with all due respect to Bob, that doesn't mean him.
[updated Sun Jan 18 08:04:24 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 08:04
MRM
Dowd – That is true about politicians. I guess I took your comment that “Rae is sterling silver class personified” to mean that you thought that he was above that sort of thing. I think that calling them best friends is a stretch though. I think that they were roommates in University for a year and then had no contact at all for over 30 years. They both like to perpetuate this life long friends image when it suits them but it is just a façade.
[updated Sun Jan 18 08:33:21 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 08:33
MRM, why do you think we get accused of wearing blinders when we point out the track record of leaks and power struggle within the Liberal ranks?
Why when we use information provided by Liberals in our posts to substiante our comments we get called partisan? When did providing FACTS to back up comments become Spin?
I find it very interesting when asked for our fellow posters to back up their posts with links and real names I get told the CPC have "control" and no one speaks out.
[updated Sun Jan 11 08:46:00 -0500 2009]
11 Jan 08:46
MRM
Informed - It is because they are for the most part elderly, angry recluses who are unhappy with how their lives have turned out. As they are basically uneducated about the issues that they speak on, they tend to believe all of the left wing rhetoric and spin that they hear and then react to it largely on emotion. They mistake this for idealism and repeat the same nonsense over and over so many times that at some point it becomes reality for them. They accuse others of being blind but when faced with facts that challenge their beliefs they cannot refute them because their position is illogical and not based in fact. They cannot seem to see beyond there own misguided ideological beliefs even when the truth is staring them in the face. Their only response is to engage in hate filled, mean spirited personal attacks and low class, bigoted, diatribe that is not worthy of a response. Their misguided approach to politics makes everything personal so they are incapable of conducting any real or meaningful debate despite professing a desire to do so.
This is not true of all those on the left. To be fair it is a relatively small percentage and in fact we have our fair share of these types on the right. It just so happens that this site seems to be a magnet for left wing kooks. This is really a shame because it tends to marginalize those others on the left on this site who are capable of offering a differing opinion in a logical and respectful manner. They tend to be lumped in with these fanatics and thereby inhibited from getting their point across. They are also somewhat to blame for this situation because they align themselves with the kooks by not speaking out against them and as a result are also not taken seriously.
I see that pornel and sly (no not misspelled and they may be one in the same) have "skulked" back onto the site. Not to worry they cannot help being themselves so it won't be long until they are punted off again, and re-appear under another name of course.
[updated Sun Jan 11 12:50:20 -0500 2009]
11 Jan 12:50
parnel2 (Suspended for misuse of forum)
MRM, I have not skulked back on. The moderator is well aware I'm back.
[updated Sun Jan 11 18:08:37 -0500 2009]
11 Jan 18:08
parnel2 (Suspended for misuse of forum)
You mean we should name names for the pending wheat board scandal that is just
starting to brew or should we wait for the charges from the RCMP first?
Please advise
[updated Sun Jan 11 18:07:33 -0500 2009]
11 Jan 18:07
westerner (suspended)
We are not surprised that the Liberal run Wheat Board may have a scandal brewing. I wonder who got a brown envelope this time.
[updated Sun Jan 11 21:52:14 -0500 2009]
11 Jan 21:52
parnel2 (Suspended for misuse of forum)
Its tory MP's the RCMP are after westerner.....your closed mind bias is showing.
[updated Mon Jan 12 07:48:30 -0500 2009]
12 Jan 07:48
westerner (suspended)
Thank you for the compliment Terry.
[updated Mon Jan 12 12:00:18 -0500 2009]
12 Jan 12:00
Michael C
Must have been Mulroney, he's the only politician I know that was handed money in an envelope.
[updated Fri Jan 16 22:46:08 -0500 2009]
16 Jan 22:46
Michael C
Are you really going to suggest Mulroney was the last politician who was handed money improperly or is it the problem the colour of the envelope the real area of concern?
Check with the auditor General of the Millions missing/wasted under the Liberals.
BTW I have NO problem with Mulroney if found guilty sent to JAIL. Any politician should not be above the law.
[updated Fri Jan 16 23:06:49 -0500 2009]
16 Jan 23:06
Michael C
Yes I am. No politician has been caught taking money in an envelope exept Mulroney. Yes that is what I am saying. No politician was accused of taking money personally or being handed an envelope with money in the sponsorhip scandal by the Auditor Generall. They were however accused of mismanagment. The only ones accussed of taking money improperly were the firms that overbilled the government. Yes read the Auditor Generals report, she accusses no politician of taking money personally.
[updated Sat Jan 17 01:22:06 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 01:22
Michael C,
It is safe to suggest than "mismanagement" of $ 40 million or Billions lost through lack of "effective controls, oversight, violation of rules" is appropriate or better handing an envelope of taxpayers money?
Really?
Taxpayers aka voters did not think so and sent Mulroney PC's, Martin packing at a general election.
Read the Auditor General Report(s) again without your blinders. I will hold ALL parties accountable for waste and theft.
I find it comical you are trying to suggest theft is appropriate in any form.
All the parties have been found guilty of waste and abuses.
[updated Sat Jan 17 10:43:06 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 10:43
Michael C
No, don't put words in my mouth. I did not say the sponsorhip Scandal was ok. It was bad. I simply said Mulroney is the only Canadian politician to have accepted an envelpe of mone inappropriately.
Yes, the AG did say she would hold all accountabe for theft. That is what she did and is why no politicians are in jail as no politician stole money. They misnanaged it, disgraceful yes, illegal no. It is not correct to say mismanagement is theft or bribery or kickbacks.
That said please do not try and say I am condoning the Sponsorship[ Scandal, I am not, I just can see the facts for what they are not what I wish others to believe to promote my cause. It is blinders that allow one to believe that all involved with the sponsorhip scandal stole or took bribes. That simply is not true. It is also blinders to think all conservatives are liars like Harper. that simply is not true. Also, all conservatives are not crooks because Mulroney took an envelope of money. These are reasonable facts. I'm not happy about it but I realize it is the truth.
[updated Sat Jan 17 11:09:44 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 11:09
calmecam
Michael C
There you go with that inconvenient nuance thing again...
I tell you, Conservatives are allergic to nuance. It adds colour to the black and white.
In Harper's Conservative land no colour is allowed (only off-colour commentary or discolouration of political opponents is allowed)
[updated Sat Jan 17 11:51:06 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 11:51
Michael C.
Again we both find ourselves in agreement.
People responsible should be held accountable. Who was responsible for the lack of oversight and control and paper trail regarding ADSCAM?
How many civil servants and staffers were fired prior to the election for violations and mismanagement in the ADSCAM affair? After? Why did we not have a paper trail of documents of the money?
We can all debate but our Inquiries have "little" or no "teeth" to get to the bottom and uncover the all the facts. In most cases inquiries are unable from a lack of direction and resources to get the job done.
I don't think we get an truly independent accounting of all the creative accounting and dealings of government.
BOTH parties the PC and the LIBS have had a list of scandals and waste of taxpayers dollars.
[updated Sat Jan 17 12:42:40 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 12:42
Michael C.
We both agree both the Liberals and CPC are NOT evil and are responsible for the sky is falling CRAP.
Both parties take turns and running the "Love Boat" until the list of scandals and screw ups become too big for reasonable Canadians to swallow.
That being said, I just am not buying the OBC (Ottawa Bubble Crap) being spun by Haters of Harper.
B.M. yes bad boy should pay his income taxes. Libs bad for not nailing him with Schrieber if he is found guilty. (But that really has nothing to do with Harper)
[updated Sat Jan 17 13:13:50 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 13:13
elf
oh for goodness sake un-Informed 1 - move on - you know that nobody in the Liberal Party was found guilty of any of that stuff - you know it was people on the outside - there are no millions owed by the Liberal party to Canadians -
The Harper Gang lied and lied in that election to try and beat Mr Martin - they lied about everything - remember the headline " Paul Martin agress with child porn ? " give us a break - You and your CON buddies are like little parrots - Steven said it so it must be true - repeat repeat - Lyin Brian did take cash in an envelope by his own admission !! And as I see it we are on our way to another round of lies and more lies - the newest ads are pretty disgusting but I guess they say more about Harper than they do about Michael and other Canadians who for one reason or another spend time in other countries !! Harper - what a small minded jerk !!
[updated Wed May 20 12:54:51 -0400 2009]
20 May 12:54
westerner (suspended)
Sponsorship Scandal!! Payments to Liberal Party operatives. Estimated $40 million still unaccounted for!! Shame, Shame
[updated Sat Jan 17 00:53:12 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 00:53
Michael C
Yes, but as I stated to Informed1, I said no politician has been caught taking money in an envelope. That is a point in fact. Hard to swallow maybe, but a point in fact. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying the Liberals were ok in the sponsorship scandal.
[updated Sat Jan 17 01:25:12 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 01:25
calmecam
But Michael C...
You are expecting "Stretch" here to understand the concept of nuance... something to which he/she is severly allergic.
You'll get more satisfaction out of banging your head against a brick wall... if anything, it feels good when you stop.
[updated Sat Jan 17 08:03:54 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 08:03
Michael C
Yes, I am beginning to think I am arguing with one of Harper's trollers.
So be it. This kind of behaviour and denial will hurt them in the polls as they are now turning off their own supporters that have not hardened their denial defence mechanisms or morals. It is shameful behaviour that Canadians do not look favourably on.
[updated Sat Jan 17 09:34:46 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 09:34
Michael C,
Referring to people as sub-human is insulting (trollers). I don't think resorting and using personal attacks is appropriate.
I am open to agreeing with you when you present a logical and balanced point.
Liberals were responsible for ADSCAM both in agreement.
Mulroney in an alleged "scandal" regarding money in an envelope.
(I am waiting for a conviction in the courts, before I call it proven).
We may not agree on policies or actions, but referring to people as sub-human (Troll) is without merit.
Please try to stick to presenting your ideas without personal attacks.
Thanks.
[updated Sat Jan 17 11:23:19 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 11:23
Michael C
Sorry, but you misunderstand the word "troller". It is a party worker who lurks on blogs in order change the channel or slant the conversation back to party lines. It is not sub-human. And you may not be one, but you sound like one at times when you put words in my mouth that I actually did not say.
The fact is that Mulroney took the envelope of cash. He says it was for services rendered. Well we all know that:) The trial will tell us what those sevices were that he would need to take an envelope of cash.
[updated Sat Jan 17 11:30:28 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 11:30
calmecam
lmao
This is too funny!
You say "troller" and he/she hears "troll" and then predictably uncorks yet another bottle of "you hurt my feeling with a personal attack that didn't really exist but I chose of my own free will to invent" whine.
[updated Sat Jan 17 11:56:58 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 11:56
elf
calmecam - yes it is funny - it makes for amusing way to spend an hour or so - ha ha
[updated Wed May 20 12:59:16 -0400 2009]
20 May 12:59
westerner (suspended)
Ah yes! The old Liberal principle of "Guilty until Proven Innocent".
[updated Sat Jan 17 11:57:47 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 11:57
Michael C,
If you are referring to the "trolling" of party hacks than your are making a fair comment. Unfortunately we should not allow ourselves to paint each other as such.
The zealots of both sides use inappropriate comments when attacking each other and it is not conducive to debating our points of view.
I already agreed with you Mulroney received money that was not reported on his Income Tax and MAY have not been fully disclosed his role in the Liberal Investigation. My question was the inept handling of the case by the LIBS and the settlement with taxpayers money.
It is funny how I can find blame and disagree with the PC,NDP,BLOC, Greens, CPC and the LIBS quite freely. What about you?
[updated Sat Jan 17 12:13:15 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 12:13
calmecam
Informed1
I'm sure that fishermen (and fisherwomen?) across the country would be oh so pleased that your first instinct was to consider the word "troller" to be indicative of being sub-human.
[updated Sat Jan 17 11:54:12 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 11:54
calmecam,
I would never suggest calling people who fish as sub human. Michael explained his definition.
I don't think it is appropriate to attack people who don't agree with you or have made different career choices.
BTW I take my kids fishing with and we catch and release.
[updated Sat Jan 17 12:19:35 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 12:19
calmecam
Again you read what you wanted to read into my post and not what was there.
You didn't ask Michael to explain what he meant. You said: "Referring to people as sub-human is insulting (trollers). I don't think resorting and using personal attacks is appropriate."
You were the first to accuse another of calling people sub-human.
You were the first to assume "troller" was an insult.
My surprise was that your first instinct upon seeing the word "troller" was that it would be the insult "troll".
I expressed my surprise that it was even possible for any person who speaks English to mistake "troller" with "troll".. and somehow to you, that is an "attack on people who don't agree with me or have made different career choices"??!!
Yikes!
[updated Sat Jan 17 16:34:37 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 16:34
calmecam,
Are you really surprised people label Harper and supporters of Harper inappropriately? Read the blog you are guilty of expressing inappropriate remarks.
You are referring to our PM as a possible pathological liar and the most corrupt PM with mental issues. Correct?
So I think it was fair or logical in reference to read Harper trollers as such,
I don't insult our past PM's in your fashion. It must be about how our parents raised us.
[updated Sat Jan 17 19:11:27 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 19:11
calmecam
My remarks are NOT inappropriate.
They may not be to your personal liking, and you may not agree with them, but my remarks about PM Harper's incompetence, failings with regard to respecting the rule of law, and sociopathic/pathological behaviour are most certainly not inappropriate.
They might be unkind, blunt, sharp, harsh, unflattering, and offensive to some, and even perceived as cruel by others... but they are not inappropriate.
Saying "Stephen Harper is such a nutbar, I can't believe Child Welfare allows him to keep his kids" is inappropriate.
Saying "I believe Stephen Harper is the most corrupt PM we've ever had and that he's not mentally stable enough to govern" is totally appropriate.
Again, I concede that it isn't a very nice thing to say... but it definitely falls under the category of "fair commentary"
RE "You are referring to our PM as a possible pathological liar and the most corrupt PM with mental issues. Correct?
So I think it was fair or logical in reference to read Harper trollers as such,"
Wrong! #1
There is a world of difference between the word "troll" and "troller". I personally don't "buy" that you didn't know the difference... and if you truly didn't, it wouldn't have been hard for you to take 30 seconds to become informed by looking it up BEFORE deciding you were going to be offended by it.
Do you typically choose to be offended by things you admittedly don't understand?
RE "You are referring to our PM as a possible pathological liar and the most corrupt PM with mental issues. Correct?
So I think it was fair or logical in reference to read Harper trollers as such,"
Wrong! #2
I did refer to PM Harper in that way.
But I am NOT the one who used the term "Harper's trollers" in my post...
...it was Michael C
But Michael C has not come anywhere near stating as blunt and as incisive an assessement of PM Harper as I.
When you got "offended", you and I had NOT even had ONE exchange of posts yet on the "Harper's trollers" thread!
So how is it then remotely possible for you to have confused MY opinion of PM Harper with Michael C's post?
You just made all of that up, didn't you?
You actually went through the trouble of putting Michael C's words "Harper's trollers" in MY mouth and then say you were responding to MY opinion of PM Harper, when you weren't even responding to me but to Michael C!
I'm just floored!
I can't believe that instead of simply saying: "I shouldn't have assumed without knowing what "troller" meant that you were insulting people Michael C. I apologize", you actually thought of, and made the effort to, find a new justification, one that would scapegoat me, for your actions!
You actually chose to invent something and just outright lie (and not particularly well)?!
Seriously?!
Ick!
What is it again you said about "it must be about how our parents raised us"?
Ick!
[updated Sun Jan 18 01:35:02 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 01:35
calmecam,
The majority of Canadians clearly don't agree with you.
We don't attack and label Canadians without proof.
Since you feel it is fair game to insult our PM without any facts, your posts fall into the category of partisan spin and OBC. It is a shame.
Good luck with insulting Harper and distorting facts on this blog.
[updated Sun Jan 18 10:29:47 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 10:29
calmecam,
I am interested in facts more than relying on intent" and unproven allegations.
All political parties make mistakes, create scandals, get the boot when the list grows to big for Canadians to "swallow".
Repeated fact Mulroney's PC, Martin LIBS both paid for the lists of mistakes, scandals under their watch.
Canadians are NOT partisans clinging on every word looking for a "nuance" or "hidden agenda" to make their decision on voting day.
The majority here are political junkies regardless of spectrum. No one is going to change anyone's mind.
We are here to debate topics presented, and the polls.
Referring to another party supporters as sub-human is simply not appropriate. Don't you agree?
You protest when some posters call you a Liberal, but you were in support of the Liberal Green Shift Plan? You thought a carbon tax was a means of reducing our footprint right?
Now with the new interim-leader acknowledging the idea of the Carbon Tax is dead and raising the GST is an option.
What party best represents your Environmental Views?
“Yes I will continue to vote Anything But Conservative (including Liberal) because based on my (admittedly limited) knowledge of world and Canadian politics, the Canadian psyche, and geo-economics, I can't find a reason for which the plan, as it is currently laid out, won't work.”- Calmecam June 25, 2008
What party has your support?
[updated Sat Jan 17 11:45:57 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 11:45
calmecam
RE: "I am interested in facts more than relying on intent" and unproven allegations."
I am interested in facts too.
It is a fact that on this list, you repeatedly read things, offensive things, into the words of those who do not share your view.
So how about you stop doing that for starters?
As for allegations, you seem to only wish to deal with them ONCE they've been proven. That is your choice.
However, when an allegation has been made or actually leads to charges and court cases, it is not wrong or hateful to point to it and factually says that "an allegation has been made" or "so-and-so has been charged with..." or "so-and-so has been taken to court"... and the least you can do is acknowledge that if the police and judiciary got involved, there might possibly be some "validity" to the allegation.
There are numerous such allegations about the behaviour of key members of the Conservative Party of Canada.
To deny this is not want to face reality.
RE: All political parties make mistakes, create scandals, get the boot when the list grows to big for Canadians to "swallow".
"Repeated fact Mulroney's PC, Martin LIBS both paid for the lists of mistakes, scandals under their watch."
Agreed!
I'd even say that the Liberals are STILL paying for their mistakes.
RE: "Canadians are NOT partisans clinging on every word looking for a "nuance" or "hidden agenda" to make their decision on voting day."
I agree Canadians are not partisanly clinging on every word for a hidden agenda, but make no mistake about it, Canadians would prefer a government that has the capacity for nuance and temperence... not this "my way or the highway" style of government.
RE: "You protest when some posters call you a Liberal, but you were in support of the Liberal Green Shift Plan? You thought a carbon tax was a means of reducing our footprint right?"
I WAS supportive of the Green Shift. Upon evaluation of the Conservative and Liberal platforms on environment, the Liberals' was objectively more credible.
Does that in and of itself make me a Liberal? I guess to you it does because you are attempting to hold up one, solitary instance of expressed support of a Liberal policy as proof that I must be Liberal.
However, I also supported Harper's on income-splitting for seniors, tax free savings accounts, income tax reductions, creation of a special panel on mental health, and additional funding for AIDS in Africa. So that in and of itself MUST also make me a Conservative?
In fact, since I supported more of Harper's policies in number, I MUST be REALLY Conservative right?
Or does supporting only ONE Liberal policy make all my support of Conservative policies null and void and brand me as a Liberal for Life?
You see... this is what is called nuance. I support what is good, regardless of party, and reject what is bad, regardless of party.
But Conservatives hate nuance because it doesn't allow them to neatly fit things into square boxes with a nasty labels on them.
RE: "What party best represents your Environmental Views?"
The Green Party, of course -- d-uh!. When it comes to the environment nobody is better.
And during the last election that is how I voted.
My riding is owned by the Liberals and I couldn't bring myself to vote for Dion even though I believed his platform to be better than Harper's (though if voting Liberal strategically would have helped in my riding, I'd have done it)
Layton's decision to be in cahoots with Harper in an attempt to exclude May from the debates by blackmailing the media consortium with a boycott, was a betrayal of basic NDP principle and Layton has lost my respect forever with that one.
I can't vote Bloc (and wouldn't) so that left me with Conservative or Green.
The Conservatives wish to do nothing for the environment and are lead by a man I believe to not only be a criminal, but psychologically unfit for the job of PM due to his chronic vindictiveness and compulsive lying.
Left with a choice between a potential criminal (at worst) or a psychotic (at best) and Elizabeth May, the decision of who got my $1.95 and my vote was pretty easy.
RE: "What party has your support?"
Right now... none of them, though if I had to rank them I'd go 1) Green 2) Bloc (I admire Duceppe's integrity and respect for Canadian law as it is written in his attempt to bring about his own objective. I don't agree with what he's trying to do, but I have the utmost respect for the way in which he is doing it -- Harper could learn something about ethics from Duceppe) 3) Liberal 4) NDP 5) Conservative.
You seem to believe I don't support the Conservative Party due to some ideological reason.
You are dead wrong.
The reason I don't support the Party is because I truly believe that Stephen Harper has broken the law as PM (it just hasn't been proven yet) and I personally don't believe a criminal should be PM
[updated Sat Jan 17 12:46:44 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 12:46
calmecam,
OUCH!
Can you shorten your posts to the size of PLEASE. (ROFL) Scrolling back and forth to not miss points to refute it onerous.
1) I asked you what party you vote for, reading your posts you appear to be supporting the Liberals. I did not say you were a partisan or a Liberal hack. I said if you only attack one leader or one party and repeat OBC it will appear you have a clear party preference. (Not my way).
2) I don't believe any political party is doing enough for the environment. FULL STOP. All the proposals are short of what is needed. The Green Shift was deeply flawed. It does not work and is being repealed in Europe in several jurisdictions. It is simply a tax. The Liberals were going to use the environment to raise taxes to pay for social programs.
3) Go after polluters with existing LAWS. Change laws requiring better fuel economy and recycling of materials by the manufacturing. Eliminate waste and improve delivery our energy through by providing families with geothermal, retrofits to reduce the costs their use of ALL forms transported "energy".
4) I don't think it is balanced to refer to our PM as you do. Most reasonable Canadians would be uncomfortable with your choice of words for very good reason.
5) How is it ethical to keep 114 MP from facing the voters by a party that 80% of Canadians CAN'T VOTE for?
You label the PM with a zeal that is simply unfair. I would not call either Liberal PM a pathological liar or nutbar. (You choose to use the words possibly to deflect from those labels but use the OBC as justification.
That is why MOST Canadians don't agree with the labeling and it only further stifles debate.
[updated Sat Jan 17 15:43:57 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 15:43
calmecam
Well if you (and MRM) wouldn't make such extraordinary efforts to deliberately misunderstand and misinterpret my words, my posts would be fewer and shorter.
1) In my posts I've given Harper credit for good things he's done, I've blasted Chretien, expressed doubt about Ignatieff's judgement, and lambasted Layton so if after reading all my posts you perceive I have a Liberal bias, you have a very selective memory.
2) You can't claim the Green Shift doesn't work because we haven't had a chance to implement it. Your point assumes that the plan presented by Dion was an exact carbon copy of any European plan. Believing Dion intended to introduce the very same plan that has failed elsewhere without correcting mistakes or tailoring it to the Canadian reality is non-sensical or short-sighted. The Green Shift was not just a tax. The carbon tax was only one small part of the plan. It also included the largest income tax cuts we've seen in ages. If you believe otherwise, all you are doing is proving that you never actually took the time to read up on it.
3) All these things were included in the Green Shift. These were some of the "social programs" about which you complained earlier that were to be funded by the carbon-tax
4) I agree most people would be uncomfortable with my choice of words to describe the PM (and "nutbar" is your choice of words, not mine)... but I still stand by them.
It is my personal belief (my opinion), and I believe it down to the very core of my being, that PM Stephen Harper has broken the law more than once and that he is a pathological liar with a sociopathic penchant for revenge and as such, he is unfit to govern.
So considering this is my belief, you can "understand" why I can't support him.
You don't have to agree, but if "labelling" is the issue, then don't go around labelling me as having an anti-Conservative bias when what I have is an anti-criminal bias.
I'm far from the only one.
Many Conservatives don't support the Liberals because it is their belief that Liberals are criminals down to their core as a result of Adscam (which is 10 - 15 years old now)...
Why is it so wrong for me to do the same thing if I believe we currently have a PM who is a law-breaker (with many court cases currently underway which should raise at least a red flag or two in the minds of the electorate)?
5) There are no ethics involved in who gets to be PM... there are laws and conventions.
You might not like or agree with our national laws or conventions, but they are what they are, and our laws and conventions allow, in a minority governement, for all the MPs in the House to have a say in who is the PM.
If the MPs in House decide that the person who is PM can't be trusted with power, we have rules and conventions to take away from that person the role of PM and give it to someone else who will be responsible with that power.
We elect a Parliament, and so long as the composition of Parliament remains the same, how the Members of Parliament decide to organize themselves to govern the country is up to them and entirely democratic.
Will it piss off supporters of the party that did hold power if it is taken way? Of course it will.
Is it illegal, undemocratic or unethical? Not even in the slightest.
It is the law.
Following the law in my books usually tends to prove to lead to ethical behaviour.
[updated Sat Jan 17 17:13:08 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 17:13
camelcam
When you cite the law as excuse for unethical behaviour, it reminds of our history.
It was legal to own slaves.
It was legal to exploit child labour.
It was legal to torture.
An unjust law does not make it ethical. The fact 80% could not vote Bloc and they could allow a subversion of the election it undemocratic. The Majority of Canadians thought so as well.
Populations have shifted and Ontario and West are 30-40 seats SHORT. When we have that fixed and the Bloc run in every province than it will be democratic. Until than it was a back room deal to steal the election results and put in a leader who has the lowest support and showing in 100 years
Maybe you are comfortable with 114+48 traitors deciding who runs Ottawa, I am not.
I am fortunate the majority think like I do and don't buy in the OBC.
I did read the Green Shift on their site and I did read the examples they gave of European countries. So I was informed regarding the implementation of a Carbon Tax. It is DOA still.
You want to fix pollution that do it without raising taxes. Thank you very much. I don't need a nanny state.
Provide incentives and a carrot approach to reduce our use of fossil fuels but don't punish EVERYONE especially the poor and elderly who would not benefit from a tax income reduction as proposed by Dion/Iggy.
I don't care we have some right wing zealots who think every liberal is nuts, DONT CARE.All parties have these wingnuts.
Innocent until proven guilty is a basic cornerstone of our society. I choose not to condemn someone because he is before the courts on alleged charges. Not my style. I am patient, history has a way of working things out.
Harper was right warning Dion the COALITION was the biggest mistake the Liberal Party has ever made. (History will bear this out).
[updated Sat Jan 17 19:31:16 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 19:31
calmecam
Informed1:
A coalition governement is legal and democratic and because I believe it is so and defend the fact that my country's Constitution says that it so...you have just called me a traitor.
You went too far with this personal attack.
I have nothing more to say to a fellow "citizen" who would stoop so low as to call me a traitor!
[updated Sun Jan 18 02:01:17 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 02:01
calmecam,
You really need to check your facts again.
The Majority of Canadians view Canadians who want to break up the country as "traitors".
The term is used widely by those to criticize crossing parties.
If you want to break up the country than the label fits.
You can deny the facts and hide behind the "rules and laws" of the land and call them ethical.
Many Fascists and Dictators passed laws to silence opposing views and specific religions.
It was wrong than and it is wrong now.
I support the right TO practice or NOT practice and I do not attack any group or label them. Simply not my style.
The BLOC's main goal is to separate Quebec from Canada and the majority of Canadians feel exactly the way I do. If you feelings are hurt than maybe you should update your library card and read about about the BLOC and in your own words your choice of leader Gilles Duceppe.
Check with the Charter or History Books.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#libertes
[updated Sun Jan 18 09:29:58 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 09:29
MRM
Informed1 - Well done! If I had known that it was this easy to get rid of this wing nut I would have done it a long time ago. He thinks that it is OK to insult others but no one should dare to insult him. He also accuses others of misquoting him but I see that he just did the same thing to you because nowhere do I see you calling him a traitor unless of course he is a Bloc MP, in which case he is a traitor. He comes across as a long winded egotistical blowhard. Not that I am calling him that because I put the phrase “comes across” in front of it so that means it does not qualify as an insult. At least it isn’t according to his twisted reasoning.
[updated Sun Jan 18 08:57:35 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 08:57
parnel2 (Suspended for misuse of forum)
MRM, Your ignorance of the reality we live in is really sad. Quebeckers, who are Canadians and proud ones have chosen to have a regional party represent them. They started out as separatists but have you heard them say much about it lately.
When pushed into a corner they have always come out in favor of Canada. we have had regional parties before like the Socreds and the creditistes. The NDP is really not a national party.
Iggy has read the tea leaves and understands Quebecers votes are up for grabs as the Bloc has worn out its real purpose and is simply hanging on as they lookm for a new home within the federal party system. Harper failed them badly in his attempt and Iggy has stepped up to the plate. Layton is simply an opportunist playing a charade in this unfolding drama.
Its your close minded and bigoted mindset about Quebeckers that is at play here not calmecam's.
You are the bigot and western redneck.
[updated Sun Jan 18 09:40:57 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 09:40
MRM
Well parnel I am hardly bigoted against Quebecers since I am one. If you don't think that the Bloc are no longer seperatists then it is you who are ignorant of the "reality we live in". Read their platform and listen to their rhetoric. They are quiet right now because your party made a secret deal with them but after you guys stab them in the back on 27 Jan the gloves will be off.
[updated Sun Jan 18 10:06:53 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 10:06
calmecam
MRM
Like you, I don't think it is accurate to go so far as to say the Bloc are no longer separatists.
It is accurate, however, to say that the Bloc is no longer ONLY comprised of separatists.
It has evolved over time into a coaltion of separatists, sovereignists, autonomists, soft Quebec nationalists, and disaffected federalists.
Now for many of us, almost all of these things are one and the same, but to the Québecois (as you surely know given you are one) these are very different things.
Over the years, the Bloc has taken on an increasingly regional representative role, though support for independence is obviously still a very, very strong, even dominant, element in the party.
That said we know that the Bloc can't and will not ever secure a mandate for separation... only the PQ can do that (and given Charest's majority, the prospect of another referendum is at least a few years off).
While I do believe that the Bloc is "unpatriotic", I would not ever call them "traitors".
To me, one of the most beautiful things about Canada is that we are SO secure in what our country has to offer that we don't need to stifle voices, even the voices of those who openly express a desire to no longer be part of Canada.
The fact that the Bloc and PQ can exist and operate in Canada without the population taking up arms and/or getting violent is one of the things that, in my opinion, makes Canada a beacon of tolerance and democracy to the world.
The fact that the Bloc and PQ have operated in Canada and have attempted to acheive their goals by following the rule of law and due process, whether you agree with their goal or not, is something pretty radical on the global scene.
In most other countries of the world, those who wish to leave aren't so docile about it.
If the Bloc and PQ attempted to achieve their goals through violence, the label "traitor" would more likely be justified... but that is not the Canadian reality.
I think that it is quite possible that the reason the FLQ never took hold to become Canada's IRA or ETA is because we decided to embrace the concept of free political expression, even for separatists, rather than attempt to censor it.
Personally, though I don't support the Bloc's aims, I am extremely proud to live in a country where the right to free speech is SO solid that issues such as "how do we leave this country, if we wish to" can be openly discussed without people being arrested.
[updated Sun Jan 18 11:40:47 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 11:40
Calmecam,
ROFL.
Your are simply wrong! You live on MTL Island? That must be your excuse why you want to sip tea with Iggy.
[updated Sun Jan 18 12:47:10 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 12:47
MRM
Calmecam – We might be saying the same thing. I know that not all of those who voted for the Bloc are separatists but I think that it is fair to say that most card carrying members are. Advocating separation is a basic tenet of the party and basic requirement for membership. I agree that the other groups that you mention are different and while they routinely vote for the Bloc few are actually members of the party.
As for being traitors it is a question of severity to me. When someone is unpatriotic enough to actively pursue the destruction of the nation it, in my opinion, crosses the line to being a traitor. Others may not take it as seriously and think their actions to be less serious than that. Each is entitled to their opinion but I do acknowledge that they are certainly not traitors in the eyes of the law. Just like the coalition is not undemocratic in the eyes of the law. It is simply my belief or opinion that it is wrong.
I also agree that their prospects for success regarding separation are low at the moment but that does not lessen the severity of their actions just the consequences of them.
That said I have never advocated that their voices be stifled. Just because I may personally believe their actions to be fundamentally wrong I acknowledge that they operate well within the law and have every right to do what they do. I as well am thankful that we live in a country that allows everyone a right to be heard on the subject without fear of reprisal and you are correct, this truly is a goal other countries can only dream of. I guess that is why I am so passionate about keeping it together.
[updated Sun Jan 18 13:58:38 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 13:58
calmecam
MRM:
Hear! Hear!
The fact that our country allows for many voices to be heard is definitely worth defending.
You and I would never wish to stifle and censor, but there are some in our country who do preach this as the way to go... and I readily admit that I find it upsetting because it just seems to me that to hold that view is to be for advocating for what is arguably, the very opposite of vote Canada is, in its essence.
I too wish that Quebec never goes its own way and that Canada remains united.
That said, it is undeniable that should the day ever come that Quebec leaves Canada, there would be huge consequences... But if that were to happen (shudder), I would wish that the transition take place in an equitable and oderly manner rather than the alternative, which would admittedly bring about much more "destruction" to Canada.
I mean, it is not as if they could not choose to be much more destructive if they wanted to...
[updated Sun Jan 18 20:24:28 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 20:24
MRM
Calmecam - I agree - If that sad day ever comes and it is the will of the people of Quebec and done within the law of the land then we must reluctantly accept their wishes and let them go their own way. In the process we must take great pains to ensure that we part as friends because in the end we will always be economically, geographically, historically and to a large extent culturally linked.
As for censorship, to deny someone the right to be heard without fear is a basic human right which no one has the right to deny another individual. I must qualify that remark by adding that I mean real censorship not what some interpret it as. For instance like those who advocate that child pornography is within the bounds of free speech. I just cannot support that. The same is true with hate literature such as racist propaganda.
[updated Mon Jan 19 20:32:51 -0500 2009]
19 Jan 20:32
calmecam,
Now here you go again distorting the facts.
The NDP are clearly have MP's in more regions across Canada than the Liberals. The Liberals faced the worst defeat in 100 years!
Maybe you and Iggy should sit down for some tea and figure out why that happened. Maybe you can ask him about his RIGHT WING views and support for the BUSH Doctrine.
Ask him why he broke ranks with his party and extended the mission. OOPS! (Quebec does not support that move)
His position in the Gaza Conflict will have a negative effect on the LEFT in his PARTY (AND QUEBEC).
The Bloc are not going away, check with ROD. The Liberals, NDP, CPC don't have the grassroots support in Quebec to DEFEAT the BLOC. FULL STOP.
The Liberals have lost their National Representation and Iggy has recieved complaints from Liberals who think he must reach outside Toronto for his inner circle.
The Bloc are TRAITORS. Any party that wants to break up a country and sign a back room deal with 114 MPS to deny a mandate from the people for 18 months is a statement of FACT.
The Majority of Quebecers are not Separatists. The fact is the Federal Parties HAVE NOT done a good job in winning back support. FULL STOP.
The Liberals have lost the most support are now reduced to MTL ISLAND. Since 1997!!!! They ARE NOT A FACTOR IN QUEBEC.
Ontario allowed them to govern. Ontario is now GONE. The Blank slate will not bring back the rural or visible minority vote. (You Betcha! -Sara Palin)
The CPC beachhead has NOT expanded and the lack of REAL PROGRESS is because of the lack of work ethic and grassroots support outside the 10 ridings.
I would use the same label if a party in any region of Canada wanted to break up the country. FULL STOP.
Ask your idol Gilles why he won't with his party enter the HOC during the National Anthem.
Are you from MTL Island stuck in the Liberal stronghold?
[updated Sun Jan 18 10:24:19 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 10:24
Parnel,
I just got the memo. The Bloc will be joining the rest of the MP's in the HOC for our national anthem.
ROFL.
Not separatists. ...ROFL.
I just spilled my drink.
[updated Sun Jan 18 22:20:22 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 22:20
MRM,
I agree tries to deflect insults by using "possibly" etc.
It is sad how this site draws people who think attacking a group or spewing hate is reasonable.
It is almost funny how Parnel2 can't help himself in regards to attacking "religion" and repeating bigoted remarks in his postings.
I can only remember about 10 bans and all of them were at Parnel (4-6x) Richard Sharp (4-5x)
At least Richard Sharp got the hint. Why do you think after so many bans Parnel can't clean up his posts or find some other site to poison?
[updated Sun Jan 18 11:05:09 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 11:05
calmecam
MRM
I know that we've butted heads with our witty repartée (after all, taking digs at each other is part of punditry, and it is supposed to be all in good fun -- at least that's my approach to it -- but there are SOME limits such as breaking out "Nazi", "fascist", "Mugabe-like", etc.) but in all seriousness on this one...
(Yes, I am asking you to step aside from our tango on this one, because this is pesonally important to me)
Informed1 just called not only all the Bloc MPs but all MPs that would be part of a Coaltion "traitors".
If the MPs that would form a Coalition are "traitors" in the eyes of Informed1, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that those who would support a Coalition with their vote, those who would willingly give them power, must also be "traitors".
Informed1 doesn't have to come right out and call me a "traitor" for him/her to have called me, by inference, a "traitor".
To me, "traitor" is one of those words one should not freely throw around when labelling others...
If there is one thing I am sure of it is that everyone on ths list loves Canada. We wouldn't take so much time out of our lives to discuss the future of our country if we didn't.
I simply can't accept or respect a fellow citizen that would stoop so low as to directly call me or infer that I am a traitor to the country I love so deeply!
It's a step too far.
On the issue of "insults"...
Many a smart person has said a stupid thing. When that happens, I don't say "You're stupid", I say "That was a stupid thing to say".
You might perceive those statements to be one and the same, and that is your right, but to me, they are wildly different....and I try my best to go out of my way to never directly insult the person (I don't claim a 100% success rate, but I do try my best), even though I will freely take a shot on structure, logic, or behaviour.
If the other person chooses to then take that as an insult, there's nothing I can really do about that other than point out that I wasn't talking about the person. If the other still chooses not to believe that, there's nothing I can really do about that either.
So in all honesty and in all seriousness, I have no issue whatsoever when you say that I "come across as moronic" as opposed to "you're a moron", or "you're behaving like a child" rather than "you're childish".
The reason: I DO, at times, come across as a moron. I DO, at times, behave in a childish manner. Like every other person on this planet,
I have my less than stellar moments too.
I can dish it, and I can take it.
OK, seriousness over -- lol -- but, I thank you in advance for reading this with fair eyes.
Now back to our regularly scheduled witty, all-in-good-fun, repartée. ;-)
[updated Sun Jan 18 11:05:52 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 11:05
MRM
Calmecam and Informed1 – I must say that I do not believe for a second that anyone who is in or supports the coalition is a traitor, nor are they even being unpatriotic (with the possible exception of the Bloc MPs). I think to call them that is over the top and perhaps even over the line. While I think that those advocating the coalition are unwise for a host of reasons, not least of which is the fact that it will give the Bloc too much power, it is just politics and those advocating for it are doing so for what they genuinely believe to be the right reasons. So, in my view it is a question of judgment not loyalty.
P.S. Calmecam – I much prefer this tone and topic of discussion than the previous stuff. I suspect that the others on this site that we have inconvenienced do as well. Let’s keep this style of discussion going. Parnel – this includes you if you are game?
[updated Sun Jan 18 14:15:57 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 14:15
MRM,
Again, I think we are in agreement the Bloc are traitors. Full stop. The rest of the stuff is correct and only calmecam is trying to include other people in Quebec. No one mentioned these other groups.
That was his spin as per usual.
My definition is very narrow. If you want to divide the country you are a traitor to it. Full stop.
Some people require you to bear arms to be included in that definition, I don't. If you use any method including destabilizing the country through legal methods. You earn that title.
I continue to ask for civility and to ask Parnel and now calmecam who use insults and slurs regarding Harper to be more respectful. They consider calling him 'criminal and mentally unfit' as fair comment.
They both appear to share the same view in attacking Religion (specifically) the "Right Wing Christians" with an Agenda.
So if these two posters would refrain from making bigoted comments, and insulting comments about people the debate on policies and issues could improve.
The track record and the posting do not give me much hope from either of them.
[updated Sun Jan 18 16:19:53 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 16:19
larryl
MRM. Have just rated your post as "Agree" . It might be the first time. Informed 1 calls Bloc members traitors but if we look at it from their point of view they are being loyal to their province. They don't care much what happens outside of Quebec and are not trying to break up the rest of the country. I wish the same could be said for some western seperatists who would love to see the whole country break up. We are having many intelligent discussions with good points on all sides and it is much more enjoyable. Hopefully we can all keep it up . Opinions can be seen as wrong or even stupid without thinking the poster should be insulted and called names.
[updated Sun Jan 18 16:47:45 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 16:47
elf
larryl - yes, Separatists truly believe an Independant Quebec is the best thing for the Province. We all know I'm sure that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter - good sense doesn't always come into the picture and wise words often get drowned out by noise - and there are lots of very loud voices on the right - and in the west -
[updated Wed May 20 13:12:34 -0400 2009]
20 May 13:12
calmecam
RE: "I must say that I do not believe for a second that anyone who is in or supports the coalition is a traitor,"
You might want to repeat that to Informed1 because he/she read those words and understood: "Again, I think we are in agreement the Bloc are traitors. Full stop. "
You'll also note that I've not responded to a single one of Informed1's posts since he/she called me a traitor and yet/he is still going after me.
I just thought I'd point that out given the number of times Informed1 has claimed to be more pure than the driven snow when it comes to personal attacks, distortions, and lies.
In other matters...
I too believe that the coalition itself, esp one that proposed Dion at the helm, was in one way an unwise thing for which to advocate.
And while I personally would have supported it on a lesser of two Evils basis, based on my oft stated opinion of our curent PM, I'll full out say that advocating it with Dion at the helm was boneheaded.
But then again, one could argue that if Layton and Duceppe all of a sudden were pushing for Dion to be PM, after pouncing all over Dion mere weeks before, PM Harper must have REALLY stepped in it.
Either side would have a point.
But I also think that nobody could have ever predicted the size of the sledgehammer PM Harper would resort to using in order to crush the threat of a confidence vote.
In that way, I find tha coalition, without ever coming into being, had much more success than for which they ever truly hoped.
It is almost as if the very real possibility of a PM Dion was enough to press the right combination of PM Harper's buttons
The total freak-out that was the PM's response left Canadians (both those who adore and abhor the PM) with a very clear and stong impression about him.
PS: I switched to this style because upon further reflection, I don't think that we were "connecting" on the ribbing each other part of the game -- besides, when pressing (panic) buttons (that was an homage to you), you never know when you might unwittingly press the wrong one.
Since you do have smart things to say and can hold your own, I thought we'd might have more fun this way and not need the banter.
I'm glad I did.
[updated Sun Jan 18 20:48:32 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 20:48
Michael C.
We are both in agreement the Liberals were responsible while in power for the millions "LOST" under ADSCAM. ($ 300 million, $ 40 million unaccounted for?)
We both agree Mulroney received money by Schreiber. I also believe it was the Liberal Party that settled and paid millions of taxpayers dollars regarding the investigation.
I don't think the current CPC have paid a settlement in regards to this alleged scandal. Am I wrong?
Were the Liberals inept and unable to find any evidence? Let's hope the current government does not drop the ball and if they find evidence they can pursue this matter to recover the taxpayers money wasted.
Do we both agree they should recover the taxpayers money if possible?
[updated Sat Jan 17 11:02:26 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 11:02
westerner (suspended)
The Liberal party paid just over $1 million in restitution when there is still $40 million unaccounted for. What a joke!! We will never see that missing money.
[updated Sat Jan 17 12:06:29 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 12:06
larryl
Westerner. If the money is still unaccounted for that is because it is the hands of corrupt advertising executives who have been tried and sentenced. Part of the sentence should have been to repay the money or stay in jail until it was . Is anyone naive enough to believe only Liberals ran those advertising agencies. The whole system is corrupt and who ever is in power reaps the benefits. Chuck Guite was appointed by Mulroney and I guarantee he was not a Liberal. Most government programs are set up to allow money to be stolen by whoever sets them up.Your friend Informed 1 thinks the Liberals were inept and but the investigation was conducted by the R.C.M.P. That is the same R.C.M.P. that found no truth in the Cadman allegations. Just how corrupt is our national police department?
[updated Sat Jan 17 17:34:03 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 17:34
larrly,
Hope things are going as well as possible.
Corrupt and Inept are two different things.
My point was under the Liberal Watch billions was wasted and the Auditor General was prevented into looking at Crown Corporations.
Martin fired and ADSCAM Liberal Appointee at a Crown Corp and now is suing for wrongful dismissal. (We were told he resigned, remember?)
The RCMP did not find enough evidence to lay charges against B.M. The Liberals spent millions chasing , giving up and than paying millions more to lawyers and B.M.
The taxpayers are paying for this inept handling of government affairs. FULL STOP.
RCMP cleared Cadman affair, now we have a private lawsuit only with Harper suing the Liberal Party.
You have been around this site to witness the multiple account of Parnel (Parnel2, gohabs1, TPQ) has been banned 4-5x.
Besides Richard Sharp I don't know of anyone else who has been banned. Do you?
The Inquiries were not designed or allowed to dig very deep. I am a fan of removing any political direction from a "inquiry".
Gomery had his hands tied. The investigation of the tainted blood was stopped by Martin. Any government in power will move to protect it's power if they feel threatened.
[updated Sun Jan 18 10:50:05 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 10:50
larryl
Informed1. You are persistent if nothing else. You grab hold of an issue and just won't let go even when no one else thinks it is important enough to discuss. Why does it matter if posters were suspended or have had to resort to multiple name changes . You were convinced that TPQ,Parnel, Gohabs ,Sharp and others were all the same person but have finally given that up.Who and why people were suspended doesn't matter to anyone but you.Get over it. As for the inept investigations by our national police, it is amazing how corruption can be concealed if you blame it on incompetence. Why are 2 accomplices in the Meyerthorpe killings of 4 officers being allowed to plead to lesser charges?You admit the police were inept but continue to blame the Liberals for screwing up the investigation. Which is it?
[updated Sun Jan 18 16:33:53 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 16:33
larryl,
Both of us have been on Nik for quite awhile, I have chastised you often for your repeating Liberal talking points without double checking the facts.
We have both been in agreement when we think both parties have found guilty a mistakes, corruption.
We don't agree on every issue and for the most part you have tried in the new year to reduce the insults and name calling of the PM or attack a religious group.
Regarding Gohabs1, TPQ, Parnel1, Parnel2 he is the same person.I was WRONG about him being Richard Sharp.
Regarding the RCMP Incident in Meyerthorpe I am not qualified to give an opinion whether is was incompetence of our judicial system as I have not reviewed the story in detail.
I can give you an example of police ineptness and lack of proper oversight.
The incident in Vancouver and the death of that person by the RCMP. This was a failure on the part of the investigation and apparently the body responsible (they have no teeth).
All those officers should be fired and tried before a jury. That was our Rodney King moment. We failed.
[updated Sun Jan 18 17:43:17 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 17:43
larryl
Informed1. The R.C.M.P . covered up what was obviously a crime with the death of an unarmed man . That Taser incident is the worst example of police brutality and should not have been tolerated and covered up. They did not intend to kill a man for damaging a little furniture but we should have used this incident to train officers on how to subdue a man who was not putting any one else in danger. We can capture wild animals without killing them but we can't seem to figure out how to handle an unarmed man. How would we ever figure out what is going on if we are not allowed to ask questions. I don't know what happened in Meyerthorpe but the whole story smells a little fishy. Enough questions could get the answers .
[updated Sun Jan 18 18:03:40 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 18:03
westerner (suspended)
If you are making allegations that the RCMP is "corrupt" you should make your evidence public so charges can be laid. It is your civic responsibility to do so if you know that to be true. If you have no such evidence then you should avoid any slanderous accusations.
[updated Sun Jan 18 12:43:50 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 12:43
larryl
Westerner. You must be aware of the investigations into pension funds being misappropriated. Zaccardelli was forced to resign was he not? How much evidence do you think I could come up with sitting at my computer ? I know there are many conspiracy theories out there but I don't make them up. Just ask questions but never seem to get any answers. The attacks on 911 were blamed on intelligence screw ups by the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies. Even Dubya's screw ups are blamed on his incompetence and the U.S. debt has trippled while he was there. Most government programs that end up costing us billions are blamed on government incompetence and we sit idly by and never change anything because we have been told for so long that they can't do anything right. I doubt any one could screw things up as bad as some of the things we have seen unless they are trying to do it. No proof just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth with a money back guarantee.
[updated Sun Jan 18 17:03:20 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 17:03
westerner (suspended)
You make allegations that our national police force is corrupt and then admit you have no evidence "sitting at my computer". You seem to be making up the conspiracy theories. It is better not to make allegations in the first place if you have no evidence.
I respect the RCMP and feel they are innocent until proven guilty.
[updated Sun Jan 18 17:29:22 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 17:29
larryl
Westerner. You like every one else forgets a very important part of innocent until proven guilty. That is in the eyes of the law. Many guilty have been acquitted and many innocents have been convicted.If I commit a crime but no one can prove it I am still guilty. The proof of corruption is there if you want to see it. Did Zaccardelli resign? Simple question . Were pension funds misappropriated? Who really killed those 4 officers who wanted to expose drug deals. I have a vivid imagination and if I could make this stuff up I would be writing mystery novels. Could it be they are incompetent enough to clear Mulroney and yet we find out later how guilty he was. Why would you still respect them if they are that inept. The whole police force is not corrupt but there is definitely some corruption going on even though we have no proof.
[updated Sun Jan 18 17:47:02 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 17:47
westerner (suspended)
"there is corruption going on even if we can't prove it". Wow, such arrogance
How would you like to be on the receiving end of such slanderous charges made by a person who doesn't care if he/she can prove the allegations or not. You should have more respect for our system of justice. Shame on you!
[updated Sun Jan 18 18:40:39 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 18:40
larryl
Westerner. How much proof do you need? Was there an investigation into the RCMP pension fund ? Did Zaccardelli resign.? Two simple questions you refuse to answer. Did a man die in Vancouver at the hands of RCMP officers and was that white washed ? Wake up and smell the coffee.
[updated Sun Jan 18 19:00:39 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 19:00
westerner (suspended)
You said earlier that you didn't have any proof! What is your story now?
If you really ave any proof lay it out to the RCMP and let them bring charges against their own. I am not defending the RCMP but I do object to you making allegations that are based on assumptions and your personal amateurish sleuthing.
[updated Sun Jan 18 19:38:25 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 19:38
larryl
Westerner. Why do you refuse to answer the questions. Was there an investigation and did Zacc resign? You know if you answer that will be proof enough.
[updated Sun Jan 18 19:56:30 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 19:56
westerner (suspended)
I have no personal knowledge as to what caused Zac to resign. If you have proof that he was involved in criminal activity re. the pension issue then you have a moral responsibility to bring that to the authorities attention. If you have no proof and are making allegations then you would have to face the consequences.
You seem to have much more info. and you should reveal what you know to the Parliamentary Committee.
[updated Sun Jan 18 20:38:51 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 20:38
larryl
Westerner. They have a lot more information and proof than I could ever uncover and provide them. The cover up has obviously worked very well and the fact no charges were ever laid is all the proof I need that corruption occurs even at highest levels of law enforcement. Proof could jump up and bite you in the ass and you would still not know it.
[updated Sun Jan 18 21:09:19 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 21:09
westerner (suspended)
You have no proof in fact. You are just puffing hot air. You are a very suspicious person who sees a snake under every rock.
You should have more trust in the Canadian justice system.
"The fact no charges were ever laid is all the proof I need that corruption occurs even at the highest levels of law enforcement." I feel sorry for you when you express such extreme cynicism in the law enforcement system. What province do you reside in? It must be rather peculiar.
[updated Sun Jan 18 21:56:02 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 21:56
larryl
Westerner. I don't know if Ontario is peculiar. I do know many police officers in different police forces have been charged and convicted with different offences.In my personal experience I have a cousin who was kicked off the Toronto police for corruption.An old high school friend was charged and convicted of selling bear parts to the Chinese and he was caught by the FBI. I also know from personal experience that one one of the highest ranking Ontario Provincial Police officers who was in charge of security at the Ontario Lottery Corporation officer resigned both his position hen the Ombudsman found corruption was rampant a the O.L.G.Why do you suppose the man resigned both his jobs . You should read the report into lottery fraud and then tell me there is no proof of corruption. All five Lottery corporations across the country have been investigated but no charges have ever been laid even with the Ombudsman's report clearly stating there was fraud and corruption at the highest levels of O.L.G. No charges doesn't mean there was no crime ,it only means there was a cover up. Only a naive or gullible person would believe there is no corruption. It happens in any line of work. Why would they have a special department to investigate other police officers if there was no suspicion of corruption?
[updated Mon Jan 19 12:55:42 -0500 2009]
19 Jan 12:55
westerner (suspended)
Suspicion of corruption is one thing being able to prove it in a court of law is quite another. Suspicion alone does not put a person in jail. Innocent until PROVEN guilty is the rule!
[updated Mon Jan 19 13:41:52 -0500 2009]
19 Jan 13:41
larryl
Westerner. Are you denying that corruption exists and has been covered up in the past?As seen on the CBC website to-day there are a lot of people who have suspicions like mine.Are they all "conspiracy nuts" like me?
[updated Mon Jan 19 18:04:48 -0500 2009]
19 Jan 18:04
westerner (suspended)
Yes! They are numerous and see a conspiracy around every corner and a snake under every rock. Their lives are full of suspicion and they trust almost no one. Everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
It is sad indeed.
[updated Mon Jan 19 19:21:29 -0500 2009]
19 Jan 19:21
larryl
Westerner. Is the yes meant to answer my question that they are all conspiracy nuts or that or that you are denying conspiracy exist?
[updated Mon Jan 19 19:34:09 -0500 2009]
19 Jan 19:34
westerner (suspended)
Yes, many, sadly, are "conspiracy nuts" like you believing everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
Unfortunately a very poor way to live!
[updated Mon Jan 19 20:50:01 -0500 2009]
19 Jan 20:50
parnel2 (Suspended for misuse of forum)
Just wait until after Harper has handed out stimulus money left right and center w/o oversight............there will be scandals enough for a generation of tax increases to pay for them.
He and Jim Flatulence are in such panic they will simply open the pantry door and let the rats scurry in.
[updated Sat Jan 17 10:08:04 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 10:08
Parnel2,
Why are you cheering for "scandals" in regards to the stimulus package?
Are you cheering for "scandals" in the OBAMA stimulus package as well?
I suspect again only for the Harper package because of your hate for him.
Is it too late to act like a reasonable Canadians and hope for success in dealing with the global crisis?
Why can't you give credit to some positive acts by the current PM with his dealings with the Premiers? Is their no room in your heart or mind for empathy or compassion?
Most reasonable Canadians are feeling optimistic about this recession and our ability to navigate through it.
We understand you don't vote CPC and never will but, don't you think we should be hoping for the best budget with the best outcome for Canadians?
I am confident I won't agree with all the budget items specifically the Auto Bailout, but I am still hoping it will help this country.
Is their no room for civility or compassion?
[updated Sat Jan 17 10:31:12 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 10:31
parnel2 (Suspended for misuse of forum)
My strong dislike for Harper mirrors some of calmecam's points. He has made some criminal decisions and is a pathological liar. Need I say more.
Harper and flatulence will simply throw billions at projects and will not put the oversight in place until there is a scandal. That allows his financial supporters time to make money.
[updated Sat Jan 17 13:00:44 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 13:00
Parnel2,
The OBC will not stick. Repeatedly calling Canadians liars is not going to change anyone's mind. So other than for self gratification why do you insist on going down this path?
Try attacking the "policies" and the Bills he introduces. Most Canadians don't care about the circus in Ottawa.
[updated Sat Jan 17 14:09:50 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 14:09
calmecam
parnel2
Given the PM's and Flaherty's past record of economic performance, I too shudder with fear at the massive mismanagement and creative accounting that will take place when they start to let the money flow.
Why do I have the sinking feeling that the AG is going to hit the jackpot when audit time comes.
[updated Sun Jan 18 11:46:59 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 11:46
westerner (suspended)
Mr. Quinn, what is the weather like today in Florida? Wish I was as rich as you and could spend winter in the sun!
[updated Sat Jan 17 12:00:06 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 12:00
Parnel2,
Are you suggesting the Minister of Finance has a health problem or an illness? Insulting Canadians is not going to stimulate debate.
Why are you happy that taxpayers money will be "lost" or squandered?
[updated Sat Jan 17 14:29:20 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 14:29
westerner (suspended)
Terry, please name names on this blog.
[updated Mon Jan 12 12:01:06 -0500 2009]
12 Jan 12:01
parnel2 (Suspended for misuse of forum)
Did you ever learn the word "objective" in your life. Its the opposite of subjective and one you should learn about.
[updated Sun Jan 11 06:55:37 -0500 2009]
11 Jan 06:55
Non-aligned in Toronto
Well it seems the initial negative attitude towards the coalition was more against Stephane Dion as PM than it was against the coalition. Either that or on reflecting on just how divisive and calculatingly destructive the Con Financial statement at the end of November was, have given voters a chance to reconsider.
Nik, how about a poll on what voters think about a coalition with Ignatieff as PM.
[updated Sat Jan 10 16:34:52 -0500 2009]
10 Jan 16:34
3 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
RonaldODowd
Watch Lawrence Cannon.
In the coming days and weeks, keep an eye on Lawrence Cannon. Not because he's foreign affairs minister but because he has a solid business relationship with several senior Liberals. If events move as I expect, Lawrence's role will be a key one in cementing the short to medium term future of Harper's government in the House of Commons.
[updated Sat Jan 10 20:13:47 -0500 2009]
10 Jan 20:13
9 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
RonaldODowd
President Obama Will Be Coming To Town.
I for one am extremely happy to hear that the President-elect of the United States will be coming to Ottawa shortly after he takes office. I'm all in favour of keeping this tradition alive bearing in mind the special relationship between our two countries. (For those of you who may be wondering, President Bush went to Mexico following his election as president.)
Of course, Obama will be meeting with our Prime Minister and hopefully an integrated approach to fighting the global recession can be developed so our two nations can get out of this economic mess as quickly as possible.
I'm not only hoping but also urging those in the Opposition Leader's office to move heaven and earth to make sure that the President will have at least a brief meeting with Michael Ignatieff while he is in Ottawa. To my mind, it is extremely important for each man to get the measure of the other. Democrats and Liberals are natural political allies and Ignatieff should make as much of that as is humanly possible. I expect that the President will have a warm relationship with the current PM but my political instincts tell me that Harper will not be able to get as much mileage out of Obama as Ignatieff could conceivably achieve.
Pictures of Obama and Ignatieff together will further cement the natural impression that Canadians have to an ever increasing extent that Ignatieff is a future prime minister. Again, I can't stress enough how important it is for the OLO to be on top of this file. Increased political momentum awaits.
[updated Sun Jan 11 12:44:34 -0500 2009]
11 Jan 12:44
17 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Tom Good
Your latest poll results really show that Dion's potential leadership of a coalition was very unpopular. The present numbers show that Canadians would prefer a General Election be called on the defeat of the Government's budget as I would.
[updated Mon Jan 12 14:56:46 -0500 2009]
12 Jan 14:56
24 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
parnel2 (Suspended for misuse of forum)
Here's Niks budget poll:
http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-F08-T350.pdf
[updated Mon Jan 12 18:00:32 -0500 2009]
12 Jan 18:00
64 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
I do not believe this current Poll, it must be one of many Liberal pollester's, Michael Ignatieff chances of being Prime Minister are as good as Dion's were, between slim and none. Canadians do not want a Prime Minister from either Ontario or Quebec for many years to come! Lets just get on with reforming the Senate and get rid of the many Liberal deadbeats their, they are totally and I mean totally useless!
[updated Mon Jan 12 18:34:28 -0500 2009]
12 Jan 18:34
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
I recently sent a message to Industry Canada and its Deputy Minister, "Do not get any bright idea's but we do not want China made automobiles coming into Canada period. And the same applies to our Lumber we do not want to sell it to China either. Until their is a attitude change in China, but the chances of that are between slim and none. If you have not lived in China, they have not got a clue what is going on and totally ignorant of what individausl think of the them, Our problem is the Civil Servants in the that Department Foreign Affairs that are Liberals, they need to be cleaned out!
[updated Mon Jan 12 18:41:44 -0500 2009]
12 Jan 18:41
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Peter3
The just-released complement to this poll, looking at support for an election versus asking the opposition to form a government if the budget fails to pass a confidence vote tells a very interesting story (or at least raises some interesting questions).
About half of Canadians would prefer an election, slightly fewer prefer that the opposition be given a chance to govern, and one in ten is unsure which would be better. These numbers were collected during the same period as the party preference poll, presumably as part of the same omnibus (Nik?).
Taken together, the data indicate that substantial preference for an election rather than a coalition does not translate into broad support for the Conservative Party. Given the heavy investment of resources in the air war that dominated discussion before Christmas, this is telling. It may also explain why the ads have largely stopped. I would be very interested to know if this has any connection to whether people believe that a coalition is still possible. Did you ask that, Nik?
The Quebec numbers are especially interesting; the high levels of support for a coalition government are registered while support for the Bloc has fallen rapidly. Popular coalition support does not have any connection with BQ objectives, it seems. It also raises some interesting questions for Mr. Ignatieff, who is the primary beneficiary of the BQ's fading prospects.
Although the headlines are mostly emphasizing that most Canadians prefer an election to a coalition, these numbers say that it is a fairly close thing nationally, with pockets of hardcore sentiment one way or the other and a substantial number open to persuasion or indifferent. Even in western Canada, where they admittedly don't need the help, this does not appear to serve as a defining issue for the Conservatives; Conservative support runs 21% behind support for an election. I would love to see how these responses register in a "Do you strongly/moderately support an election/opposition government?" kind of question.
I also think that these numbers show that enough Canadians support a coalition or are open to the idea that it is now likely a permanent feature of political dialogue in this country, whether a coalition happens this winter or not.
[updated Mon Jan 12 21:34:35 -0500 2009]
12 Jan 21:34
50 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Now we have Chinese "Made" Brake Pads being dumped in the Canadian market place, what do these lazy Civil Servants at Industry Canada, International Trade and Foreign Affairs do all day!
[updated Tue Jan 13 21:05:43 -0500 2009]
13 Jan 21:05
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
RonaldODowd
Toronto Star/Angus Reid Poll:
CPC: 39
LPC: 30
NDP: 17
BQ: 9
GP: 5
In Ontario, the CPC is two points ahead of the Liberals at 42, with the NDP at 12 and the Greens at 5%. In Quebec, the Bloc is at 37 with the Liberals at 25, while in BC, the CPC is at 35 with the LPC at 29 and NDP at 28%.
Best PM: Harper at 27, Ignatieff at 24, Layton at 12, Duceppe at 3 and May at 2%.
Finally, an interesting trend, voter opinion of Ignatieff is improving while that of Harper has worsened.
In short, a poll full of glaring contradictions. If this poll is accurate, we won't see any coalition deal or budget defeat. Both the Liberals and Conservatives need to coast for a while. Again, note the uptick in Ignatieff's popularity which is contrasted by the uptick in support for the Harper government. IMHO, the ball is really up in the air.
[updated Sat Jan 17 15:16:02 -0500 2009]
17 Jan 15:16
23 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
This is for Metro Vancouver members but others can comment:
Vancouver Sun Saturday Jan 17,2009
Olympic Village On Shaky Ground From The Start
The bottomline still is that Millenium must come up with 225 million including cost over runs for the purchase of the land period. Or the project goes to another developer. There is still time.
Whomever hired these City Managers must be fired, why are you protecting them, If need be the entire Staff at City Hall must be cleaned out. They simply have not done the job.
I'm sure glad Harper did not sucked in on this one!
[updated Sun Jan 18 00:18:07 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 00:18
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
RonaldODowd
Will Afghanistan Be Harper's Waterloo?
The Harper government has been gleefully predicting that it will be doing business with the incoming Obama Administration from Day One. Sometimes, one comes to regret getting what one wished for...take Afghanistan for example: Robert Gates, the 22nd and 23rd U.S. Defense Secretary, has already mused publicly that he would like to see Canada stay in Afghanistan beyond the mission's end-date of December 2011.
Talk about trouble ahead. It is no secret that president-elect Barack Obama intends to pick up the tempo in Afghanistan as soon as he can begin the process of winding down the U.S. commitment in Iraq. I suspect that the Prime Minister already has a contingency plan for such an eventuality: Canadian troops are scheduled to begin leaving the Khandahar region in July 2011 and combat forces are expected to be out of Afghanistan by December of that year.
The end-date was made clear during the last election campaign when the PM announced that Canada was no longer committed to a re-deployment from the south as originally outlined in the motion passed by the House of Commons by a vote of 198 to 77 last March.
Does this mean that new life is about to be blown into the Manley panel's recommendation for a strategic review in 2011 should president-elect Obama push for an increased commitment from Canada when he visits Ottawa in February or March?
Again, I imagine the PM, personally speaking, may be favourably disposed to such an eventuality but he will be skating on very thin ice should he move in that direction. We may end up seeing a better Olympic performance in Ottawa than in Vancouver.
Harper is intent on making Obama one of his new best friends. That may come with a political price at home that could quite conceivably be exceedingly difficult to pay. Beware of the man presenting you with Hobson's choice.
[updated Sun Jan 18 19:34:09 -0500 2009]
18 Jan 19:34
5 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
calmecam
This is totally unrelated but...
I just learned that CNN will be broadcasting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech... in its entirely... at 12 ET today.
It is a very rare opportunity to see it.
[updated Mon Jan 19 11:28:53 -0500 2009]
19 Jan 11:28
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Re National Post, Tolerable House, the fact is Canadians do not want a tolerable house we want accountability, we want MP's to say it like it is. And stop protecting Civil Servants and members of PSAC the union and that other Oganization called Excutive____
This is only thing Chretien could do! Protect the Civil Service, Justice still denied for the Sponsorship Program
[updated Sat Jan 31 21:14:15 -0500 2009]
31 Jan 21:14
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.