Home › Bill Casey and Tory Political Brushfires
Bill Casey and Tory Political Brushfires
Bill Casey’s musings and vote against the budget confidence motion are quite indicative of a broader challenge that the Harper Conservatives could face in the next election.
Because of the focus on trying to form a winning majority coalition in Quebec and Ontario…the Harper Conservatives have let a few political brushfires burning in other regions and provinces (i.e. Atlantic Canada, Saskatchewan). Failure to control these political brushfires could further hamper the ability of Harper to form a majority government - because possible gains in Ontario and QC would be offset by loses in other regions. If the Conservatives have to fight to hold what they have, forming a majority becomes a steeper hill to climb.
That being said, what do you think about Casey’s move and his removal from the Conservative Caucus. Likewise, Danny Williams, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador continues his frontal assault on Harper but this weekend on the CBC’s The House - made it clear that he was a Progressive Conservative and not a Conservative…further broadening the attack on Harper from resources to a broader ideological one.
What do you think?
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.
|
Most Read Comments
Highest Rated Comments
It is becoming more evident with each passing month that the Tory promises of th... more
Pressman (Ontario) 10 Jun 11:03
Nic the content of the CBC Radio show The House yesterday was first rate. You q... more
Ken Chapman (Alberta) 10 Jun 14:15
I watch what is happening, and it only convinces me more for the need for electo... more
Russell McOrmond (Ontario) 10 Jun 11:12
Your post is ridiculous - why didn't you just say 'LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE' ... more
e guye (Nova Scotia) 12 Jun 01:49
Correction that was the wrong vote, the Budget did pass 157 to 103 so much for C... more
canada562001 (British Columbia) 12 Jun 18:27
Isn't it strange that most MP's who only look after the 'best interests of their... more
e guye (Nova Scotia) 12 Jun 01:44
Comments
Pressman
It is becoming more evident with each passing month that the Tory promises of the last campaign were only made for the crassest political reasons and their "best before" date expired when the votes were counted. The discontent with Conservatives in Atlantic Canada and Saskatchewan is only symptomatic of a broader malaise: this government has fallen short of voter expectations. It promised transparency, it delivered opacity. It said it would "never" screw around with income trusts. "Never" came a little more quickly. God bless Bill Casey. He took a principled stand on behalf of his constituents and put his electors ahead of the Party line. Mr Casey is a shining beacon of hope in a sea of partisan hacks and trained seals who care more about their perks, benefits, and keeping on the good side of the PMO than they do about abut the people who elected them.
[updated Sun Jun 10 11:03:46 -0400 2007]
10 Jun 11:03
5 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Russell McOrmond
I watch what is happening, and it only convinces me more for the need for electoral reform in Canada. We need to have an electoral system that does away with the concept of "vote splitting", and thus the need to create coalition parties in order to form majority governments. I believe that if kept as separate parties able to form a coalition government the Reform and Progressive Conservative parties work well, but that the coalition party is unable to stay together in the long term. I believe the same is true of the Liberal party which is made up of components that have little in common with each other.
Ontario is proposing the simple MMP system (Mixed Member Proportional) where there are two votes where we have one the same as we have now for the riding representative, plus a separate vote for the party of our choice. This is to me a good compromise between those who want to have a PR system where parties get exactly the seats based on the vote, and those of the opposite view that believe that we should do away with parties entirely and simply vote for local representatives. Those who know nothing about the local candidate can simply vote for the party of their choice, and those who oppose parties can vote for the local representative of their choice, and those who have opinions on both can vote on both parts of the ballot.
While I like this compromise, any system that eradicates the antiquated concept of voting system would be worthwhile.
Note: The more there are regional issues in Nova Scotia, the more I believe the decision of Elizabeth May to run in Central Nova appears to have been far better than what people gave her credit for.
10 Jun 11:12
30 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
blossom
Russell,
This was a great move to have Elizabeth May run, without having a Liberal candidate, and we can thank Stephane Dion for this move. It is only on the Environment that I am happy to see her as a candidate, and would hope that she would get that seat, but her out-dated religious issues do bother me. Women have come a long way, and would not want to go back in their losing their acquired rights.
As for the rest, wouldn't this get us into another mess, like the Democrats and Republicans in the US? They even want to have an "Independent" party now. The Executive branch in the US has proved to have too much power, and look at the mess it created in Iraq, and all of their internal problems, such as health-care (medicare which they would like to opt for), etc...???
10 Jun 18:46
Russell McOrmond
I assume you mean the mis-quoting of her views on reproductive rights, as far as her views on "religious issues". You may want to go to the source, and not trust how some people who would be upset if she wins her seat have spun things.
The proper quote is to say she believes that abortions should be safe, legal and rare. I agree with this viewpoint, and I think most people do. We need to live in a society where women have rights, and that includes making it extremely rare that social/economic/etc situations lead to forcing decisions like abortion onto women. It is not enough to claim that women's rights are being protected simply by saying that abortion is legal.
Electoral reform would help protect us from what is happening in the USA, a country with a horse-and-buggy electoral system (their Electoral Colleges for voting for the presidency is right out of the wild-west movies). Modernization of their system would be different than ours (The presidential vote is an obvious example where instant runoff would work well), but they need modernization as much if not more than we do.
I believe the USA, Canada and India are the remaining democratic countries using the antiquated First Past the Post electoral system, and it is about time we joined the modern countries.
In the USA there is two parties that largely overlap, and no third (or forth, or ... or independents) can ever get elected. It is the politics of fear, which only leads to bad decisions being made.
In Canada the best the Liberals have to offer is that they aren't the Conservatives, and the best the Conservatives have to offer is that they aren't the Liberals. This isn't how to run a country or make rational decisions -- we need to vote *for* the things we believe in, not against the things we fear the most.
10 Jun 21:52
blossom
Hi Desmond,
I appreciated your fair and coherent reply.I was not referring to Ms May's thoughts on religion, but strictly on abortion rights for women. This right was fought for, and is essential to all women, and is a very personal decision that each woman should have the right to consider with her doctor, without interference from governments, or church - and safe and legal! Are we going to restrain stem cell research, and cut funds as in the US? Church and State must be separate. All we have to do is see the rediculous, and outrageous Dem & Rep faith debates. To go into who should and the why's of an abortion would be too long to debate, but I understand your point. However, keep in mind what happens when an (issue) is prohibited!
Personally, and not at this present time, our Parliamentary system usually works better than the US two party system, and the "Executive" has all the power and not the Senate, and Congress.
Until now, in this Country, we have not had politics of fear, except in my province, of course; but we are on course with this present gov't., and the US and on issues of Afghanistan. Certainly we are in a changing world, and our home politics indicate that perhaps we ought to become fearful of where this government wants to lead us? Politics may be dirty, but with the Liberals, fear is not something that we had to worry about.
After today's declarations, both from the PM, and the Atlantic provinces, and Courts, perhaps on the agenda, I do not see that this gov't will survive the Fall...The summer break is going to revive those tired-out politicians; and there is going to be a split in the Conservative party.I have tried to reply in a cool fashion, although, I admit that I am totally disillusioned by our political system, and try as we may, we can not seem to have the upper hand, and must rely totally on our political system, which is not working.
Our health system is falling apart, and patients are desperate for doctors. We are not being told the truth on issues which is deplorable. There is a great need to reconstruct societies whereby the benefits work for all. "A Just Society". Gun controls! Preventive measures and care. A greater need for rehabilitation. While we are discussing the principals of politics, one of the direst issues is global warming, and while there is no political will, we hear about new innovations, which will contribute to the health and wealth of our planet, coming out with great novel ideas on the market!
Although I hate to rub it in, and until we can have such reforms as you speak of, I would like to see a world leader as PM who has a vision for this Country, and Stephane Dion is still a last hope. He was laughed at for saying that perhaps we should bring back the prisoners, rather than sending them out for torture, and it is being proposed by Colin Powell in the US, as a better strategy, than the torture camps!!!
I hope that all read your last lines about how a country should be run and make rational decisions - and yes, I am adamant that we should be able to vote for the things that we believe in, and not against the things we fear the most. That's a famous good motto!
11 Jun 16:37
Russell McOrmond
Quick notes:
I think you (or your source) has misinterpreted something Ms. May said if you think she would revoke or in any way reduce or oppose a woman's right to safe and legal abortion.
I guess we are thinking differently about the politics of fear. For as long as I can remember (and granted I've only been voting for a few decades) the two major parties have conjured up the concept of "vote splitting" as the primary reason to vote for them. You are told to vote Liberal to not vote-split and allow the "evil Conservative" to win the seat, and you are told to vote Conservative to not vote-split and allow the "evil Liberal" to win the seat. This has had a major impact on third parties, and was in fact the only reason why the Reform party has to go as far as they did and destroy the Progressive Conservative party.
This isn't voting for the candidate or the party that you most want to win, but voting against the candidate or party that you least want to win. While not as bad as the fear mongering we see south of the boarder, it is still the politics of fear. Then again, destroying political parties is pretty serious stuff.
By the way, who is "Desmond"?
11 Jun 16:59
blossom
Mr. McOrmond, please accept my apology for Desmond...your bold
italic letters brought me back to reality!It is referred to as dyslexia.
Look, I find Elizabeth May dazzling with regards to her ideas on
the Environment, and have heard her speak on issues, very few,
however, brilliantly, compared to the rhetoric that we are
hearing these days. I would gladly replace her with S.Harper!
For the record, please re-read what I have stated. I have already agreed for safe and legal abortions, which she is also in favour.
Where we split, it would seem, is that women should have the
inherent right to determine, and in all cases, to choose to
have an abortion, if she so wishes. No discriminatory
processees whereby in one case it is OK, but not in another.
The latter part is my personal opinion!Let me assure you that,
I would not want to discredit Liz May in any way. She is honest,
and a Parliamentarian whom I would trustand respect. On issues of the
Environment, she has shown that she can be trust-worthy, and
sincere. If she really believes in a cause,she will go with her
conscience, rather than with the politics!!! Rest assured that
I am no anti-May!
Let us not forget that we have the right to disagree, which
gives more spice to the issues, and part of our Democratic
process.
In an ideal world, definately I would love to vote for the
candidate of my choice, and equally important the issues which
I judge truly important, and a party who stands-up to its
promises, and keeps them. This just isen't happening right
now.
My thoughts are, that before we can reform our political
system, we shall be going back to the polls, and altho we may
have gotten rid of the Sopranos, (which I have never watched),
this "new" government is getting our attention, like a real
soap-opera, which needs to end immediately.
The Harper gov't is not straight with us - Income Trusts,
just today, with the Atlantic Discord - I am sure that you also
know all of the facts, therefore, I shall not bore you with the
repetitious arguments, however, I found it interesting to hear
that Min. Flaherty did not pay heed to Bill Casey's last
minute request to correct and error, by which all would be
forced to vote on incorrect info.
I shall finish off, and gave this last example, because as I
observe all that is said, by different Ministers, etc...
Please note, and this is highly true in the Harper gov't, that
they lack experience, and rush into matters, and then refuse
to back down, and correct their errors. I have noticed that
those who are against this budget, carefully study, and do not
stutter when opposing this budget because they have seriously
done their homework. I hope that you get the gist!
Example: Young doctors today, (and am not referring to any
specific doctor),rely upon useful equipment to make diagnostics,
yet, a lot of mistakes are being made, because they are not
exploiting experience as older generation doctors used to do.
Many mistakes were made by this government, because of their
lack of knowledge - and arrogance at not backing off, when
they see that they are wrong.
Seems to me that you once mentioned that you are an
Environmentalist, or perhaps it was "Desmond"? and thought that
you would possibly speak out about what is happening (G-8),
etc.
I explained what I thought was politics of fear, and from
what I understand you to say, it's more about political twist,
whereas I really worry when governments abuse in either
hiding the truth, ousting decent people in their Cabinet,
because they stand on principal. You know the rest!
11 Jun 19:03
Russell McOrmond
Sorry if I seemed a bit argumentative. I'm not intending to be. I guess I believe that there are enough things to agree and disagree on that people actually say, that we can avoid discussions about things people didn't say. Ms. May's words have been taken out of context when it comes to things like reproductive rights.
On the other hand, there is legitimate room for disagreement on things like green tax shifting which she has spoken about.
I don't know if I qualify as an "environmentalist", but that all depends on how you define the term. My interest in the Green Party has always been from the perspective of economic policy such as full cost accounting and the green tax shift. I consider myself a capitalist and believe that the full costs of something should be embedded within the price, otherwise the 'invisible hand' of the free market simply can't work as intended. This is a controvercial statement given both the extreme left and the extreme right in Canada are opposed to free market capitalism. They want to manipulate the marketplace to favor special groups. Even though the right and left have chosen different groups to favor, they both have the same (IMHO) flawed economic beliefs.
I spoke about this in the past on this blog in the context of Kyoto which is more of an economic instrument than an environmental instrument. It doesn't use the heavy hand of government to regulate harmful substances as has been the case in previous treaties, but uses a cap and trade system to teach the economy to internalize this harm which had thus far been externalized.
Does that make me an environmentalist, or does this make me a capitalist? Maybe they are the same thing, and maybe it is extremists like John Baird who are neither that make everything seem so confusing.
11 Jun 21:35
blossom
Hello Mr. McOrmond,
You explained your case very well, and I really enjoyed reading your ideas, and we
certainly need this kind of information so that we may all express our views, and
learn the concrete facts so that we can make intelligent decisions.
I believe that you are referring to the proposed American concept that, for instance:
not proposed by the US government, but a proposal:
Example:
If one can afford to pay an item at $500. you would pay the tax on this item,
and if someone can only afford an item at $20., that person would be paying his/her
fair share of the tax...so on and so on? I would welcome such a system of tax,
which would relieve the paper work, etc...on our Economies. I know that a new
book was published in 2005 by an American economist - have forgotten!
Question: How do you feel about a coalition government in this Country? It seems to
be working for Germany??? I know that they have their problems also.
On cap and trade: I believe that you mean that we should have a tax for those who
misuse harmful substances, such as France threathened to use against Canada
at the G-8 summit, if we do not participate. Sorry, I am not great at expressing
myself on this issue, however, global-warming is serious, and if we do not address
it now, it is already late. I also know that we have to help developing countries to
achieve this goal, wilst their economies are growing. We polluted, and want their
economies to thrive, but also by stopping all polution. In the US their efforts aren't
working because they are using the word "intensity", and although they will
cap their emissions, they will still be growing. I am no expert!
I believe that all of us who wish to protect our planet, and save all species, even
mankind, are environmentalists, even at heart! I think that each of us has a
responsibility towards future generations to make our contribution. This should
have an affect on the candidates that we vote for, and what they stand for.
Thanks, I enjoyed reading your thoughts.
13 Jun 00:27
Russell McOrmond
Re: Taxes
I know this is controversial, but I don't believe in a "progressive" tax system where what is measured is 'income'. I believe that those who make choices that cost society more should be paying more, not those who simply earn more money. For instance, a shift of taxes off of income taxes and onto carbon taxes is a well discussed possibility.
I don't support the GST. I support a GT (tax on the purchase of new tangible goods), but not a tax on services. I believe that labour should be cheap, and further that it should be cheaper to repair something than to buy a new one. I believe that the resale of used goods should also be tax-free, given re-use is more efficient (Better on the reduce, re-use/repair, recycle, etc hierarchy). The fact that buying new things is often cheaper than buying used or repairing is a clear case where "cost" and "price" are entirely screwed up by the massive government subsidies in the current system.
Far away from most people's minds is the concept I've been pushing for years (generally quietly) is an Intellectual Property Tax. We pay taxes on other forms of property, so why not so-called "Intellectual Property". Taxes would be based on the estimated commercial value of the exclusive right, much as municipalities charge property taxes based on the value of the property. Tax exemptions might exist for those who offer their work in royalty-free public licenses (FLOSS, Creative Commons, etc). Exclusive rights holders would cease to pay any IP taxes once a work enters into the public domain (either the exclusive right expires, the work isn't renewed, or the author dedicates it to the public domain). This is all aimed at collecting taxes while a work is commercially successful, but to ensure that a work enters into the public domain when it no longer is. We currently have a situation where the vast majority of works under copyright have either unlocateable copyright holders or the works are "out of print". All creativity builds on the past, and the faster works clearly enter the public domain the faster they are available to the next generation to build upon them.
Unfortunately not a policy likely to be adopted in Canada any time soon given both the Conservatives and the Liberals are more likely to grant highly successful legacy content industries even more government handouts. Look at private members bill C-453 for the latest embarrassment (An Act to establish the Canadian Motion Picture Industry Secretariat, Mr. Bell, North Vancouver).
Re: Too late for climate change.
No matter how late it is, there is no time like the present to start. I don't believe a massive regulatory system can work, and there will be people trying to bypass it. There is far too much of our current economy that subsidizes inefficiency. If you harness the economy, through economic measures, you will make the change far faster than if you try to step in with big government.
This is why I have to laugh when the self-called "Conservatives" come up with their "unlimited license to pollute" rhetoric. This is simply not sound economic thinking, and not worthy of people who claim to be fiscal conservatives. It is only an unlimited license for some mythical company with an unlimited amount of financial resources. The reality is that the "invisible hand" of free market capitalism can slap silly any companies that refuse to change with the marketplace, and any company that spent all their money polluting would simply cease to exist fairly quickly.
The whole 'intensity' idea is to allow polluting companies to grow and only need to reduce their 'per unit' emissions rather than their absolute emissions. This is typical of Industrialized nations to try to get around doing anything that way. I am surprised the US government is taking this direction given other parts of the US government have largely outsourced their manufacturing and other tangible economic sectors based on their ideological tie to a mythical Industrial Knowledge Economy.
How Hollywood, Congress, And DRM Are Beating Up The American Economy
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4008
13 Jun 10:32
blossom
Hello Russell,
Note that I am careful with your name! ha-ha.
I shall read paragraph by paragraph to try to understand carefully.
Am very comfortable with the first paragraph.
I really welcome your second paragraph. We live in all too consuming
society minded spenders, and credit-card debtor's society!!! I am outraged, and
never pay for extended warrantees (especially on a fridge & stove). This is the
best money making gimmick there is. Appliances break, and one has to
renew them! I know of a live fridge over 60yrs old, that is turned-off for the
winter, and starts immediately when the current is turned on the following
summer!!! Absolutely no tax on services!!! It's a tax added to another tax!!!
For the environment, it is disastrous to have to discard rather than fix, and to
tax on second-hand items, is foolish for those who would benefit...No taxes
on food products!
Presently the loon is up, and producers, retailers, etc...have not brougth down
the prices of all items, which means that we are paying 30% (10%/yr) for
our consumption, along with the taxes, and could bring interest rates to
rise!!! Scandalous!!!
"All creativity builds on the past" - agree... When you have the time, would
you translate this paragraph for me; I am a having difficulty understanding,
but Intellectual Property Tax is unknown to me? I get the gist, but can not
view this concept in my mind?
On the Environment, you have it right, I just do not have the proper vocabulary.
We do need to stop to depend on oil, as was comically stated by 'bush' in
his last State of the Union address! This was the problem with the initial
Kyoto Accord, I believe, that we would continue to polute, while the poor
countries would be punished. Bengladesh, for example is going under water,
and the poverty tremendous.
Unfortunately I missed the CBC (I think) documentary on Hollywood, etc...
beating up the American Economy.
I like your ideas, and you know where you stand, and where you are going,
however, you are a little bit technical sometimes, but great reading. I
wish that I had more time to read, but there is so much to learn, therefore,
I really appreciate your thoughts, and hope that you write more. Its great
that you always propose new ideas - that's what we need mostly, and
Education!
Thanks,
14 Jun 23:17
Russell McOrmond
Sorry for being technical. My training is as a technical person (I'm a hardware/software geek turned policy wonk ;-) I make my living as a system administrator for servers on the Internet, as well as being a software author.
Not sure how best to explain the Intellectual Property Tax concept. Takes two concepts (Intellectual Property, intangible exclusive rights that are owned under laws such as copyright, patents, trademarks and other laws) and "Property Taxes" (normally collected by municipal governments based on the value of the property), and put them together.
Property taxes tend to be paid yearly, and provide the largest source of income for municipal infrastructure. It is "progressive" with respect to the value of the property, meaning that the more valuable the property the higher your tax bill. Real-estate property is often thought of as something that would otherwise be in the commons, and thus there are limits to what people can do with it and there is a justification for taxing it. The same is true of so-called "Intellectual Property" which would otherwise be in the public domain (if not for the exclusive right), and which would be a legitimate source of government income -- especially if taxes were shifted off of income/profits onto this form of taxation.
Like other taxes, exceptions need to exist. This is consistent with existing real-estate property taxes. There are patent and copyright holders who retain their rights, but openly license their works to the commons. While they are still owners, it make sense to reduce or eliminate the expected property tax since they are already allowing for the open royalty-free use of their works, something that should be encouraged.
Does that help clarify things?
15 Jun 14:10
blossom
Hello Russell,
Yes, it does, absolutely, and quite an interesting concept.
Just today, I heard about Intillectual Property Protection in Cyber-
space, and with your intelligent explanation, was able to capture
this concept.
Like the fact that you describe yourself as a policy wonk, and
software author...Makes your writings and ideas very interesting, and
this is why I wanted to really understand fully the ideas that you
would submit on this blog...Nik's blog is a terrific way to exploit
your ideas, and might lead us all to terrific discussions, and enhance
our creative thinking.
Politics entail all ideas to be considered, and ideas such as yours
give us a bigger spectrum to broaden our minds. Education is the
tool that gives one the insight to learn and come to better conclusions.
All this to mean, that I feel that your ideas are always worth
discovering and learning about.
This blog has evolved since I began, and people with ideas,
such as yourself, are contributing to enhancing it, and I felt that you
deserved this chance.
Wisdom is teaching me not to argue and try to prove my point, but
rather to learn with others, avoid arguments, and listen to what
solutions others might bring.
It's not you, I am just not technical enough, and thanks for your
patience. Really appreciate it.
15 Jun 22:20
Russell McOrmond
Thanks for the note.
By the way, I have my own BLOG at http://digital-copyright.ca where I (and a few others) post about technology law and related issues on a daily basis.
15 Jun 22:23
blossom
Thanks, I wrote it down, along with the other one.
Still, I hope that you keep blogging on this site also.
16 Jun 01:19
blossom
Russell,
Sorry to get back to you again this eve, however, I have just listened to an
all too short conversation with Zbzigniew Brezinski, former national
security advisor to Clinton, and others, and was speaking on Foreign
policy, and Globalizaton, and talks about how we (US), which means
Canada also...and how since the world has so become interactive with
communications, and that "restless populism wants dignity"...and how
we all are going to have to reconsider our lavish way of life. We are far
too materialistic, and going to have to make changes because we will no
longer be able to renew our resources, and generations to come will not
be able to sustain this way of affluence, which is an issue which you
addressed in your earlier writings.
His book is entitled "Second Chance", and this is vis-a-vis our world-wide
consumption, respect, diversity, and social justice towards all. We do not
have a self-denying mentality!!!
He had predicted how Palestine would explode if it wasen't settled immediately.
Well, I won't go on and on, but wish I could repeat this conversation to all,
because Foreign Policy is one of the most important component that we
have to consider with regards to the government that we elect, with
regards to politicians' experience. Anything but a government who follows
a parallel with the 'bush' administration, not just on Foreign policy, but on all
of their internal problems which have been unaddressed.
We can't sell democracy with weapons, but we must keep our individual
freedoms at home.
I was reading, this week, that former Presidents, and NGO's make US
Foreign policy, and sure hope that they ship 'bush' on an isolated island,
at the end of his term. Perhaps with Mr. Harper?
15 Jun 00:25
DSoulis
Democratic reform is much needed however to continue to follow the British age old system is not what I would recommend. When I look back through history, I see good Prime Ministers and parlimentarians getting too tied up in party politics and which is not good for Canadians. The move to allow the BLOC to sit in parliment was a mistake and it is constant reminder of a few trying to make Quebec, something it is not - a seperatist. Only national parties representing all Canada should be allowed to sit in parliment.
I know millions will disagree and the likelihood of this happening is extremely remote, but I would like to see the party system die and be replaced with an elected body of individuals who form the goverment much like the Assembly in the North West Territories but with all the same powers as our existing govenment.
11 Jun 10:05
Russell McOrmond
This is one of the reasons I like the MMP system. It is a compromise between those who want more parties, and those who want less. It is a realistic change that can be made now -- a sort of incremental improvement.
Every election, provincial or federal, I hear people talking about which party leader they will vote for. I have never seen any riding where more than one leader is running in that riding, so there is never a choice to vote between leaders -- they are really voting for parties, and have no clue what is going on in the riding. This may upset me, but it is a reality we all have to deal with.
For a day job I work in the Free/Libre and Open Source Software sector. http://flora.ca/floss . One of the mantras is "release early, release often". Making small incremental changes is far easier on the public, than massive changes of everything.
The Ontario proposal http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/ is simple: increase the size of ridings (IE: reduce the number of riding representatives, something already done in the past) and then keep that part of the ballot the same as it is now. Then add a new part to the ballot that gives people a vote on the party of their choice. Pretty simple incremental change. Maybe in 20 years the system would upgrade again, but it will be far easier to have that debate with having the familiarity of the previous upgrade.
The only possible way to get to the type of change you propose is via incremental changes. Otherwise, we'll be stuck with the horse-and-buggy system we have now forever.
11 Jun 10:39
DSoulis
Thanks Russell for your comments. I sure do agree, only incremental change will fix the unacceptable system we have now. Unfortunately, I am not a leader nor am I an architech, but a good solid worker when given the assignment! Like a dog with a bone, I gaving up is usually not an option!!
11 Jun 18:38
blossom
Hello again Mr. McOrmond,
I sure wish that you would lay a plan on the table, and would be all ears, and am not
being facetious.
11 Jun 19:56
Russell McOrmond
The Ontario Citizen's Assembly has layed out a very specific plan, along with an online slideshow giving examples of how it would work.
http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/
Everyone in Ontario should know this system well, as we will have a vote in November about whether we will adopt the system or stay with the antiquated horse-and-buggy system we use now. This is pretty important stuff, given if the Yes side wins then the next Ontario election after November will be using the new voting system.
While this is just Ontario, this is one of the bigger province. The choice of a Québec citizen's assembly may come out with something different system, although without changing away from a parliamentary system I suspect that MMP becomes the most realistic of the various options.
11 Jun 21:22
blossom
Hi,
Have taken note, and shall learn more about it. Appreciate it.
Thanks
13 Jun 00:47
blossom
Hi DSoulis,
How true. I can live with this thought. What I especially like is that you are not dogmatic, and condeming all...It's the old political game between parties that is degenerating, and ousting, camouflaging the good.
The 'bloc' is disruptive in Parliament, and yes, should never have been allowed to sit in the House. We have had our share of scare tactics in this province, and we have not yet finished with it! Their votes have been bad for the whole Country, if one is a Federalist!
I am not so sure that millions would disagree about an elected body of individuals who form a gov't, and joining this to what Desmond also proposes, with variations, that this would not enhance our voice in government, and good governance.
We are only 30million people in Canada, and although the percentage of votes went up in the last election, perhaps people might be more inclined to vote in greater numbers, if they felt that it made a difference.
11 Jun 16:50
DSoulis
Thanks Blossom for your comments. Yes, I do think more would get involved and more would vote if they believed their local representative hold a strong independent voice in parliment.
As for the Bloc, while they have written good Bills, they are never passed by parliment, not because they are not good initiatives but because of the party.
Hopefully, the many issues facing the Conservatives and concerning to Canadians, will either wise them up or we will see another change in goverment, something we don't want but perhaps need.
We need a total about face and reform in our system. Maybe we can be thankful to the Harper government for making us realize that. Harper is too much of a dictator and yet doesn't have near the support of Canadians to gain any support. His secreatives ways are coming home to roost! Hopefully, sooner than later. Tossing him out in a leadership race, couldn't come too soon for me.
Thanks again Blossom, enjoyed reading your comments.
11 Jun 18:34
blossom
Yes, DSoulis, isen't it nice when we can also agree.
One would expect that all political parties could debate as we do on Nik's blog; and
take at heart the issues for all Canadians, and also because all our politicians are also
affected, or afflicted with the decisions that they make.
I am confident that S.Harper is going to get his wish and get an election before his
term ends. It's just a matter of timing, and if the Liberals are ready for an election.
In the context that you have stated that the 'bloc' may have had good bills, notice how
they vote on the issues; not even always good for Qc.! They voted on the important
softwood lumber deal positively. They are disruptive at all levels of government. In my
riding, it is the 'bloc' that won, and try to reach them...they never even return a phone
call!!! - not that I have made many, since I keep away from them, like the pest. It is
impossible for them to be for Canada, since they are against, and have done (pq)
unpardonable governance for Qc, when at the helm. We still suffer the consequences.
So much for this, because I become revolted every time I think of them!
You are right that Canadians do not want an election and have voiced their opinion to
deaf ears. S.Harper so wanted a majority that he only concentrated his back-firing
efforts on this, and I have a feeling that this time (in the Fall) he will have self-defeated
at the polls. "Dictator" is not too harsh a word for him; he is the epitome of a demagogue.
Until now I was opposed to an election, but do not like to see him close down the
"House" without meeting the Premiers to settle the A.Accord, because we would be
losing $4billion in monies that should go to the Provinces, if not settled by the end of
June 07...This is pretty serious, and unprecedented stuff - To arrogantly take provinces
to court against the Feds, and drag this on for years, rather than meet with the
Premiers and comprehend, and admit that he made another mistake.
I hate to be redundant, but from the start S.Harper has broken his promises, made
huge mistakes in Foreign policy, is seen as on the same parallel with 'bush', which
Canadians abhore, and I did notice today, that as he was responding to the Press,
that his manner was rather timid, and no substance to his defence, other than his
aggressivity to take the provinces to the Courts.
If he had not quite lost it until now, today, he just did!
To conclude, if some of you have any ideas on how to bring about changes and
reforms to our system, I would love to hear about it, and before the next election.
I also enjoy reading your writings, and your thoughts.
Thanks,
11 Jun 19:43
blossom
Hello Russell,
Thanks for explaining the MMP system. I can see why one could be a proponent of this
voting system. I would definately want to vote for both the candidate and the party.
In any election, and I can not state the importance of this, candidates should be out there
and talking to their constituents, and getting known for what they stand for, and in a riding;
on a personal basis.
Just for the record, I was more than enthusiastic about her entente with Stephane Dion, which
was brilliant, and although she had said that she had concerns about running in Central Nova,
where she is from, she certainly has good instincts...She and M. Dion have mental caliber.
With those two Leaders in the House, we would finally have intelligent discourses.
Coming back to taxes: It came back to me that you, I believe, are speaking about
the "flat tax" whereby it might be at 25% on all goods and services, and this way everybody
pays their fair share of taxes, and the government doesn't lose on tax default/evasion.
To me, this is the best and fairest system which has been proposed in the US but hasen't
gotten any attention yet.
13 Jun 07:05
Russell McOrmond
If income is the metric for a progressive tax system, then the flat tax is the simplest to administer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax
Unfortunately the only Canadian federal party that spoke about it was the Reform party and they got it all wrong. A flat tax works best if you have no exemptions and the same rate of taxation (IE: get rid of income brackets). What the Reform wanted was to get rid of income brackets, but keep all the exemptions. This in reality would mean that it would no longer be a progressive tax system given the rich would be paying an effective rate far lower than the poor given they would have the ability to make use of more loophole/exemptions. We should have a basic exemption to take those below a certain income off of the income tax system entirely (possibly making it refundable as a form of Guarunteed Annual Income -GAI), but should otherwise not have any other exemptions.
Flat-tax = (income - basic-exemption) * tax rate
(pay if positive, GAI refund if negative).
I don't believe in income being the metric, but that said the Reform proposal was the worst of all possible worlds.
Re: Stephane and Elizabeth. I think people have taken their decision not to run candidates in each others riding to mean they agree on far more than they actually do. While Stephane and even Jack Layton of the NDP have "environmental" plans, they use very different government levers. They are far less likely than the Greens to harness a free market economy, and far more likely to make an already complex system even more complex.
The NDP are unable to make any effective changes given their tie to the labour movement, with far too much control from the automobile sector. Tax-shifting would shift jobs out of old Industrial economy and big-Union jobs into more diverse services (cheaper labor, more people doing repair/etc work, etc) where Unions aren't as prevalent (or necessary).
13 Jun 10:49
blossom
Hello Russell,
Yes, this makes a lot more sense. Now I really understand how it should work, and
would be terrific for people of a low income. I believe it would be a step towards
fighting poverty.
This is why Bob Ray left the NDP for the Liberals, since they are tied to the Labour.
It is true that S. Dion agrees with Ms May's principals on the
Environment, but not on too many issues; otherwise they would have joined the two
parties. It's unfortunate that two such great Leaders/visionaries can not join forces
together; however, or at least, be two main parties. There are a lot of divisions in the Liberal
party, but it is these two people whom I greatly respect.
14 Jun 23:34
Russell McOrmond
Rather than joining parties, why not facilitate election of diverse voices and the creation of coalition governments? We need electoral reform, not party mergers -- we lost an important voice when the Reform party destroyed the Progressive Conservatives (With the help of Peter Mackay, someone I have the least respect for of any member of the current parliament)
While May and Dion like each other as individuals, the tie between the Greens and the Liberals largely ends there. In fact, if you look at the platforms from the 2000 election, the closest party to the Greens was the Progressive Conservatives (RIP).
I have voted Green in the past, and in my own riding I have voted for David McGuinty. David is another individual that I personally respect, despite his party. His work at the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy suggested he understood the tie between the environment and the economy, and the need to leverage the economy through tax and other policy changes in order to internalize costs which are currently externalized into the environment.
His views are not shared by all Liberals, however. There are many who are all for continuing to subsidize harmful behaviour and further externalize the full costs of doing business.
I don't think Bob Ray went far when going to the Liberals, given their overall economic policies are based on the same outdated principles -- just with minor differences on preferences on labour vs industrial-era management.
15 Jun 14:20
blossom
Russell,
Funny that you should say this about David McGuinty, because I saw him in an
interview this eve, whereby, John Tory who wants to get elected did not jive with me.
I liked what Mr. McGuinty had to say, and explained why he had to hike taxes, and
encourage (if one might say) , the middle class. This is what happened in our
Province, and although we certainly need more monies invested in our Education,
and Health system. I got my two men mixed-up. I saw Dalton McGuinty; his
brother is a Liberal MP. Still, Dalton McGuinty may have problems getting re-
elected, so I heard, but I liked what he had to say this eve.
I have to laugh, because I am trying to follow Foreign policy, the US politics,
Canadian politics, and I am getting mixed-up. Actually it is the issues, and the
policies which really interest me, and not the politics. This eve, I was trying to listen
to Henry Kessinger, who briefly stated that Viet-Nam was an error in judgment, and
kept going round and round, and to think that he is one of the strategists in the Iraq war!
Going back to the MMP system, the Liberals talked about it during their leadership
campaign, but kept the delegates, which is a system that I do not like. The grass-
roots have to be heard.
P. McKay was more disapointing when he said that you had to go with the caucaus,
according to the rules, but never answered about serving the constituents...The heck
with them!!! He never thought that Bill Casey would vote against the budget, and it
came to him as a surprise, after saying that if you vote according to your conscience;
you won't be ousted!!! Looks really bad for him. I don't see that the
Harper gov/t could continue another year, unless they come-up with a plan. Personally,
I do not like the way they are blowing away monies, and generally, do not like the
way they do business!
Just realized that you are from Ontario, but you din't pick-up Gary Lund's plan
on nuclear waste...? I believe that the solution, rather than dump this stuff in
somebody's back-yard; would be better to renew it. Rather than paying for ads,
they should invest in science.
16 Jun 01:14
Russell McOrmond
Just to clarify: I have voted for David McGuinty (the younger who is in federal politics, has the environmental, economic, development, and world traveler background), not Dalton McGuinty (the older, who is the Premier of Ontario). They are both in the riding of Ottawa South, with Ontario adopting the identical electoral boundaries as the feds.
Being brothers doesn't mean you share all ideas or style ;-)
Mr. Mackay also claimed in a statement during Question Period that "There will be no whipping, flipping, hiring or firing on budget votes as we saw with the Liberal government." Clearly he is either a liar or he is out of the cabinet loop. Given his track record with destroying the Progressive Conservative party you can guess which one I believe.
I should probably stay out of the debate about nuclear waste. I believe nuclear power (and the global inability to separate civil and military use) is one of those examples where our understanding of natural sciences (physics, etc) is outstripping our maturing with social sciences (politics, law, etc). It is the same as with GMO's and other controversial technologies where it isn't the natural sciences that are the sources of problems, but the social sciences (IE: food security problems that originate in bio-patenting and not genetic manipulation).
16 Jun 11:34
blossom
Russell,
Yes, I understand that David McGuinty is a Liberal, and see him often in short
interviews, and realize that they differ in their politics..David is smart!
I did not know Dalton McGuinty, since it was the first that I had seen him
speak-out. Realize he is not that popular, not of the same party, but on his
discourse, I preferred him to John Tory - just a snap judgment!!!
You are doing great at explaining!
As for Peter McKay, I think that most serious voters know the truth!!! Also, I
believe that he is hand-cuffed (so to speak) and gagged, and there is no way that
he can get out of this mess, and by doing so will ensure (hopefully) that Liz
May will win his riding.
Food security from China!!! We went through the whole drama of "Pet Menu Foods".
SPCA, Specialty Pet Foods stores, vets, etc...not well informed, and was the
first when I heard the news about this scandal, and the CEO of Menu Foods, who
knew and was not feeding his dog this junk, but let us all go on doing so with
our own pets.
I buy "First Choice" which is manufactured in this Province, and all the ingredients,
supposedly from here??? The lack of information was just unbelieveable at first.
I encourage everyone never to buy from Menu Foods, ever again. They are in
the Courts for more millions, and more of their profits, which I rencently heard.
Well, to put it bluntly, the burying of nuclear waste, is dangerous; they can always
retreive it in the future, in order to re-use. They should invert this process, and
learn how to re-use it now. We are going to have great problems in the future
unless they address this issue, and get the students into sciences and maths.
In the US, communities whereby, whole families have had cancer have had
long law suits, and not easy to prove, since the companies deny it, and the
gov't.....This is a major issue. "nuclear" belong in the hands of no one. There
was a ban on this, but the US is not in a position to try to deny other Countries
this right, which they do have, but Iran, for instance is presently a threath,
unless seemingly friendly negotiations are quickly undertaken, and the sanctions
removed.
"Nuclear" weapons have no place on this planet. I won't go into nuclear energy.
I don't see why you should stay out of the nuclear debate, because you are
fully capable of debating this issue, I can tell, and people need to know more
about this. I would encourage you to do so, and on all issues which you feel
are pertinent to you. Aren't we all just doing that, and giving our opionion?
When the issues are a little more technical, and difficult to understand, because
we hear less about it, this is when I like someone like you, to bring it to light.
This is what sharing information is about, and you do it well.
16 Jun 18:26
Nic the content of the CBC Radio show The House yesterday was first rate. You quoted Danny Williams' making a distinction between the PROGRESSIVE Conservatives and Reform/Alliance CONSERVATIVES. I think that distinction is critical to the future of Harper's government. Casey and Turner are two PCs who prove the point.
There were many many more equally telling and insightful comments by the other guests on The House yesterday. If people missed it I recommend they visit the show on the CBC.CA website and give it a listen.
Harper's support is eroding here in Alberta too - particularly amongst the Reform/Alliance Conservatives. We Progressive Conservatives left him once the "merger" ( I mean take over) of the two parties occurred. Not because it occurred - but the way it hapened was offensive...mostly thanks to Peter McKay's actions.
Harper is a goose on a slow cook...it is just a matter of time before he is done. He is a divisive force focused on doing what ever it takes for personal political power. He is not a leader that is able to see beyond gaining power to one who is intent on serving society and improving state based good governance.
[updated Sun Jun 10 14:15:39 -0400 2007]
10 Jun 14:15
8 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
uf318
Nick, your analysis is right on the money. The Conservatives will do anything to get that beloved majority (so they can reshape Canada in America's image). Unfortunately for them, they took their relatively safe ground for granted. It's no wonder why there is now talk of a new Reform Party emerging.
Incidentally, I found it very amusing to hear Harper lecture Putin at the G8 on being able to have a thick skin when it came to criticism of the government. Perhaps Bill Casey and Garth Turner would have some interesting comments on this issue!
10 Jun 14:43
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
robb5225
I think that people are starting to realize what the Torries are doing to this Country, they break promises such as the trust funds, the Atlantic accord, child care and health care. Mr. Harper is two faced and can't be trusted, all he is concerned with is power and control. Mr. McKay was the one who stood in the House and said no one would be turfed from the party, another lie! So far we have had the Prime Minister, Defence Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Labour Minister and Security Minister all lie in the House and to the Canadian people. I think it will only get worst because they have run out any new ideas. All they do is rant and rave in the House and everyone has stopped listing to this NEW GOVERNMENT! Thank you.
[updated Sun Jun 10 15:46:37 -0400 2007]
10 Jun 15:46
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
blossom
Hello Nick,
I absolutely agree that the Harper gov/t has been, and from the start,has defeated its own enhancement of governance...Just on basic principals promised in the electoral platform. Accountability, and transparency, and I would add no credibility. Flip-flopping on important issues promised - rendering Parliament disfunctional - Foreign policy mistakes and on a parallel with the 'bush' administration, that Canadians do not uphold. This last G8-meeting another pretense, and washing Canada's dirty laundry and putting the blame internationally on the former government. Using millions in attack ads against the former gov't, and not upholding promised monies to aid the Natives - land claims that will be held-up in Courts for the next 130 yrs., and the Natives promising to defend their rights next summer. Having Dr. David Suzuki's Foundation audited three times in one year re. the Environment and climate-change. Afghanistan. Not holding to written promises made by the Liberal gov't to the Atlantic Provinces,
and Saskatchewan, and ousting Bill Casey, who voted according to his conscience, even though
he had signed twice, but as he explained, was hoping to make changes in the budget, and Peter G. MacKay ensuring that if anyone voted according to his conscience, that he would NOT
be ousted??? Both the PM and Min. MacKay are travelling, and not heard on this topic. Besides, it was interesting to hear that Mr. Casey had been "locked" in a room in Parliament with Min.Flaherty, the PM, and Min. MacKay, who were trying to dissuade him from voting against the budget??? Bill Casey said that he had to ask to have the door unlocked in order for him to leave the room? Strange???
As for Quebec, recently during the Provincial budget vote, the opposition party (ADQ) mario dumont refused to meet with Premier Jean Charest (L), and without seeing the budget said that he would vote against it, thus, creating another week of crisis in our province!!! mario dumont is a nationalist, and has always voted "separatist"!!! Even our biased pq French media has confronted dumont, and rightly so, for having acted in a (pq) andre boisclair fashion, for which he was ousted from the pq as leader, and dumont is seen as having been arrogant and irresponsible. S.Harper had met twice with mario dumont of the (adq) in Ottawa, before the budget was announced, and that has brought no sympathy to the Harper gov't. We almost had to have another provincial election in Qc over the budget, whereas the odds were that the three
parties would win equal votes. More monies spent to no avail on another disruptive election.
This is what the Harper gov't has been about since his election - a majority gov't, which he will never attain.
S.Harper has kept the Press at bay; a fundamental mistake. Danny Williams (C) is fighting him on principal, rather than issue - "broken promise", just like all the other promises broken. More monies for Africa; the old money hasen't been sent yet for HIV/Aids and assistance. Rather than trying to reach Kyoto targets, S.Harper is putting the blame on past gov't, and keeping this track record, rather than attacking the solutions. His government has been divisive with almost all of the provinces. Rather than answer questions in the "House", he would rather close it earlier, and has no plan. He needs this summer to re-invent himself. His Ministers have been muzzled from the start. The list of disactisfaction goes on and on, and his efforts against others, rather than proper governance, and his bold, arrogant manner at confronting the Opposition, will definately be held against him at the polls. S.Harper had everybody going for another election this year, and he just might get one next Fall, unless he gets back on course with Canadians. As soon as the Liberals strengthen their position, S.Harper can no longer say that his is a new gov't; he will eventually have to face and answer questions in the House, and on the world stage his position on the Environment will be lamentably viewed, and Canada may be on a very low scale at the next G-8 meeting, should more Countries, as should be, become new members. There is a need for 20 Countries at the G-8 summit, and Canada may become much more at the bottom of this echelon, and with 'bush' leaving, his leverage, and that of Canada as a leading Country, may be very deminished.
My crystal ball tells me that should we have, and I hope not, a summer crisis this summer, that all his hopes of staying in power for another year will be lost!
Who is going to vote for such a government???
[updated Sun Jun 10 18:00:04 -0400 2007]
10 Jun 18:00
3 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
JamesM
One of the key problems continuing to face the Harper government is that often Harper still acts as he did when he headed the National Citizen's Coalition -- he takes very partisan shots at his opponents that then appear in the media to be as an angry man rather than a leader.
In Europe once again the Harper stand on Canada's record on the environment was placing blame on the previous Liberal government -- the idea of "Canada's New Government" is starting to grate on the nerves of many Canadians, and Harper's team doesn't see it.
Part of the problem is that many in Harper's circle are also offending their conservative base, in the attempt to gain a majority via Quebec. That led to one meeting of a possible break-away group that was held in Kingston.
Harper is trying to replace the Liberal's in Canada's political middle ground, which is being abandoned by Stephane Dion. That is leading to anger with the traditional base of the Conservatives.
If the Liberals were smarter, they would stop their leftward run, stop pretending that they know everything and are the only possible political party that can lead Canada.
Chances are right now the next government will be another minority.
The sad thing for both Harper and Dion is that if they were smarter they could be leading a majority government.
Maybe that is, however best for Canada that they are not.
10 Jun 18:30
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
In a time when we need to move forward, Mr. Harper insists that the real important thing is for us to only look back. We are supposed to be satisfied with him telling us that he isn't the old Liberal government. We get that sir. What we need to know now is who are you and what are you proposing? Give us some serious stuff please sir and not just you shallow five priorities of the past 16 months.
Mr. Harper's also saddled with some mistaken beliefs on climate change. As a denier in those Chrétien/Martin government days he as Leader of the Opposition was much to blame for lack of political will in Parliament to tackle the environmental issues as anyone.
Now coming out of G8 he is reported to be telling us "(Climate Change is) perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today." I agree with that sentiment. I do not believe he really means it.
Let me think for a moment...do I have a pressing need for Mr. Harper to focus on incremental Senate change or, in his own words, "....perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today," namely Climate Change. When he gives me that choice for priority attention in Parliament I am supposed to believe this leader has the strength of character and integrity to govern with a majority? Spare me!
We need to get past the pedantic polemic that politicians need charisma. It is not a quality of character or even a talent fit for governing in a complex world. I want leadership with character and compassions and a capacity to govern. I want someone with the intellect, actual and moral, to see all sides of an issue and then use their best judgment in deciding on how and where to lead us. Then I want him to tell us honestly, using the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, as to why he has made such a choice.
I can disagree but I want to be able to do so on a fully informed basis, founded on principle and values. I want to be able to disagree respectfully and not fear my government for any "consequences" of such disagreement. This is after all a free and democratic society, at least on paper.
Now I only feel contempt for Mr. Harper and how he governs. I do not want a politician leading my country who is just out to get my vote at election time and upon "winning" then considers that as permission to mislead, misrepresent, breach my trust, deceive and divide us for then next four years.
That is all I have seen from Mr. Harper for 16 months now. And I have no reason to believe in any real change coming from him. His reported Climate Change conversion is merely an example of his character flaws and draw attention to his insincerity and insouciance. He is past his best before date. We need an election to get rid of this folly and foolishness.
[updated Sun Jun 10 19:37:09 -0400 2007]
10 Jun 19:37
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Nik with respect . I don't think it will matter what Harper does . He is done like dinner .
He will be extremely lucky to cobble together another minority let alone a majority .
Canadians are fed up to the back teeth with the daily parade of idiocy being perpetrated by this government(?)
It is all over but the cryin' .
[updated Sun Jun 10 19:37:53 -0400 2007]
10 Jun 19:37
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
blossom
Hello Nick, and Ken just received your e-mail which I shall read later.
However, all of you, my friends, if you can, tune in to CBC The Fifth Estate, this eve, Sunday,
and listen to the big lie about "Global Warming" vs climate-change caused by humans. Go and
download it if you can, its the biggest lie since the cigarette scandal, and "bush' and our own PM seem to be in cahoots on not respecting the Kyoto targets, which Jean Chretien had said, "was a moral obligation".
Exxon, etc. are paying those scientists to distort the truth about global-warming.
Am rushing so that I can listen to the rest of this hour!
This is also pertinent to our present government's attitude on our Environmental issues, and its worth watching the lies!
10 Jun 19:45
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Jan from Whitby
Nick after tuning in to CTV question Period this morning it seems that Bill Casey is slated to be returned to the Cons, caucus. He did a right thing as a person , but as he said "I made my point" and beyond that it remains as such.
No one has clearly explained what "the Choice" for NL&L, Nova Sc. and Sask. realy means and if that is explained properly by both camps, this issue will likely fade away.Premier Williams has used this issue for his own political agenda, and that is ,his survival in the province of NL&L as premier. The broken promise aspersion should be taken with a good dose of salt.Listening to Premier Calvert he was quite moderate, and played the usual political game as expected without being precise.
Also we must remember that Conservatives have an uphill battle at any time. Canadians are generally disposed to vote the middle road. The Liberal and NDP rethoric on this issue is just that meaning less words.
10 Jun 22:41
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
DSoulis
I think personally that Mr. Casey voted with integrety and honesty. Those Conservatives who tried to convience Mr. Casey to do otherwise came much to late and close to the vote, The Conservatives again lied to Canada, Newfoundland & Labrador and Nova Scotia. It seems very underhanded in what the Conservatives do and their continued assult on others who reject components of their Bills or want new focus in Afganistan and Africa are making value added propositions and recommendations and the Conservatives need to listen and be more flexible.
I am disappointed in the Conservatives, Mr. Harper and Mr. MacKay.
11 Jun 09:55
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
drgmobile
I think the political brushfires are a gamble in Atlantic Canada, but not so much in the West. The Western complaints seem to have a common theme of the Conservatives being "not conservative enough." Under such a scenario what are those voters to do? Vote Liberal? Me thinks not.
11 Jun 10:46
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Mike
Hi Nik
I sincerely believe Mr. Casey’s decision to vote against the budget shows the cracks starting to form in this alliance of the right. Mr. Harper’s government is nothing more than a propaganda machine with one objective. Win a majority government.
I am so tired of getting the same answer to every question. “The former government did nothing for the last decade.” “The liberals do not have a leader,” “Canada’s NEW government” “For the first time Canada will present an environment plan”
Does Harper believe Canadians are totally stupid? The conservatives are blocking bill 288 in the senate, they will not bring back bill 30, and then they scream and holler about senate reform, while the planet is getting more and more polluted and temperatures are going up. Harpers response attack adds on Mr. Dion.
I applaud Mr Casey’s decision and I only wish that more PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVES had that moral courage.
We need to limit the damage this government is doing to our great country and get rid of Harper and his liked minded friends as soon as possible
11 Jun 11:07
3 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Pressman
I think the current prime minister is one of the biggest liars to ever hold the office. Unfortunately he's just not very good at it. He can't help himself. When the premier of Nova Scotia says the PM is going back on his word he really means "he's a liar". When Bill Casey, one of the most respected members of the House of Commons, says Harper broke a signed agreement, he really means "he's a really big liar". Everybody in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland knows it and they are waiting with keen anticipation for the next election. There won't be many Tory MP's left standing because none of them have Bill Casey's courage, heart or guts. Now Harper wants the offended provinces to sue him in court so he can waste millions more federal and provincial dollars and drag this out for years? Beneath the spin, what he's saying to himself is: " Yes, you got me. I'm a serial liar but I can't admit it. Let's get this off the public agenda so we can refuse comment because it's before the courts." Stephen Harper is not a leader. He's just a petulant bully who brooks no criticism and leads his caucus by fear and intimidation.
11 Jun 13:30
4 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
RonMacD
I think it is morally wrong to punish an MP for looking out for the best interests of his constituents; all votes in the House of Commons should be free votes..
11 Jun 15:30
3 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Tom Good
Well, Nik, are you surprised at the course of Canadian politics ?---I bet you are not--Ho Ho. I applaud the stand of Casey but I am equally sure it is a political stand---no more, no less! ! ! ---I believe Nova Scotia gave birth to the phrase "blacktop politics" so politicians from that neck of the woods are no neophytes to the political process.
Yes, I believe Harper, in a shakey minority position, has to "demand" unquestioning support therefore, he had no choice regarding kicking Casey out of caucus or facing further revolt-----Harper must have complete thought control. In my opinion, Casey's choice to go his way rather than Harper's way is symptomatic of growing unspoken dissention within the Conservative ranks. --Danny Williams' bombast is just semantics for his political purpose.---Should Harper fail to gain a majority in the coming election, the Conservative long swords will be out and Harper would be wise to resign on election night as did Martin. ----Harper has very carefully avoided allowing any Conservative to share the lime light with him or to come into public prominance in any way----interesting ! ! !
You further suggest Harper has set off a few bush fires in his attempt to "buy" political support in Quebec and Ontario and ignore those natural resources promises to Saskatchewan and the Maritimes.--I agree.--Harper did what was NOT EXPECTED of him especially as he painted himself as so politically righteous and worthy of sitting on the right hand of God after those devilish Liberals.---Seems that Harper has done exactly the same as the governments before him when loudly proclaiming he would not.---Would one suggest this action was practical or just a little hypocritical ??? I believe Harper's future will be a good example of cummulative political error. ---No politician is all white nor all black but Harper appears to be getting a little greyer every day and he is doing it very well ALL BY HIMSELF. Harper is a one man show.
11 Jun 22:40
6 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
e guye
Nik,
As an easterner have a homemade take on this.
Bill Casey is rumoured to be angling for Rodney MacDonald's job as Premier - MacDonald's performance so far has not been stellar. So I take Casey's crisis of faith with a few grains of salt - good theatre. I had never heard much of him before this, and certainly it has put him front and center in the eyes of the provincial electorate - but have no idea how deep the man really is - know loyalty is not one of his strong suits. My own view - I wouldn't vote for him as Premier as don't like the way he's doing as much damage as possible to the Tory party right now - he's fouling the Federal Tory nest to feather his own Provincial Tory nest, in my opinion.
Danny Williams is popular in Newfoundland - I find him bullying, often nasty - ever the man for the quick sound bite - I know he's a smart man, quick on the riposte - and hey if it works on the homefront what more can you ask. As far as a man you can actually trust or rely upon, he wouldn't be my first choice - Danny is for Danny, staying in office - I think he has no interest or even the vision to see Newfoundland and Labrador as a part of Canada - nor does he care for the fortunes of Canadians as a whole.
I think it is cynical and 'too quick to judge' to say that Harper's sole objective is to get a majority government. Anyone who takes the trouble to read a few books about the PM
will see that he has thought about Canada as a nation for many years, not just the past 18 months or so - his views are reasoned, sound and have at their heart the interests of all Canadians.
The Canadian political 'right' was splintered after the Mulrooney years - such that they could not form any defence against the 'red tide' of Liberal rule. It took grief, acrimony, and a lot of finagling to come up with the New Conservative party - an uneasy mixture of Reform and Progressive Conservative - but it got done. When Harper speaks of the 'new' Conservative party I don't think he's referring to his length of time in office - but to this new party, the Conservatives, made up of two quite different entities. There hasn't been much time yet to see how it will fare - but I hope Canadians give it the opportunity to coalesce, to grow, into a positive political force in our country.
There's much talk of the split in the Liberal party between the 'old liners' and the newcomers - a much larger split was merged in the formation of the new Conservative party.
In my mind the the diversities that form the Conservative party will with time and seasoning unite in idealogy and become strong. Right now it's in its infancy - there's a split here too, between not the 'old' and the 'new' but still the same Liberal party, but between the 'established party line of generations' and the 'naive intellectuals' if you like, of the Conservative party. Not a bad basis for the New Conservative Party.
So ends my sermon for the night.
12 Jun 01:19
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Pressman
Using cloture to ram the budget through the house is like killing a fly with a sledge hammer.
It shows how desperate the government is to get the dispute off the front burner and get the bill passed even if it means doing so with the help of the separatists. The Bloc cares about the Maritimes about as much as Harper does, which apparently is very damn little. Canada is a federation. The provinces have their rights and responsibilities too. Harper is not their boss, lord, or master. But he'd rather confront Atlantic Canada than admit his own blunders. This is not leadership; It's ham-fisted thuggery and an affront to Parliament.
12 Jun 11:13
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
lstacey
Casey's move is purely a self interested one. The problems with this budget have been there for months. Why is it now that Casey and Macdonald are taking a stand?
It's now because the public polls are against them and they want to save thier political hides. Yes, they are finally doing the right thing but not for the right reasons. I would rather get the boot from the party that from the people.
Hopefully the other two Nova Scotia MPs in the gov't and the three nfld MPs in gov't realize they were elected to serve the people not themselves.
12 Jun 11:45
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
canada562001
As far as I know the Budget has been passed regardless of what Casey has to say!
12 Jun 15:50
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
drgmobile
There are two great editorials on the topic of the Atlantic provinces in today's National Post by Andrew Coyne and John Ivison. If the facts are correct (and I am sure I will be challenged if I am), Harper's lies not with the equalization formula itself but rather how he has handled the complaints about it from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.
But then isn't that always the concern that we keep hearing about this government? -- not that the policies and decisions are necessarily bad, but that a power-paranoid PMO handles them in a way that alienates people and gives off "bully vibes."
If indeed the Atlantic provinces have the choice to maintain the old formula (the Atlantic Accord formula) or the new formula (which provides more money in the short-term but has a cap that will prevent Atlantic Canada provinces from receiving equalization money from richer provinces if their per-capita income reaches that of Ontario or Alberta), then it would seem the premiers demands are unrealistic. To quote Coyne "The want the best of three worlds: To have their cake, eat it, and spin it above their heads."
For the sake of this government, I hope it gets a little better about communicating the merits of its various hardline positions. Maybe then we'd have fewer crises.
13 Jun 10:38
7 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Bernie
I don't know Mr. Casey that well but I believe him. He demostrated the integrity that I would like to see in all politicians. A politicians should dispense with his own beliefs or wishes and vote according to the wishes of the majority of his constituents. I don't believe Casey has any desire to be premier of N.S. unlike someone's suggestion.
I think Casey's dismissal was wrong, and both Harper and McKay professed that, too, just a very short time ago. Can anyone change their mind as fast as a politician?
As for the budget vote, it was a foregone conclusion anyway. Harper won the battle but not the war and the battle was costly. He increased the dissent in his own ranks, lowered respect for both himself and his government, and made it impossible to receive the majority he so badly craves, at least for the near term.
13 Jun 19:54
4 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Lawson BC
The Number One problem to day is not Casey, Harper but the dysfunctional Liberals that we have in the Senate, mainly from the Province of Quebec, Quebec has received triple what they should receive and still their economy cannot perform, if must be the people that are in this Society. If there is one Province that should be going to court it should be the Province of BC, for 140th year since joining Confederation BC has received nothing.
13 Jun 20:12
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Lawson BC
No one problem in Canada to day along with the Senate is not the Politicians but the dummies we have working in the Civil Service, like this Privacy Commission, who the hell does she think she is this dyfunctional female. PSAC should be abolished along with the Senate, when someone has the guts to do it. Harper we are waiting for you to act. I can hear the whinning in Ontario and Quebec already.
14 Jun 15:52
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Hope
I think the Conservative Party’s tribulations are based on making too many key promises they couldn’t fulfill. Then they got the proverbial whiff of absolute power and principle became even more expendable. That’s why the desperate push for a quick election was requisite …. to get a majority before Canadians caught onto their subterfuge. The party poohbahs are masters of their own fate.
I’m sure most people enter public life for altruistic reasons. I question why some turn into mendacious, manipulative machinators.
The Conservatives promised to be different and most Canadians believed them. They shouldn’t have broken that promise.
They should have heeded Sir Walter Scott, Scottish author & novelist (1771-1832) who said:
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive."
15 Jun 22:48
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.