Saturday, January 14, 2006

Dear Stephen

Former MP Dennis Mills has written a letter to Stephen Harper, warning against the decentralization of Canada.

To be honest, Harper's decentralization agenda is the only real plank of his platform that I'm "worried" about, should he get in. I'd encourage everyone out there who believes in a strong, central government to think twice about voting for Harper (keeping in mind that the other party leaders don't exactly share Pierre Trudeau's vision of confederation either).


  • its finally over. globe and mail came out in favour of harper.

    i don't know how to do links and won't learn

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:31 a.m.  

  • CG, I think the biggest contribution of a Harper government could be a national debate on this issue. As a Western Canadian living in Ottawa, I am amazed at how there is an unquestioned assumption in Ontario that centralized government is the ideal. In almost every other province there is a consensus that as a federation the balance of power should favour the regions. This is a huge difference in how Canadians see their federal government and this needs to be debated. I hope that's what happens over the next term.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:32 a.m.  

  • This hyperbole about Martin advocating strong central is so bogus. Another example of, I will do anything or say anything if it can get elected.
    What is PM's biggest accomplishment since in power? Writing cheques for the provinces. And cutting side deals when a Premier gets all huffy and puffy and threaten to take their flags down.
    PM is the guy who brought in Lapierre to be his Quebec lieutenant.
    PM and his advisors are the ones spouting on about assymetrical federalism.
    S0, CG, I warn you not to spread an argument that electing Martin will mean strong central government. That is bogus.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:49 a.m.  

  • A real debate on the big picture is the key.

    We've seen federal spending in provinical areas become the primary political area where federal parties seek for political gain.

    Govt's making side deals with provinces and then holding the regional electorates hostage is not responsible federalism.

    Rather than turning the federal gov't into a giant game of tug of war, it is time to step away from Martin's creeping asymetrical federalism.

    It will be refreshing if the gov't actually look at the big picture and address the balance between responsibility and funding.

    Any transfer of tax points will also necessitate adjustments to equalization to ensure that provinces with weaker tax bases are not harmed and to replace the current patchwork with something more aligned to per capita personal income.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:51 a.m.  

  • Anonymous:

    Where exactly did CG advocate that Martin was for strong central government?

    Re-read his post. He said the "other" party leaders arent much better then Harper for strong federalism.

    By Blogger Oxford County Liberals, at 12:04 p.m.  

  • Charles in his discussion on "Adler Online" describes and defines the "Three F Words" that spell Liberal:


    Do we want to have a national government that maintains its power
    through the relentless pursuit of three "f" words -- fear, falsify
    and fraud.

    Do we want a government that steals from its own population (that
    would be fraud)?

    Would changing that be a bad thing?

    Do we want a government that constantly and consistently lies (that
    would be falsifying information) to its own people, even about
    something as simple as whether or not a certain political ad was
    running in Quebec?

    Would changing that kind of behaviour be dangerous to the country?

    Do we want a government that tries to scare its population into
    voting for them?

    And that would be fear.
    Capsulize exactly, exactly, exactly (three times for emphasis) what is going on.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:16 p.m.  

  • As someone who lived in Dennis Mills' riding (now held by Jack Layton) for many years, I'm amazed that Dennis the Guttersnipe has the temerity to lecture anyone about national unity, decentralization, or government in general.

    Here is a man who constantly appeared with the Liberal PM of the day and promised Torontonians $500 million for a new waterfront ... only during each election campaign. Needless to say, Toronto never saw $500 million, but a Port authority was established with Liberal buddies and big salaries, and no purpose. The same $300,000 per year salaries that are now the subject of much anger amongst Torontonians.

    I'm sure that Mills' motives are perfectly altruistic, notwithstanding his links to Frank Stonach's Magna Corporation where he is, I believe, an executive there. Same as another guttersnipe, Belinda, was and will be soon.

    Dennis was so concerned about federal-provincial relations that he did squat about it during his 10+ years "representing" his riding and Canadians.

    Shame, Mills. Slither back under your rock and leave the choice of government up to Canadians. Or use some more chairs from Chairman Mills rental company to sit on your duff and see real democracy unfold on January 23rd.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:34 p.m.  

  • I'm no constitutional expert but I know that Canada is still a confederation of provinces. The federal government and the provinces each have spheres of responsiblity. I see no reason for the federal government to influence the provinces in their sphere unless they do something that is against the law.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:46 p.m.  

  • I think it is time that I bring the issue of democracy and re-election to the fore to counter the ridiculous stories going around.

    First. If Harper wins a minority or majority this time around he will want to win again.

    The first consideration of any govt after being elected is getting re-elected. You dont get re-elected by pissing off the electorate or instituting immensely unpopular programs or policies.

    So this idea that Harper=Scary is just a campaign theme. Harper will govern from a position that will give him the best shot at being re-elected. He will not slash popular programs, or revisit the abortion issue. To do so would be political suicide.

    He will govern differently than the Liberals. That is not a bad thing, but to suggest that he will run a Dubya style, right wing, theocracy is so stupid it calls ridicule onto whomever says he will.

    The think twice coaltion is scared because Harper will cut or end their funding. They exist to support the Hand that Feeds! And to them that hand is the Liberal party of Canada.

    Harper will fund the interest groups that he supports. But only if it furthers his agenda of getting re-elected.

    This might be a scary period for die-hard liberals but for the rest of us it is the start of a refreshing period of change.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:04 p.m.  

  • I am all for better federal-provincial relations, but I don't believe in greater decentralization. We are already amongst the most decentralized nations in the World. Now I am not advocating we become as centralized as say a country like France. When one considers our size that wouldn't make sense, but neither should we be as decentralized as the European Union, which is an international organization not a nation.

    By Blogger Monkey Loves to Fight, at 1:10 p.m.  

  • I saw what a "strong central government" can do, in Quebec in 1970. Soldiers. With guns. In my city. In Canada. "Just watch me" Trudeau kisses up to an incompetent Liberal Premier who couldn't run his province to save his life. Liberal brinkmanship at its best from both governments. A small bunch of addled sepratists that provincial authorities didn't have the balls to take on, so they downloaded it to our "striong central government". Government is about management - these guys couldn't manage a pop stand without screwing it up or using it for their "personal" pop stand. They were supposed to be running a "country" not a pop stand!. Boot them!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:35 p.m.  

  • Who has brought down the Bloc vote in the polls during the last two weeks? Martin or Harper? So who is really doing more on keeping the country together?
    I might point out that the reason why sovereignty is polling as high as it is in Quebec is a result of events related to trying to promote Canada in Quebec back in 1995. Ottawa simply does not sell in the regions, and continuing to push centralization aggressively will just fan the flames of separation, whether in Alberta or Quebec.

    Tomorrow I'm heading to a rally in Buckingham, on the Quebec side, with the next PM and Deputy PM (plus Minister of Foreign Affairs), Stephen Harper and Lawrence Cannon (candidate for the Pontiac).

    -Albertan in Ottawa

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:02 p.m.  

  • I agree, the only plank of Harper's platform I am uncomfortable with is his complete lack of "standing up for [a strong] Canada". Which to me means not to sell the store to the provinces at every oppertunity. Unfortunatly, if this were my number 1 concern, who could I vote for? Mr. Paul 'Asymetrical Federalism' Martin? Remember the NFLD equilization fiasco? The 40 billion health care deal with no real standards in exchange for Federal money? I'd vote for Chretien, that man "Stood Up For Canada", Paul Marin sure as hell didn't and won't, so I might as well overlook the decentralizing vision of the Tories and look at the rest of the platform, which I strongly prefer to the Liberal one.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:08 p.m.  

  • Anytime the decentralization agenda comes up, I find myself baffled. We ALREADY HAVE a decentralized system of government: In addition to holding the bulk of public wealth, provinces can and do exercise considerable autonomy in policy areas such as transporation, health, education, the environment, etc etc. The notion that the federal govt 'has its nose' in these areas (at least in a significant way) is a fallacy.

    Let's take education as an example:
    Having lived in four provinces, I have had the hassle of trying to convert credits earned in completely different educational systems. Some countries have a single grading system to facilitate credit transfer & make comparisons more easy. Not Canada - we like to keep things maddeningly complex. Some countries have a single structure for schools. We can't even agree on how many grades constitute high school.

    If you really think that Ottawa has too much power, try moving around the country. You will find that our regional solitudes are in part the product of powerful provincial govts (vis-a-vis their state/provincial counterparts in other federations in the world) that have used their autonomy to reinforce regional identities at the expense of nationhood.

    Despite this decentralized reality, there are those who ask for more power to the provinces.
    When does it stop - when the Prime Minister's reponsibilities are limited to dropping pucks at minor hockey games from coast to coast?

    The Last Trudeaumaniac

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:08 p.m.  

  • I have drafted Mr. Haper's reply:

    Dear Dennis,

    It is my understanding that you lost your riding to Mr. Jack Layton. How's that going for you?


    He should put it on Tory letterhead and everything.


    By Blogger Unknown, at 4:18 p.m.  

  • Miles,

    I see it's about time for another revision to your election "predition". You went from a strong Lib Minority/Majority, to an even race. Here's a suggestion:

    CPC 155 seats.


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:34 p.m.  

  • Reminds me of the last election, where the libs sent Sgro and another minister to stalk Harper. Pathetic.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:00 p.m.  

  • Here's how it will turn out on Jan 23....

    Conservatives 168
    NDP 70
    Bloc 55
    Greens 8
    Liberals 7

    Read it and weep...!

    By Blogger william, at 5:43 p.m.  

  • Can someone please post some reason why Dennis Mills over any other citizen has more knowledge/wisdom on the subject that we should care about his opinion?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:40 p.m.  

  • They sent Mccallum with Sgro... I was hoping they would repeat it this year with Belinda Stronach and Scott Brison.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:41 p.m.  

  • Stronach: Stephen, let me back in I want to help you bake a bigger economic pie.

    Brison: I'll help you kill Peter, let me join back in the club!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:41 p.m.  

  • The size of Canada as an argument for decentralized government responsibility became obsolete with the advent of the telephone and jet planes. Duplicate, and often competing, government services have proven to be wasteful and counterproductive for Canada.

    We need provincial governments to balance centralized power but division of responsibilities is not the answer. How about we centralize everything but require majority provincial assent for all laws and budgetary measures? We could slowly reduce the number of MLAs in each province to 10 and start calling them senators. There we have it, a system that balances regional with population interests.

    By Blogger Psychols, at 7:52 p.m.  

  • To the anonymous Last Trudeaumaniac,
    I too had to move around a fair bit. Each province does have it's own educational system, different number of credits, etc., but it wasn't a disaster because it seemed that the administrators at each educational institution did the best they could to draft up guidelines to compare the different education systems if you were coming from another Canadian province. They sure did a hell of a lot more to help "outside province" Canadian's than they did for "internationals". The only exception, as usual, was Quebec, which seemed to want to make it as hard as possible for students from other provinces to study within Quebec. Case in point, any Canadian (including Quebecers) studying in any of the 9 Canadian provinces outside of Quebec pays the same as those who lived within the province. However, any Canadian from outside of Quebec studying within Quebec pays the international rate. Considering someone from QC studying in ON for example pays the standard ON rate, it seems a little mean spirited to not reciprocate and make someone from ON studying in QC pay the international rate, sometimes 3 times as much, but I can't imagine any Federal leader would actually demand that Quebec be reasonable and follow Federal guidelines if it wants extra monies, afterall, Martin, Harper, Layton, AND certainly Duceppe want to turn Ottawa into nothing more than a big cheque writing machine. I've long said that both parties have abandoned the "Captain Canada" routine. The Liberals traditionally were those guys, but Martin turned this into a mockery, creating fake battles with fake opponents and continuing to weaken the Federal government. Harper has at least been honest and has long stated that he wants to decentralize Canada. My question is where the hell is the Liberal party of Trudeau, because the "Martin Liberals" sure are not it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:56 p.m.  

  • 7 greens?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:24 p.m.  

  • I was out this morning campaigning for my local conservative in Southern Ontario. I spoke with many self-proclaimed liberals. More than half of them were either on the fence or are seriously considering voting conservative. I believe in this election, those who will vote liberal, are doing so on an emotional level. And the liberals voting conservative this time, are doing so on an intellectual level.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:14 p.m.  

  • Wrote this, but didn't get published:

    June 15, 2004.

    Trudeau's Canada at risk? We can only hope.

    Thomas S. Axworthy's recent commentary in the Toronto Star bemoaned that Trudeau's vision of a strong federal system, somehow prerequisite to preserve our national identity, might be washing up on the rocks of Canada's national political agenda.

    Quote: "The Liberal party must return to its roots, take on all comers, defend the Charter of Rights, and promote a strong and active federal government as the glue that holds together a very fractious country."

    I think this assumption that Trudeau federalism has provided the "glue that holds together a very fractious country" merits some sober second thought as to its actual consequences.

    Perhaps nothing demonstrates just how dismal a failure this has been than the results of the last three federal elections, each manifesting ever increasing regionalism across the entire nation. Indeed, so stark were the political alignments, that adding colour to the current political map of Canada generates something eerily reminiscent of pre-WW1 Europe.

    There clearly are two ideals in this country regarding federalism: a) centralism as practiced by the Liberals since the Trudeau era, and b) a confederation of peoples/provinces as envisioned by our founding fathers.

    For over three decades, Liberals have deliberately and methodically siphoned power from the provinces unto Ottawa, i.e., themselves, literally inflicting their centralist ideology into almost every aspect of the workings of this nation. Healthcare, social welfare and education, originally deemed…and wisely so…provincial jurisdiction in the BNA in order to best serve the diverse cultural and economic realities of this vast nation, have become the meat of federal elections. Now leadership of a federal political party first and foremost is about whom will best steward what has become an endless battle with provincial governments over who gets how much for what, and with which attached conditions.

    Where is the debate in this "federal" election about Canada's role as a nation within the context of an increasingly complex global community? What about our military? What about trade? What about our relationship with America? What about our fisheries? What about the plight of our agricultural and forest industries in international markets on which they depend so much? What about the value of our Canadian dollar? What is our “nation” at all, if not within the context of our global standing and relationships with other nations? What is a "federal" election about, if it is not about issues and matters that concern Canada as a nation?

    Does anything exemplify the consequences of Liberal centralism more shockingly than the disturbingly sorry state of our Department of National Defense? And does not this reality speak to the fact of our ever-diminishing influence and role in international affairs? Yet Paul Martin, as well as Jack Layton who is just a Liberal in a hurry, both wildly decry Stephen Harper’s intentions to spend extra money on beefing up our military and its equipment. Both display total disregard, if not outright contempt, for what is in the first place one of the most primary and vital responsibilities of our federal government. If Ottawa is not apparently even remotely committed to this function, whom can we call upon to top up our national defense in their absence? Victoria? Halifax? Toronto?

    What is the most essential reason for a confederation of states, if not mutual defense and security? What is our raison d'etre for nationhood, if not managing to our collective benefit our relationship with the economic and military superpower living next door, with whom we conduct upwards of 85% of our trade, and upon whom our own economic prosperity is so vitally linked?

    So neglected and mismanaged is the state of our international relationships, and thus negatively impacting foreign trade issues, is it any wonder that British Columbians, Albertans and/or Quebecois are increasingly prone to believe that they would be overall better off handling these matters on their own? Even Newfoundlanders are starting to question the value of membership in this confederation, and considering their lot since joining, who seriously can blame them?

    Healthcare is a provincial matter. Why does a federal election have anything at all to do with healthcare? What do bureaucrats in Ottawa know about the challenges of providing healthcare in Vancouver, Quebec City, or St. Johns? Frankly, healthcare should be none of Ottawa's business, period.

    But the Liberals have made it Ottawa's business, as also have they done with social welfare, education, and just about anything else into which they can stick their centralist noses.

    Ottawa, thanks to centralism, has become a massively bloated bureaucracy, bereft of direction, fiscal accountability, and even moral relevance. The one and only thing at which it has become good is sucking up tax dollars, thus leaving provincial and municipal governments sucking the hind teat. While Ottawa racks up billions in surpluses each year, provincial and municipal governments rack up billions in deficits and debts.

    Coupled to this, and adding insult to injury, we have the Liberals, whose own power base primarily is defined by the borders of Ontario, cramming their own narrow ideological values, perhaps best exemplified by C-68 and their paranoid and childish notions about firearms, down the collective throat of the rest of the country, while dishing out paternalistic disdain to anyone who disagrees. Cultural and economic diversity obviously is defined and protected only in so far as the latest version of the Liberal Red Book spells it out for the nation, albeit in necessarily vague detail required to mask their deceptive guile.

    Why are Liberals virtually blowing their brains out in a mad and desperate panic to paint Stephen Harper as someone supposedly hell bent on destroying Canada?

    It's because the Canada that the Liberals have re-created, one in which they diligently and deliberately have worked overtime to ensure their own stranglehold on power at the center, and all costs, now is threatening to come apart at the seams. Canadians finally are waking up to the fact of Liberal hegemony, arrogance, and outright corruption that inevitably and ultimately manifests whenever and wherever power is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands…or in other words, "centralized".

    Why did I initially make the comparison to pre-WW1 Europe? Because if something doesn't give in Ottawa, and soon, a future map of Canada may be even more reminiscent of post-WW1 Europe's resulting multitude of fractured States.

    Yes, Trudeau's federalism is in danger of disintegration.

    The sooner, the better!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:01 p.m.  

  • "So this idea that Harper=Scary is just a campaign theme. Harper will govern from a position that will give him the best shot at being re-elected. He will not slash popular programs, or revisit the abortion issue. To do so would be political suicide.

    He will govern differently than the Liberals. That is not a bad thing, but to suggest that he will run a Dubya style, right wing, theocracy is so stupid it calls ridicule onto whomever says he will."---By colin

    At the risk of calling myself into ridicule, colin, I have to disagree. The Conservatives have a lot of religous nuts in their party. They will do whatever they can to appeal to those who believe in sky pixies.

    Yesterday I heard Harper close a speech with the phrase "god bless Canada." This sort of thing is straight from the Repuglican playbook. It made my stomach turn. In the U.S. there is no way a person can become president without being seen toting a bible to church. Harper is doing his best to reproduce this situation in Canada.

    The thought of having to live with a government that has a theocratic agenda is unacceptable. It is vitally important for all rational Canadians to vote strategically. Direct your vote so that it will do the most good in stopping Harper and his band of Neanderthals. Vote for whichever party has the best chance of defeating the Conservatives in your riding. Do not waste your vote on some minor party.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:29 p.m.  

  • BRAVO, Springer!!!!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:52 p.m.  

  • north saanich wrote:

    Yesterday I heard Harper close a speech with the phrase "god bless Canada."

    Shocking! The nerve of him actually invoking the name of God in a speech given in Canada. I wonder where he even came up with such a shocking idea. I wonder if it was from the Canadian Constitution or the National Anthem?


    Using God's name.

    In Canada.

    What evil will he perpetrate on us next?

    I'm not making this up.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:57 p.m.  

  • I hope that there are no Cdn Nationalism Majors reading thsi stuff - it's content for their final paper.

    When I was a tad in 1864, we talked about a new federation.

    And there is no way in the world, that the Dads of Confederation would have ever accepted a deal (later negotiated as the BNA Act) that came even close to reflecting the way the Liberals have dealt with Fed Prov Relations.

    Provs were supposed to do their things and Feds were supposed to do theirs. When I was a Fed Poliburoist we used to be terrified of even looking like we were treading on Provincial turf. When C-Retch came in, Education, Health, Housing etc. all of a sudden became federal things.

    By Blogger Lemon, at 12:04 a.m.  

  • Canada is positioned to kick ass in the 21st century. I would prefer someone focusing on the fact that three of our four borders face the largest economies in the world, we built the country to build the infrastructure to move resources from coast to coast to coast, we have one of the highest digital connectivity in the world, and some of the brightest people in the world.

    Bickering about provincial jurisdictions is the wrong direction to face for our federal government. If I had a choice as a 21st Century PM, I'd give up the responsibilities to the provinces for files that suck up all of my attention (e.g. health care), and move on to the shiny pie of the aforementioned asskicking.

    Certainly the asskicking will require some jiggery pokery with the provinces, but at least that's stuff is *worth* arguing about.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:45 a.m.  

  • Oh ya, Listen to Dennis Mills. He knows what he's talking about

    Public accounts april 2 2004

    Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    Last Thursday we all sat here, and Canadians witnessed testimony given to this committee by Mr. Toews. He said, and I quote:

    What Canadians are asking is, who stole the $100 million, who stole the $100 million...?

    He also said:

    That money has disappeared. We want to find out where that money has gone.

    I'm not going to go on with all his words, but I want to summarize by again quoting him from the transcript:

    So we'll have Mr. Mills' report, Mr. Mills who miraculously found $100 million that the Auditor General couldn't find. The Auditor General who said the paper has all disappeared. Mr. Mills must have all this paper in his office.

    Now, Mr. Chair, Mr. Toews and all committee members received two weeks ago—it's in the public record—a breakout from 1997 to the year 2000, by advertising agency, of where $70 million of that $100 million went in terms of professional fees, in-house production, travel and lodging, subcontract production, commission on production, and others.

    I do not have the breakout of that $70 million, Mr. Chair, but by saying that all this money was “stolen”—and he is a former Attorney General from the province of Manitoba—Mr. Toews is causing grave difficulty for a lot of these agencies who received this $100 million, which apparently all of them stole.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:14 a.m.  

  • springer, that was a kick-ass letter (I guess that's why it wasn't published). CG, give your head a shake; you usually show more intelligence than this post suggests.

    north saanich - rest easy knowing that those of religious persuasion everywhere fear your thinking just as much as you fear ours. Unfortunately for you, StatsCan puts us in the majority. Maybe you should consider moving to China, where religion is outlawed?

    By Blogger Candace, at 3:52 a.m.  

  • The presumption that "decentralization" will somehow weaken Canada is nothing more than a popular myth. All the evidence of the last 35 years has pointed to the fact that Trudeau's process of rigid central government has done little for national unity, though much for the Liberal Party. Over the coming years it will be difficult for many Trudeauites to admit that a vision that seemed on the surface to make so much sense has failed so miserably. Vive la difference!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:00 a.m.  

  • The only thing you're worried about?

    1. Unwilling to discuss fiscal imbalance.

    2. Privitization of healthcare.

    3. Rob Anders.

    4. The Civil Marriage Act.

    5. Stockwell Day as Minister of Foreign Affairs.

    6. A federal government with no representation whatsoever from Quebec. Dangerous for national unity.

    So there are some reasons to be 'worried' about Harper.

    By Blogger James Bowie, at 7:48 a.m.  

  • Looking at James' comments, sometimes I wonder if there's a script out there or if he actually believes the nonsense.

    1. Unwilling to discuss fiscal imbalance.

    Um, Harper has wanted to discuss the fiscal imbalance for well over a year. Martin only conceded it existed THIS WEEK!

    2. Privatization of healthcare.

    As opposed to the flourishing Quebec for-profit health care networks that Ujjal and Paul have done so much to encourage? The platform is clearly in favour of sick people getting well paid for by the public insurance system, no matter the means.

    3. Rob Anders.
    Backbencher. As opposed to Parliamentary Secretaries Galloway, Telegdi, Szabo, McTeague, etc.

    4. The Civil Marriage Act.
    A free vote by Canadians to determine their own social policy. You'd think we were in a democracy or something. Repealing the current act would require the support of Liberals to pass, something we can count on. Loved seeing Martin trump up the Charter standing in front of and supporting the very people who are trying to get this legislation revoked.

    5. Stockwell Day as Minister of Foreign Affairs.
    Critics rarely get the cabinet post. Day will be Labour or something inoffensive. Having said that, he sure as hell did a lot more for the Zahra Kazemi than anyone in the governing party.

    6. A federal government with no representation whatsoever from Quebec. Dangerous for national unity.

    So there are some reasons to be 'worried' about Harper.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:42 a.m.  

  • Oops... forgot #6

    6. A federal government with no representation whatsoever from Quebec. Dangerous for national unity.

    Harper taking Bloc votes away meaning more federalist (mostly Liberal) seats. Harper being seen as a better PM than Martin and Duceppe by Quebecers.

    Yeah, some threat to national unity there!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:44 a.m.  

  • The last loyal Liberals
    A must read...

    Self-respect for politically engaged prisoners

    In related news...

    Corrections officials in Canada are concerned over the access that prisoners now have to soft-core pornography on satellite TV. Many of these prisoners are sex offenders who are undergoing treatment. One corrections officer told the National Post: "What kills me is they spend millions of dollars a year to try to rearrange these guys' brains not to be violent toward women…to not treat them like slabs of meat, then they give them these movies that degrade women." You blow it [the rehabilitation] out of the water after a couple of hours of watching this stuff."

    Prisoners can now see MExcess, a channel offered by The Movie Network that features pornography after 11:30 at night. The Correctional Service of Canada is looking into whether or not prisoners should be exposed to pornographic materials.

    Porn-pizza party at Sask. prison investigated

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:26 p.m.  

  • Hello.
    My name is Alan Robberstad I am a Canadian. One voter out of millions of Canadian voters.
    Paul Martin is no friend of mine. Liberal governments have not made my life any better. Liberal governments have made the future worse for my children.

    Jean Chretien became Prime Minister many years ago. Guess who was the Liberal Finance Minister.....Paul Martin... LEST WE FORGET

    Since 1993:
    (1) My taxes have increased.
    (2) My family's share of the national debt has increased.
    (3) My personal expenses have increased.
    (4) My waiting time to see a doctor has increased.
    (5) My concerns for my family's safety have increased.
    (6) My costs to educate my children have increased.
    (7) Government interference in my life has increased.
    (8) My personal debt has increased.
    (9) My income has stayed more or less the same.
    (10) My savings have decreased.
    (11) The buying power of my dollar, in Canada, has decreased.
    (12) The value of my dollar, in the U.S., has decreased.
    (13) My trust of elected officials has decreased.
    (14) My trust in the justice system has decreased.
    (15 )My trust in the immigration system has decreased.
    (16) My hope that a Liberal won't waste my tax dollars has decreased.
    (17 ) My dreams for a better future for my kids, in Canada, have disappeared.

    That is my story since the Liberals came to power.

    I am not voting for Paul Martin's Liberals. I am voting against Paul Martin and his Liberal Party in January. I am voting for Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.

    Do I like the Conservatives? Not particularly......I don't really like Politics. I am not political by nature. I am not passionate
    about politics. I am a middle age guy (48). I live in a small house on a fairly quiet street in Edmonton. I have a wife, Kathy, and two children (ages 19 and 17). I have no pets. I am a middle class man. I don't usually say too much.
    Until now.

    Now I am going to say something!

    In 35 of the past 37 years, Canada has been ruled by:
    (1) Pierre Trudeau - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.
    (2) Brian Mulroney - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.
    (3) Jean Chretien - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.
    (4) And now we are going to vote for Paul Martin???? - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec???
    The leader of the Conservative party, Stephen Harper, is:
    (1) Not a lawyer.
    (2) Not a multi-millionaire.
    (3) Not from Quebec.
    Stephen Harper says that the Conservative party will:
    (1) Reduce my taxes.
    (2) Pay off the national debt as fast as they can.
    (3) Shrink the size and influence of the federal government.

    Do I believe Stephen Harper? I don't believe any politician. However, let's give Harper the benefit of the doubt and allow him to prove or disprove his platform. I am going to give the Conservative party a chance with my vote. But wait! Paul Martin is now saying the same thing. My mother told me forty years ago: "Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice -
    shame on me!"

    The Liberals have had 34 years to be financially responsible. Remember, Jean Chretien was Trudeau's Finance Minister. Remember also, Paul Martin was Jean Chretien's Finance Minister These people have been raising my taxes for thirty-four years. They have been mis-spending my tax dollars for 34 years. 34 years!

    And now Paul Martin says he will stop taxing and spending. No way.

    Thank you for reading my story so far!

    Why am I telling my story to you?

    Although I feel alone, I know that I am not alone. Your story may be similar to mine. And you may also feel alone. One small voter in the midst of millions of voters.

    What can you and I do together to change things?

    Here is my idea: Lets you and I join up together. Just you and I. Together. As a small team of two. How can you and I fight a huge political machine?

    You and I have two things that we can use:
    (1) Our individual personal connections.
    (2) The Internet.

    The Internet is supposed to be this globalizing tool, right? Let's put it to use. I have 27 Canadians in my personal e-mail address book. I am sending this e-mail to each of them including those who reside in Ontario.

    Now you can send it to your list

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:42 p.m.  

  • I will briefly respond to North Saanich.

    Every political party has nutjobs in it. You cant avoid them completely, but you do not pander to their narrow views in the hope of getting elected.

    Only in the Canada the Liberal party has created would saying god bless be considered a bad thing.

    I dont go to church, nor do I believe in god, but I do vote conservative. I havent seen anything in their platform that shows a particular religious slant.

    Getting elected means appealing to the masses. Church goers are now in the minority in Canada. Pandering to them would clearly be a mistake.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:16 p.m.  

  • Martin's secret agenda agent
    Peter Foster, Financial Post
    Published: Friday, January 13, 2006

    Paul Martin's mentor has an agenda. It's not secret. He wants the United Nations to have an independent army. With guns. So they might go anywhere they're needed. Like Canadian cities. In Canada. With guns. Why? Because Paul Martin's mentor believes that industrial civilization is destroying the planet. He believes people have to change. Or else. He has admitted fantasizing about holding the world's leaders hostage in order to force such change. He also believes that if a few billion of the world's population were wiped out, that would be a "ray of hope." Means we could start again. With people like him in charge. Paul Martin listens to this man. I'm not making this up ...

    Welcome back Maurice Strong. Just in time for the election.

    Last Friday's arrest of Korean businessman Tongsun Park in connection with the United Nations Oil-For-Food scandal inevitably brings super-envirocrat Mr. Strong back into the limelight, much, no doubt, to the Liberals' chagrin.

    Mr. Park has been fingered as funnelling funds from the Iraqi regime to influence UN officials. One is Mr. Strong. It may be, as Mr. Strong claims, that he saw no connection between the million laundered dollars he received from Mr. Park to help bail him out of a sticky situation and Mr. Park's pro-Iraqi activities, but the fact that Mr. Strong is perennially involved in sticky business situations is surely material. After all, Mr. Strong wants to mastermind a new bureaucratic world order that would manage literally everything. And since "secret agendas" are all the rage with the increasingly desperate Liberals, the Prime Minister's connection with mentor and business partner Mr. Strong deserves a good airing.

    Mr. Martin has accused Stephen Harper of being close to the "ultra-far-right" who allegedly hold such sway in George W. Bush's United States. But if Mr. Harper is to be condemned for his associations with the U.S. right, and for regarding U.S. conservatives as a "light and inspiration," what illumination and guidance has Mr. Strong provided for Mr. Martin?

    Moreover, when it comes to Mr. Strong's ultimate exoneration -- or otherwise -- in the current UN investigation, if the management of Oil-For-Food was royally botched, it was royally botched -- as a piece in this week's National Review points out -- under a "reform" scheme masterminded by Mr. Strong.

    What never ceases to amaze about Maurice Strong is that so many of those who are suspicious of him try to nail him for corruption, for "really being in it for the money," when his confessed political aims are a million times more sinister and threatening.

    Mr. Strong isn't in it for the money, except insofar as he likes to cultivate the illusion of being an independently wealthy man acting pro bono (and with Bono). He is a self-confessed, diehard socialist, and in case anybody hasn't noticed, socialism is a political ideology that has caused more death, disaster and garden variety failure than any other in global history. In the wake of the collapse of communism, however, Mr. Strong has been in the vanguard of a highly successful left-wing counterattack against its sworn enemy. Once, capitalism was meant to make us all poor; now that it threatens to make us all rich, the emphasis has shifted to resources and the environment and the fact that we shall allegedly run out of both unless a benevolent UN dictatorship comes to the rescue.

    Mr. Strong's career has been stranger than fiction. He has spent it relentlessly seeking power and influence to forward his agenda, and he has been close to the Liberals since the days of Lester Pearson and Paul Martin's father. At the UN, he has been the doyen of the environmental movement and of the subversive concept of sustainable development, a vague notion that demands endless technocratic noodling and draconian controls. This explains Mr. Strong's extraordinary popularity among the wonkish classes, for whom his fertile brain has created literally millions of man years of make-work. He has corralled big business into supporting his dire global prognosis. He has also fertilized radical NGOs -- under the seemingly benign guise of "civil society" -- to penetrate the UN and pressure national governments the world over.

    Mr. Martin has nothing whatsoever to do with the Iraq scandal (Oh, apart, that is, from the fact that his blind trust was an investor in the same company/sinkhole, Cordex, into which Mr. Park funnelled cash from the Iraqi regime. Sound suspicious? In fact, it doesn't tie Mr. Martin in any way with Oil-For-Food, but what the hell. Run with it. That's what the Liberals would do). But the Prime Minister seems to be very much on Mr. Strong's wavelength when it comes to dangerous pretensions of global governance. According to Time magazine, Mr. Martin has devoted more "intellectual energy" to the UN than any prime minister since Lester Pearson. The UN, the magazine said, is "what really winds Mr. Martin's clock."

    That would be the same UN that is repeatedly exposed as utterly corrupt and incompetent. And which Mr. Martin's ultra-left-wing friend wants to rule the world. With guns. Including Canada.

    And finally here are a couple of intriguing issues that I'll leave to my younger investigative colleagues to probe. Mr. Park was intercepted in Mexico City on a flight from Canada. What was he doing in Canada? Second, he was reportedly taken into custody as a result of a posting from Interpol. Don't Canadian airports check for those wanted by Interpol? Or is it that they don't check for those wanted in the U.S.? Or perhaps who are connected with the Liberal Party of Canada? The suggestion might seem unfounded and paranoid, but we're in an election, and the Liberals have set the tone.

    I have posted this piece on the chance that
    it may become unavailable on the National Post
    site. I trust this is legal. If not, tell me.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:35 p.m.  

  • This is an article I wish every voter would get to read before voting...

    Decision Canada:
    A flock of sheep or a pride of lions
    by Beryl Wajsman, Institute for Public Affairs of Montreal


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:07 p.m.  

  • I'm intrigued to see that Belinda has spit in her good pal Mike Harris's face.

    Not like he supported her leadership campaign or anything.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:55 p.m.  

  • Hey Kegger, Winston Churchhill once said"If you don't support the left when you're young you have no heart, if you don't support the right when you're old you have no brain."

    Or put another way "even though they stole all our money and ruined the country I'm still voting liberals cause I'm a f**king moron"

    Besides, we don't need your vote.
    Horny Toad

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:32 p.m.  

  • Springer-great posting.
    The Liberals have spent most of their time in office lying, stealing, breaking promises and intellectually threatening voters. Now, some voters unfortunately were (and are) listening and believing THE BIG LIE. Even if Harper ekes out only a minority, it will quickly become apparent that the sun still rises, pension cheques still go out, and Canada is still not part of the US. Then, next election, he will get a majority. The Lib fear mongering will be exposed as the vacuous, deceptive and malicious lie that it has been since day one.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:57 p.m.  

  • Keeger,

    Keep your vote.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:23 p.m.  

  • In the interests of informed debate, I want to correct a few of the more spectacular errors in Alan Robberstad's posting:

    > (1) My taxes have increased.

    Really? If that is the case, it's certainly not because of the federal govt.

    > (2) My family's share of the
    > national debt has increased.

    That can't be true. First of all, there are more families in the country now (population growth), so the debt is divided among a greater number of people Thus, less per person. Also a decent chunk of the debt has been paid down (around $60 billion), meaning that the debt itself is smaller. Finally, with the economy growing, the real value of the debt is shrinking substantially each year.

    > (7) Government interference in
    > my life has increased.

    In what measurable way?

    > (11) The buying power of my
    > dollar, in Canada, has decreased.

    It's called inflation. Show me an economy anywhere on the planet where this is not the case. Our inflation remains low, and below the level of economic growth.

    > (12) The value of my dollar, in > the U.S., has decreased.

    Um... do you read newspapers or travel outside Canada? If so, you would know that the dollar sits at nearly 90 cents US. Can you recall the last time that happened?

    As for your point about Stephen Harper being a non-Quebecois, non-millionaire and therefore more worthy of your vote... the logic escapes me.

    Do some research & vote for the party whom you think would best govern the country. Voting for someone because of his place of birth or the size of his bank account is just petty.

    BTW: I saw a virtually identical "this is my experience under the Liberals" rant during the 2004 election. Curious what ill-informed person/group developed this form letter.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:59 p.m.  

  • All liberal party member earning illegal wages they are all suck!

    By Anonymous mauri shoes, at 7:06 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home