[Thanos]

westmanguy westmanguy:

I started a facebook movement against the Lib/NDP coalition gov't!

The real patriots should be filling out FAC applications instead. The destruction of a democracy can't be dealt with by goofing around on a clownshow website. Sorry, that's just the way I see it. I haven't been this enraged, literally, in a good long time and I don't like it.

[djakeydd]

This is the slithering slime that I'm talkin about - Harpers true agenda, and it has to go.


news & events > CONSERVATIVE AGENDA

PRESS RELEASE: Apr 25, 2008 Sinclair Stevens

One Canada or 10 Canadas?

Some say Prime Minister Stephen Harper has a hidden agenda. In fact, he has a very clear agenda. Harper is an ideologue who thinks in top-down terms. When he speaks to fellow believers, his audience consists of confirmed neo-cons who envision a promised land of unfettered capitalism with as little government interference as possible. This is the key group for Harper and his Conservative party.

But there is a second audience he and his associates speak to – the general public, the voters. Harper and his associates recognize that to reach their goal it is necessary to play to the parochial interests of groups such as Bloc Québécois supporters in the hope of winning their votes.

This creates a dichotomy for the Harperites, leading to their double-talk. This month we have had a good example of this phenomenon.

Referring to "Quebec's historical demands," Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn raised the possibility of winning 30 to 40 seats in the province, up from the current 11.

"The recognition of the Quebec nation within Canada allows us to think that we can put some meat around it, and that a majority government is more able to do a number of things, while being respectful of all of the provinces," Blackburn said in an interview. On the topic of constitutional change, he added: "When you're a minority, you never know what can happen, so it's not obvious to do that type of thing in the actual context."

The media jumped all over the story so Harper introduced the double-talk. He told a news conference: "I don't sense among the Canadian population, or the population of Quebec for that matter, any desire to engage in constitutional discussions in the near future. And the government has no plans to do that."

Blackburn had made a mistake. He should not have used the words "constitutional change."

Harper's inner group is aware of the need to act incrementally so as not to scare the wider public. But they have made it clear: All they need is a majority government to reach their objective.

Here are the facts:

On Oct. 15, 1995, Reform party leader Preston Manning and unity critic Stephen Harper presented Reform's "New Confederation" proposal, a package of 20 measures to modernize and decentralize Canada.

"We propose measures which will assert the autonomy of all provinces and the power of the people well into the future," Harper said.

Each of the 20 changes could be accomplished without comprehensive federal-provincial negotiations of the sort that led to the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. Reform's proposals simply required a federal government willing to act. "Canadians want change, not more constitutional wrangling," Harper said.

Earlier, speaking to a meeting of the National Citizens Coalition on May 24, 1994, Harper said: "Whether Canada ends up with one national government, or two governments or 10 governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangements of any future country may be."

In 1997, Harper and his confidant Tom Flanagan, writing in their Next City magazine, suggested that coalition-building was the only practical way for the right to seize national power. They said an alliance with the Bloc Québécois "would not be out of place. The Bloc are nationalist for much the same reason Albertans are populists – they care about their local identity ... and they see the federal government as a threat to their way of life."

In 2001, Harper proposed "a firewall around Alberta."

In October 2004, Harper made his "Belgian waffle" speech in Quebec City, suggesting that Canada should become a North American version of Belgium, which has autonomous regions. He was sympathetic to this "national autonomy" concept because "Québécois never wanted to be an overwhelmed province in a centralized Canada." Subsequent to Harper's speech, the Belgians had an election that left them so divided they were unable to form a government for more than eight months.

As keynote speaker at the Conservative policy convention in Montreal in March 2005, Harper said: "I also know very well the pride and solidarity of Quebecers. I know they will never let the autonomy and the dignity of Quebec be undermined. But they also want to be partners in the future of Canada. And they will be – once again – with the new Conservative Party of Canada."

Harper made that comment after referring to the Bloc eight times. Each time he set out what the Bloc had proposed for a sovereign Quebec but had not achieved.

"The policy of the Bloc is the strategy of the empty chair," Harper stressed. Then he delivered the punch line: "We, the Conservatives, are the only real vehicle of change here in Quebec and throughout Canada. The Bloc will never make a single positive change. In Quebec, as everywhere in Canada, the only vehicle of change is the Conservative Party of Canada."

With little mainstream news comment, Harper – the day after his keynote speech – slipped a new section into the Conservative policy paper passed in Montreal. It is a shocker! For the first time in Canadian history, a national political party embraced a provincial rights agenda. The section – Part D – binds the party "to ensure that the use of the federal spending power in provincial jurisdictions is limited, authorizes the provinces to use the opting out formula with full compensation if they want to opt out of a new or modified federal program, in areas of shared or exclusive jurisdiction. Consider reforming Canadian federalism, taking into account: (a) the need to consolidate Quebec's position within the Canadian federation; (b) the need to alleviate the alienation felt by the citizens of the West."

In his closing speech at the convention on March 19, Harper said: "I would like to say to Quebecers, our party is going to respect the autonomy of their government, the pride they have in their society and also their needs within Canada, our huge country. The Bloc Québécois for 15 years have not done everything that Quebecers deserve. And I think now Quebecers can express their solidarity within the Conservative Party of Canada."

Almost 50 years earlier, campaigning on a "One Canada" platform in March 1957, John Diefenbaker told a Montreal audience that the Progressive Conservative party "will bring about a united Canada. Our first aim is `One Canada' in which there will be equalization of opportunity for all parts of Canada. We will maintain the Constitution and provincial rights thereunder, which we consider as a sacred trust which shall be maintained in fact as in law."

He cited the words of Sir George-Étienne Cartier: "First of all, let us be Canadians."

Given a choice, without double-talk, Canadians will support a One Canada vision rather than Harper's suggestion that we make Canada the Belgium of North America, with up to 10 autonomous nations.

Does Harper not realize that prior to Confederation, the colonies of British North America were autonomous and that Lord Durham in his famous report reaffirmed their colonial status while Britain retained control over foreign affairs and the military?

It is strange that Harper's mission today is to make all our provinces autonomous with Ottawa mainly looking after foreign affairs and defence as Britain did in colonial days.

Do you call that progress or just ludicrous?

Sinclair Stevens served in the cabinets of Progressive Conservative prime ministers Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney.

[Streaker]

Still sceptical that this coalition will happen, but OMG would it be a glorious moment in Canadian political history were it to happen.

[RUEZ]

Streaker Streaker:

Still sceptical that this coalition will happen, but OMG would it be a glorious moment in Canadian political history were it to happen.

You act as if there's never been a coalition before.

[djakeydd]

Canadians would be TAO - another dead beat regime relegated to the dustbin.

[Streaker]

Thanos Thanos:

westmanguy westmanguy:

I started a facebook movement against the Lib/NDP coalition gov't!

The real patriots should be filling out FAC applications instead. The destruction of a democracy can't be dealt with by goofing around on a clownshow website. Sorry, that's just the way I see it. I haven't been this enraged, literally, in a good long time and I don't like it.

How would a coalition government represent the "destruction of democracy"?

It seems to me that the opposite would be the case, given the circumstances.

[DerbyX]

$1:

I have no "opinion" of you one way or the other. I don't even know you. You're some guy somewhere in Canada who posts about politics on an obscure website. Same as me. Let's not make this personal.

Oh. Did I confuse you with someone else? I seem to recall you got very personal and insulting during our first debate over my refusal to adopt your opinion of Chretien as mine.

I also think you are confusing obscure with preeminent.

$1:

We differ here. I'm not in any "camp." While I enjoy watching the cut and thrust of the political game, it's not like following a hockey team. I change my loyalties according to the issues and the circumstances. At the moment, I think the Conservatives are the best equipped to govern with the best plan. But the Libs have been in that position before, and may be again.

In other words you are in the CPC camp at the moment. Your statement is the same as mine as I believe the Liberals are best to govern but failing that a Lib-NDP-Green coalition would work nicely with egos kept in check.

$1:

I wouldn't. I think Mckay is a fool. He was immature when he cried on TV during the Belinda debacle, and was a complete embarrassment when he gushed like a schoolgirl and declared himself a "fan" of Condeleeza Rice during her visit last year.

OK. He has his supporters though and was runner-up in the leadership of the CPC. If he is such a liability then having him as deputy leader and minister of national defence seems a bit skeweff.

In the absence of Harper then who? I guess the real point is that 3 times Harper had his try and failed to win the coveted majority against a weak and divided opposition. His iron silence grip and the self-preservation instinct of rank and file CPC members quiets the questions about his leadership but they are there. It would be niave to think otherwise.

$1:

Fair enough. Initially, I got the impression you were a bit of a kool-aid drinker, but rhetorical debate is part of the game in both the political process and on boards like this.

But personally, I'm not one to engage in it.

As I think of more then a few cons and people like yourself comitted to a singular viewpoint of a man like Chretien. Witness your belief about him concerning personal affairs. I was more concerned with how he governed the nation then dealing with a personal problem. That shaped my opinion of him.

We all drink kool-aid. We just like different flavours is all.

$1:

That may be the case, but right now, Mike Duffy is reporting that the NDP is asking the Libs for 5-6 seats in cabinet in exchange for their support. They initially were demanding the high-profile position of finance minister, if you can believe it! That's not likely to happen at this stage, but they will probably get industry, and some other choice jobs.

That's an awful lot of influence for a party that "didn't even medal" as you say.

No more then the power they wielded when they first were coveted by Harper for support in 06.

Of course this was the very reason I supported some sort of agreement between the Libs and CPC. the most votes form the political mandate that represents the majority.

$1:

I think, all things considered, he's run a fairly decent government. I think the GST cuts were a mistake, but apart from that, I don't have many problems with anything he's done.

I guess perspective is everything. Under the Liberals we went from 30 billion in deficit and 100 billion more in debt to a large surplus of some 13 billion. We are now in the red and yes thats because of harpers policies and not just the economy. We wasted time and money on an election that needed have been fought and the last time Harper successfully negotiated with another party was back in june when the 2011 withdrawl date was set, a date the Liberals were called cut and run cowards for and that Harper is now a hero for.

He was supposed to be a leader. A leader finds a way to make things work. He didn't yet still he gets support.

We all get the govts we deserve and right now Canada deserves a bickering govt of uncertainy because the voters simply won't hold their parties accountable for not acting like adults.

$1:

You've got a point here. While I agree with most of the principals of the economic statement, his decision to kick the opposition parties in the teeth by cutting off election financing was partisan and divisive. He believed the opposition would cave, and now at this stage, it looks like they've rallied and are going to try and bring him down.

A constitutional crisis is not what Canada needs during these uncertain times, and Harper is responsible for causing it.

Yes, and the only people that can hold them accountable are us the voters. The threat of losing to a coalition govt should be the kick in the ass Harper needs to pick a party to negotiate a deal with in order to achieve a stable mandate.

If he does manage then good on em. If he doesn't then the resulting uncertainty and election are on his head.

Say what you will but a coalition govt is at least an attempt to govern without constant threats of being toppled through confidence motions.

[ridenrain]

"check" again.

[Streaker]

DerbyX DerbyX:

I also think you are confusing obscure with preeminent.

A preeminent member of a preeminent site, I might add.

[StuntmanMike]

Streaker Streaker:

How would a coalition government represent the "destruction of democracy"?

It seems to me that the opposite would be the case, given the circumstances.

I have to agree here. This is democracy in action. This demonstrates how effective the Westminster Parliamentary system is. Harper, without a majority of seats, tried to force his will regardless.

And now we're seeing the results of such hubris.

I say that as someone who thinks the Tories were on the right path.

[ridenrain]

I agree.
Opposition isn't just a mudhook, stalling any foreward progress for political ends, it also must be able to form a legitimate government if nesssesary.
Harper challenged and forced the opposition to scramble to form that government. It was an obvious flop so the Conservatives retracted that challenge because they don't want to force another election.
Canadians all saw how addicted the Libs are to that welfare and that's good enough.

If we had less party unity and more freedom, we'd really see some democracy.

[Thanos]

Streaker Streaker:

Thanos Thanos:

westmanguy westmanguy:

I started a facebook movement against the Lib/NDP coalition gov't!

The real patriots should be filling out FAC applications instead. The destruction of a democracy can't be dealt with by goofing around on a clownshow website. Sorry, that's just the way I see it. I haven't been this enraged, literally, in a good long time and I don't like it.

How would a coalition government represent the "destruction of democracy"?

It seems to me that the opposite would be the case, given the circumstances.

This isn't a coalition of federalist parties, this is a coalition with a racist xenophobic separatist party holding the trigger. That the Bloc won't get cabinet seats is allegedly a given, but that doesn't mean that they won't be calling the shots. The Liberals and NDP's will be too power-drunk to do anything to offend the Bloc. By default all of Canada will end up paying the price for every single one of the Bloc's whims, no matter how damaging it will be to everything ranging from industrial policy to environment to national unity. If the Bloc doesn't like it the Bloc will collapse the coalition, and the Liberals and NDP's will assuredly not take the risk of offending them, not if it costs them their stolen government.

Voting alongside the Bloc in opposition is one thing, and even the Bloc voting with the government is mostly harmless, but this scheme that's being cooked up is something else altogether. Explain to me how any Canadian nationalist or federalist can accept that the Bloc becoming the main anchor of a governing coalition is a good thing. Has everyone forgotten so easily that the main goal of these traitors is to destroy our country? You can bet your last dollar that the separatists haven't. In the blink of an eye they go from being a spent force, whittled down in the October election, into a rejuvenated kingmaker. Think of it. People who want to destroy Canada could quite conceivably have ultimate control over all of Canada.

I can't believe so few people are bothering to see that the Liberals and NDP's are willingly selling their political souls to the worst devil that's out there. This is truly an epic episode of how much the pure unadulterated hatred that the Liberals and NDP have for Stephen Harper in specific and for Canadian Conservatives in general that they'd follow this kind of path just to take power away from a duly and fairly elected government. You leftists bitch and holler all the time about what the US used to do in South America back in the '60's and '70's with all the sponsoring of dictatorship and engineering coup d'etats. Yet the same thing is practically happening right in front of your eyes in your very own country and you guys are cheerleading it onwards. Unbelievable.

[DerbyX]

What you really mean to say is that Harper made no attempt at governing with a minority. He tried to bully the opposition and when it failed he fliped faster then he flopped.

Harper is a coward as Robair puts it. He now stands a real chance of losing to a coalition.

Harper has been saying and doing anything to grasp power and never once has he had the country at heart unlike the Liberals did from 1993 all the way up until 2006.

[Thanos]

You Liberals are deliberately prosituting yourselves to separatists who want to destroy Canada. You are acting in direct oppostion to everything that you claim to have ever believed in order to take the reigns of power away from a duly and fairly elected government. You have proven that everything that Liberals and NDP's ever believed in, or said that they believed in, is a total fabrication. You only purpose is to hold forever the power that you believe is your entitlement as the so-called Natural Governing Party.

You Liberals and NDP's are the whores of the lowest rank. Anything Stephen Harper did or didn't do pales in comparison to the damage that's going to be done by what you conscienceless sluts have unleashed. Same on you, complete shame eternally on you.

[ridenrain]

Derby: The last government was the losngest lasting of any minority government in the history of Canada. This was entierly thanks to Dion abstaining from votes more than any opposition leader in the history of Canada.

You're party is becomming irrelivent.


Thanos: The Libs and the Bloc are 2 sides of the same coin and one can't live without the other. It's a good cop/bad cop routine to beat money out of Canadian taxpayers.