Liberals pass bill

[Tron_fdc]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Jun 24 2005, 05:36 PM

It's not equal power across the country. It gives disproportionate power to smaller provinces.

Do you really think it's fair that PEI (population: 137,000) would have the same amount of power as Alberta's 3+ million citizens?

Actually, you'd then see Atlantic Canada setting the national agenda. Do you really want a region with a "culture of defeatism" dependant on hand-outs from Ottawa controlling Western Canada?

Disproportionate power as opposed to none at all? hmmmmm lemme think about that one.

I'll take my chances with Atlantic Canada rather than no chance at all thanks.

And what's your beef with Atlantic Canada? You sound just as ignorant towards them as you sound towards the West. I am also aware where your quote came from, and it's a pretty lame attempt at trapping me.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Jun 24 2005, 10:36 AM

It's not equal power across the country. It gives disproportionate power to smaller provinces.

Do you really think it's fair that PEI (population: 137,000) would have the same amount of power as Alberta's 3+ million citizens?

If done prperly, PEI would not have the same power as Alberta.

In my ideal example, PEI would have 1 MP and 10 senators. Alberta would have 28+ MP's and 10 senators.

Actually, you'd then see Atlantic Canada setting the national agenda. Do you really want a region with a "culture of defeatism" dependant on hand-outs from Ottawa controlling Western Canada?

First of all, how would Atlantic Canada, with 40% control of the senate control Western Canada, with 40% control of the senate?

Second of all, the House of Commons will still exist. Atlantic Canada's power in the house will be miniscule if it is balanced properly. While an Atlantic bloq could press it's desires strongly in the Senate, such measures would easily fail in the Commons.

[MarchHare]

And what's your beef with Atlantic Canada? You sound just as ignorant towards them as you sound towards the West. I am also aware where your quote came from, and it's a pretty lame attempt at trapping me.

I have no beef at all with Atlantic Canada. In fact, as I believe I've mentioned earlier, I'm originally from Saint John and lived in NB for 22 years before moving to Calgary in 2002. I used that Harper quote for sarcasm, not as an attempt to "trap" anyone.

I just have a problem with a region that only makes up 8% of the nation's population receiving 40% of the power in the senate.

First of all, how would Atlantic Canada, with 40% control of the senate control Western Canada, with 40% control of the senate?

The Maritimes will vote together on probably 90% of issues. What's good for NB is typically also good for NS and PEI. Newfoundland will vote with the Maritimes probably 80-85% of the time. I'm sure Maritime-Q-Scout will back me up on that.

I don't think the same can be said about Western Canada. Admittedly, I'm less familiar with the West than I am with the Maritimes, but I don't see BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba having as many common interests as the Atlantic Provinces do. Alberta, as we all know, is the heartland of Canadian conservatism, whereas Saskatchewan was the birthplace of socialism (and they routinely elect NDP governments provincially). While there is certainly some common ground among the Western Provinces, it's no where near the same level it's at in Atlantic Canada.

Second of all, the House of Commons will still exist. Atlantic Canada's power in the house will be miniscule if it is balanced properly. While an Atlantic bloq could press it's desires strongly in the Senate, such measures would easily fail in the Commons.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that if provinces get more of a say in the senate they should receive fewer seats in the HoC?

I was always under the impression that while the Reform/Alliance/CPC parties wanted to see senate reform, the HoC would remain as it is now. If that isn't the case, could someone kindly point me to a detailed document outlining the CPC plan for Parliamentary reform, if such a document exists.

[Coelah]

Putting political leanings aside, the Liberals once again showed up the Conservatives as the amateurs they really are. They are consistently outmaneuvered by the Liberals. Everytime they try to accomplish something, the Liberals show they are one step ahead of them. It makes them appear as bumbling fools. They'll never get mainstream support until they bring in a leader that can outthink the Liberals.

Personally I haven't been able to vote for them for just that reason. I don't want a party that can't even outsmart the Liberals once, to be running my country. Of course, I can't vote for the Liberals either because they are lying, corrupt, quasi-criminals. What's left? The marijuana party?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by Coelah@Jun 24 2005, 11:53 AM
Personally I haven't been able to vote for them for just that reason. I don't want a party that can't even outsmart the Liberals once, to be running my country. Of course, I can't vote for the Liberals either because they are lying, corrupt, quasi-criminals. What's left? The marijuana party?

Amen to that.

I'm yahtzee for Fotze, 2006!

[Resolute 14]

I am speaking from my own perspective. The House should be representative based on population. So, all provinces are represnted in the House based on their populations. No more of this guaranteed four seats or guaranteed to never lose seats crap. So yes, in my ideal situation, the Maritimes would see it's representation in the house reduced to fit it's population (and Ontario would see it's increased) However, what the Maritimes lose in the House, they would easily make up for in the Senate.

However, even if the configuration of the House remained the same with a EEE Senate, an Atlantic or Western dominated Senate would be curbed by a centrally dominated House. Voting as a bloq would help Atlantic Canada push their bills through the Senate, but not through the House.

Regardless, this entire debate is centred around the idea that the politicians are acting somewhat independently of their parties. Even in such a senate, Party leaders would still likely be calling the shots, so the chances of any province voting in an absolute bloq are slim.

[MarchHare]

Even in such a senate, Party leaders would still likely be calling the shots, so the chances of any province voting in an absolute bloq are slim.

Well, with two possible exceptions: Alberta is likely to elect a straight Conservative group of senators (with maybe one Liberal from Edmonton), and PEI (at least in the HoC) has historically voted totally Liberal.

You're right though; in most other provinces, and especially Ontario, there's more likely to be a relative even split of Liberals and Conservatives and a small number of NDPers.

[Resolute 14]

Actually, that is only true if the Senate was elected FPTP. On PR, There would probably be 2-4 liberal or NDP Senators (assuming the NDP ran candidates) from Alberta, and likely a similar number of Conservative Senators in PEI.

[MarchHare]

Heh, we're really all over the map now, discussing changes to the house, senate, and replacing FPTP with PR.

As much as I'm interested in debating Parliamentary reform (and depending on its implementation I'm likely to agree with you on many points), I think we're moving beyond the scope of this thread. Perhaps we should start another one for that discussion?

[Resolute 14]

Heh, true enough, though is there really much to talk about on the existing topic? Partisan politics doesnt accomplish much of anything positive, which the last couple months have shown. If anything, the maneuverings of the Liberals and Conservatives the last couple months only underscore the absolute need for a complete overhaul of our system. It is only natural, IMNSHO, that any topic will turn down this path becuase of it.

[FlamesAddiction]

Why be mad at the Liberals about this?

It seems like both the NDP and the Bloc were paying attention. The Conservatives have no one to blame but themselves. If they had agreed to the motion of setting an ealier vote time so that the Bloc MPs could get home for their holiday, none of this would have happened.

[HOZ]

Get rid of Harper, get a new leader from Ontario, and see what happens.


And here is the crux of the problem.

Easterners would rather be ruled by criminals than by us. We are less Canadian in Bananada.

[MarchHare]

Originally posted by HOZ@Jun 24 2005, 04:28 PM
Get rid of Harper, get a new leader from Ontario, and see what happens.


And here is the crux of the problem.

Easterners would rather be ruled by criminals than by us. We are less Canadian in Bananada.

Again, what you people aren't realizing isn't that "Easterners" want a leader from Ontario, it's that they want a more moderate leader of the CPC...someone not from the Reform/Alliance mold. "Leader from Ontario" is double-speak for "more moderate Tory".

Joe Clark, for example, is an Alberta conservative that Ontario and Atlantic Canada would readily vote for. Stephen Harper, despite being Ontario-born, is not.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by Tron_fdc+Jun 24 2005, 01:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tron_fdc @ Jun 24 2005, 01:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Maritime Q-Scout@Jun 24 2005, 03:50 PM
1. Martin did nothing wrong using political tactics last night, he played politics and won

2. Harper would have been just as justified if roles reversed

3. I'm not a fan of our current senate, I like the idea of voting senators, but limiting their power to something as just a check against Parliament.

4. Reform started, became the Alliance with SOME merger to the PC's, then full merger formed the CPC, with a leader who was from Calgary and one of the old gaurds of the Reform party. It seems to be (atleast the outlook out here) that the Reform Party is just adding members and changing their name.

5. Yes the reform party ran candidates across Canada, and so did the Alliance, but in my riding both guys were in fact parachuted in.

6. Until the CPC gets a leader from Ontario or Quebec then they'll be seen as a Western based party... and until Harper goes they'll never form government. I said it before and I'll say it again, HARPER IS A BAD LEADER! (usually responded by so's Martin, but Martin's actually playing the game well in parliament).

Get rid of Harper, get a new leader from Ontario, and see what happens.

7. People are crying that it's a federal party, but looking at it from a Western Viewpoint. Either it's a Western Party with no history of scandal, or it's a federal party with the blemish of Airbus, not balancing the budget when promised instead making the debt much larger, etc.

8. Canada, UK, and New Zeland use the same form of governance, I think Australia's is different than the Wesminster system, but I could be wrong on that. There are no other Commonwealth countires that use the same model.


Few short thoughts, tear them apart as you see fit, as after all I'm from the Evil East (I like that term... I hope it sticks :P)

1. I agree. Nothing wrong with what he did, it was clever IMO.
3.Why is that? Just wondering......as someone from the east is it because you may be afraid that there will be too much Western influence? Once again just wonering.
5.Where were they parachuted in from?
6.Harper is from Ontario
8.you're comparing countries that have nowhere near the land mass, and diversity of Canada. Just because these systems work in the UK or New Zealand doesn't mean they will work here. Apples and oranges to me. [/b][/quote]
3. I'm in favour of an elected sentate with less power, would shift the balance of power to the small provinces, but limit that power so it staying in the House of Commons.

5. I don't recall none of them were Cape Bretoners

6. Harper lives in, worked in, educated in Calgary. If he went to an Ontario school, or lived there it'd probably be different. But I also think he's a poor leader, but would be a great behind the scenes guy.

8. I wasn't comparing countries per say, but pointing out the only countries that have a system like ours.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by HOZ@Jun 24 2005, 07:28 PM
Get rid of Harper, get a new leader from Ontario, and see what happens.


And here is the crux of the problem.

Easterners would rather be ruled by criminals than by us. We are less Canadian in Bananada.

personally I don't give two sweet flying fatas where you're from, if you're qualified, and capable of running the country I'll vote for you. If you're from Calgary, Toronto, Montreal, or Corner Brook I don't care!

BUT

If the CPC wants to gain votes of Upper Canadians they need someone from Ontario or Quebec, I'm sorry I'm just stating what I think is best for that party.

EASTERNERS don't want corrupt politicans in power. Are you forgetting that 3 of the 4 EASTERN provinces have Conservative governments? Right now I can say Nova Scotians want a balanced budget, the last federal Conservative government promised that and did not deliver. What were seats that were safe Conservative seats, and a Liberal had about as much chance winning there as they do in Calgary started to lose. Only Peter MacKay survived.

And realize to us in the EAST, for every Sponsorhip there's Airbus... which cost more? (actually I don't know, which did cost more?)

The general consensus in the EAST is we're being run by crooks, better the Devil you know than the Devil you don't.

And frankly Martin's proving to be the better leader at the moment, he's winning the pressure votes, and increasing the size of government. Like him, love him, he's leading on the scoreboard. It's all about politics, and Martin's playing the game to win.



PLEASE

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT'S GOOD AN HOLY


DO NOT


NOT

NOT

NOT

NOT

CALL ONTARIO AND QUEBEC EASTERN CANADA! There are FOUR of 10 provinces MORE EAST, there Upper Canada! (just a major peeve of mine)


edit: as long as the "us versus them" mentality is in this country it's going to be bad, why can't we all be Canadians, or Bananadans?

[calculoso]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Jun 24 2005, 09:42 AM
That being said, how is it not hypocrisy for Harper to occuse the Liberals of making deals with the separatists? Harper did the exact same thing less than a month ago. It's understandable; politics makes strange bedfellows, afterall. So if either the Liberals or the Conservative use the Bloc to advance their own ends, so be it. But Harper has no right to claim a position of moral superiority over Martin by accusing the Liberals of working with the separatists.

Not too long ago, there were many Liberals supporters and Stronach (etc) who were all over the Conservatives for making a deal with the seperatists. Now that the Liberals do it, it's perfectly A-OK?

That's where the hypocracy comes in.

[HOZ]

A: Depends on you perspective as to what is East(ern)

B: I wish everyone had that mentality! Let the best man/women/monkey win. But you did say a very true fact of the situation we face today. People in CENTRAL CANADA do NOT trust Alberta or Albertans. Harper had NOTHING to do with Airbus. MArtin had EVERYTHING to do with Sponsorship. Hardly the devil you know vs the devil you don't. That doesn't pass the smell check. Mulroney...ok. Harper...not a chance

C: Martin is a liar and a crook. AND is showing now that he can be a firstrate underhanded slimeball. I am all for back room dealings to make good billsbetter. that is how democracy works. That is NOT how the Liberals are doing things. Lie, cheat, steal and lie again. They are buying people not winning them over. They bought the NDP, Stronach, the w**ker from BC. And.....They just bought the BLOC. What payment is due will be interesting to see. I am sure it won't be pretty and if it is not I am sure the LIBERANOS will supress it (with the help of the CBC and G&M allies) or just lie like they always do.

Bananada is a joke.

[jonesy]

Originally posted by calculoso+Jun 25 2005, 03:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (calculoso @ Jun 25 2005, 03:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@Jun 24 2005, 09:42 AM
That being said, how is it not hypocrisy for Harper to occuse the Liberals of making deals with the separatists? Harper did the exact same thing less than a month ago. It's understandable; politics makes strange bedfellows, afterall. So if either the Liberals or the Conservative use the Bloc to advance their own ends, so be it. But Harper has no right to claim a position of moral superiority over Martin by accusing the Liberals of working with the separatists.

Not too long ago, there were many Liberals supporters and Stronach (etc) who were all over the Conservatives for making a deal with the seperatists. Now that the Liberals do it, it's perfectly A-OK?

That's where the hypocracy comes in. [/b][/quote]
This is what makes me the maddest. The most vocal reason given by Stronach for leaving the Conservatives was that she didn't think it was healthy to be buddy buddy with the Bloq.

This was her MAIN reason given.

What is she gonna do now??

Martin also played that angle up to the hilt. Now he does something similar.

That is the hypocricy. If Martin had said nothing, I would then applaud this move by him as clever.
But, he didn't, he made every effort to paint Harper in bed with Duceppe. He made every effort to say that was bad for Canada. This is what makes Martin a low low man in my books. A low principled, very unsavoury man.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally posted by Coelah@Jun 24 2005, 12:53 PM
Putting political leanings aside, the Liberals once again showed up the Conservatives as the amateurs they really are. They are consistently outmaneuvered by the Liberals. Everytime they try to accomplish something, the Liberals show they are one step ahead of them. It makes them appear as bumbling fools. They'll never get mainstream support until they bring in a leader that can outthink the Liberals.

Personally I haven't been able to vote for them for just that reason. I don't want a party that can't even outsmart the Liberals once, to be running my country. Of course, I can't vote for the Liberals either because they are lying, corrupt, quasi-criminals. What's left? The marijuana party?

Double Amen, sums up my take on the Conservatives right now. Don't want to vote for the Liberals and don't want to vote for the Conservatives. Harper's "football" photo op with McKay only helped to highlight his deficiencies, and build up McKay's.

How long before we see Peter and Steven switch roles? You've got to think the brain trust at the Conservative party is concerned about having squandered what should have been a great means of making inroads into gaining support. The fact that Canadians would rather vote for a scandal ridden party than the opposition is certainly not a ringing endorsement of the current Conservative regime.

Time for a line change...

[duncan]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Jun 24 2005, 02:26 PM

By "the East" do you mean "Ontario" or do you mean Eastern Canada? Because in both the 1997 and 2000 elections Atlantic Canada voted heavily against the Liberal Party, with the PC and NDP winning dozens of seats in the region.

Let me tell you something as a former citizen of New Brunswick -- the Maritimes have even less of a voice in Ottawa than the West does, but they're at least smart enough not to form (and vote for en masse) a regional protest party that will never do anything more than be the opposition and huff and complain about their region being ignored. The West could have worked within the existing parties to try to gain more influence. Instead, you opted to form a protest party that never stood any chance of forming a national government and then complain bitterly when the MPs you voted for aren't able to advance your interests from the opposition side of Parliament.

Thanks for playing indeed.

You might want to get some facts straight. In 1997, the Maritimes did see a change in its voting, but 2000 saw a 25%+ drop in PC seats in the East.

!993
the PC party held 1 seat in the East, while the Liberals owned 31 and NDP none

1997
PC 13
Liberals 11
NDP 8

2000
PC 9
LIb 19
NDP 4


The PC hasn't held a seat in PEI since before 1993, it has had a Liberal sweep.