Export thread

In 37 minutes after Opposition Party tables motion of non confidence prompted by Harper Government being found in contempt of parliament.

Discuss!

Canada has a government? I just thought a bunch of moose sat around and made decisions for you guys.

Espy said:

Canada has a government? I just thought a bunch of moose sat around and made decisions for you guys.

Click to expand...

That's the Canadian Senate.

I am so happy that The States have a set election schedule.

sixpackshaker said:

I am so happy that The States have a set election schedule.

Click to expand...

So do we! I am so glad we don't abide by it!

And the motion passes 156-145, parliament will be dissolved upon consultation with the Governor General. History has been made, for the first time in the history of this country has our government fallen due to an order of contempt.

Good, another couple million dollars to get another Conservative minority government. Stimulus at its best

I don't think anyone is too terribly surprised, the Harper government was looking to cause an election while their polls were high and the opposition's were low in hopes of finally getting that elusive majority government. Likewise, the opposition seemed to be hoping to have or manufacture a crisis to cause an election on knock the government's polls.

Well, I'll be off to the polls in May it seems!

I think this is Ignatieff's way of getting out of government. Once the Liberals lose (Again) he can go back to Harvard, head held high.

Well a Liberal government seems unlikely, another Conservative minority very likely, majority quite possible. It again hinges on Quebec, how will the Bloq fare?

I expect that unless Harper delivers a majority, this will be his last run. If Ignatieff doesn't improve the Liberals significantly, he's done.

As uncharismatic as Harper can be (And the opposite is true, his piano playing/Beatle's singing is political gold), I don't think there's really any Conservative up-and-comers who can replace him.

Quick, annex them while their guard is down! Sorry Canadians, we need your income taxes.

MindDetective said:

Quick, annex them while their guard is down! Sorry Canadians, we need your income taxes.

Click to expand...

Quick don't let the Yankees know about our massive oil reserves!

HCGLNS said:

Quick don't let the Yankees know about our massive oil reserves!

Click to expand...

I don't think we're interested in that. It's that lingering grudge about that LIE you folks call bacon.

We no longer have John Candy to lead the invasion.

He was one of theirs, though! (I know, I got the reference. )

He's a secret Canadian spy. Like Dave Nelson of WNYX.

HCGLNS said:

Quick don't let the Yankees know about our massive oil reserves!

Click to expand...

Umm...there's a radio commercial running here* about every 30 minutes extolling the virtue of going with Canada's plentiful oil sand reserves instead of sandy oil from Over There (never mind that harvesting oil from oil sands is one of THE dirtiest ways of getting it), so the lynx is probably well out of the rucksack already.

--Patrick
*SE MI

Zappit said:

I don't think we're interested in that. It's that lingering grudge about that LIE you folks call bacon.

Click to expand...

.... Its actually only referred to as Canadian bacon in the states. I would never have heard of that if not for American television. We do have back bacon, which is a cut of pork loin coated in cornmeal, which I think is probably what Americans were thinking of when they decided to call ham Canadian bacon. And its delicious, although it does not beat out regular bacon.
Added at: 14:15

HCGLNS said:

Quick don't let the Yankees know about our massive oil reserves!

Click to expand...

How do I not do something, quickly?

Anyway, this election is going to be another waste of time resulting in yet another Conservative minority. People still can't trust the NDP for their spending or the Liberals for their for lack of a better term, corruption. And they aren't paying enough attention to politics to see that the Conservative government has been just as bad.

And obviously the Bloc and the Green party aren't going to be wrestling away power anytime soon.

Canada- split the left wing vote among 4 parties, the right wing party will keep winning with a minority government.

We're still angry with you guys for foisting Beiber on us. If nothing else, that should be cause enough for nuclear annihilation.

Crazy canuckistanians.

First Lady Puffinstuff said:

We're still angry with you guys for foisting Beiber on us. If nothing else, that should be cause enough for nuclear annihilation.

Crazy canuckistanians.

Click to expand...

And Bryan Adams.

Krisken said:

And Bryan Adams.

Click to expand...

Don't forget Avril Lavigne and Nickelback!
Added at: 14:38
Wait that's no good! I take it back, forget them! Remember Rush? Rush was great!

Even the amazing Rush can't make up for Nickleback.

Basically what checkeredhat said... there will be some vote shuffling but I really don't see the Liberals or NDP making any real gains on the conservatives. That said... I predict... another Conservative minority government at the cool low price of millions and millions of dollars!

Or they could have just you know... done their damn jobs and not cost the taxpayers millions in a totally unnecessary election.

A friend of mine just found out Rick Mercer has a twitter feed. This should be fun to watch in the next two months.
http://twitter.com/rickmercer

Red door or blue door? Its not the doors I dislike it's the knobs out front.

Click to expand...

For you 'Muricans, Rick Mercer is basically our Jon Stewart.

What an exciting weekend of non-discussion

CPC: If you don't give us a majority, they will form an unholy evil coalition and destroy Canada!
LIB: We won't form a coalition.
NDP: We'll happily form a coalition with either CPC or LIB just like we did in the past.
Bloq: Hey, remember when we tried to form that coalition with the CPC and NDP, that was awesome.
PBO: Given the lack of information provided by the government, we sought sources of information regarding the new F-35 fighter jets from the American government and have determined that the purchase of the fighter jets will now cost $29.3B instead of the originally reported $15B previously reported by the Prime Minister.

Listen guys. Remember the Rhinoceros Party? I'd like to form that again.

Can I rely on your support?

Sure, got $308,000?

Are you guys trying to secede from the us again?

A friend linked this to me.
http://imgur.com/a/A0w9X
Added at: 04:14
This is super old now but I find it becomes relevant again with every election:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRASZ_9nthQ

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-democracy-erode/story-e6frg6ux-1226030310248

Very lefty article (that I happen to whole heartedly agree with) that shows an Australian's view of what's been going down.

I'd say it was more accurate than leftist. The diminishing role of elected politicians under the Harper government is the scariest thing I have seen in Canadian politics.

That would still result in the leader of the largest party getting to be PM, unless you go back to 1978 and we get Trudeau instead of Clark.

heh Social Credit party, that's a throwback.

Every time I see the bullshit political ad that points out that the NDP, Libs and Bloc may form a dangerous coalition government it makes my blood boil. The fucking Conservative party was based on a God damn coalition.

Frankie Williamson said:

Every time I see the bullshit political ad that points out that the NDP, Libs and Bloc may form a dangerous coalition government it makes my blood boil. The fucking Conservative party was based on a God damn coalition.

Click to expand...

BZZT, wrong answer. There's a huge difference between a political merger (Reform and Conservative Party) prior to an election and a tenuous coalition built after an election.

The only difference would be how Elections Canada distributes your campaign funds for the next election.

heh, just went down the history books, only three times in our history has a party without the highest number of votes formed the government.

Azurephoenix said:

It would be nice if we could vote for our Prime Minister along with our party MP's during an election... but that would be too much to ask for I suppose.

Click to expand...

Vote for your leaders? Perish the thought!

HCGLNS said:

That would still result in the leader of the largest party getting to be PM, unless you go back to 1978 and we get Trudeau instead of Clark.

heh Social Credit party, that's a throwback.

Click to expand...

I meant that each party have candidates for PM as well... I mean, what if your party that you support has a bonehead leader (which sadly is pretty much all of them right now).

Hell, I can't vote for the Premier in provincial politics either... stupid Ed Stelmach *shakes fist*

Adammon said:

BZZT, wrong answer. There's a huge difference between a political merger (Reform and Conservative Party) prior to an election and a tenuous coalition built after an election.

Click to expand...

I agree with Adammon here wholeheartedly.

stienman said:

Vote for your leaders? Perish the thought!

Click to expand...

The saddest part of the Canadian electoral scene, is that people don't recognize that we do vote for our leaders. Which brings me to my habitual election rant or musing; the elimination of yellow dogs.

Every pollster or journalist is right now pounding the pavement, phonelines and twitterverse to determine, who are you voting for this May. Yet nobody is asking who you are voting for in the election, they are asking what party or leader you are supporting. The person on the ballot is irrelevant to them.

Well it isn't irrelevant to me and nor should it be to you. Three hundred and eight people will be sent to represent you in May, zero political parties will sent. The candidate you have selected may be a member of an official party and pledge their vote to them before the election, but it is the person that will be elected. And the great reward for voting, is that you get the candidate you voted for in the election. If you choose to vote based solely by party lines, you run the significant risk of getting a representative that does nothing more than fill a seat in parliament and sits or stands when instructed. That's not a person representing you, its a dog performing a trick for it's master, and your riding will suffer for it.

So once again, I encourage everyone to get to know the candidates in their riding, cut through the rhetoric of their party's mantras and determine which person will best represent your riding on the national stage.

If you don't, well I hope whoever you elect is a good enough dog to get tossed a bone.

I thought we were an autonomous collective...

Help Help, I'm being repressed!

See the violence inherent in the system!

I am so sad that Danny Williams has retired. He was the only political leader I ever felt like I could trust.

Espy said:

Even the amazing Rush can't make up for Nickleback.

Click to expand...

If you've driven through Hanna, AB (where they're from), you'd make crappy music too. Anything to get out of there.

Apologies to people from Hanna, but it really doesn't look like much at all. I was glad I was stopping for no more than Subway and kept driving.

Well we've finished 1 week of campaigning with 4 more left to go! Lets review where each Party stands.

CPC - Holding strong with their chauvinistic membership, losing some of the newly gained ground in Ontario and Quebec but still strongly in the minority government department. Repeatedly dogged by controversies but not showing any significant affects of them.

LIB - Making gains in Ontario and Quebec but not anywhere near the numbers to form the government yet. Ignatieff is making huge gains as a leader and growing in respect in each area he visits.

NPD - Surprisingly falling quite flat, losing ground to the Liberals all over Canada. None of their message is resounding in the news or with the voters.

Greens - No real significant impact. Wrapped up in the debate non-controversy and not promoting any significant agenda.

BQ - Well, staying strong in Quebec at the conservatives expense, will most likely remain strong enough to be the party with the 3rd most seats.

Overall I am struck by three unique things;

The success of the Conservative Party at surviving scandals that should shake Canadian voters to their core.

The free fall of Layton and the NDP.

The bickering of news media against each other.

Pray tell, which 'core-rattling scandals' are the Conservatives supposed to reeling from? Because honestly, even the most strident leftist thinks they're all pretty snooze-worthy.

Especially after Adscam.

Well the CPC

• Is the first party in the history of Canada ever charged with election fraud.
• The first government in the history ever convicted of contempt of parliament.
• They declared themselves hard on human smuggling while required refugees to pay their debts to the smugglers before being allowed out of detention cells.
• All stated costs relating to new fighter jets have been shown to not what the government has stated.
• They PMO hired a convicted felon despite regular rigorous RCMP screening.
• Has just today tossed a pair of school girls out of an event for having a picture of Ignatieff on their facebook accounts.
• Refused entrance to an event in Halifax for a social worker who's sole mission is to help feed and clothe homeless veterans.
• Limiting the press to four pre-approved questions per day.

It's almost as if Harper is immune to death by a thousand cuts.

HCGLNS said:

Well the CPC

• Is the first party in the history of Canada ever charged with election fraud.
• The first government in the history ever convicted of contempt of parliament.
• They declared themselves hard on human smuggling while required refugees to pay their debts to the smugglers before being allowed out of detention cells.
• All stated costs relating to new fighter jets have been shown to not what the government has stated.
• They PMO hired a convicted felon despite regular rigorous RCMP screening.
• Has just today tossed a pair of school girls out of an event for having a picture of Ignatieff on their facebook accounts.
• Refused entrance to an event in Halifax for a social worker who's sole mission is to help feed and clothe homeless veterans.
• Limiting the press to four pre-approved questions per day.

It's almost as if Harper is immune to death by a thousand cuts.

Click to expand...

1) Back in 2006 when this 'election fraud' happened, the penalties for the people responsible were a fine of $1000. The practice was common for both the NDP and the Liberals but the Conservatives changed the law and got busted by it. Holy crap, core-rattling.
2) They were held (not convicted) of contempt of parliament by a committee made up of the opposition. That's a little ridiculous to hang your hat on.
3) Seriously? That's core-rattling?
4) The planes that the Liberty party spent $247 million dollars on signing us up for? Those planes? The planes that we tried to pay for earlier but were told was too expensive then - and got more expensive? The planes that would have been cheaper had the multinational cooperation who developed the planes hadn't dropped out of due to political pressure? The planes that are replacing planes that are currently considered "Too dangerous to fly"? Those planes? Just trying to clarify here.
5) The guy was convicted of fraud 24 years ago! This came up 4 years ago after he moved over from the Liberal party. AND he no longer works for the PMO!
6) Seriously? That's core-rattling?
7) Seriously? That's core-rattling?
8) Seriously? That annoys me, but considering the fact that the two stories above are what come out of the press, I can't say I'm too surprised.

Are you saying you are not OK with the purchase of the planes but are OK with the government lying about the costs of the planes?

Are you saying that forcing refugees to pay their way out of jail is a good practice in Canada?

Are you saying that the three findings of contempt by the Speaker against this government are unjustified?

HCGLNS said:

Are you saying you are not OK with the purchase of the planes but are OK with the government lying about the costs of the planes?

Are you saying that forcing refugees to pay their way out of jail is a good practice in Canada?

Are you saying that the three findings of contempt by the Speaker against this government are unjustified?

Click to expand...

The comparisons on costs are based on comparing apples and oranges. Yes the F-35 costs a lot of money. No it doesn't cost as much as the analysts are saying because we're not getting the VTOL component of the F-35. The VTOL that's not working correctly right now and the VTOL that costs an extra load of money. It's like buying a car. You can buy the premium package or you can buy the basic package.

The rule is in place to prevent the immigrant from going underground to pay their debts. If they are no longer beholden to the smugglers, they can integrate better into Canada. And, they're not staying in maximum security jail, they're in a secured compound. If you had a problem with this law, you should have said something about it when it was passed back in 2001 by, you guessed it, Jean Chretien's Liberal majority.

Seeing as the 'contempt' charge came about because of the F-35 cost 'overruns', what do you think my opinion on it is?

Adammon said:

Seeing as the 'contempt' charge came about because of the F-35 cost 'overruns', what do you think my opinion on it is?

Click to expand...

The three contempt charges stem from the refusal to reveal to parliament documents regarding Aghanistan prisoners, the attempt to mislead parliament over the post signature modifications of documents by Bev Oda and the refusal to provide documentation to support the new law and order measures. So I think that you are either not interested in discussing how contempt of parliament matters to Canadians or did not understand my question as originally proposed.

HCGLNS said:

The three contempt charges stem from the refusal to reveal to parliament documents regarding Aghanistan prisoners, the attempt to mislead parliament over the post signature modifications of documents by Bev Oda and the refusal to provide documentation to support the new law and order measures. So I think that you are either not interested in discussing how contempt of parliament matters to Canadians or did not understand my question as originally proposed.

Click to expand...

A little bit of column A and a little bit of column B. Mostly column A. I prefer discussing it with people who are actually aware of the facts and aren't just stomping their feet crying "Bush-lite!, Bush-lite!"
Added at: 20:52

Adammon said:

A little bit of column A and a little bit of column B. Mostly column A. I prefer discussing it with people who are actually aware of the facts and aren't just stomping their feet crying "Bush-lite!, Bush-lite!"

Click to expand...

Just to clarify a little more:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-in-historic-commons-showdown/article1956416/

This week, the opposition-dominated procedure and House affairs committee found the government to be in contempt for failing to release information related to the costs of crime legislation and the purchase of stealth fighter jets.

So you can fuck right off.

Hey, one more!
http://www.660news.com/news/local/article/200482--harper-government-found-in-contempt-of-parliament

The Commons committee passed a 12-page report finding the Harper government in contempt for it's refusal to fully disclose the cost of its tough-on-crime agenda, corporate tax cuts and plans to purchase stealth fighter jets.

Well three things spring to mind;
1. I like Harper and think he is nothing like George Bush.
2. I am surprised that you resulted to vulgarity.
3. Have yourself a read of the actual motion of contempt, it lists "corporate profits and taxes and the costs of various justice bills." as the sources of contempt.

I find it hilarious and telling of the times that the media is barely reporting on the Liberal and NDP Campaigns. Online I can find plenty, but looking through the papers its all Conservative matters, even though the Liberals actually outlined a very specific platform as opposed to the Conservatives "in 2015 (if we get re-elected again and the budget allows for it after we give out all the corporate tax breaks) we'll give families a tax break. Maybe, possibly. We'll see what Santa can do"

HCGLNS said:

Well three things spring to mind;
1. I like Harper and think he is nothing like George Bush.
2. I am surprised that you resulted to vulgarity.
3. Have yourself a read of the actual motion of contempt, it lists "corporate profits and taxes and the costs of various justice bills." as the sources of contempt.

Click to expand...

So you like Harper, just not the parties 'chauvinistic membership' and you're surprised by a 'fuck off'? Remarkable!

But you said earlier that the three contempt charges were around the refusal to reveal to parliament documents regarding Aghanistan prisoners, the attempt to mislead parliament over the post signature modifications of documents by Bev Oda and the refusal to provide documentation to support the new law and order measures.

So, once again, I prefer discussing it with people who are actually aware of the facts.

HCGLNS said:

The free fall of Layton and the NDP.

Click to expand...

I don't think its that shocking. I think a lot of NDP supporters are jumping ship to the liberal camp, believing that anyone is better than the Conservatives, and recognizing that the Liberals are still the best bet for a left leaning government. Its been happening every year since the Conservatives got into power, really. I had to laugh after the last election, when the NDP brought in less votes than the Bloc and Layton held a press conference boasting about their victory. Nothing gets that man down, it seems.

I'm using the word chauvinistic in it's original meaning of unrelenting support of your leader not it's meaning regarding the treatment of women.

I'm going to put this here, just cause if I make its own thread, nobody's going to see it anyway, and it is tenuously related:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...nt-confirm-belief-in-evolution/article320476/

Canada's science minister, the man at the centre of the controversy over federal funding cuts to researchers, won't say if he believes in evolution.

Click to expand...

HCGLNS said:

I'm using the word chauvinistic in it's original meaning of unrelenting support of your leader not it's meaning regarding the treatment of women.

Click to expand...

Doesn't really hide the insulting intention of the post though, does it? But carry on.
Added at: 22:08

checkeredhat said:

I'm going to put this here, just cause if I make its own thread, nobody's going to see it anyway, and it is tenuously related:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...nt-confirm-belief-in-evolution/article320476/

Click to expand...

Ugh, what an idiot.

Really, this election was totally unnecessary. There's nothing earth shaking going on... and I agree with Adammon's analysis of those points listed against the conservatives. There's just no damn reason for an election. I think HCGLNS is right in that overall, the conservatives seats will stay fairly stable and the liberals will make some big gains at the NDP's expense. As for the Bloc... they are still have a strong presence but as a one province federal party they are doomed to slowly die out over generations.

Seriously... why are we wasting money on this election? *facepalm*

checkeredhat said:

I'm going to put this here, just cause if I make its own thread, nobody's going to see it anyway, and it is tenuously related:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...nt-confirm-belief-in-evolution/article320476/

Click to expand...

That guy is a grade A dunce.

I can understand why people find evolution a trickier issue than, say, gravity or plate tectonics (as the article compares it to), especially in view of some strong religious convictions. And truthfully, I don't need him to believe in evolution, so long as he can remove his bias and treat the sciences well, even if they study a field he disagrees with/doesn't believe in. I can't say I know enough to say he is or isn't doing that, but I can understand why he might not want to answer, "no" and be perceived automatically as an enemy of science...