Definitely 'not a leader'. Who is advising the little twerp,his wife?

"Definitely 'not a leader'. Who is advising the little twerp,his wife?"

I doubt it. Because - whether you agree with her or not - she does have leadership abilities.

Again, the Liberals and the MSM media (which are all Liberal) are screaming, now, that we can't have an election now, because we can only have one every four years.

But then, why have they been talking about nothing else for two years - but that they will, themselves, call an election? If they really accepted that 'every four years' then they should have been instead, working very hard to make this govt function. Instead - they've done nothing but complain (and an Official Opposition isn't about automatically rejecting what the govt proposes; any machine can be set to react that way).

So, now Dion is scared and now, he'll meet with Harper. Why? To grovel and say that he will now help the govt? No more unethical Ethics Commissions? No more witch hunts, no more smear campaigns, no more absenteeism? Heh.

Jack and Gilles went up The Hill
To show they were not deadbeats
Jack harumphed and stamped the ground
And said he'd never work with Others
While Gilles refused to work or play
Or even Separate
Then Stephane heard they'd fled the coop
And he came running after
Please, please, please, don't pull the plug
I know I've been talking about an election
But it's only a symbolic rejection
I don't mean it; I'm just..heh heh
Emitting gas, just carbon, just pollution, just nothing..just...

I feel sorry for Dion.

He is in political misery.

They shoot horses don't they ?

Time for a 7.62mm election

I cannot for the life of me understand why no one is playing up the part about Le Citoyen being a French citizen. The Hottie from Haiti had to give up her French citizenship before she could become GG. There is no way the PM of Canada can have allegiance to another country. I would think that he would have to have sworn or affirmed allegience to the French State before becoming a French citizen..

If an election is called and Dion wins, will he have to excuse himself from any bilateral negotiations with France because of conflict of interest?
He is a French citizen and holds a dual passport. Let's see, a Quebecer and citizen of France negotiating for Canada, with France. Vive le Québec libre! Ala President Degaulle. Funny how the MSM sees no problem with this. If Harper had a cat born in the US they would be screaming that Harper was negotiating with the US and his Bush buddy in bad faith.
I swear the MSM would be thrilled with the destruction of Canada, as it is, if it would allow them to sell more advertising through more blaring headlines.

I like what PMSH has done for Canada so far. In 2 years of being a minority PM he has done an exceptional job. I think that he is on the wrong path of trying to justify the election because the parlement doesn't work.

I think that it should be in the throne speech that when laws are proposed or voted on that everybody votes. This is same as the committee work that seems to be in non-working condition. If you are put on the committee the there is a time line and you work on that proposal until it is done. This is what we are paying for. The senators are in the same boat.

There is no excuse of not showing up unless you are incapable and that means extreme circumstances. If he put this in a throne speech, the opposition would vote a non-confidence motion and you would have this as another platform to use against these parties. There are more working people voting than non working people.

Why try to get Dion out of there. Every day he is in the parliament is a day that he shows to the rest of Canada that he is dizzy a** making the izzy monies.

Good one Doowleb, my point is, if he wins the election, he will have to renounce his French citizenship........Let me think now.....hmmmm.. On thinking this over, Le Citoyen has nothing to fear about renouncing his French citizenship...

GreenShift= Ex-Liberal MP Blair Wilson joins Green Party. And, as a voter in his riding May (*wink*) I say, they're welcome to him.

GreenShift= Ex-Liberal MP Blair Wilson joins Green Party. And, as a voter in his riding May (*wink*) I say, they're welcome to him.

Stephen Harper in May 2005:
Fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar simply for partisan political advantage.

Scratch a conservative, find a hypocrite.

On what basis does Paul Wells get paid? Hopefully not for the likes of his blog and his considerably unsophisticated thinking as evidenced by his comments. I can't for the life of me figure out who would throw good money at that guy. Yah gotta be worth more than attracting comments by BCL.

Carol Skelton on September 19, 2006:
I think that common sense is having an election every four years and not on the whim and call of the prime minister.

Scratch a conservative, find a hypocrite.

So Cityoen Dionne:

Has your wife picked a Beeyatch collar for your meeting with the big dog?
How is that loan repayment for your leadership campaign coming?
Being a “dually” can you run for office in France when you lose in Canada?
How is that Cadman “affair” defamation and liable lawsuit coming along?
How is the lawsuit with the real Green Shift coming along?
Did you feel the two knife targets being pinned on your back by Rae and Ignatieff?
Have you tweaked the 82 problems your MPs have found with your Shifty Greet plan?
To me your are the best Liberal leader EVER!!

Just to set the record straight here: Stéphane Dion is a French citizen simply because his mother was French.

Just to set the record straight: Stephane Dion is a citizen of France because he applied to be one when he was an adult and wanted to study for his Socialism/Marxism degree in Paris.

Because his mother was a citizen of France he did not have to qualify for the residency requirements to become a citizen. He was not "bestowed" this citizenship when he was born in Canada to a former France citizen. He was born a Canadian. I don't know if he mother became a Canadian citizen of not. Does anyone?

Sorry JJM I retract my implicit insinuation that Stepane Dion actively decided to be a French citizen and concede that Dion is a French citizen by virtue of doing nothing.

Scratch a conservative, find a hypocrite.

Posted by: manny at August 31, 2008 2:34 PM

Let's put this in perspective manney, scratch a liberal and you get? [thief, liar, closet homophobic, state raised children, drug drop in centers, poor public schooling, social agenda that you would not wipe your a** with, more crime in the streets and elsewhere and no punishment] AND THAT IS JUST TO NAME A FEW!.

I would say that PMSH is TALKING to the opposition leaders and giving them the option of working with the government or "NOT".

Good point manny...the reason PMSH has delivered on the promise of fixed dates goes back to abuse by the Libs who would call an election based on polls, after accomplishing nothing thru Parliament....and continued wasteful spending.
We all know that.
As someone has pointed out, the polls (apparently)do not particularly favour the CPC.
PMSH sees a Parliament that is disfunctional,Lib. elected MP's are not representing their constituents.Why are the MSM not more upset about MP's sitting on their hands?Never mind answering...that's a rhetorical question.

Perhaps PMSH is brave enough to realise...if Canadians want a useless bunch in Ottawa..let them vote on it.

IMHO PMSH is sick of the deluded Dion thinking Parliament functions around him, and his frightened puppies, who, by the way, are very quiet this week.Back home counting change in their pockets are they?

If Imf is right about Dion electing to become a French citizen, I retract my apologzy to JJM and amend my first post to read:

Has your wife picked a Beeyatch collar and knee pads for your meeting with the big dog?

You nailed it Imf, that was my take on it too, I am glad to see this subject being discussed. As to Mere Dion, I do not know, but even if she did, she would retain French Citizenship and have like son fils a duel citizenship, but of course she is not running to be PM of Canada, but Le Citoyen is..

Manny, "Scratch a conservative, find a hypocrite"

Not all of us. A bunch of conservatives (mostly old Reformers) who I have lunch with once a week were kicking this around the other day. The consensus was that although we could understand that Harper, in his minority position, had to break some promises (gun registration, "global warming" policy, a Senate appointment etc.) he doesn't have to break this one. Pure opportunism and loss of a chance to change Canadian politics for the better in at least one way.

I had a call from CPC yesterday asking for a donation to help fight the as yet uncalled election. I didn't say, "F off" but the message was delivered in civil language.

No, I won't be voting Liberal - not because of the minimal policy differences between the Libs and the CPC, but because Dion is such a dick. I'll sit this one out, and I suspect that most of my buddies will do the same.

I just remembered, La femme de le citoyen est Francais. Of course she is not running for PM, from what I have read though, she is his advisor. I see a French Connection here, gee that sounds like a good title for a movie.....The French Connection, it has got a good ring to it....

argee wrote: "I cannot for the life of me understand why no one is playing up the part about Le Citoyen being a French citizen."

I think it will come up during the campaign. It's just too tempting to pass up.

Ezra Levant first brought it up shortly after Dion was elected leader. Dipper Pat Martin was railing about it for a few days in Jan, 2007. Harper commented briefly, but only after being asked by a reporter.

It's a tricky thing to deal with. Supposedly, Quebecers are blase about it, seeing dual citizenship as a good modern sort of thing.

I suspect some Tory-friendly reporters (like Levant) will bring it up again, to make it part of the public debate. Harper won't touch it, unless of course asked by a reporter. I don't think our war room will initiate anything on it either.

The Dippers should go on and on about it, as it plays into their likely theme that Layton is the better opposition to Harper. Dion is clearly vulnerable here. But if you attack him too much, he might get sympathy, and will play the "my mom gave this gift to me" sobstory.

JJM, don't you actually have to apply to have it?

Manny..scratch a Liberal, and you will find a thief awaiting an opportunity...

Wasn't it Jean C. who took advantage of a weak and disorganized opposition in going to the polls at least twice?

What was it then, good election strategy for you?

Yep the Game is Set Lance.

Hey CJ I think you are spot on with your post, It would not be in the interest of Harper for him or his war room, to bring it up, but as you are well aware there are other ways to do it. Just disscusing here for instance. I also agree that if the media asks Harper, he will make a comment on it, but I think it would be a mild comment, he has other ways without getting his hands dirty...

Call the election,and call it NOW. The MSM will scream,big whoop,and DeYawn hasn't a leg to stand on. All Harper has to point out is DeYawns Frog citizenship,and the Liebeals walkng out on every confidence vote.Can't get any any easier.

PMSH calls a meeting to see if there is a way of getting parliament back to being functional and now he is the bad guy? Please,give me a break (Manny). I don't know what world you are living in but Dijon and company have been threatening to call an election for months now. The lieberal senate has dragged it's feet on virtually every piece of legislation sent to them and the "loyal"opposition spend more time in committee whining (if they show up at all) than actually doing any work. The PM is just calling his bluff.

I don't understand why the French ambassador hasn't been asked to deliver a formal protest regarding the underhanded treatment of M Dion, a French citizen and resident of Paris, by the governing party of Canada.

Most of you guys are missing the logic in Harper's intention to call an election. The fixed date is to prevent a majority government to call an election when polls are favourable. Is it right that the only one with the ability to call an election in a minority situation is the leader of the opposition?

What short,foggy memories the Libranos and their desperadoes have. Chretien called an election when it suited HIM, no other consideration was even mulled over. Whether the never ending polls said it was a good idea or whether the other parties were ready, it mattered not. It was all about what was good for the old dictator to retain power with a majority before the people caught up with the sleaze and corruption going on under his nose. We were led to believe he knew nothing of what was transpiring among his ministers who were tossing out the millions to buy Quebec.

Liberals must stay far from power for a very long time, our country is at stake due to the many operatives connected to them still playing their games.

"Just to set the record straight: Stephane Dion is a citizen of France because he applied to be one when he was an adult and wanted to study for his Socialism/Marxism degree in Paris.

Because his mother was a citizen of France he did not have to qualify for the residency requirements to become a citizen. He was not "bestowed" this citizenship when he was born in Canada to a former France citizen. He was born a Canadian. I don't know if he mother became a Canadian citizen of not. Does anyone?"

Does any of this matter in the slightest?

Presumably Dion saw the utility in using his French mother as a means to make life easier for him in studying in France.

Gosh, do you think nearly 30 years ago he was quietly planning: "Hee, hee - one day I'll become Prime Minister of Canada and be in a position to take my marching orders from the Palais de l'Elysée"? Come off it.

We've been around this one before. It has nowhere to go.

Dion has many obstacles to hurdle in his own party and with knives in his back to boot. His French citizenship is a nothing matter, he was born in Canada. We have people who were born in Middle East states/countries who have acquired Canadian citizenship and are now sitting MP's in the parliament of Canada.

It's a non-issue and not worthy of consideration.

JJM writes: "It has nowhere to go"

With respect, I disagree. The fact of Dion being a dual citizen is easy to grasp. And is sure to rouse an emotional response from some voters re whether they want the PM of Canada to also be a citizen of France.

Now how Dion got his French citizenship seems kind of complicated, and Dion is welcome to explain it at every opportunity. It won't help him much to make any logical arguments about it. So long as the story is part of the campaign, it works against Dion. Bringing up his mommy will make it worse for his wimpish image.

Who would have thought that "religious school funding" would have done in John Tory ? This story could do the same to Dion (although I'll concede, the probablity is low)

JJM,

This matters because Stephane Dion actively chose to become a French citizen. He was afforded the opportunity because his mother was French, but that did not guarantee his citizenship. As someone who has shown an active desire to be a citizen of a country other than Canada, I, and other posters have the right and duty* to challenge and prod.

I don't really see if you have a leg to stand on here. Are you saying we shouldn't question the intentions of politicians, despite the obvious hypocrisy when you rag on Harper? Are leaders of the Liberal Party somehow exempt from the national dialogue?

He may not have said "Hee, hee - one day I'll become Prime Minister of Canada and be in a position to take my marching orders from the Palais de l'Elysée" 30 years ago, but today as he is trying to run for the leadership of this country perhaps he should declare a loyalty. Unless being 100% loyal to Canada is too much to ask of Stephane Dion?

Cheers,

* Duty - "We stand on guard for thee"

Old and Grouchy is the only one who's got it right.

The fixed election dates have one function: to prevent a majority from calling an election any old time (as did Chretien), based on polls and also, based on any concerns about political dirt being made public, to maintain themselves in power for longer..and longer..and longer.

But in a minority situation, is it politically just that the only party with the right to call an election, is the Opposition Party?

After all, that means that in such a situation, parliament could be rendered dysfunctional by that same Opposition for the entire four years. And the government in power could do nothing about it. Is that what the type of governmental structure we want?

Remember, the Liberals have done everything they can to make this govt dysfunctional - from endless MSM speculations about 'an election will come soon' - creating an unstable economic and political climate, to equally endless smear campaigns - and the Liberal Senate either refusing to OK the bills passed by parliament, or changing them to irrelevance (accountability act) or holding them up for over a year..and so on.

There has to be a legitimate method in our parliamentary system to deal with such a situation. ..the situation of a Minority Government, when the Opposition refuses to enable parlimanent to get its job done.

Harper could simply put a motion of confidence before the house, and whip a vote against his government. Defeated. What a pickle for the opposition if they vote confidence. So what's this tempest in a teapot all about?

This "Tempest in a Teapot" is all about the sorry state of the Liberal party, they're in no condition for an election. Why the hell should we care about such matters? Liberal leaders called elections when it suited them. One guy who can keep his mush shut is Johnny Chretien who called elections to retain majority status.

' Still think he changed the fund raising rules to insure no other leader would ever break his record for back to back majorities. Quite a piece of work.

Argee said:
"I cannot for the life of me understand why no one is playing up the part about Le Citoyen being a French citizen."
...-

"Blood on their hands
REVIEWED BY RW JOHNSON
SILENT ACCOMPLICE: The Untold Story of France’s Role in the Rwandan Genocide

Excerpt:

And it seems there are many eyewitnesses of French troops assisting at torture sessions and catching Tutsis and handing them over to Hutus who hacked them to death before their eyes.

These early massacres were as nothing compared to the all-out genocide launched upon Habyarimana’s death in April 1994. The new government, with key genocidaires, was, it appears, formed by the French ambassador at a meeting in the French embassy. The man the French had put in charge, Colonel Théoneste Bagosora, apparently made no secret of his plans: “I have come back to declare the apocalypse,” he said. The French, well aware of what was about to happen, then got out. The calculation was that any peace deal would mean a power-sharing agreement with Kagame — which was anathema. Better let the Hutus continue the genocide to completion if that allowed them to stay in power, but in that case France, having armed, trained and encouraged its protégés towards such an outcome, had to get clear of the carnage. As the evidence of the holocaust thus unleashed became overwhelming Bruno Delaye, the Elysée’s Africa boss, is reputed to have said that “that’s the way Africans are”. When asked how he could have entertained genocidaires in his office, he seems to have replied that he’d had 400 assassins and 2,000 drug dealers through his doors: “You can’t deal with Africa without getting your hands dirty.” Mitterrand shrugged off the killings with “Dans ces pays-la, un genocide ce n’est pas trop important” and cynically concocted the notion of a “double genocide”, ie that the Tutsis were just as guilty, which was rather like saying the Jews and the Nazis were as bad as one another. When the surrounding states tried to hold an emergency meeting on the situation in Tanzania, Paris angrily torpedoed it: “We can’t let Anglophone countries decide on the future of a Francophone one.”

And so it continued to its dreadful end. ...-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,23110-2442888,00.html
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/005293.html

"It's a little nerve wracking making the plans in the uncertain climate that we're in," Neville said, wondering if Harper would launch the election while the Liberals are meeting. "I wouldn't put it past him, but so be it. Canadians will judge him for what he does and what he says."

"I wouldn't put anything past this guy," said Wilfert. "That would be the ultimate in nasty."

Personally,I think the "ultimate in nasty" would be calling an election on Sunday because that is your opponents Sabbath and he respects it.

Small town cheap, as it were.

Geez, "new", since you lack all knowledge of spelling, grammar, and logic, could you at least keep your posts short? It's a pain to scroll all the way past them, as I suspect many others do after reading the first paragraph and recognizing your inimitable style.

Canadians don't want an election now , who cares ? Do the Librano's ?

"But in a minority situation, is it politically just that the only party with the right to call an election, is the Opposition Party?"

Thank you Old and Grouchy for your keen observation. Now, I must say it baffles me that this simple explanation is not being repeated ad nauseam by Stephen himself. No more complexity is needed. Simple, effective, absorbed easily.

Looking south, we see the adults in charge of the Republican party punching out game winning ads one after another. As much as I like Stephen Harper's strategic and tactical skill, my god he appears to need help with his advertising. Unless these CPC ads are deliberately pathetic to lay a trap for the opposition go nuts with another "Soldiers in the City with Guns" ad.

That said, what I would give to see ads on par with the Republican's "The One" and "Spears/Hilton" ads. Game changers, and you can't tell me the CPC doesn't have equivalent opportunities with the likes of effeminate/inarticulate Dion, Commissar Jack and screw Canada but give my your money first Gilles.

Stanfield got destroyed by an image of him eating a banana and an un-athletic kick at football. The Republicans have quite likely destroyed Obama too in several perfectly sprung traps that pierced the fantasy they constructed. Its always has to be fantasy for the Lib/Left since they are plagued forever with conflicting positions. "Politics ain't beanbag".

Here's to a UFC Canadian election. No sense at all appealing to the lib/left, nothing, absolutely nothing can win their votes. Far better to tease them until their heads explode.

shaken - heh, that's quite the scenario. But, how could his MPs vote no-confidence against a Conservative govt? I see your point, however. It would be fun.

Liz - yes, Chretien's agenda in changing the funding rules was to break the Liberal party, which relied on huge corporate donations. After all, the Liberals are linked to big corporations. In so many cases, the strategy of the Liberals was to get the govt to subsidize these industries with taxpayer money...and this money, like Adscam, is returned to the Party in the way of donations. The Liberals are good at laundering taxpayer money. They still owe us millions.

As you say, Chretien's agenda was to ensure that no Liberal Party got a majority after him. After Chretien...there are only the barren fields. Chretien has quite the ego; all he ever talks about is himself. He couldn't handle a Liberal who had more success than him.

The Canadian political and economic scene is small. The Liberals merged the two, setting up the economy based around large corporations subsidized by the govt. These corporations, as noted, then returned a fair bit of this money in donations.
The same strategy can be seen in the Liberal strategy of identity politics in multiculturalism. They'd isolate immigrants in blocs, fund them to remain isolate - and expect votes in the election.

Remembering the need for fixed election dates (from Hansard):

Jay Hill on September 18, 2006:

Fixed election dates in Canada is a democratic reform I have unwaveringly and vocally supported since I entered political life some 18 years ago … In 1997, Jean Chrétien sent Canadians back to the polls early despite the flood crisis in Manitoba, which of course, Mr. Speaker, you are very well aware of. In 2000, for the second time, he called another early election to take advantage of favourable polls. Three and a half years after that, in 2004, his successor, the member for LaSalle—Émard, called another early election when Parliament began to unearth Liberal scandal in its inquiry into the sponsorship issue. This is a perfect example of why Canada needs fixed election dates. This kind of manipulation unnecessarily derails important government and parliamentary business and gives rise to cynicism among voters.

Gerald Keddy on Septemer 18, 2006:

We have an opportunity to take one of the primary tools that past prime ministers in the country have used like a club. They have gone to the people before their five years were up and every political party has suffered from that. I think the Parliament of Canada has suffered from it. … This is the first Prime Minister who is willing to give up that huge tool in his tool chest … This will level the playing field, it will give democracy more of an opportunity to work and it will be a good thing for the public of Canada.

Carol Skelton on September 19, 2006:

I think that common sense is having an election every four years and not on the whim and call of the prime minister.

Russ Hiebert on September 19, 2006:

Federal election dates would no longer be chosen with the advantage they may provide to the governing party. Every party would have the same opportunities. The reverse is also true. Not only are snap elections out, no longer will governments that have passed their “best before” date and face certain defeat at the polls be able to drag out their terms … It provides fairness. No longer will the governing party be allowed to manipulate the process. It provides transparency and predictability. Canadians will benefit from knowing exactly when these fixed elections will occur so they can plan their lives and the businesses around it. It improves governance by removing power from the prime minister’s office and devolving it to the people, as it should be.

Rob Nicholson on November 6, 2006:

What we have is a situation where the prime minister is able to choose the date of the general election, not based necessarily on what is in the best interests of the country, but what is in the best interests of his or her political party. Bill C-16 would address this problem and would produce a number of other benefits. … It is only fair that each party would have equal time to prepare for the next election and to know when it would be. Another key advantage of fixed date elections is transparency. Rather than decisions about election dates being made behind closed doors, general election dates would be set in advance.

Dean Del Mastro on November 6, 2006:

I think we recognize that the bill is about levelling the playing field for all parties in the House, not to give the government an advantage to call a snap election when perhaps another party is not ready. It would allow for a better debate on policy and on principle so that all parties could go into an election prepared and our voters could make the best decisions.

Chuck Strahl on November 6, 2006:

Fixed election dates are important and not only in other countries. My home province of British Columbia has a fixed election date. We have already had the first election. No one lit his or her hair on fire and it was not the end of the British parliamentary system. There was no chaos in the street. It was, however, something that all parties could plan on, that the population could work around and municipalities could tell what was coming. All in all, it worked very well.

Peter Van Loan on February 12, 2007:

As I indicated, we have passed Bill C-16 on fixed election dates through the House of Commons. Never again will the government of the day be able to play around with the date of an election for its own crass political motives.

Scott Reid on February 19, 2007:

The increased electoral fairness through Bill C-16 … will ensure that elections occur once every four years, not when the prime minister chooses to call them based upon whether his or her party is high in the polls. That was a terrible wrong. It was abused by the previous government repeatedly. This initiative will ensure that it is not abused again.

Barry Devolin on April 30, 2007:

This initiative would ensure that elections occurred once every four years and not just on the whim of a prime minister who might choose to call an election on the basis of whether or not his or her party was high in the polls.

Tom Lukiwski on June 18, 2007:

We have seen, for an example, very important democratic reform initiatives such as fixed election dates which is Bill C-16. It passed and has come into force. It states that the third Monday of October 2009 will be the date for the next general election unless of course by some strange occurrence the combined opposition determines that it wants to have an election before that date. That was the first initiative that we brought in to try to ensure Canadians that there would be some consistency and regularity in the timing of federal elections. Far too often we saw political parties in power manipulate the voting system to their advantage. In other words, we saw parties in previous years take a look at the polling numbers and if they determined that it would be to their advantage to have an election earlier rather than later, because the polls happened to be advantageous for them, they would call an election at that time.

And lastly, here’s an oldie but a goody from the man himself:

Stephen Harper in May 2005:

Fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar simply for partisan political advantage.

But of course, that was then and this is now…

"Fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar simply for partisan political advantage.

But of course, that was then and this is now…"

In a Minority Parliament, the government can engineer its defeat anytime. All it takes is a confidence motion that would get them defeated.

Not difficult to do, especially with the current opposition. Just extend the Afghanistan mission !!

Steffi would implode, Layton would explode & Duceppe would eat his own young.

The divide between East & West is getting so wide it may be impossible for Harper to get a majority. This may be our election of 1860.

Geez, "new", since you lack all knowledge of spelling, grammar, and logic, could you at least keep your posts short? It's a pain to scroll all the way past them, as I suspect many others do after reading the first paragraph and recognizing your inimitable style.
Posted by: KevinB at August 31, 2008 5:43 PM

KevinB:
You nailed it!
I don't even have to read the first paragraph and know who it is. I have learned how to scroll down fast so as to not get a headache trying to decipher the post. I think this person got ESL training from Citizen Dion on the side.

Revnant, There it is again. Assuming that all Ontarians are in Toronto and left dependent. There are enough seats outside Toronto to decide the whole enchillada.

ET, are you and I the only ones who picked up on Chretien's strategy? You're right about his ego which was buffered with "the little guy from Shawinigan" shtick latched on to by his adoring fans in the media.

I still have hope he will have to come forward with some answers re the corruption that went on under his watch. He had absolute power and with it comes responsibility. I know/knew nothing will not hold forever.

Pauvre Citoyen Dion: not even a clap from one hand.
Kyoto barks; but he has no teeth.
Angry has this up:
...-

"Stephane Dion plays chicken by himself...and still loses!"

Liberal Party Stephane Dion has a remarkable ability to take something as simple as a meeting and turn it into a battle of wills.

A battle of wills between himself and no one else.

And then Stephane Dion still manages to lose."
http://stevejanke.com/archives/272032.php

lberia - you seem to, as usual, have missed the reason behind fixed election dates. Such dates are valid only for functioning parliaments.

However, when a minority parliament exists, with the majority opposition blocking legislature, introducing dysfunctional and harmful bills (Kyoto), using parliamentary committees as witch-hunts against the government, embarking on relentless smear campaigns, missing key votes, refusing to provide oppositional critiques - well, such a government ought not to be retained for a full term.

Oh, and something else you've missed. Your beloved Liberals and NDP have been relentlessly demanding an election for the past two years. That's all we ever hear from Dion - he'll decide when to call an election. We've never, ever, and I mean that word - ever - heard any of the opposition leaders state that this parliament has a mandate until 2009, and that this means that all parties will get to work, stop the partisan bickering, and critique and pass legislature.

Not one word has ever been said by the opposition parties acknowledging that 2009 date. Not one word about 'let's get to work until then'. Nothing.

Now, all of a sudden, Dion and his Liberals, faced with an election (remember, they've been talking about one for two full years)...are screaming about '2009'. Heck - they never said a word about it before.

Liz - yes, Chretien and his cabal, PowerCorp, Desmarais,- they milked the Canadian people for millions over the years. Essentially, what they did was to set themselves up in political power, and use this power to enrich themselves. They did this personally, living the high life off the taxpayer; they rewarded themselves with plum jobs and benefits. They used their political prestige to get favours and appointments. Corrupt.

And, they laundered the taxpayer money to corporations - which returned some of that money as tax-reduction donations.

Then, they set up the civil service and judiciary with their appointees. They set this up to reward their followers. The civil service then ensure that they and theirs got grants (including Gagliano with his 500,000), got appointments to Senate, to key civil service jobs, ambassadorships, etc, etc. It's quite the cabal that was set up.

Harper is trying to clean it up - but, it takes a majority and years to clean up something that was deliberately developed over a generation.

As for Chretien ever being brought to trial - I wish it would happen. But I doubt it. After all, he's built up that civil service to such an extent that all evidence would disappear; the judiciary is his - ...no..it won't happen unfortunately.

By the way, with regard to 'new/haye' and his various names...Please note that he IS fluent in English. He's a total fraud, both in his pretence at being Muslim (he knows zilch about Islam; his comments are pure pop culture); and his pretence at not knowing English. Ever notice that he slips up..and spells the difficult words correctly?

And his pretence at NO grammmar means that it's a pretence. The reason is, all languages have a grammatical structure. Someone not fluent in English would still use a grammatical structure, albeit one from the original language. However, new's writing has NO grammmar. It's a random hodge podge of words. There's no coherent, continuous structure - even one from another language. So, his randomness shows that he's faking.

Ignore him.

Doowleb:

Harper is slowly loosing his reputation as a defender of individual freedoms out West because of doing nothing about the HRC, Senate Reforms, with certain other promises not fulfilled or reversed. For a long time most put it down to him having just a minority. Lots of latitude has been given. Unlike Liberals we don't like corruption or hypocrisy, we WILL speak out as Brains boys found out .We all now see its something more. Its not even his pandering to Quebec. Most with a brain expected that, if not applauded it. Its his inaction on the basic liberties of Canadians that is poisoning his home base.
If the Labs win its will mean more degeneration of this polity into more totalitarian state control.

Only two solutions will free us. An American invasion or Separation. We will not allow another NEP2. Nor will America have another Cuba on top of them.

I do not even like to think of the third option. Where already in a social war, a civil one would be horror squared. Thing is though no one with any sanity wants to live in a fascist State, which we become more each day by Trudeaudopian programs set up for this very purpose 40 years ago. They have finally ripened into the tyrannical sickly fruit he meant them to be. Unless there is a profound change in the Canada’s these are now the only options.

I want our Alberta Bill of Rights, back now!!

My impression is that Harper is going to get his agenda debated, either on the election trail, or via parliament and his throne speech.

If the opposition have no intention of supporting legislation contained in throne speech, then why go through all that.

I know it's easier for Grits to say Harper and Tories ares scared of them for this or that reason. The reality is they aren't, that they feel they can mop the floor with him in a campaign (they'll never admit it though).

Even if Dion runs a perfect campaign, the best he can do is limit Harper to minority. He'll probably go for it, gaffe big time, and get creamed.

I hear the Liberals are going to use negative ads to counter Tories negative ads. The problem is many people know that the criticism of Harper as an authoritarian and corrupt is a fantasy dug up by the B-team. It won't work, because Canadians do trust Harper, at least way more than anybody else.

It won't work any more than personal attacks against Chretien did.

Dion is a rookie electioneer going against bloodied veterans. I think they're going to eventually rip him apart, because they all feel they can take votes from him.

I personally hope the Grits go after Harper - easy to counter and their questionable motivation is quite evident.

Then again, Dion will likely skulk away after his meeting with Harper tomorow, declare parliamentary peace, then scurry behind the curtain.

Though I've never supported them, it is kind of pitiful to watch the LPC reduced to the likes of Dion, Turner and Coderre.

Revnant Dream wrote:

"Harper is slowly loosing his reputation as a defender of individual freedoms out West because of doing nothing about the HRC, Senate Reforms, with certain other promises not fulfilled or reversed. For a long time most put it down to him having just a minority. Lots of latitude has been given. Unlike Liberals we don't like corruption or hypocrisy, we WILL speak out as Brains boys found out .We all now see its something more. Its not even his pandering to Quebec. Most with a brain expected that, if not applauded it. Its his inaction on the basic liberties of Canadians that is poisoning his home base."

Not to talk of his boy Flaherty's taxing of income trusts. Many people haven't forgotten that. Is Harper sure he'll come out better off?

I believe that Chretien's ploy with taxpayers funding the parties was to keep the libs in power. When this bill was passed the liberals had a larger portion of the popular vote than anyone else. Papa Jean likely surmised that a continuing grant from our pockets would always benefit the ruling class and diminish the others,business as usual if they got too lazy to steal.But he did not figure that adscam and other liberal practices would ever influence the sleeping public. After all,they had been doing it for years and had the cbc in their pocket... I do not want one penny of my taxes to go to any political party.If their supporters won't support them,why should I?

dare - for heaven's sake, get over the income trusts. And try to understand why Harper had to tax them. Have you ever heard of a 'changed context'? When the contextual reality of a situation changes, you'd better adapt..or else.

You can live in your nice house on the coast but when a hurricane comes along, you'd better acknowledge that the weather context has changed - and get out.

The context in which income trusts had been developed changed, with more and more banks and trusts moving in to take advantage of the tax free status. That would deplete govt revenues which would have to be made up by - guess what - individual income taxes. Rather than do that, Harper, as a valid leader must do, recognized the changed context and acted.

revnant dream - you are indeed dreaming. Harper can't deal with the Senate reform or the HRCs in a minority situation. Heck, he sent a Senate Reform bill to Senate, to reduce their pork-appointments to 8 years. They refused it. He tried to make the Senate accountable by setting up an external reviewer; they refused it; they insist that they review themselves, and so you actually get members of senate reviewing complaints against themselves.

So, new - if you can write better, then do so. And don't give me this 'more time' excuse. It doesn't take time to write within a structure. I repeat - all languages have structure; you could write using your native language structure. But your pretence that you don't know English by 'writing' without structure shows that you are...pretending.

I repeat - you're a fraud..in your fake bad English..and my, you are spelling a lot of words correctly in this last post, aren't you..and you even have some structure. And you are a fraud with your fake assertion that you are a Muslim. And don't start with the threats or the pop culture blather about money- which is totally irrelevant.

Like 'no war'? Heh. That's not Muslim history, which is filled with war. And not Muslim texts, which are filled with praising war and killing. And not like Muslim current reality, which is filled with death threats against people, and filled with Muslims killing Muslims and non-Muslims.

And you aren't' hrc? Heh.

ET wrote:

"dare - for heaven's sake, get over the income trusts. And try to understand why Harper had to tax them. Have you ever heard of a 'changed context'? When the contextual reality of a situation changes, you'd better adapt..or else.

You can live in your nice house on the coast but when a hurricane comes along, you'd better acknowledge that the weather context has changed - and get out.

The context in which income trusts had been developed changed, with more and more banks and trusts moving in to take advantage of the tax free status. That would deplete govt revenues which would have to be made up by - guess what - individual income taxes. Rather than do that, Harper, as a valid leader must do, recognized the changed context and acted."

Your use of 'changed context' here is a package-deal. You are conflating a man-made event (taxes on income trusts) with a metaphysical event (hurricanes). The first can be changed (simply not tax income at all and end the welfare state) while the latter is not open to man's choice but simply happens. The issue here is the metaphysical vs. the man-made. What Harper and Flaherty did was _criminal_. (And yes, I know the Liberals/NDP/Greens will do worse, but I don't have to condone a lesser evil.)

"Government revenues" is not a concept or entity which has pre-eminence over and above the moral rights of the individual. Government should not even have that much money in the first place, and it's a sign of the moral cowardice that has infected this country that people are immolating themselves before "government revenues" and "paying down the deficit."

Don't excuse Harper short-sightedly: one must work to grasp the proper principles which govern man's life and then hold one's elected officials to these principles.

ET,

There's more to the income trust issue, but the fact is that the government made the decision to place the best interests of Canada ahead of petty partisan politics. And yet nothing positive about that courageous decision from "journalists" in this country. In fact, most of what is presented by the Canadian media is closer to the jargon spewed by our friend 'new', than reality. Makes me want to recommend him/her/it for investigative journalist of the year.

dare - I am not equating income trusts to hurricanes. And by the way, hurricanes are not metaphysical events; they belong strictly in the lower realms of reality; namely, they are physical events. I'd be fascinated to see them operate as meta-physical forces!

My point was purely and only about context. Not the trusts, not the hurricanes in themselves, but the contextual reality. The contextual reality in which the trusts operated changed. Are you seriously suggesting that Harper ought to have changed the whole fiscal infrastructure of govt revenues as well as the societal structure of the nation - by removing all income taxes? Ahh, now that would have been easily done, wouldn't it?

Rubbish - his action wasn't criminal. Kindly get your legal (as well as philosophical) terminology cleared up.

And what the heck has 'government revenue' to do with 'moral rights of the individual'? Nothing.

ET: "The context in which income trusts had been developed changed"

Horse apples. Ever hear of grandfathering? I didn't have a dog in the income trust fight as I sold mine before Flaherty shat on the trusting rubes who took Harper's very specific promise seriously.

As I said in my 3:13 PM post, if Harper breaks yet another promise and ignores his own law to call an election, he can go screw himself. Fixed election dates may seem unimportant to some people but, they could have been his "heritage" since his other political reforms have been blocked by the Senate. Anyway, I've already closed my chequebook. If it turns out that he's only playing chicken (which I doubt), I'll probably reconsider. Policywise, it's really Liberal, Tory, same old story but, the idea of dweeb Dion as Preem makes me nauseous.

zog - I stand by my comments on income trusts. Grandfathering? Nothing to do with the problem.

As for 'promise' about elections, that's valid only when there is a majority. When the majority is the opposition, and the opposition is focused on disabling parliament, then, please tell me - what would you suggest the govt do? Continue with a govt that is unable to pass legislation for another year and a half? Hmmm?

The liberals are hanging out until October, when they receive another stash of taxpayer cash, thabnks election Canada. The Tories don't need this; they are flush, and not corrupt, so the money stays in the party account.

Brill, ET

Zog: "Policywise, it's really Liberal, Tory, same old story but, the idea of dweeb Dion as Preem makes me nauseous."

There's worse than Dion waiting in the background for him to fail.

And much as I would like to agree with you on failed promises, the income trust line up was about to become a true fiasco. It was the best move for the government of the day to make.

The MSM attack dogs were all over that one and they are out in full bias for the "maybe" election.

If the next card in the strategy to beat the Liberals is one that you don't like, are you going to rush to anger and chance the Liberals achieving government again?

If they do get their fingers on the purse strings aqain, ready yourself for some real whoppers.

Bluetech, thing is, the Libns all think the nation of Canada revolve around them. They are, after all, the natural ruling party. Now, they are in a state of denial as as they cannot believe they are not controlling the government, even through the back door of the civil service or the senate or the judiciary.

"And his pretence at NO grammmar means that it's a pretence. The reason is, all languages have a grammatical structure. Someone not fluent in English would still use a grammatical structure, albeit one from the original language. However, new's writing has NO grammmar. It's a random hodge podge of words. There's no coherent, continuous structure - even one from another language. So, his randomness shows that he's faking."

Amen ET. Thank you. Everyone else, piss on him from a great height. Give him/her the attention deserved....... "Ignore him"

Speaking of spelling and the bizarre, could Revenant dream be Haye/New etc?

Income trusts:

Lord Keynes :

"Sir, the facts have changed. When the facts change, I change. What do you do, Sir?"

I fully support Mr. Harper because any other choice is suicide for the Nation.

However, I do not like the fact that he is reneging on his own legislation. He will lose some support for this action.

ET

Why does grandfathering have nothing to do with the problem? There was no economic or legal barrier to protecting existing investors while closing the gates on further expansion of the scheme. Governments do that sort of thing all of the time.

..."Continue with a govt that is unable to pass legislation for another year and a half"...

Unable? Dion supported almost every bill that the government has brought forward to date. The hangup has been in the Senate, and an election won't change that. Moreover, as Harper himself has acknowledged, the chance of a majority government being elected at this time is slim to nil so, what exactly is the point.

Mike: The "be careful, the Liberals might get elected" threat doesn't frighten me because the CPC has become so accomodating to all the lefty pressure groups that I can't think of any significant difference that we'd notice with a change of government. Hell, even with the reduced GST (for which I give full marks to the govt.) the current federal take is the highest in history and the bureaucracy is back to pre-1995 levels. As I said, "Liberal, Tory, same old story", and I'm too old and discouraged to go through the new party routine again.

Can't let a discussion of income trusts go by without including the Goodale-Brison situation where Brison e-mailed the banker indicating the Libs would not touch IT's...because it would have been political suicide.

Thankfully Flaherty and Harper had backbones to do what had to be done.

ET: "Chretien's agenda was to ensure that no Liberal Party got a majority after him" -- this does not make sense to me -- that this would have been his motivation. For what reason would he want to put the Liberal Party in dire economic straights or prevent their future success? Among other things, as the perpetrator of such a thing, his legacy would be destroyed. Perhaps he made a misjudgement and sought to destroy CPC's, not realizing how much grass roots support they had.

ET wrote:

"dare - I am not equating income trusts to hurricanes. And by the way, hurricanes are not metaphysical events; they belong strictly in the lower realms of reality; namely, they are physical events. I'd be fascinated to see them operate as meta-physical forces!

My point was purely and only about context. Not the trusts, not the hurricanes in themselves, but the contextual reality. The contextual reality in which the trusts operated changed. Are you seriously suggesting that Harper ought to have changed the whole fiscal infrastructure of govt revenues as well as the societal structure of the nation - by removing all income taxes? Ahh, now that would have been easily done, wouldn't it?

Rubbish - his action wasn't criminal. Kindly get your legal (as well as philosophical) terminology cleared up.

And what the heck has 'government revenue' to do with 'moral rights of the individual'? Nothing. "

When I write that hurricanes are metaphysical events, I mean that they are metaphysically given, i.e., that they are in the workings of nature, determined, and not open to human choice. Man's actions, however, are open to revision, for man possesses free-will.

Look, this whole song-and-dance about "contextual reality" won't fly: the contextual reality did not change by itself: Harper and Flaherty caused it when they had every opportunity to do the right thing. Even if Harper could not abolish the income taxes in one go, he did not have to raise taxes, which he did. I mean, does the Canadian Right want limited government or not? Or are you simply content to keep voting for your own death just to say you're voting "conservative"?

Be brave; call a spade a spade: Harper's performance, while better than the alternatives, leaves much to be desired, and yelling at Dare Balogun isn't going to change that one bit.

Lastly, government revenue has _everything_ to do with the moral rights of the individual. Or what do you think economics rests on, if not morality? How does a proper government raise money? Taxes. Who pays taxes? Citizens. How do citizens make money to be taxed? They produce. How do they produce? They act. What governs an individual citizen's actions? His morality, i.e., how he exercises his free-will.

In any case, I haven't got all day to argue here. The gist of my case is this: if you - or any other person on the Right - continue to rationalize away conservative failings just because you fear the backlash from the Left, then the Left will continue to grow in Canada. If Conservatives end up growing the government just like the Liberals do, what difference does it make then who is in power? Why is the Right fighting the Left? Why not just leave it all to the powerlusters on the Left?

If Harper can't find the simple strength to do something significant like, say, cut federal income taxes by 5%, cut GST by 3%, and then cut stifling regulations across the board, then he has no business in power. I hate the Left but I'm not going to give powerlusters like Flaherty a free pass.

All this nonsense about "paying your fair share" is a symptom of the level of state-induced guilt Canadians have allowed themselves to get used to. The Americans could never stand for this kind of thing.

Canada is a great country; let's act like we know it and not let small men hold us to ransom.

Dare: "If Conservatives end up growing the government just like the Liberals do, what difference does it make then who is in power?"

Precisely.

The liberals,particularily GARTH,have painted the income trust reversal as hurting the seniors. But wait a second. The companies that set up the trusts,always large corporations,did it to maximize their profits by reducing their taxes. Sure,seniors lost,as well as us younger folks. Income trusts were not a 'senior' only project.PMSH did the right thing.He stopped a tax 'break'for large corporations, that the rest of us would have had to make up.

Zog ... You are doing a lot of posting for someone who isn't going to bother voting . Unless you are blowing hot air you should probably STFU and let the VOTERS discuss this matter.

Anyone thinking of staying on the sidelines in the next election, for the love of GOD....DON'T. Strategic voting, or strategic non-voting is for people who are too smart for their own good, and is just as effective as the "prevent defense".

I hope the CPC has an agenda-filled, announcement rich, keep em busy everyday campaign planned.

The alternative is to experience the childish poutings and spittle-flecked, runny nose rantings of a scorned, immature teenage lass of dubious heritage.

I'm talking, of course, of the National Press Gallery.

I've come to believe in male menses.

On a regular basis, it's absofulutely guaranteed that an apparent male member will appear, highly stressed, lamenting their lugubrious loss of persnickity passion for the CPC.

Either they are really Liberals or the feminization of Canada continues apace.

Commonalities.

dare - again, check out the meaning of metaphysics.

And your regressive, reductionist analysis of behaviour is invalid. No, government revenue doesn't have anything to do with the 'moral rights' of the individual. [And what are 'moral rights'?] Linear regressions don't prove 'first causes'; they are just linear regressions. After all, you could equally set up a linear scale that government revenue is dependent upon innovation, and competitiveness - neither of which have anything to do with morality.

As for your insistence that Harper is 'bad' because he hasn't cut income taxes by 5% and the GST also by four percent (7 to 3)..well, that's your opinion. Not necessarily correct.

To all CPC supporters trying to explain to the few LPC/other supporters here what the difference between Minority and Majority is and why income trust promises were changed etc...Don't bother, the intelligent ones know we are right but even if Harper/Conservatives were Ghandi or Jesus Christ or Al Gore, they would still vote for their party. They don't want a logical debate, they want to throw stones. The only one that consistently never changes his mind/position is the village idiot as they say: The tough but necessary 'decision' of changing the income trust law is a prime example. An idiot or more so in this case, an irresponsible leader just wanting to keep votes would of left it the same.

Here is my prediction for election night in October...And no, Dion will not convince PM Harper today to not pull the plug this coming friday, even if Dion promises to shut up, stop the smears, and behave like a responsible elected rep. The list of reasons is long and I won't start listing them here.

My prediction:

A Conservative majority will be announced as soon as the ballots from Quebec and Ontario have started being tabulated. The Maritimes will have also surprized by having more blue seats.
So, sorry to rain on your parade Western separatists but we out east are a bit slower and gullible but we wake up sometimes and that time has come.

But the polls show it's a tie you say?...Just wait and see how the polls go once the election campaign starts.

The election will be about leadership based on the current economic reality and taxes. I predict Harper has one or two major economic stimulus packages (One might be a diesel fuel tax reduction...stand by) he will present again'st Dion carbon tax which the Libs are already talking about watering down/scrap it(?): It's too late now, it will be viewed and critiqued as a non trustable promise AKA: "I will eliminate da GST" type.

Canada will soon bury the LPC monster for good.

Re: Tory Income Trust decision. ET is right - allowing the kind of tax distortion resulting from banks converting was unacceptable and no government, Liberal or Conservative, could allow it to continue. Aside from the tax effects, turning businesses into purely income generating vehicles is well, bad for business. Companies must retain some profits to reinvest in their firm's needs. Do we expect banks do distribute 100% of their after tax profits as dividends?

In any event, many trusts are speculative instruments that wise investors should be very wary of. A four year phase in period was granted rather than grandfathering. Criticize them if you want.

Most importantly, real estate investment trusts were virtually untouched by the legislation. Others can correct me if my information is incorrect on that. That is the bulk of income trusts.

People should be responsible for their investment decisions. Selling off because they panicked, even though values stabilized, can't be the government's fault.

If you choose to punish the Tories by depriving them of your vote, that is your right. Do you think any other party would have reacted differently?

RCGZ: "Speaking of spelling and the bizarre, could Revenant dream be Haye/New etc?"

No way! Revnant Dream's been at SDA for years and he ain't no new/haye/food-media whose drivel I NEVER, repeat NEVER, bother to read. When s/he's around my scroll-down function is working overtime.

But, don't try to correct Revnant Dream's spelling. I tried once:
they are = they're
their = possession
there = place

and it didn't do any good!!! He's a stubborn son of a gun, but he usually has opinions worth listening to--while wincing at all the spelling errors. I tried to tell him once that his ideas would have more credibility if he just took a little time to spell correctly but, like I say, he's stubborn.

And, as he would say, just my opinion.

Rob C,

So, are you suggesting that, to fulfil my "civic duty", I should vote Liberal? If I thought that you fairly represent the shiny new "conservative" party, I might be tempted but I doubt it. As a Diefenbaker conservative and a founding member of the Reform Party, I'd find that hard to do.

BTW, during the formative years of Reform, our most bitter detractors weren't Liberals but Clarkites like ET and brain dead, "my party right or wrong" pseudo-conservatives to whom politics is merely a sport where one goes out and cheers for the team.

Zog Lesser of the evils ,if that makes it easier,

Actually, ZOG, my recollection of the Reform years is different from yours. So-called "conservatives," who's personal agendas were trumpeted as party policy by a happy to accomodate MSM, enshrined their view that there was no viable alternative to Grits.

Personally, I choose the party that comes closest to my priorities - honest government that tries to be pragmatic wrt its policies.

The Liberals would have all of us believe the Tories are just as corrupt incompetent as they are. You would have us believe Tories are just as socialist as Grits.

Why is that, ZOG?

FYI, I deleted the posts from 'new' in this thread.
She added nothing to the conversation, added a k/post to the download and just generally annoys the hell out of me.

Nope defiantly not New.

Yes I am stubborn, but more lazy to be honest.

ET we all need our dreams, right now good with some bad mouthed People are being persecuted. A PM's first job should be to safe guard the liberties of the individuals who voted for them. This is number one priority as with defense. We have gotten the latter from Harper, not the former. This is what concerns me & others. I have a lot of admiration for his cunning if not political smarts. Having really meet him I know him to be a nice guy, shy more than cold. I know he has been held back by partisan politics with a whacked out bureaucracy.

Still he should give those being persecuted at least a sign if he give a hoot! If not his supporters My fear is he's been Ottawa washed. It would not be the first time that has happened to a Westerner. Is he? Frankly I don't know. As I said he's a smart man, he has more tricks than Bugs Bunny.

I probably will vote for him even though I am a small l libertarian, but not with the enthusiasm of the last election till things change if they do. I am not encouraged either by the lies of Premier ED with his own personnel AHRC sending government lawyers to help in this inquisition than denying the interfere. He claims to be conservative as well.

As I said I want our Alberta bill of rights we lived under for 80 years back. At least we knew our rights. In the new Canada it seems it now relies on many factors with degrees by race, gender, or religion depending who is in ascendance as victim group. Some have had all shorn from them.. This is not standing on guard for Canada. Time will tell , personally I hope Harper is all he say’s he is & more. I like him as a person, lets see if he’s still a reformer enough to bring back the law equal for all with no CHRC. Elected Senate with some referendums perhaps if needed.

JMO

Don't misunderstand, it's not the fact that Dion has a dual citizenship of France and Canada. It's the fact that he would attempt to gain our highest office, and HE sees nothing wrong the this fact.