They’re talking about Sponsorship….
I’m listening on radio, so perhaps Harper has revolving red eyes, horns sprouting and green slime oozing out of his ears, but on the off chance he isn’t..
He’s kicking Martin’s ass.
Update: on farming now.
So far, Martin’s best jab was quoting the old Harper speech. Nice rebuttal, though. Throwing the “questioning his patriotism” charge in his face.
Duceppe is really hurting Martin with this hair-splitting over the use of the word “nation”.
(Can Jack “it’s time” Layton be any more nonspecific in his “solutions”?)
Martin is sssttttttaaammering now… and saying nothing in the process. Any mention of Gomery seems to do that to him.
AND… Martin is going to be facing a firestorm tomorrow, after his announcement that his government would reopen the constitution to remove the “notwithstanding clause”.
Monte Solberg grabs Rosemary Thompson’s blackberry;
“Oops breaking news. Paul says his new number one priority is childcare. Well, childcare and education. I guess they have knocked values and aboriginal issues out of one and two.”
“Or is it gassing the nothwithstanding clause. What happened to Paul’s committment to use the clause to protect religious freedom if the Supremes ever started to erode those freedoms. Can’t have it both ways Paul.”
“Better go now. Rosemary is missing her BlackBerry so.”
Did I just hear that Martin and Harper were “trying to outbid each other with your money” – come out of the mouth of Jack Layton??? Even hardcore NDP must have swallowed hard at that one.
Other good catches in the comments.
We’ve had Martin call Aboriginals the root cause of poverty
I heard that too. That has the makings of a Conservative campaign ad.
He is a Quebecer but he is from Essex county as well.
Paul Martin just called for the abolition of democracy in Canada. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Andrew Anderson:”it seems to me that Prime Minister Paul Martin made a new promise tonight: a Liberal government will Americanize the Canadian justice system by doing away with the “Not Withstanding Clause”. This will open us to all of the problems present in the US Supreme Court, the largest of which is the horrendous and long-term political impact of appointing new justices.”
A dissenting opinion from ” garhaneg”;
I guess everyone sees the same event their own way. I was reminded of a good skater coming down from a triple on one good solid foot that sprays the ice as he swirls away.
Martin, at long last, apologized for the hugely overblown scandal, such as it was, and lectured the others to grow up and move on, as he sped away from what was once thought to be his nemesis.
I like it. Stand up for Medicare and Vote Liberal, unless the NDP has a really good chance in your riding.
Interesting point. I wonder, then, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, if the writer would be comfortable with a federal government that is unable to invoke the Nothwithstanding Clause to offset, or delay a court ruling opening wide the door to private “for profit” health care in Canada?
Morning after thoughts at Canadian Sentinel.
After checking out the various media the story seems to be the desperate attampt by Martin on the NWC (as oppossed to NWA) I am now taking bets on how many hours this last till the Liberals forget they made this promise and talk about something else.
Inside the Liberal War Room an amazing finger pointing war goes on…it was his idea, no his, no hers, no theirs…..leading to hair pulling and eye gouging and Scott Reid giving David Herle a wedgie, just because he is the fat kid with glasses….
Man this thing looks like Kim Campbell in 1993 or Turner in 1984…the cycle of the incompetent successor holds true.
Zoorry. I’m pizzt sintz eye’ve bin playing the Paul Marting drinking game.
Rules:
1. PM says “fundamentally”…drink.
2. Pm says “clearly”…drink.
3. PM says “clearly and fundamentally”…3 drinks of something clear and fundamental…like vodka.
4. PM stares stupidly ahead while being addressed aggressively by Duceppe…drink a Molson Export.
5. PM throws hail mary by promising to reopen constitution in a bid to make Stephen Harper wet himself…drink until you wet yourself.
Goodnight now.
Martin’s NWC abolishment idea is simply a Lie-beral ruse designed to distract attention away from all of the ongoing scandal and criminal investigations. There is no need to waste time on it, keep firing the scandal torpedos, as General Hans has been ecouraging us to do. Give’em hell!!!
MARTIN IS FINISHED!
You watch tomorrow, Mr. Martin has opened up a can of worms with the NWC that is going to make his scandal headaches seem like the best sex he’s ever had.
We are going to see Church Leaders, Premiers, and every nut job on either side of the coin (including yours truly) heaping the scorn on Martin for this one.
Regarding the Not Withstanding Clause: What kind of a moron would remove the only thing standing between the will of the people and the will of a non-elected judge?
Is it possible that it was not a team decision and that Martin made it up on the spot?
Is it possible that Martin heaped this one onto the pile to draw out some of the less desireable members of the CPC to publically say something to sink the entire CPC campaign?
BMan
What about “The fact is”..
If Martin removed that phrase from his vocabulary, he could communicate twice as much information.
No more Smilin’ Jack; now we have Smilin’ Harper.
confiscation of registered firearms for crime control as per PMPM, lets take a page from Ms Condoleeza Rice “if local authorities had had lists of registered weapons…her father and other blacks would not have been able to defend themselves”, of course this is not 1963 in Alabama but her point is valid in Canada today. IMO.
Excellent, thoughtful response from Mr Spector on the NWC debacle
http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/MIND.htm
I especially like the letter from PET to Cardinal Carter.
While I am not catholic I wonder how happy the church is with Mr Martin now, as if they werent already pissed…in an appropriately Christian manner of course….
If it is that bad even Mr Volpe and Mr Bevilaqua might be in trouble….
Here’s something else to consider. Is it possible that the evidence that Normand Lester cited in his book about Option Canada which he released today was given him by Liberal party insiders (a.k.a. Jean Chretien loyalists) seeking to sabotage Paul Martin’s campaign?
Consider that he was given an anonymous tip that this evidence, the very same evidence that separatists have been searching for since 1995, including copies of cheques made out to Liberal “volunteers” and one of Paul Martin’s current cabinet ministers, would be found inside a garbage can in an alley.
Since when do accountants put damning evidence in the trash without first shredding it?
This was a setup. And the timing was perfect! It’s no wonder Martin looks so twitchy. There is a mole in his camp and it’s crawling up his ass.
Amusing anecdote: I was standing behind Rosemary Thompson when Monte hijacked it.
Small world.
I just listened to the post-debate phone in show on CPAC. It is amazing the degree to which people can interpret the debate so differently based largely on their long held ideology. It is clear from the callers they had on from across the country that the Lieberals should continue to do well in wooing the stupid/loser vote!
Is it just me, or is it everytime that Jack Layton talked I felt like I was watching some stupid info-mercial on late night television? I kept expecting a 1-800 number to flash up on the screen and Jack to start saying “Call now, our operators are standing by,” and how for just 30 cents a day we can sponsor a child in the NDP campaign. Having said that, Martin-o has definitely shot his own foot off with the NWSC, and Harper was brilliant in his rebuttal. Duceppe is going to absolutely DESTROY Martoon in tomorrow’s French Language Debate with that one. And as for Jack Layton, if you call the number on your screen right now…..
Bagadonitz:
I concur that may have been the intent.
But Harper and the rest of the campaign won’t bite.
I also recommend anyone remotely connected to the CPC campaign to do like wise, the proper response being “don’t be absurd, there’s no way you can do this without reopening the constitution like they tried and failed with the Meech and Charlottetown Accords”
The rest of the constitutional experts however are free to commence firing.
Randon reactions:
I like studio lights… those on-top-of-the-camera lights at scrums always make Harper’s deep-sunken eyes look somewhat undead.
Martin just lasooed a unicorn with the NWC idea… and he broke its horn off. Isn’t there a curse associated with that?
Please don’t presume to know what I want to do with my kids before Kindergarten.
At first I was confused when Martin said the CPC child care plan would be $1 per day. But now I can see how… under Martin’s Liberal logic, the other $2.33 would be discreetly going to some backroom crony.
I just got a woodie watching Martin implode, but everytime they cut to Jack it went away. hahaha
By suggesting we remove the Notwithstanding Clause Martin proved that a bargain means nothing to him. As others here have pointed out the Provincial Premiers wouldn�t have agreed to the Charter without the Notwithstanding Clause.
Martin is prepared to sweep away the bargain entered into by this second generation of “fathers of the constitution” if it will win him another term. Incredible. Paul Martin -the grinch who stole the constitution.
This is very revealing. Martin believes it is okay for one side of a bargain to arbitrarily withdraw an essential term of ” the contract ” (so long as there is some political advantage to gain.) The man is ethically challenged.
It would be interesting to hear what the Provincial Premiers think of this.
Secondly, he proves that his “Liberal Values” do not include the value of democracy. Harper�s answer that our Constitution strikes the right balance between the powers of the Courts and the powers of Parliament ( the people ) was perfect.
Let�s ride this issue to a majority.
As a Tory, I’m feeling sorry for the Jiberals. I had this faint feeling of voting pity two days before the last election but holy crap, didn’t act on it. Stay humble folks. The electorate is swung on modesty. Pretend you are losing to finish strong Harper. As an Aussie myself, John Howard rules. Damn pleased to see you take a page from his book. Saskatoon will deliver the seats.
Removing the notwithstanding clause frightens me and just might show the Liberal’s true agenda, to slowly turn Canada into a dictatorship. Paul Martin as Prime Minister wants the Power to Appoint a Supreme Authority in the land – free of parliamentary approval – that cannot be overruled by parliament.
THIS SCARES THE HELL OUT OF ME!!!
CanadianTruth
And so it should. It scares the hell out of me, And I don’t scare easily.
“The Firearms Act is about licensing and registration, not confiscation.”
– Former Justice Minister Anne McLellan, 1998.
“There are 500,000 handguns in the hands of collectors. They are one break-in away from being used in a crime. The mayor of Toronto has pointed out it is handguns stolen from homes that are killing people. We’ve got to stop that. We’ve got to ban handguns.”
– Prime Minister Paul Martin, 2006.
tranio @ 11:07 – excellent idea about asking your local Liberal MP/candidate about that NWC thing. Even though my husband’s definitely voting Cons. (and I can’t vote), I’m calling up Anne McLellan’s office first thing in the morning . . . heh heh. Enquiring minds want to know (as the old ad in the US said).
Paul Martin just called for the abolition of democracy in Canada. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Martin thinks the public will accept his values: that ultimately public policy should be decided, not by elected representatives, but by an unelected, unaccountable body, who can do what they want because they are the ultimate arbiters of their own power.
Apparently Martin has never heard of Lord Acton.
And he thinks the Canadian public is brain dead.
Martin looked too angry and with his brand new stance on the NWC…he looks very scary leading us down a very dangerous road. I think he has finally snapped.
Harper….what can you say…decisive…stuck to the message…could not be baited..outstanding job
Layton…low on coffee. This guy needed to be propped up but I give him a thumbs up for not saying “Ed Broadbent” ad nausem.
Duceppe…baited Martin into the Qubec as a nation subject. I enjoy watching him and his classic �Mr. Martin is a living democratic deficit�…will live on in infamy!
Paikin…this stickfigure disgusted me with he crime question regarding the RCMP murder…the cop in Qubec and the Boxing Day Bloodbath. We know where he was going…but took a wrong turn to get there.
Still trying to figure out how aboriginals are the cause of poverty.
[Caveat: this is my lazy re-post from Angry’s site]
Hilarious bait-and-switch on the NWC by Dithers, and good summary of why it’s essential to all Canadians.
Contrary to Paul Martin’s huffing and puffing, the Constitution IS a flawed document; even by enshrining language rights into its pages, morons Trudeau, Chretien et al still couldn’t get Quebec to buy into it. The NWC was added to the Constitution BECAUSE of the inherent flaws in the document; it was necessary to get everyone else to sign it. Now Dithers wants to remove the clause?
The NWC is Parliament’s only recourse to our increasingly activist Supreme Court of Canada. Harper hinted at this, albeit in a much less blunted manner. For heaven’s sake, Dithers added 2 more social engineers to the bench last year to help ram through SSM, and now he wants to nail the door closed on that debate by effectively hamstringing Parliament from dissenting with this unelected handful of social tinkerers? Of course he’s comfortable with this idea: there’s enough lefties on the SCC to support any liberal pitch for the next 20 years.
SIGNIFICANT DITHERS QUOTES ON THE CONSTITUTION:
“The Constitution protects our religious freedoms”. Huh? Like the way it’s protected the Catholic Church in its objections to SSM, or even individual citizens, pace Bill C250, who dare to publicly object to same or even to question homosexuality in general? How about that great protection of the Toronto printer forced by a human rights tribunal to not only print gay literature that offended his religious beliefs, but to pay the gay couple several thousand dollars in punative compensation?
Dithers also noted the Constitution “protects our language rights”, which was sly of him and may be true, but is also light years away from what it should protect but doesn’t: our right to free speech.
“I don’t think the courts should be overturned by politicians”
Oh
MY
G O D .
Why in the HELL are we sending elected officials to Ottawa, if they are unable, through democratic means, to legally disagree and strike down Supreme Court decision regarding the Constitutional laws of the country? Just for fun, tomorrow I telephone our local liberal incumbent’s office and ask, if Martin’s really serious about this proposal, why bother to vote for her OR her party, as the liberals clearly want the Supremes to make the country’s significant decisions as they see fit? She’d save the local taxpayer sheaves of dough by resigning, or at least, by staying home & voting on non-critical SCC-crafted legislation via telephone.
Most people unfamiliar with the NWC will have missed Dithers’ point entirely, and I’m hoping that those who know a bit about it will start to be… very afraid.
This is all a red herring anyway, isn’t it? Can any lawyer advise whether or not Dithers has a snowball’s chance at “Constitutionally changing the law” to eliminate the possibility of using the NWC? I thought the Constitution mandated that any such changes had to be ratified by ALL signatories: the federal government, & all provinces and territories. Fat chance of that, I’d say.
The most interesting comment on the Constitution was by Harper, and it’ll go largely uncommented by any mainstream media: he noted he’d like to change the Constitution to add property rights to those other rights “protected” by the document.
Amen, Brother.
mhb23re
(email a/d is above username at the Google mail service)
PMPM just lost the election tonight and he did it without being prompted or without any need to be drawn into the debate about the importance of the non-withstanding clause and the frivolous use of it. Captain Canada was always willing to wrap the Charter around himself when he needed the blanket of justification. While not justifying why it only worked for him and the Liberals
Tonight Paul the fool Martin stated, “A judge appointed by me or my party (Liberal) has the RIGHT to change the rules that has been laid out for our governance when WE (the Liberals) feel it’s right for YOU as we se fit.”
In any other country, the civil war would be in full swing just after his televised statement, and under far less provocation.
In order that we do not/or will not have to go down that self destructive path of having to gain our rights through force of arms it’s about time we take back what the like’s of PMPM has forgotten.
I AM NOT A TAX PAYER. I AM A VOTER and you need my voice to run the country.
Martin asserts that the Mayor of Toronto “points out” that most guns used in crime are stolen from homes of legal gun owners (collectors). Isn’t this the same mayor that suggested gun owners (collectors and sport enthusiasts) store their weapons in a stockhouse somewhere in the city?
Good idea. Take private property from law-abiding citizens, store it in one place so a bureaucrat can lose track of, sell, hand out said private property for his own financial benefit.
Or maybe the criminals just crash the stockhouse and get enough armory to start a coup at Toronto city hall.
The left long ago lost all association with common sense when it came to the issue of gun crime.
What kind of man would put the nothwithstanding clause on the table, now, 14 days to the election in the middle of the election, with no discussion even with his own caucus? To play Russian roulette with the Constitution of a fragile country. To spit in the face of the premiers all those years ago who threshed it out. To spit in the face of even Pierre Trudeau who accepted this Constitution as the hard give-and-take among politicians who never lost sight of their commitment to the people of Canada and the people of their provinces. And then to talk of Pearson and Trudeau later in the debate as your personal heroes as if you were finishing their �work�. Although I don�t share their vision for Canada, Martin never saw the day when he could stand even close to those men.
why were property rights never enshrined in the first place? ‘course we can’t ask Trudeau (dead guy) and Martin (dying guy). hmmm no property rights and abolish the not withstanding clause. I’m just a lowly voter but I smell HIDDEN AGENDA
Thanks Kate for giving us a forum to comment on the debate. No longer are we restricted only to how the MSM portrays what they saw (I was always left wondering if I missed something when the only commentary came from the “professionals” … it was like I had watched a differant debate). I get a thrilling sense of unity as I read the insights of individuals from across the country. LET FREEDOM ROLL…as the people of this great country actually voice what they think and feel.
Well a long time ago I was invited by Senator Gerald Beaudoin to address the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee on Amending the Constitution of Canada.
This was in the runup to the Charlottetown Accord. I still have saved letters from this period from Brian Mulroney, Joe Clark, Jean Chretien and a gaggle of provincial premiers.
Removing the notwithstanding clause? This is clearly Constitutional policy invention on the fly. Suddenly, Mr. Martin has the support of 7 provinces and the federal government to pull this off. I wonder if we asked the provincial premiers whether they would remove the notwithstanding clause if they would agree on a moments notice.
This makes no sense to me. In times of national crisis, the notwithstanding clause might be invoked to suspend certain rights. IE In time of war or direct threat.
Kind of like the Patriot Act in the states which had a 5 year time limit or sunset clause when the crisis or threat subsides. I don’t think I would willy nilly pull this out.
The Charter is supposed to be a plastic legal fabric that can respond to a variety of national pressures that can reverberate either internal or external to the country. Removing this clause ensures a legal rigidity without regard for serious crisis pressures or internal difficulties.
Removing the clause in my view is somewhat rash and ill considered. Whatever happened to the you can’t cherry pick the Charter? Isn’t this precisely what PM Martin proposes to do?
In my view this arbitrarily hamstrings the federal power, in times of crisis, to for instance protect the population. This is not very wise and would likely result in a legal tear of the Charter fabric at some time in the future.
There’s a misunderstanding of what it takes to amend the constitution in the way that Dithers wants.
The federal government can by legislation amend the constitution in areas that affect only Parliament (Section 44, Schedule B, Constitution Act 1982). And it can also pass a constitutional amendment in an area that is in the jurisdiction of just one other jurisdiction, with the agreement of that other jurisdiction. This is what occurred when the New Brunswick government and the federal government passed a constitutional amendment making NB Canada’s only bilingual province.
The process for an amendment such as Martin suggests is the passage of a Bill in both the House of Commons and the Senate, followed by Royal Assent. Martin is therefore assuming the Liberal-dominated Senate would pass this piece of legislation. And the Governor General would have no choice but to proclaim it. But first it has to be passed by the House of Commons.
Section B of the Constitution Act can be found at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#V
The process requires a plurality of votes in both the House of Commons and the Senate, unless the Senate fails to act upon it, in which case it can pass into law after a 180 day period during a period when the Senate is sitting.
(Cross posted to Calgary Grit)
“A legal tear of the Charter fabric”
You can bet your ass. And the ‘future’ would not be far off!!
EKOS numbers are out at LaPresse. The earlier reports about Conservative support were inflated. However, the news is still VERY good.
Conservatives 39.1
Liberals 26.8
NDP 16.2
Bloc 12.6
Green/Other 4.6
More than 12 points behind. LaPresse says it’s OK for Mr. Harper to start dreaming of a majority. (But please don’t!)
This time around I don’t think he will make the same mistake. Harper is very focused. He has earned the support this time around. People are starting to see the real Harper not the one made up by Liberal scare tactics. His momentum is still rising and I think the support will build into a landslide. The new poll puts Harper ahead of Martin in Quebec. The last Liberal aff the Bandwagon has to fix the flat.
It’s hours later, and I’m still really bothered by Martin pulling the Notwithstanding Clause out of his hat. I’m disappointed that the NWC issue more or less came and went during the debate (no doubt scripted responses will be prepared overnight for the French Debate).
What can one say that hasn’t already been posted? I hope that Martin’s own promise, that “the first act of the new Liberal government” will be to remove the Federal government’s ability to use the notwithstanding clause, is finally enough to end the Liberal regime.
Last time I checked, Health Care, Crime, Ethics, and the Economy topped the issues list over voter’s desires to see the Charter changed (did Section 44 ever even make the top 20 voter issues?). In Martin’s own words, it’ll be “the first act of the new Liberal government”, something Canadians aren’t even asking for on their Ipsos-Reid and Decima wish lists.
I hope the voters coast-to-coast-to-coast realize just how out of touch the Liberals are with the real election issues, and hell-bent on walking out their own agenda before the concerns of Canadians. And just how scary this new proposed amendment is and has the potential to be.
To me, this issue has the potential to be better than all things Gomery, or Income Trust, or Options Canada with respect to voter migration. It’s not some right-of-center conspiracy, or personal attacks, or hearsay. This time it’s Martin’s very own words, and an agenda to seriously amend the Canadian Constitution, kept secret until two weeks before we head to the polls. Here’s to 40 Below Conservatives, and hoping tonight’s words might be some of the last we hear him utter before a concession speech…
“There are millions of knives in the hands of everyday Canadians who don’t realize that these dangerous weapons which could someday possibly be used to injure or fatally harm a Canadian squirrel are ONE break-in away from being used to cut bread, make a sandwich, or maybe, just MAYBE, slicing up a handy copy of the Constitution and the Notwithstanding Clause. The Mayor of Toronto has the intelligence of a clam, and personally I think he’d make a fundamentally bad chowder – regardless of that fact, it is fundamentally a choice of this goverment that these knives could possibly kill people. We’ve got to stop that. In order to effect a positive change for the safety of this great nation, we’ve got to ban these weapons of mass destruction. Ban knives and any other sharp thingies that you might poke your fingers with. My goverment is fundamentally interested in the fundamental right of your pinkies to get funamentally good health care even if you have to wait on a list. We’ve got to start somewhere.”
Martin’s pledge to remove the notwithstanding clause came completely out of left field; Harper’s perfectly calm, cogent response was the defining moment in the debate and probably in the campaign. Here he was, blindsided by something he could never have reasonably anticipated, and he didn’t even blink, he just acted for all the world like a kindly and abiding mentor who was having a calm discussion with a flighty teenager.
Harper was so strong at times that when Layton was next in line, particularly in the second half, he seemed rattled at the prospect.
Harper far and away won the debate. He showed himself to be the best man for the job, and it looked like Martin knew it, too.
What a great performance, on the most important day in his political career, and at an absolutely critical time in our nation’s history. You could almost hear the country healing as he spoke. Absolutely superb.
There is a sort of consensus to these many posts (up to 2:30
AM Pacific, and it seems to be delight and relief at the sight of the “real” Harper and scorn at the Notwithstanding ploy. But Mr. Martin is engaged in an election campaign and there top marks go to an existing leader who can show “fire in the belly”. He did that in the last debate and in this one. Harper was so balanced he reduced himself to a cigar store wooden Indian with even his gestures so conditioned you could use him as a coin machine (put in a Nickel and pull the arm to get a fortune card). And surely no one really wants to have a group of nine people who represent no one but themselves decide our national fate, but by the time all that is thrashed out this electiion will be the stuff of history. Meanwnhile the Martin forces turn the flank of the spent NeoCons and shows the Liberals are willing to swallow governmental reform but the other three instantly recoil from the prospect as they did Monday night. That scene was truly hilarious.
I guess everyone sees the same event their own way. I was reminded of a good skater coming down from a triple on one good solid foot that sprays the ice as he swirls away.
Martin, at long last, apologized for the hugely overblown scandal, such as it was, and lectured the others to grow up and move on, as he sped away from what was once thought to be his nemesis.
I like it. Stand up for Medicare and Vote Liberal, unless the NDP has a really good chance in your riding.
garhaneg… ROFL.
Wow, 141 comments. That must be some kind of record, eh Kate?
And ‘garhaneg’ obviously drinks his own bathwater!
🙂
Uhm, Garhaneq?
If you recall, Martin went on national TV last spring to say I’m sorry don’t let Stephen Harper bring down my government, PLEASE.
That was just before Bucky had Tim Murphy ensure that BS got bought off with a cabinet post in the room with comfy fur.
Your selective memory really is something.
Martin is a fool for promising to re-open constitutional. This point has less to do with whether it remotely could have a dubious benefit, which it won’t.
My point is that Martin has proven he would sell his kids to stay in power, so I don’t trust him to deal away the only protection the electors have against the appointed.
Or is it liberal policy that we create our own home grown monarchy? Don’t recall getting rid of the NWSC being discussed at the last liberal policy convention, do you?
Martin either has no idea what he’s promising, or he’s kept this secret hidden since he decided to enter politics, either way I consider this man too dangerous for office.
One other comment on why this move by Martin is the stupidest one yet.
Picture this conversation the next time a CPC candidate goes door knocking in a muslum community.
“Paul Martin suggested during the last debate that he will not protect religious freedom. If you don’t believe me ask your liberal candidate if Mr Martin now wants to remove the NWSC from the charter.”
Blah blah woof woof…It’s all over for the Liberals (and it should be). Far too many scams, scandals, patronage and corruption.
All Harper has to do is look Prime Ministerial not trip up and The CPC will have it’s majority.
I’m still a Liberal but will vote conservative to rid this country of the disease. Cut off an arm and a leg to save the rest of the body. I will encourage my fellow Liberals to do the same.
I hope all the thieves and scoundrels will be prosecuted and go to jail as their final reward.
very good for Harper to point out the differences between the US Brit and our middle of the road system.
PMPM would turn over all laws to his appointees.-
at least the US justice system has some checks and balances – the president nominates justices, then they have to pass a gauntlet of scrutiny.
Canadas system is pure patronage.
I like how Martin says we have to compete against china who canada has given billions of $$$$ to and paul gets all his ships built there.
The first thing on my mind is “what do you mean we white man?”
If the royal bank competes vs CIBC do they give them money?
SO Garhaneq, what you are saying to use Kate’s quote,
“Vote for the felon you know, Vote Liberal””
OMG(or any appropriate deity)! Even Ron has seen the light. In order to get to the ‘real’ Liberal Party, Canadians will have to vote to get rid of the slimey crooks that are passing themselves off as a Liberal government. Just like the old conservatives, they have to get rid of the entitlement gang and get back to their roots.
I’ll probably never vote Liberal but I respect those who realize that their own party needs some housecleaning and willing to admit it.
Martin’s willingness to trade off our representitive democracy for a Jurocratic dictatorship run by the PMO has only deepened my contempt for this degenerate little man.
Once the CPC takes power I hope they open investigations of his CSL patronage and incarcerate the scummy megalomanic. Warm up a cell for the Cretch and his realestate dealing as well.