The Conservative government have done everything they could to undermine Kyoto since coming to power in 2006. They, along with their Oil Patch backers, have delayed implementing key strategies until indeed now it is too late, too expensive, and completely unfeasible to reach the targets that BY LAW our country had committed to. At the same time those same political and financial interests have waged a propaganda campaign to convince Canadians that Kyoto was too expensive and unfair to our national interests in that it put too large a burden on developed nations like ours while developing nations such as India and China were not obliged to lower their own emissions.

I remember being angry that the United States, under then President George W. Bush, refused to ratify Kyoto which the previous President Clinton had agreed to do. However Canada DID ratify the treaty, making our offense much, much worse.

The recent talks at Durban, known colloquially as Kyoto II, failed for the same reasons. The Canadian Government deliberately sabotaged the talks and bullied smaller nations to do the same with threats to withdraw financial aid and impose trade and travel barriers. Our government is behaving like an Imperial power forcing other nations to do what we, and more specifically our business interests, want them to do.

We Canadians have a certain view of ourselves- we think the world sees us as peacemakers and conciliators. This may have been the case in the time of Trudeau and Pearson, but is the case no longer. Harper is quickly leading us down a much darker path where we are increasingly being seen as obstructionist, militant and bullying.

Shame on our Prime Minister, shame on the Conservative Government.

Shame on all of us.

I'm sorry? Which "decade of darkness" are you talking about? Are you going back to the 1982 recession--which has nothing to do with this discussion--just to find a point to defend the Conservatives on? You don't even like them! Even the Mulroney government didn't do all that well balancing the books...--what am I doing? Back then the Conservatives were progressive. It was a different party! It has nothing to do with our current discussion.



"The Liberals inherited a $40-billion deficit from the Conservatives when they came to power in 1993. So, talking today about 10 years of darkness, I don't think it's appropriate. I think it's highly political and I am very disappointed by it."


I will restate:

Being ignorant of the real costs of those warplanes does not make them a defensible purchase.

Get this country back in the black and we can revisit the necessary equipment upgrades that our hard-working folk in the military deserve. For now, putting that gear on the nation's credit card is poor leadership and bad economics.

Until the debt starts going the other direction, I'm firm in my opinion here.

Canada's debt is currently 561 Billion and rising.

>> ^Skeeve:

Actually, no.
While the Liberals under Chretien and Martin took the credit for balancing the budget it was former Conservative finance ministers Michael Wilson and Don Mazankowski who undid the financial catastrophe created by the Trudeau Liberals. The Mulroney government's institution of free trade and the GST (as horrible as it is) are what truly balanced the budget. The Liberals, on the other hand, gutted the health care system - rolling back transfers to the provinces - and decimated the military to make short-term political gains with the "military is evil, peacekeeping is teh win" crowd.
There is a lot about the Conservatives I don't like (Matthu pointed out a few good ones) but, as it stands, their policies have ensured Canada has, arguably, the most robust economy in the world and is back on track to have a respectable military (one that is taken seriously abroad, something seriously lacking under the previous administration).
There are big problems with the "Harper Government" (and believe me when I say that I hate that term more than you do) but their stance with regards to the military is the only intelligent one put forward and as close to the best thing for Canada as our problematic system gets.

Actually, no.

While the Liberals under Chretien and Martin took the credit for balancing the budget it was former Conservative finance ministers Michael Wilson and Don Mazankowski who undid the financial catastrophe created by the Trudeau Liberals. The Mulroney government's institution of free trade and the GST (as horrible as it is) are what truly balanced the budget. The Liberals, on the other hand, gutted the health care system - rolling back transfers to the provinces - and decimated the military to make short-term political gains with the "military is evil, peacekeeping is teh win" crowd.

There is a lot about the Conservatives I don't like (Matthu pointed out a few good ones) but, as it stands, their policies have ensured Canada has, arguably, the most robust economy in the world and is back on track to have a respectable military (one that is taken seriously abroad, something seriously lacking under the previous administration).

There are big problems with the "Harper Government" (and believe me when I say that I hate that term more than you do) but their stance with regards to the military is the only intelligent one put forward and as close to the best thing for Canada as our problematic system gets.
>> ^notarobot:
Why do you think "the decade of darkness" happened? Could it have something to do with an attempt to dig the country out of the gaping deficit the previous government caused? I wonder.

Chrétien likes to keep it real.

I look at him like many Americans look at Clinton - imperfect, ballsy, powerful, and with good intentions. I do remember that he was the author of the 'White Paper' as Trudeau's INAC Minister, but I also remember he balanced the budget, and said no to the Americans over Iraq under intense domestic and international pressure. The little guy from Shawinigan certainly looks good compared to the buffoon in the PMO now.

Not Parliament, rather the New Brunswick Legislature, but still not very "Parliamentary". Continues the fine Canadian tradition, exemplarized by the great leader Trudeau.

Liberal Lies in National Health Care: Second in a Series
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, August 26, 2009

With the Democrats getting slaughtered -- or should I say, "receiving mandatory end-of-life counseling" -- in the debate over national health care, the Obama administration has decided to change the subject by indicting CIA interrogators for talking tough to three of the world's leading Muslim terrorists.

Had I been asked, I would have advised them against reinforcing the idea that Democrats are hysterical bed-wetters who can't be trusted with national defense while also reminding people of the one thing everyone still admires about President George W. Bush.

But I guess the Democrats really want to change the subject. Thus, here is Part 2 in our series of liberal lies about national health care.

(6) There will be no rationing under national health care.

Anyone who says that is a liar. And all Democrats are saying it. (Hey, look -- I have two-thirds of a syllogism!)

Apparently, promising to cut costs by having a panel of Washington bureaucrats (for short, "The Death Panel") deny medical treatment wasn't a popular idea with most Americans. So liberals started claiming that they are going to cover an additional 47 million uninsured Americans and cut costs ... without ever denying a single medical treatment!

Also on the agenda is a delicious all-you-can-eat chocolate cake that will actually help you lose weight! But first, let's go over the specs for my perpetual motion machine -- and it uses no energy, so it's totally green!

For you newcomers to planet Earth, everything that does not exist in infinite supply is rationed. In a free society, people are allowed to make their own rationing choices.

Some people get new computers every year; some every five years. Some White House employees get new computers and then vandalize them on the way out the door when their candidate loses. (These are the same people who will be making decisions about your health care.)

Similarly, one person might say, "I want to live it up and spend freely now! No one lives forever." (That person is a Democrat.) And another might say, "I don't go to restaurants, I don't go to the theater, and I don't buy expensive designer clothes because I've decided to pour all my money into my health."

Under national health care, you'll have no choice about how to ration your own health care. If your neighbor isn't entitled to a hip replacement, then neither are you. At least that's how the plan was explained to me by our next surgeon general, Dr. Conrad Murray.

(7) National health care will reduce costs.

This claim comes from the same government that gave us the $500 hammer, the $1,200 toilet seat and postage stamps that increase in price every three weeks.

The last time liberals decided an industry was so important that the government needed to step in and contain costs was when they set their sights on the oil industry. Liberals in both the U.S. and Canada -- presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter and Canadian P.M. Pierre Trudeau -- imposed price controls on oil.

As night leads to day, price controls led to reduced oil production, which led to oil shortages, skyrocketing prices for gasoline, rationing schemes and long angry lines at gas stations.

You may recall this era as "the Carter years."

Then, the white knight Ronald Reagan became president and immediately deregulated oil prices. The magic of the free market -- aka the "profit motive" -- produced surges in oil exploration and development, causing prices to plummet. Prices collapsed and remained low for the next 20 years, helping to fuel the greatest economic expansion in our nation's history.

You may recall this era as "the Reagan years."

Freedom not only allows you to make your own rationing choices, but also produces vastly more products and services at cheap prices, so less rationing is necessary.

(8) National health care won't cover abortions.

There are three certainties in life: (a) death, (b) taxes, and (C) no health care bill supported by Nita Lowey and Rosa DeLauro and signed by Barack Obama could possibly fail to cover abortions.

I don't think that requires elaboration, but here it is:

Despite being a thousand pages long, the health care bills passing through Congress are strikingly nonspecific. (Also, in a thousand pages, Democrats weren't able to squeeze in one paragraph on tort reform. Perhaps they were trying to save paper.)

These are Trojan Horse bills. Of course, they don't include the words "abortion," "death panels" or "three-year waits for hip-replacement surgery."

That proves nothing -- the bills set up unaccountable, unelected federal commissions to fill in the horrible details. Notably, the Democrats rejected an amendment to the bill that would specifically deny coverage for abortions.

After the bill is passed, the Federal Health Commission will find that abortion is covered, pro-lifers will sue, and a court will say it's within the regulatory authority of the health commission to require coverage for abortions.

Then we'll watch a parade of senators and congressmen indignantly announcing, "Well, I'm pro-life, and if I had had any idea this bill would cover abortions, I never would have voted for it!"

No wonder Democrats want to remind us that they can't be trusted with foreign policy. They want us to forget that they can't be trusted with domestic policy.

>> ^Sagemind:

"French Girl.."
Why on Earth would any French Canadian be offended if they were mistaken for a French person?

This can actualy be a sensitive topic in Canada since French Canadians see themselves as French First and Canadian Second while the rest of Canada Sees them as Canadian First and French second. That's a debate we Canadians like to get into because it is offensive to us english Canadians that they should consider themselves above and beyond other Canadians - But that's a debate for another time!

lol "above and beyond"! Just "different" will be distinctive enough, please. But of course, it's easier to admit to someone being different than to them being "above and beyond", so that's probably your psychological straw man that lets you ignore the real facts: Quebecers are different than other Canadians, both culturally and linguistically. We have been different since 1759 and it will not change anytime soon. Even since before 1759, we have considered ourselves "canadiens" since until the 20th century there were more (linguistically) French people than English in the territories known as Canada (Ontario + Quebec). Thus, "French Canadian" is historically pleonastic since the majority of Canadians have been of French descent. Also, since the English side of Canada is still in love with the Queen of England, the term "English Canadian" is more than fitting for them. They've always considered themselves subjects of the Queen/King first and Canadians second (because Canadian was until recently a term reserved for Quebecers).

You could say this is less true nowadays, but you'd be wrong: in Quebec we didn't care for the Queen, but in the ROC (rest of Canada) they absolutely wanted her in the Constitution. So they forced the Constitution on us (Quebec) with their royal - plus some centralizing - shit in it. Of course, we never signed it, but because of Supreme Court rulings - a Court then presided by a majority of Trudeau-nominated judges - the consent of provinces was seen as not formally necessary, so leaving Quebec out was not a problem (this is the equivalent of the Republicans having a Republican-controlled Supreme Court rule in favor of outright torture on some provision that torture isn't explicitly forbidden in the Constitution). English Canadians are all the more English whereas in Quebec we don't care to be ruled by someone else. It's not like we want to separate from Canada to join France.

And so we see that between Quebec and the ROC there are cultural differences, linguistic differences and even political differences. Why do the English Canadians fear so much these differences? Do they have an inferiority complex? Or a superiority complex? Are they just dumb? Well, anyway they refuse to admit obvious facts and then delude themselves with a vision of a united and harmonious Canada (which never existed on any level since 1759), so there is something wrong with them, that much is certain. We just don't know what exactly.

Favourites

1) Spring
2) Beijing, China
3) Mike Mulligan and his Steam Shovel
4) South Park
5) Knemidokoptes
6) Beauty and the Beast
7) Don't know
Snakes
9) The French Revolution
10)Not sure

Which one?

11) Dog
12) Sweet
13) Cereal
14) Tan
15) Barefoot
16) Laptop
17) Walk
18) Drama
19) Food
20) Futurama

The Sift

21) Duck Amuck
22) "* promote" - various vids
23) blankfist
24) Fjnbk
25) Comedy, but I don't spend any time looking at single channels.
26) Everything I've done here
27) mlx's
28) YouTube
29) Some
30) Non-charters get to choose handle colors

About you

31) Michigan
32) Non-smoker
33) Right handed
34) Black
35) Single
36) 5' something
37) No
38) No
39) All of me
40) Brilliantly stupid, humbly narcissistic

If you could...what, who, when etc

41) John Lennon
42) Red Cross
43) Kevin Trudeau
44) 9th grade
45) Telepathy
46) Albert Einstein's last words
47) Umm...
48) Ban teaching of creationism and intelligent design by executive order.
49) The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Terrible time.
50) Win a Nobel Prize

*quality

Kevin Trudeau has a weight loss program!?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'october crisis, 1970, canada, just watch me, trudea, pierre, flq' to 'october crisis, 1970, canada, just watch me, trudeau, pierre, flq' - edited by calvados

To these day secession is no more then a fight over state power between different faction of the bourgeoisie. Since the quiet revolution, part of the french population had grown wealthy giving rise to a wider and strengten bourgeois class impeding on the project of a social-democratic Quebec nation. As a consequence sovereignty is loosing more and more popular support. So is their opponents, where's Trudeau just look like he wanted to resuscitate nationalist from the dead to regain center of the political attention. What 'll remain to Justin ? maybe just to follow Ben path...

You bastard, my eyes!

Ben Mulroney is an effete, superficial waste of space and an embarrassment to all thinking Canadians. His father is the worst Prime-Minister in Canadian history and a criminal. Branch didn't fall far.

In reply to this comment by Fedquip:
and how

>> ^Farhad2000:
Quebec is funny in that its desperate to break away from the rest of Canada but still keep the very favorable federal and economic subsidizes it already receives.

If you knew anything about Quebec vs Federal (i.e. Canadian government) politics, you'd know there was a discrepancy in equalization payments anyway (proven by over 9000 federal commissions). Also, if Quebec were a country, multinationals couldn't try to ignore us anymore by moving their Canadian HQ to Toronto like they've been doing since 1995 (the last Quebec referendum on independence-sovereignty-association-whatchamacallit). BTW, what we wanted was an economic association, of the European Union type, not your misplaced pittance.

If we're so much of a basket case, economically speaking, why don't they let us go?

Here we see a papa's boy who hasn't a clue of what is Québec (yes I come from Québec) and he tinks that the soveraniste movement is dead and tries to bring an end to his father nightmare that his the movement. 40% of all québecois think that a Québec nation/country is the only way to go. 60% of québecois are convinced that it will happen, but some are affraid. Affraid of any disaster of supernatural proportion, an end of the world type of thing, that the trudeau's clan (meaning Trudeau and all liberals - the party) were triing desperatly to drill into the head of the québecois at one point in history.

It is a good thing that he bears no weight in "the rest of Canada". His grand entourage have no weight politicly speaking, has we have seen in the election of Dion at the head of the liberal party last time (he was a suporter of Igniasef - sorry if I messed up the name - Igniasef lost the nomination for leader of the party).

Good thing to, that in Québec he is laught at every time he speaks. Because we would be in an other endless debate of the futur of our culture and people.

PS : one thing that I always say to myself when I see him is that the international comunity as arranged a little thing called "the right to every nation to determine their futur by way of democratic election and are intittled to their own part of the world" (ok, I have change the words but the message is there) ie: if we decide one day to go are seperate way from Canada we will have the support of alot of other nation in the world like what happen to Kosovo. And nothing he says can change that.

There aren't many people I hate more than Kevin Trudeau. How can someone lie like that to so many sick and desperate people? I'd like to gouge out his vocal cords with a rusty iron knife. When he gets tetanus, let's see if he has a natural cure for that.