Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Go .VOTE!!! now

yes it is the 14th GO .VOTE!!! asap!!!!!
oh so all know this is the Canadian VOTE!!! not the us

Yes Canada can VOTE!!! too!
:.)

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Ms. May and the Green Party would be excluded

The Elizabeth May debate debacle

Just prior to the 2008 election, Independent MP Blair Wilson announced he would become a Green Party member, giving the party its first sitting member in party history.

In 2006, the Green Party was excluded from the federal leaders’ debate on the grounds that the party had no sitting MPs. When the 2008 election was called, the Greens, now under leader Elizabeth May, argued that this time they should be allowed to participate. This request was opposed by the Conservatives, NDP and Bloc Québécois, but was supported by Stéphane Dion of the Liberals. After negotiations took place between the parties and the consortium of broadcaster who stage and televise the debate, it was announced that Ms. May and the Green Party would be excluded

Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada

In media stories, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper blamed the decision on the broadcasters, and then on the NDP. It later surfaced, however, that as early as 2007 Mr. Harper had threatened to boycott the debate if the Greens were included. It was the repeat of this threat, along with a similar objection from NDP Leader Jack Layton, that led to the consortium’s decision [1][2].

Much, however, had changed since the 2006 election. Increasingly, Green candidates were gaining a greater share of the popular vote. In a 2006 by-election in London North Centre Ms. May ran and placed second only to the Liberal candidate, earning nearly 26 per cent of the vote – slightly ahead of the Conservative and more than 10 per cent higher than the NDP.

Mr. Harper’s rationale for excluding Ms. May was that she was really a Liberal. He based this on an arrangement between her and Mr. Dion, in which they agreed not to run candidates in each others’ ridings, as well as statements by Ms. May that she believed the Liberal leader would be a better Prime Minister than Mr. Harper. “…It would be unfair to have two Liberal candidates in the debate, and she is Stéphane Dion's candidate in Central Nova,” Mr. Harper said [3].

The public was outraged by the decision to exclude Ms. May. Anger against Mr. Layton, especially from his core supporters within the NDP, was particularly strong. Even former Progressive Conservative MP Joe Clark weighed in on May’s behalf [4].

On September 11 it was announced that Harper and Layton had backed down and agreed not to boycott the debate if May participated. Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe, although opposed to May’s participation, had never threatened a boycott.

Mr. Harper’s decision to oppose Ms. May’s participation and his subsequent reversal was considered by some media to be one of a number of Conservative gaffes in the first week of the campaign. Even after accepting her participation, he continued to complain it wasn’t fair.

References
[1] Former CBC News chief: The election debate process is a sham, Globe and Mail Update, September 10, 2008
[2] Harper blames networks for keeping May from debate, Canadian Press/Torstar, September 10, 2008
[3] Tories blame NDP for excluding May, Canadian Press, September 11, 2008
[3] PM dons campaign sweater, National Post, September 9, 2008,
[4] NDP Facebook slams Layton; Criticized for refusing to support Greens in debate, Canwest, September 10, 2008

25 on this day in 08 oh noooooo

yes it is my birthday today i am 25 grrr!

:.(!

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Unauthorized use of FedEx & "phishing"

Yes we have to worry about FedEx spam

Recognizing Phishing Scam E-mails
Recognizing phishing scam e-mails is key to protecting yourself against such theft and other crimes. Indicators that an e-mail might be fraudulent include:

Unexpected requests for money in return for delivery of a package or other item, personal and/or financial information, such as your Social Security number, bank account number, or other identification.
Links to misspelled or slightly altered Web-site addresses. For example, variations on the correct Web-site address fedex.com, such as fedx.com or fed-ex.com.
Alarming messages and requests for immediate action, such as "Your account will be suspended within 24 hours if you don't respond" or claims that you've won the lottery or a prize.
Spelling and grammatical errors and excessive use of exclamation points (!).

FedEx does not request, via unsolicited mail or e-mail, payment or personal information in return for goods in transit or in FedEx custody. If you have received a fraudulent e-mail that claims to be from FedEx, you can report it by forwarding it to abuse@fedex.com.

Examples of Fraudulent
E-mails

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government can not add & he is an economist.

Grant Thornton International is better at this than The PMO

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/10/08/afghanistan-costreport.html

Cost of Afghan mission double Conservative estimate: think-tank
Last Updated: Thursday, October 9, 2008 12:35 AM ET Comments305 Recommend127
CBC News
The cost of Canada's mission in Afghanistan could be more than double what the Conservative government has estimated, an Ottawa think-tank suggested on Wednesday, a day before the official tally is slated for release.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government has previously estimated that the total cost to date of Canada's mission, which began in 2002, is less than $8 billion.
That's less than half the $17.2 billion that the Rideau Institute predicted in a study entitled The Cost of the War and the End of Peacekeeping, which was released Wednesday. The institute's tally includes the cost of ammunition, equipment, military salaries, health care, disability and death benefits and economic aid projects.
The independent research institute, which is a non-profit organization, said Canadians can expect another $11.1 billion to be spent between now and 2011, which is the date the Conservative government has pledged to withdraw most of Canada's military forces from combat duties in Afghanistan.
"It's clear that the government's budgetary and foreign policy hands will be tied if it intends to keep our troops in Afghanistan through December 2011," said Steven Staples, president of the institute.
A report by Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, entitled The Fiscal Impact of the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan, will be made public Thursday morning.
While the report has been ready for weeks, its release required the support of all party leaders. They, as well as Harper, gave their blessings last month — despite concerns it could sway how Canadians cast their ballots in the federal election on Oct. 14.
Public opinion surveys have repeatedly shown that Canadians — especially voters in the key electoral battleground of Quebec — are lukewarm to the mission.
The Rideau study also predicted additional costs of up to $7.6 billion, once factors such as health care, disability and death benefits for wounded or killed soldiers are taken into account, bringing the eventual total to more than $28 billion by 2011.
98 Canadians killed
Page has already said his report will consider the costs of veterans programs, while he is also expected to factor in more traditional spending points such as military salaries and equipment purchases.
Canada has about 2,500 troops in Afghanistan's volatile province of Kandahar.
The mission started in early 2002, shortly after the U.S.-led invasion that toppled the Taliban government, although some Canadian soldiers on exchange with the American military were in Afghanistan months earlier.
To date, 98 Canadians, including one diplomat, have lost their lives serving in the conflict.
The institute study's co-author, David Macdonald, said the Defence Department has reduced its United Nations peacekeeping contributions by more than 80 per cent since the Afghan mission began, to $15.6 million in 2008-09 from $94.1 million in 2000-01.
Staples said "the cost of the war in Afghanistan has essentially resulted in the abandonment of Canada's 50-year commitment to UN peacekeeping."
The study also found that about 167 Canadian soldiers and police officers were deployed on peacekeeping missions as of July of this year, ranking Canada 53rd of 119 contributing nations.With files from the Canadian Press

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

(Stephen Harper's true feelings

http://www.scandalpedia.ca/Bios/Stephen%20Harper_en.html

Political History

1985 - Chief aide to Progressive Conservative MP Jim Hawkes
1987 - Became the Reform Party's Chief Policy Officer and primary author of the Reform Party's 1988 election platform
1988 - Ran and lost, as a Reform Party candidate in the riding of Calgary West, in the 1988 federal election.
1988 - 1993 Executive Assistant, chief adviser and speechwriter for Deborah Gray, the Reform Party's first Member of Parliament.
1993 - Ran and won his first federal election as a Reform Member of Parliament.

1993 - 1996 As a Reform MP, was active on constitutional issues and played a prominent role within the Reform Party drafting the party's position on the 1995 Quebec referendum. Also took positions against spousal benefits for same-sex couples and gun control. Despite his prominent position in the party however, Harper's relationship with Preston Manning, the Reform Party leader, was strained, culminating when Harper resigned his parliamentary seat on January 14, 1997.

1997 - 2001 Soon after resigning his seat, Harper was named president of the National Citizens Coalition (NCC), a conservative think-tank and advocacy group. There he advocated for an alliance of the conservative parties; supported Conrad Black's purchase of the a newspaper chain, arguing that he would provide a "pluralistic" editorial view to counter the "monolithically liberal and feminist" approach of previous management [1]; launched an ultimately unsuccessful battle against federal election laws restricting third-party advertising; and led several campaigns against the Canadian Wheat Board.

In 1997, Harper delivered a controversial speech for a conservative American think tank in which he said, "Canada is a northern european welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it", "if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians", and "the NDP [New Democratic Party] is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men." [2]

In 2000 Harper penned several controversial pieces including the "Alberta Agenda" in which he called on the province to reform publicly-funded health care, the Canada Pension Plan, and "build firewalls around Alberta" in order to stop the federal government from redistributing its wealth to less affluent regions. [3] Later that year, Harper also wrote an editorial praising the values of Alberta while Canada "appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country"[4].

2001 - 2004 Throughout 2001, Stockwell Day, the leader of the Canadian Alliance Party of Canada, the former Reform Party of Canada, was facing increasing criticism. Bowing to pressure in early 2002, Day called a new Canadian Alliance leadership race in which Stephen Harper emerged as Day's main rival. In his bid for the Canadian Alliance leadership, Harper described his potential support base as "similar to what George Bush tapped".[4]

After winning the party leadership, Harper announced his intention to run for parliament in a by-election in Calgary Southwest, and officially became Leader of the Opposition in May 2002. Later in the same month, Harper said that the Atlantic Provinces were trapped in "a culture of defeat" [5]. The Legislature of Nova Scotia unanimously approved a motion condemning Harper's comments [6] which were also criticized by New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord, federal Progressive Conservative leader Joe Clark and others. Harper refused to apologize, and said that much of Canada was trapped by the same "can't-do" attitude.[7]

As opposition leader Harper was largely devoted to building a union between the Canadian Alliance and the federal Progressive Conservatives. In October, 2003, despite his public promise to not merge with the Alliance, Progressive Conservative leader Peter MacKay reached an agreement with Stephen Harper merging the two parties and created the new Conservative Party of Canada. Harper won the Conservative leadership election soon after on March 20, 2004.

2004 to present Shortly after becoming leader, Stephen Harper led the new Conservative Party of Canada into the 2004 federal election. After moving into the lead for a time, inappropriate comments from Conservative MPs, and leaked press releases slandering the then Prime Minister, caused Harper's party to lose some momentum. In the end, the Liberal Party was re-elected with a minority government, with the Conservatives coming in second place.

Finally, in 2005-2006, Stephen Harper won his first federal election and formed a minority Conservative government in February, 2006.

Read below to see some of Stephen Harper's quotes throughout his political career:

On Canada
"Canada is a vast and empty country." - 2006 Leaders' Debate, December 15, 2005

"I think there is a dangerous rise in defeatist sentiment in this country. I have said that repeatedly, and I mean it and I believe it." - Ottawa Citizen, June 3, 2002

"There is a continental culture. There is a Canadian culture that is in some ways unique to Canada, but I don't think Canadian culture coincides neatly with borders." - Report Newsmagazine January 7, 2002

"Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… And whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be." - Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994

Atlantic Accord
“Let me repeat a message I have already delivered to Atlantic Canadians. I do not believe that the Liberals have ever been committed to the Atlantic Accords. You will recall the reluctance of the Prime Minister to fulfill his election commitments. You know about the subsequent delay in tabling implementation legislation. To finally bring it forward in a bill with ‘poison pill’ provisions such as the stealth carbon tax is further evidence of bad faith. I will continue to warn Atlantic Canadians that a Liberal majority government would never have signed, and will never honour, the substance of the Atlantic Accords.”
(Stephen Harper, Open letter to Premier Hamm and Premier Williams, March 30, 2005)

On Atlantic Canada
"There is a dependence in the region that breeds a culture of defeatism,"
(Stephen Harper, CBC News, May 30, 2002)

"I think in Atlantic Canada, because of what happened in the decades following Confederation, there is a culture of defeat that we have to overcome. …Atlantic Canada's culture of defeat will be hard to overcome as long as Atlantic Canada is actually physically trailing the rest of the country."
(Stephen Harper, New Brunswick Telegraph Journal, May 29, 2002)

"There's unfortunately a view of too many people in Atlantic Canada that it's only through government favours that there's going to be economic progress, or that's what you look to …That kind of can't-do attitude is a problem in this country but it's obviously more serious in regions that have had have-not status for a long time."
(Stephen Harper, Toronto Sun, May 31, 2002)

“I've taken my position and frankly it's the same position that I took all through the [Alliance] leadership race. I delivered [speeches] everywhere I went, including in the Maritime provinces on several occasions, about the spirit of defeatism in the country and what drives it and how we have to address it.”
(Stephen Harper, National Post, May 31, 2002)

Fiscal imbalance
“As prime minister, I will take up this issue [fiscal imbalance]…I will not try to fix this with another one-off, side-deal with this or any other province. I will bring the provinces together so we can achieve real, substantial, and I might add final, progress on this matter. And I mean final. When we reach agreement, [it] will commit more dollars to the provinces through a comprehensive review of spending and taxing powers.”
(Stephen Harper, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce Speaking Notes, April 15, 2005)

Federalism
"It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction."
(Stephen Harper, National Post, January 24, 2001)

“If Ottawa giveth, then Ottawa can taketh away… This is one more reason why Westerners, but Albertans in particular, need to think hard about their future in this country. After sober reflection, Albertans should decide that it is time to seek a new relationship with Canada. …Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status, led by a second-world strongman appropriately suited for the task …Having hit a wall, the next logical step is not to bang our heads against it. It is to take the bricks and begin building another home – a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become “maitres chez nous”.
(Stephen Harper, National Post, December 8, 2000)

On Quebec separatists
"The only way we will ever get positive constitutional change is when these people are confronted, defeated, and then work constructively within federation."
(BC Report Magazine, September 29, 1997)

Regional Development
"We have in this country a federal government that increasingly is engaged in trying to determine which business, which regions, which industries will succeed, which will not through a whole range of economic development, regional development corporate subsidization programs. I believe that in the next election we got to propose a radical departure from this."
(Stephen Harper, Global News, February 24, 2002)

On the Iraq war
"It [referring to calling a Minister "Idiot"] was probably not an appropriate term, but we support the war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to win." - Montreal Gazette, April 2003

"I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans." - Report Newsmagazine, March 25 2002

"We should have been there shoulder to shoulder with our allies. Our concern is the instability of our government as an ally. We are playing again with national and global security matters." - Canadian Press Newswire, April 11, 2003

" On the justification for the war, it wasn't related to finding any particular weapon of mass destruction. In our judgment, it was much more fundamental. It was the removing of a regime that was hostile, that clearly had the intention of constructing weapons systems. … I think, frankly, that everybody knew the post-war situation was probably going to be more difficult than the war itself. Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took." - Maclean’s, August, 25, 2003

" This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of public opinion… In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade." - Hansard, January 29, 2003

On the United Nations
"When it comes to issues of this country's vital security and national defence, you don't put that to the United Nations, which, quite frankly, is a coalition of everybody—the good, bad and ugly,"
(Stephen Harper, Toronto Star, February 28, 2004)

On Taxes
"I believe that all taxes are bad." - CTV.ca news, December 1, 2005, "Tory tax cut promise dominates campaign"

"I will strive to make this not the highest-spending country in the world, but instead the lowest taxing one."
(Stephen Harper, Conservative Leadership Convention, March 19, 2004)

On Kyoto
"Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations." - The Star, January 30, 2007

“Let’s forget about this unworkable treaty…. Kyoto’s never going to be passed.”
(Stephen Harper, Toronto Star, June 10, 2004)

“My party’s position on the Kyoto Protocol is clear and has been for a long time. We will oppose ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and its targets. We will work with the provinces and others to discourage the implementation of those targets. And we will rescind the targets when we have the opportunity to do so.”
(Stephen Harper, Ottawa Citizen, November 22, 2002)

“No, what I am supportive of is, frankly, not ratifying the Kyoto agreement and not implementing it.”
(Stephen Harper, CTV News, September 6, 2002)

“Kyoto [is] the worst international agreement this country has ever signed and I don't think they have the guts to implement it because it would have severe impacts on the economy and on the ordinary people from coast-to-coast.”
(Stephen Harper, CTV News, September 4, 2002)

On Sexual Orientation
When Harper was asked in a news conference how he can reconcile using the courts—on the one hand—to oppose a bill passed by Parliament [Gag Law – 3rd party election spending]; and then making the case that the courts have had too much say on the same-sex issue, he said: “Well quite easily, because the right of free speech and right of religion are in the constitution. Sexual orientation is not.”
(Stephen Harper, CBC Newsworld, September 4, 2003)

On Same-Sex Civil Marriage
“The Liberals may blather about protecting cultural minorities, but the fact is that undermining the traditional definition of marriage is an assault on multiculturalism and the practices in those communities.”
(Stephen Harper, Hansard, February 18, 2005)

“Liberals may talk about minorities. But undermining the traditional definition of marriage is an assault on the beliefs of all cultural and religious communities who have come to this country.''
(Stephen Harper, Canadian Press, April 9, 2005)

“I'm telling you, what I'm telling you is I don't see [the notwithstanding clause] as an issue here. The issue is simple. Which definition of marriage does Parliament want to enact, and I don't think that's, I don't think it's a complicated legal question, I think it's a simple act of political judgment and will.”
(Stephen Harper, CTV Question Period, December 26, 2004)

On proposal to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
“I do not support the special legal recognition of same-sex relationships, the compulsory provision of marital benefits to same sex couples, or a number of other possible implications of such legislation.”
(Stephen Harper, Letter to the Editor, Calgary Herald, December 14, 1994)

On the New Deal for Cities and Communities
Harper has said he opposes a “new deal” for municipalities: “That the federal government should have its own "New Deal" with municipalities is not a view I would subscribe to.”
(Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, June 24, 2003)

“If Ottawa begins transferring cash directly to municipalities don’t be surprised to see "national standards" and other mandates imposed on cities in pretty short order.”
(Stephen Harper, Address to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, June 2, 2003)

On Health Care
“[W]hat we clearly need is experimentation - with market reforms and private delivery options within the public system. And it is only logical that, in a federal state where the provinces operate the public health care systems and regulate private services, that experimentation should occur at the provincial level.”
(Stephen Harper, Speech in Charlottetown, June 27, 2001)

"One of the things that we suggested specifically was that the Alberta Government take on the Canada Health Act."
(Stephen Harper, CBC Newsworld, December 4, 2001)

“Monopolies in the public sector are just as objectionable as monopolies in the private sector. It should not matter who delivers health care, whether it is private, for profit, not for profit or public institutions, as long as Canadians have access to it regardless of their financial means.”
(Stephen Harper, Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, Oct. 1, 2002)

“Harper also believes that our health care will continue to deteriorate unless Ottawa overhauls the Canada Health Act to allow the provinces to experiment with market reforms and private health care delivery options. He is prepared to take tough positions including experimenting with private delivery in the public system.”
(Stephen Harper, Leadership Campaign Policy Statement, www.harperforleader.com, February 2002)

“So why is the federal government going to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to run an inquiry into the health care system? The answer is likely so that it can insist upon finding a "national solution" - precisely the opposite of what the system needs. … Given such a challenge, what we clearly need is experimentation - with market reforms and private delivery options within the public system. And it is only logical that, in a federal state where the provinces operate the public health care systems and regulate private services, that experimentation should occur at the provincial level.”
(Speech in Charlottetown, June 27, 2001)

On Child Care and Early Learning Development
“We do not think this government or any government should be in charge of raising our children. We see what happens over there when government is in charge of raising children.”
(Stephen Harper, Hansard, October 6, 2004)

“[T]he solution that we need to this problem is not a high spending solution, it's a low-tax solution…I believe it involves giving money directly to parents to make child care choices and not creating expensive bureaucracies that are subjected to inter-government wrangling.''
(Stephen Harper, Canadian Press, February 11, 2005)

On Child Poverty
“These proposals included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of “child poverty” and for more business subsidies in the name of “cultural identity”. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects.”
(Stephen Harper, The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997)

On Ballistic Missile Defence
“[T]his country cannot enhance its cherished place in this world by losing its special position on this continent. We cannot let our military sovereignty in NORAD wither away. We cannot watch our economic security in NAFTA weaken. So I tell you that on our common interests with the United States, including on missile defence, our Conservative government will take Canada back to the table.”
(Stephen Harper, 2005 Conservative Convention Speech Speaking Notes, March 18, 2005)

“…we must take seriously our own and continental security, rather than just push the entire burden on to the United States. We need to engage actively in the continental missile defence program to ensure Canada has a voice in its own air security.”
(Stephen Harper, National Post, May 23, 2003)

On Bilingualism
“After all, enforced national bilingualism in this country isn’t mere policy. It has attained the status of a religion. It’s a dogma which one is supposed to accept without question. … [M]ake no mistake. Canada is not a bilingual country. In fact it is less bilingual today than it has ever been...As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity, and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions.”
(Stephen Harper, Calgary Sun, May 6, 2001)

On Human Rights Commissions
"Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society…It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff."
(Stephen Harper, BC Report, January 11, 1999)

On Universal Social Programs
"Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy…These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party…”
(Stephen Harper, Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994)

On being called a Tory
"It's actually not a label I love…I am more comfortable with a more populist tradition of conservatism. Toryism has the historical context of hierarchy and elitism and is a different kind of political philosophy. It's not my favourite term, but we're probably stuck with it."
(Stephen Harper, Hamilton Spectator, January 24, 2004)

On being ‘libertarian’
“But I'm very libertarian in the sense that I believe in small government and, as a general rule, I don't believe in imposing values upon people.”
(Stephen Harper, National Post, March 6, 2004)

Economic conservatism, Harper says during an interview in his Calgary office, is libertarian in nature, emphasizing markets and choice. Libertarian conservatives work to dismantle the remaining elements of the interventionist state and move towards “a market society for the 21st century.”
(Stephen Harper, Toronto Star, April 6, 1997)

Various
"You’ve got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." - The Report newsmagazine, January 22, 2001

" I think people should elect a cat person. If you elect a dog person, you elect someone who wants to be loved. If you elect a cat person, you elect someone who wants to serve." - Interview with Kevin Newman, Global National April 5th, 2006

Speech to the Council for National Policy
From a speech to the Council for National Policy, a conservative American lobby group, June 1997, as reported by the CBC

[Y]our country, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world.

It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians.

[S]ome basic facts about Canada that are relevant to my talk... Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it.

In terms of the unemployed... don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.

While [Montreal] it is a French-speaking city – largely – it has an enormous English-speaking minority and a large number of what are called ethnics: they who are largely immigrant communities, but who politically and culturally tend to identify with the English community.

[W]e have a Supreme Court, like yours, which, since we put a charter of rights in our constitution in 1982, is becoming increasingly arbitrary and important. It is also appointed by the Prime Minister. Unlike your Supreme Court, we have no ratification process.

[T]he NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men.

[The Liberal party is a] moderate Democrat, a type of Clinton-pragmatic Democrat. It's moved in the last few years very much to the right on fiscal and economic concerns, but still believes in government intrusion in the economy where possible, and does, in its majority, believe in fairly liberal social values.

In the last Parliament, [the Liberal Party] enacted comprehensive gun control...

There is an important caveat to its liberal social values. For historic reasons that I won't get into, the Liberal party gets the votes of most Catholics in the country, including many practising Catholics.

Then there is the Progressive Conservative party, the PC party, which won only 20 seats. Now, the term Progressive Conservative will immediately raise suspicions in all of your minds. It should. It's obviously kind of an oxymoron.

But the Progressive Conservative is very definitely liberal Republican. These are people who are moderately conservative on economic matters, and in the past have been moderately liberal, even sometimes quite liberal on social policy matters.

In fact, before the Reform Party really became a force in the late '80s, early '90s, the leadership of the Conservative party was running the largest deficits in Canadian history.

They were in favour of gay rights officially, officially for abortion on demand... This explains one of the reasons why the Reform party has become such a power.

The Reform party is much closer to what you would call conservative Republican.

Let me say a little bit about the Reform party because I want you to be very clear on what the Reform party is and is not... The Reform party is very much a leader-driven party.

[The Reform Party] also has some Buchananist tendencies. I know there are probably many admirers of Mr. Buchanan here, but I mean that in the sense that there are some anti-market elements in the Reform Party.

The predecessor of the Reform party, the Social Credit party, was very much like this. Believing in funny money and control of banking, and a whole bunch of fairly non-conservative economic things.

[The Reform Party is] also the most conservative socially, but it's not a theocon party, to use the term. The Reform party does favour the use of referendums and free votes in Parliament on moral issues and social issues.

Last year, when we had the Liberal government putting the protection of sexual orientation in our Human Rights Act, the Reform Party was opposed to that, but made a terrible mess of the debate. In fact, discredited itself on that issue, not just with the conventional liberal media, but even with many social conservatives by the manner in which it mishandled that.

The party system that is developing here in Canada is a party system that replicates the antebellum period, the pre-Civil War period of the United States... [T]he dynamics, the political and partisan dynamics of this, are remarkably similar.
The Bloc Québécois is equivalent to your Southern secessionists, Southern Democrats, states rights activists. The Bloc Québécois, its 44 seats, come entirely from the province of Quebec. But even more strikingly, they come from ridings, or election districts, almost entirely populated by the descendants of the original European French settlers.

If you look at the surviving PC support, it's very much concentrated in Atlantic Canada, in the provinces to the east of Quebec. These are very much equivalent to the United States border states. They're weak economically. They have very grim prospects if Quebec separates. These people want a solution at almost any cost.

The Liberal party is very much your northern Democrat, or mainstream Democratic party, a party that is less concessionary to the secessionists than the PCs, but still somewhat concessionary. And they still occupy the mainstream of public opinion in Ontario, which is the big and powerful province, politically and economically, alongside Quebec.

The Reform party is very much a modern manifestation of the Republican movement in Western Canada; the U.S. Republicans started in the western United States.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008