I still remember the Liberal ad running on TV in B & W with troops hopping out of an armored vehicle, foreboding music in the background and the grim serious voice telling us that Harper would put the military on the street. Aside from being completely absurd, it was insulting to our military to imply that they would ever participate in such a thing without good reason.
Yes, that's true, come to think of it. I apologize for that.
It was not a broadcast ad ... it was (very) briefly on the Liberal Party's website, and then rebroadcast on news shows. It played off the fact that Harper had announced an intention to station military battalions in major cities to help in case of emergencies.
It did distort Harper's intention.
As I mentioned before, I would oppose any party that went ahead with such a thing (even the Conservatives). I can guarantee you that my Conservative MP would get a mouthful from me if the Conservatives ever tried such a thing.
Well, that's certainly your right.
I remember seeing the film on the news (from a documentary about Quebec independence) with Michaelle Jean smiling and toasting Quebec independence sitting at a table with her husband and other avowed seperatists. It didn't look to me like she was doing it against her will.
Well, she wouldn't necessarily be doing it against her will. Have you ever lived in Quebec? Do you follow Quebec politics? Sovereignists don't have horns and hooves. A family of six can have three federalists and three sovereignists. A sovereignist government has been in power 18 of the last 32 years.
In that situation, you would just go along to get along.
The Quebecois hardly talk about sovereignty now.
Of course, there is some underlying sentiment in favour of it ... and that will never go away.
But no one has managed to persuasively describe Jean as a sovereignist.
Yes, as I mentioned she did the right thing [in granting PM Harper a prorogation]. I was pleasantly surprised.
We'll just have to disagree on this.
Now a prime minister can point to a precedent that allows him just to run when he fears that a confidence will work to his disfavour.
It is, in my view, a real blemish on our democracy.
Yes, politics is a dirty business. However, Chretien was known to be quite a bully in his day with his party members and other political parties. I still remember him trying to strangle a heckler in a crowd.
You're not too concerned about details, are you? He did reach out and grab the guy's throat, and immediately dropped his arms.
Hardly an attempt to strangle the guy.
But even so, distasteful in a small-town-bully way as his act was, it was hardly destructive of Canadian democracy.
Politics is dirty. No different than when the Liberals kicked the Conservatives in the chops at any given moment when they split into different camps and were down.
They did nothing in power that would basically kneecap all the opposition parties. Harper's resolve, now withdrawn, to remove public financing would have just that effect.
It was the arrogant tone in which that was said. It was said in a way of who cares if I rip off the taxpayer as long as I get what I want. I still remember that clip running over and over again. I seethed with anger. Again, the pigs lining up at the taxpayer funded trough. Maybe you don't mind your tax dollars being hoarded and squandered, but I do.
I don't think you know how that turned out.
It was shown that Dingwall did not voluntarily resign ... but was forced out.
Two accounting firms found that charges that his expenses had been gouging in their extravagance were completely false. One of the firm's said that the Canadian Mint's monitoring of expenses was stricter than that of most private corporations.
And Dingwall finally got severance and some pension benefits.
The courts decided he was entitled to his entitlements.
I don't agree with you on that point. Even if it was tens of millions of dollars, it's still not right. You seem to excuse it like it's acceptable because it's only tens of millions of dollars.
No. I only say that if you make an accusation, you should get it right.
One Liberal minister (Alfonso Gagliano) was caught with his hand in the cookie jar by receiving kickbacks from these organizations that received government money for little or no work.
I thought the accusations against Gagliano were never that he personally benefited ("hand in the cookie jar") from the sponsorship scandal ... but that he likely knew that Joe Guité's disbursement methods were not rigorous and that the government was routinely paying too much for services rendered (and sometimes not rendered).
Nothing has been proven, and Gagliano is suing the government for several million dollars. I don't where that suit is now.
In other news: I expect that your information comes, directly or indirectly, from the Gomery Inquiry. (Correct me, please, if I am wrong about this.)
Did you know that, last June, a Federal Court judge quashed some of Gomery's conclusions and wrote that Gomery had prejudged many issues before the hearings ended?
None of this is simple stuff.
I wish the Liberals took their debts as seriously by doing the right thing and paying the money back. Most of the money from the sponsorship scandal could never be recovered.
It's like you think that Joe Guité was going to Liberal conventions and handing out hundred dollar bills.
The money went to advertising firms.
Several of those have paid back what they can. (Or have they? I can't claim to really know.)
Some of them claim not to be able to pay back anything.
A number have gone to jail.
I'm sure you're right when you say that most of the money will never be recovered.
That doesn't mean that the species
Homo liberalis is walking around with pockets full of money thanks to the sponsorship scandal.
They went after only a few ad agencies to make it look like they were doing something to appease the outraged public. Once the angered subsided, the Liberal gov't under Martin dropped it by declaring that most of the money could never be recovered.
Well, yes ... Groupaction Marketing, Group Everest, Le Groupe Polygone Éditeurs. Ad agencies ... because they were the ones who received the money.
That's your democratic right. However, on CBC news last night, they were reporting that Alberta seperatist sentiment was growing because of this proposed coalition. Albertans were angered that Central Canada was ganging up on Harper because he was "an outsider". Remember the rallying cry "the west wants in"? Now they've got in and want to stay in. A coalition with the Bloc would tear the country apart. It would fan the flames of independence in Quebec and in your province of Alberta too.
We'll have to see. I've heard much talk about Albertan separatistism, but have never met a breathing separatist. Of course, a newscast will look for someone expressing that sentiment.
The Bloc have agreed to support a Throne Speech and two budgets (or something similarly limited). I can't think that will tear the country apart, though I am always ready for surprises.
I'm not at all sure that a coalition including the Bloc will fan Quebec independence. Quebecers are quite happy to have their bread buttered on both sides.
As for Alberta, I just don't see separatist sentiment reaching any dangerous level.
But I can't predict the future.
