Not so fast Mr. Martin...

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
That's because there is no real way of foiling a PM who commands loyalty through patronage or fear.

Sure there is. Vote him out in the next election.

The problem with an elected senate is we'll end up with the situation they have in the States. When one party controls the senate and the other controls the house, they blame each other for any problems.

With the Canadian system, we know who to blame or praise.

The Trudeau Liberals and the Mulroney PCers paid the price for their arrogence.

[Tingkai]

A question for Westerners: You say you have been ignored by the Liberals, and there's lots of truth in that.

What policies do you want the next government to do specifically for the west?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, the Reform Party was formed in 1987. That makes it close to 20 years ago and it was formed as a direct challenge to PC Party.

Close, but not quite 20 yrs.

I knew it was formed in 1987, but that is late 80's.

It didn't really get off the ground until the collapse of the Progressive Conservatives, and some of the Mulroney scandals.

What usually happens is that the party rebuilds itself. But with the Reform-PC battles, it took 12 more years just to unite. They still have to pick a leader and form policies that are attractive to voters.

Again, they would have united probably in 2000 after the election defeat, had the Conservatives been amenable. They were the ones catering to the Conservatives, imploring them to stop the vote splitting. Every time they came, Joe Who refused. It is no coincidence that once Joe lost his party nomination, that they were finally able to unite.

That's going to be the interesting battle. Martin faces a tough dilemma. Call an election early while the Conservatives are just starting to get on their feet and work out policy, but get hammered on this corruption issue, or wait out the storm, and let the Conservatives get stronger.

The Triple E idea is crazy. It makes no sense for the 125,000 people in PEI to have the same power as 4 million BCers.

Why? That's the deal in the US. It is a way to balance the concerns of PEI and the East in such a way as to give them some power back. Checks and balances, so to speak.

The Distinct Society statement in the preamble merely recognised what is fact. Quebec is a distinct society with different laws, a different main language own laws, and a different culture. The accord did not contain any promises that Quebec would receive special benefits.

True, but again, the both accords were defeated strongly in the West. So again, I would be more eager to go with the historical record, rather than how we would read the reforms today.

[Ben Kenobi]

A question for Westerners: You say you have been ignored by the Liberals, and there's lots of truth in that.

What policies do you want the next government to do specifically for the west?

1. End Federal Transfer payments between provinces.
2. Open up Free Trade on Lumber with the US.

That would really help BC and Alberta.

As for Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, I know much less, not having been to either province.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It didn't really get off the ground until the collapse of the Progressive Conservatives, and some of the Mulroney scandals.

Ben, in 87 the PCs had been in power for three years. They went on to win their biggest majority in 88, a year after the Reform Party was created.

Westerners decided to create the Reform Party at the height of the PC power.

In 1992, the Reform Party took about 50 seats that normally would have gone to the PCs and cost the right-wingers about a dozen seats by siphoning off support for the PCs thereby letting the Liberals win.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Call an election early while the Conservatives are just starting to get on their feet and work out policy, but get hammered on this corruption issue, or wait out the storm, and let the Conservatives get stronger.

He'll strike early and before the results of the investigation are finished. He'll be able to say that the investigation has an extremely wide scope and he's got nothing to hide (regardless of whether that is true).

He'll also sell himself as the guy who balanced the books and produced a surplus, thereby showing his "fiscal responsibility."

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
True, but again, the both accords were defeated strongly in the West. So again, I would be more eager to go with the historical record, rather than how we would read the reforms today.

Which two accords? There was only one referendum.

If you want to go with the historical record, then look at what the preamble said. There was no promises of special benefits. However, many people incorrectly thought there were.

Distinct society was incorrectly interpreted as meaning "better society"

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Sure there is. Vote him out in the next election.

The problem with an elected senate is we'll end up with the situation they have in the States. When one party controls the senate and the other controls the house, they blame each other for any problems.

With the Canadian system, we know who to blame or praise.

The Trudeau Liberals and the Mulroney PCers paid the price for their arrogence.

That seems to be the magical answer for all that ails Confederation as far as Ontario can see. Why, wait for the next election and vote someone else in. Of course, why didn't we think of that!

However, it is somewhat unsatisfying for people who live in a province whose economy was devastated by the PET project of one ex-PM; it does little to satisfy unemployed forestry workers in BC whose federal government refuses to play hard-ball with the Yanks when the Yanks are throwing rocks at their houses; and people of the Maritimes should be enraged that the Feds presided over the destruction of the fisheries, but they somehow just take it.

The problem with a party whipped Parliament is that too much power is in the hands of one person and the cronies of that person. It was not intended to be that way, you know. Our institutions were laid with a Senate in mind to act as a check on the PM and the Commons. However, unfortunately, the lack of a mandate has castrated the Senate in the minds of Canadians, and in the minds of Senators themselves (in most cases).

Opponents of change are awefully fond of dredging up scare tactics based on the American Senate. Why should we have to follow the same lead? All that is desired is an end to the abuses of Ottawa based on the dictatorship of the PM. If the cries of the regions are not enough for you, what of the blatant theft of $100 million from the taxpayers? Something has to change, drastically. The longer this is ignored, the more likely the country is to implode.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
1. End Federal Transfer payments between provinces.

Well that's interesting. The only ones who will benefit from that are Alberta and Ontario.

BC has received transfer payments in recent years.

Personally, I think all Canadians deserve the same level of education and health care regardless of where they live. I have no problems with my tax dollars helping out the have-nots.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
A question for Westerners: You say you have been ignored by the Liberals, and there's lots of truth in that.

What policies do you want the next government to do specifically for the west?

Reform Parliament! Let the MPs rule, not just the PM's cabal.

Work the Senate into that and you would have some very happy Westerners. Transfer payments be damned!

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
However, it is somewhat unsatisfying for people who live in a province whose economy was devastated by the PET project of one ex-PM;

Why is it unsatisfying. The system worked in 1984. Trudeau was kicked out, Mulroney came in and the NEP was cancelled.

Originally posted by notyoueither
it does little to satisfy unemployed forestry workers in BC whose federal government refuses to play hard-ball with the Yanks when the Yanks are throwing rocks at their houses;

When the Americans are bent on throwing rocks, there is little that Canada can do.

Originally posted by notyoueither
and people of the Maritimes should be enraged that the Feds presided over the destruction of the fisheries, but they somehow just take it.

One of the old Tory fishing minister, the one who lives in Penticton, said that everytime he tried to cut the fishing quotas, the fishermen screamed bloody murder. They even burned his effigy.

The Maritimers were a big part of the problem. The problem with the Liberals and the Conservative governments is that they caved in to regional concerns rather than standing up for the good of the country.

Originally posted by notyoueither
Opponents of change are awefully fond of dredging up scare tactics based on the American Senate. Why should we have to follow the same lead?

How do we avoid it?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai

Why is it unsatisfying. The system worked in 1984. Trudeau was kicked out, Mulroney came in and the NEP was cancelled.

No, Tingkai, the system did not work. Alberta's economy was in ruins because of what the previous jackass did. Mulroney cancelled the policy that contributed to the melt down, but that did not stop the rapaciousness of Ottawa from initiating the melt down.

When the Americans are bent on throwing rocks, there is little that Canada can do.

Bull, and you know it. Echos of letting them freeze in the dark mean anything to you? Would it surprise you to know that there are more than a few in Alberta in favour of monkeying with the natural gas supply that that treaty assures the Yanks of so long as the Yanks do not honour that treaty to such extreme effect to others in Canada?

Even short of such in you face tactics that would severely effect many Americans in the cold belt, the GoC could stand up and say, NO! This is bull ****, and you can expect no cooperation whatsoever on any issue so long as your administration is so fvcked up on trade with Canada! But that might effect auto exports from Ontario and Quebec, better not do that.

As for the Senate, maybe study the Lords, or any number of other bicameral systems out there other than the Yanks?

[Ben Kenobi]

Well that's interesting. The only ones who will benefit from that are Alberta and Ontario.

BC has received transfer payments in recent years.

And BC is embarrassed to receive transfer payments. The current provincial Liberals are getting lambasted here because people want to lead Canada in growth, and not lag.

We don't want transfer payments.

Westerners decided to create the Reform Party at the height of the PC power.

Not Westerners. Guys like Preston Manning. Most Westerners could care less, though I must admit, they were an attractive sell to rural areas that felt left out by the Conservatives. These rural areas are the ones that are returning 75% of the votes to the Canadian Alliance.

In 1992, the Reform Party took about 50 seats that normally would have gone to the PCs and cost the right-wingers about a dozen seats by siphoning off support for the PCs thereby letting the Liberals win.

The PCs only won 2 seats across Canada! They just got hammered by everybody. To blame Reform is to dismiss major problems within the Conservative party. No party gets demolished in such an election just because of the Reformers.

Which two accords? There was only one referendum.

Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Accords.

As for the interpretations, what matters not so much is the reality, but how people saw Distinct Society back then. And back then, they saw it as more benefits for Quebec, at least in the West.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why is it unsatisfying. The system worked in 1984. Trudeau was kicked out, Mulroney came in and the NEP was cancelled.

You realise what you are saying? Do you really want people to treat the Liberals, as they did the PC back in 1992? Ignore the issues, and they will come back to haunt the Liberals.

When the Americans are bent on throwing rocks, there is little that Canada can do.

You going to say that to the unemployed Forestry worker?

Start some tariffs on the US for Oil, and for Natural Gas. Make the tariffs precisely as high as the Lumber tariffs. That's a start, and that is precisely what other countries do to the US, and they successfully get them to back down.

Otherwise, they will continue to laugh in our faces.

The Maritimers were a big part of the problem. The problem with the Liberals and the Conservative governments is that they caved in to regional concerns rather than standing up for the good of the country.

That resolves problems like Miramachi, eh? Where natives have a constitutional right to fish, regardless of the surrounding conditions?

The Feds mismanaged the fisheries, and have presided over the collapse.

And you call Harper anti-Maritimes? Wow!

How do we avoid it?

Why would we want to?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
No, Tingkai, the system did not work. Alberta's economy was in ruins because of what the previous jackass did. Mulroney cancelled the policy that contributed to the melt down, but that did not stop the rapaciousness of Ottawa from initiating the melt down.

What was the Churchill quote about it's awful, but it's less awful then the alternatives.

I agree that NEP was idiotic and should never have been done. I just not convinced that any other system would have prevented it.

Originally posted by notyoueither
Bull, and you know it. Echos of letting them freeze in the dark mean anything to you? Would it surprise you to know that there are more than a few in Alberta in favour of monkeying with the natural gas supply that that treaty assures the Yanks of so long as the Yanks do not honour that treaty to such extreme effect to others in Canada?

Even short of such in you face tactics that would severely effect many Americans in the cold belt, the GoC could stand up and say, NO! This is bull ****, and you can expect no cooperation whatsoever on any issue so long as your administration is so fvcked up on trade with Canada! But that might effect auto exports from Ontario and Quebec, better not do that.

I like it. It would be nice to see a government that had the balls to stand up against the States.

BUT, can you imagine the howls of outrage that would come from Alberta if Ottawa slapped export tarriffs on natural gas and oil. They'd be rioting in the streets of Calgary!

Originally posted by notyoueither
As for the Senate, maybe study the Lords, or any number of other bicameral systems out there other than the Yanks?

What? You want to create nobility and appoint them to the senate?

Anyways, the Brit system is not much different from ours. They both operate from a basic belief of parlimentary supremacy.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You realise what you are saying? Do you really want people to treat the Liberals, as they did the PC back in 1992? Ignore the issues, and they will come back to haunt the Liberals.

Sure, if the people believe the Liberals are completely corrupt then they can kick them out of office and elect an NDP government.

That's the beauty of our system. It allows direct response. We know who is doing a good job and who is screwing things up.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That resolves problems like Miramachi, eh? Where natives have a constitutional right to fish, regardless of the surrounding conditions?

The natives have that right. What Ottawa needs to do is sit down with them and reach an agreement that benefits all. What pisses the natives off is Ottawa coming around and trying to dictate to them about how they should manage the resource.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The Feds mismanaged the fisheries, and have presided over the collapse.

The Feds, and remember it was the Tories who were at the helm when the alarm bells were going off, did mismanage the fish stocks.

But the east coast fishermen were not innocent bystanders. They were lobbying hard to keep the quotas high.

A lot of the fishermen there recognise that there is enough blame to go around.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither
That's the question. How long will the people of Quebec support only one federalist party and thus assure either corruption, or alienation?

As I said, the Conservatives will have to show moderation, because Quebec is not at all right-wing. If they do their homework, they'll get a few odd seats in the next election, and they might be in for a comeback in 2009 (not necessarily many seats but maybe, say, the same % of votes as the liberals).

However, since I don't expect the Conservatives to go back to Mulroney-era policy anytime soon, the battle is likely to be Liberal-Bloc at least until the next referendum (either 2008 or 2012, when the PQ gets back in power).

That's why I consider Canadian politics to be a huge mess right now: Quebec is unwilling to participate in the Confederation, and it's needed to counterbalance the deep red Ontario.

If you permit me a comment: I believe Quebec's separation would be a benefit for everyone- Ontario, Maritimes, the West and Quebec. If ever someone in RoC showed initiative in discussing separation terms with Quebec, it could convince the moderate nationalists to vote YES and solve a lot of issues about Canadian politics.