a canadian coalition government : yay or nay?

[Jean Poutine]

first of all, I'm a convinced conservative. I'm socially right-wing and economically right-wing. which leads me to say...

fuck this. I hate coalitions. who did the people elect as the prime minister? stephen harper. sure, he's a minority government and technically a coalition has the support of more people. however, who wants stéphane dion leading us? who wants that stupid carbon tax? people that voted NDP or Bloc are also going to feel cheated. they didn't vote for dion. dion didn't do well in the last elections because he's a weak man with no charisma, while now what we need is a strong leader like harper.

now we're about to have a woefully impopular leader steal the government from a popular man. whazzat?

for the record, the bloc québécois is in the coalition. it won't get any seats in the cabinet, but it gets the balance of power. I predict many concessions to come...that's unfair to every non-quebécois canadian out there. i'm saying that, and I'm québécois!

we wanted a conservative government with a strong opposition to keep them in check. what we're going to get is a coalition against which the conservatives cannot do anything. and to hear dion saying last campaign that harper is arrogant and authoritarian...lol...

what a democracy. if this coalition goes through I'm voting parti québécois in the provincial elections only to get all the goodies that would get québec. I had originally planned to vote liberal and I don't agree with any of the messages the PQ stands for, but gotta get 'em candies where we can, right?

other opinions?

[Maverick]

I can't believe Cody Whisper hasn't posted here yet. He practically has wet dreams about Stéphane Dion becoming PM - he babbles to me on MSN about it all the time about it. Hopefully now that I bumped this he'll post here.

[Neverender]

well id like to say that canadian politics is like a fight in the sand box at the playground. 1 manages to get the bucket, while the other gets one, then another one gets the bucket and then dosn't use it (Steven Harper's lousy government), but he won't give it back (forcing elections), so the others are joining up to get the bucket back. but they choose a guy who is weak and is likely to get the box taken away from him again (Stephane Dion), and then you have another one (Gilles Duceppe) who wants the bucket and half of the sandbox to play in, and another one who dosn't get the bucket at all and dosn't get a turn (Jack Layton, NDP), but is now beginning to fight for it (he took control of northern BC). and then you have Elizabeth May, hasn't and never will get the bucket (she has 0 seats, or is it 1, I forget). and then you have the support of the provinces (the posse for each guy in the sand box who'll help get the bucket), Ralph Klein supports (or used to) steven harper, so steven has a slightly better chance to get funds (sand to throw in others eyes) and support. Danny Williams hates steven harper, and he allied with the liberals and NDP, but not the Bloc, he isn't too friendly to them. and then you have Dalton Mcguinty in Ontairio, hes for the liberals, thats it. NDP has Labrador, northen BC, and toronto, pretty good deal. and everything going on in canadian politics is summed up in that little story. confusing, yes.


and if the coalition has their way, the conservatives would look like this, the same as they did in '93:

Red - Liberal
Orange - NDP
Light Blue - Bloc Quebecois
Blue - Conservative
Green - Reform
Grey - Independant

320
(Click image to enlarge)

[Whisper]

Dude commons wouldn't look like that....
some of those partys don't even exist anymore





first of all, I'm a convinced conservative. I'm socially right-wing and economically right-wing. which leads me to say... Ahhh stay the fuck out of my health care system then, the charter of rights and freedoms? ya thats liberal too. Oh the Canadian flag? Guilty as charged


fuck this. I hate coalitions. who did the people elect as the prime minister? stephen harper. sure, he's a minority government and technically a coalition has the support of more people. however, who wants stéphane dion leading us? who wants that stupid carbon tax? people that voted NDP or Bloc are also going to feel cheated. they didn't vote for dion. dion didn't do well in the last elections because he's a weak man with no charisma, while now what we need is a strong leader like harper.
Fist of all lets be clear some 65% didn't vote for him (http://web.ncf.ca/ek867/harper1.jpg) no its not photo shopped...he's really that ugly
Its not a carbon tax if your going to attack the left side know your shit
There is a great deal more to the green shift policy it won international praise as a solid green deal will helping citizens and providing economic incentives NOT necessarly costs. It was also dropped I might add so if your going to PMS over a coalition....again....Know your shit before you speak
He didn't do well in the last election because Harper broke his own law, his own 4yr set election man date and then allowed only 4 weeks the shortest time constitutionally allowed and now is trying one month later to throw us into another one after refusing to listen to 65% of the house.
Harper isn't a strong leader he went crawling to the governor general on his hands and knees like a dog to avoid the wrath of the Canadian people

now we're about to have a woefully impopular leader steal the government from a popular man. whazzat?
Negative
Stephane Dion unfortunately will not be the leader Michael ignatieff will

for the record, the bloc québécois is in the coalition. it won't get any seats in the cabinet, but it gets the balance of power. I predict many concessions to come...that's unfair to every non-quebécois canadian out there. i'm saying that, and I'm québécois!
For the Record, you're an idiot. the Bloc Québécois is NOT in the coalition they are supporting it with a legal mandate of 18months meaning they are NOT IN THE COALITION they are just going to vote yes on any vote concerning confidence
They do not get the balance of power they are FORCED to vote YES for a minimum of 18 months
HOLLY SHIT a neo conservative in Quebec!!! wow......you are lost aren't you


we wanted a conservative government with a strong opposition to keep them in check. what we're going to get is a coalition against which the conservatives cannot do anything. and to hear dion saying last campaign that harper is arrogant and authoritarian...lol...
He is
Harper has been ruling the house of commons with brass knuckles, he's openly threatened and attacked and lied and manipulated on a scale I could never have imagined I can't believe I voted for him the first time


what a democracy. if this coalition goes through I'm voting parti québécois in the provincial elections only to get all the goodies that would get québec. I had originally planned to vote liberal and I don't agree with any of the messages the PQ stands for, but gotta get 'em candies where we can, right?

other opinions?

Ya go for it I don't care I really don't Harper has been screaming and bitching and threatening and slamming Quebec and the "separatists"
If it does come down to another referendum and the rest of Canada has a say I guarantee you you'll be gone
For the first time since the mid 90's in the middle of a huge economic recession (that I might add he's doing fuck all about and did fuck all about last time before he called the illegal election) he's also risking the federation

Besides hun were used to Quebec havung temper tantrums and getting what it wants
Harper was the one who declared you a nation within a nation and who gave you your own UNESCO seat
and when were making all these cuts everywhere else we're STILL paying for Quebec to have its own embassy's

So no matter who's in power until we kick you out or you grow out of the terrible two's... unlikely
it will never stop
That's why Alberta takes care of the West
and the Atlantic


O and as far as leaving the majority of Quebec falls under legally binding native land claims
and in 95 they had NO INTEREST in leaving
meaning your "Nation" was going to be a narrow little southern strip
and none of the agreements we have with the states will transfer
and Canada will tell you to fuck off and die




edit = fixed the link

[CaptainObvious]

Ahhh stay the fuck out of my health care system then, the charter of rights and freedoms? ya thats liberal too. Oh the Canadian flag? Guilty as charged

Universal health care was not conceived by the Liberal party. It was conceived by the CCF. Get it right.

As for the Charter, it was preceded by the Bill of Rights, which while flawed was the basis for the Charter - and was enacted by a Progressive Conservative (John Diefenbaker).

We could go on and on, but sufficed to say the exampls you have given are incorrect and/or meaningless to the discussion.

Fist of all lets be clear some 65% didn't vote for him no its not photo shopped...he's really that ugly
Its not a carbon tax if your going to attack the left side know your shit
There is a great deal more to the green shift policy it won international praise as a solid green deal will helping citizens and providing economic incentives NOT necessarly costs. It was also dropped I might add so if your going to PMS over a coalition....again....Know your shit before you speak
He didn't do well in the last election because Harper broke his own law, his own 4yr set election man date and then allowed only 4 weeks the shortest time constitutionally allowed and now is trying one month later to throw us into another one after refusing to listen to 65% of the house.
Harper isn't a strong leader he went crawling to the governor general on his hands and knees like a dog to avoid the wrath of the Canadian people

Wow you're mixed up. The green shift was, more than anything else, the reason for Dion's defeat. It is terrible in the policy sense - good eventually, but not in the current economic state in which implementing it would be a complete disaster - and even worse in the political sense. I am frankly floored that you think it's great; even if you're a rabid environmentalist anyone with half a brain can see that it destroyed Dion's campaign. Prominent Liberal advisors have made statements to the effect that they advised him against it strenuously and he ignored them.

Now, what are you talking about when you say "He didn't do well in the last election because Harper broke his own law, his own 4yr set election man date"? That statement makes absolutely no sense.

Even more muddled is your statement that Harper is trying to throw the country into an election. That is just so stupid I can almost not believe you'd say it... you think Harper wants an election? Hell no - it's probably the last thing he wants. There's not going to be a Liberal leader as incompetent as Dion for a long time... this may have been Harper's best possible election result ever (including the future), and I'm sure he knows that.

Your statement that Harper is avoiding the "wrath of the Canadian people" is also flatly wrong. Polls show that Canadians trust the Conservatives more than the coalition on economic management issues, among other things. The only wrath I think you could say Harper is obviously avoiding is that of the opposition. And, for the record, since Harper won the most votes of the parties, it takes a mightily blind partisan (you) to assume that the preponderance of the population hates him. In fact, outside of Quebec (Bloc-dominated), the Conservative party has a significant majority of seats. I'm not saying to disregard Quebec, but the presence of the Bloc distorts the picture.

Negative
Stephane Dion unfortunately will not be the leader Michael ignatieff will

Not right away. And that's the crux of why the coalition is a terrible idea - much as Harper may not be a perfect (or even good, depending on your point of view) PM, we have to think of the economy. And the absolutely wors thing for the economy right now would be to have the government seen as being unstable and fractious with weak leadership - exactly what the coalition would be.

the Bloc Québécois is NOT in the coalition they are supporting it with a legal mandate of 18months meaning they are NOT IN THE COALITION they are just going to vote yes on any vote concerning confidence
They do not get the balance of power they are FORCED to vote YES for a minimum of 18 months
HOLLY SHIT a neo conservative in Quebec!!! wow......you are lost aren't you

While the BQ are not in the coalition, because their vote would represent the only way to maintain the coalition, they do hold a significant amount of power. Furthermore, they are not forced to vote any way - you can't legally bind a party or its members into future voting decisions. The fact is, like it or not, the BQ would gain a significant amount of power in such a coalition. Whether that's for better or worse is your decision, but it's a fact that it will occur.

For the Record, you're an idiot.

Pot, meet kettle. So far, you're at least matching him on factually incorrect statements.

Let's be real here. The coalition is not in the interests of Canada. Furthermore, it's simply not going to happen. Having prorogued Parliament, Harper has won. He will maneuver and get the support of one of the opposition parties and maintain the government. Now, I actually consider the threat of coalition a positive thing, because it forced Harper to take action on the issue of economic stimulus. The fact that he originally didn't was an oversight. However, the political backlash that led to the coalition was about the party funding removal - which I fully support. Parties should raise their own money; the taxpayers should not be the funding source for political organizations of any type.

The bottom line is that you're rabidly anti-Harper, and the arguments you've made here don't reach even a minimal standard of justification for the coalition. I'm not the biggest fan of Harper myself - I like his economic and foreign policies in general and the fact that he's coldly intellectual, which I find lacking in politics generally compared to stupid rhetoric, but dislike his social policies and some of his political tactics which border on somewhat too pushy for me - but this is just excessive. Partisanship and wild insults the like of which you've been throwing around have no place in a discussion like this.

[Jean Poutine]

Ahhh stay the fuck out of my health care system then, the charter of rights and freedoms? ya thats liberal too. Oh the Canadian flag? Guilty as charged
k

Fist of all lets be clear some 65% didn't vote for him (http://web.ncf.ca/ek867/harper1.jpg) no its not photo shopped...he's really that ugly
I said that.

Its not a carbon tax if your going to attack the left side know your shit
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ia34DkAf2L8xJhmL1q8qRK7LOKIg

It was also dropped I might add so if your going to PMS over a coalition....again....Know your shit before you speak
The GST was also supposed to be temporary.

If Dion was suicidal enough to throw that out on a population burdened by taxes (it is a tax 'cause the AFP said so) during elections, who says he won't be trying to make it eat us with his super mega majority coalition?

He didn't do well in the last election because Harper broke his own law, his own 4yr set election man date and then allowed only 4 weeks the shortest time constitutionally allowed and now is trying one month later to throw us into another one after refusing to listen to 65% of the house.
Poor Stéphane!

BTW, at least in Québec, throwing an election would be suicide.

Harper isn't a strong leader he went crawling to the governor general on his hands and knees like a dog to avoid the wrath of the Canadian people
lol.

Negative
Stephane Dion unfortunately will not be the leader Michael ignatieff will
When I wrote this post, leadership candidates were still backing Dion.

For the Record, you're an idiot. the Bloc Québécois is NOT in the coalition they are supporting it with a legal mandate of 18months meaning they are NOT IN THE COALITION they are just going to vote yes on any vote concerning confidence
Then they might as well be in. Stop playing on words.

If we decide to start a business, I fill up all the papers (thus the business is legally mine) but I consult you on every matter regarding the business, are we or are we not business partners?

They do not get the balance of power they are FORCED to vote YES for a minimum of 18 months
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/01/coalition-talks.html

The Bloc would not officially be a part of the coalition, but the new government's survival would depend on its support.

The wording indicates the support is not forced.

HOLLY SHIT a neo conservative in Quebec!!! wow......you are lost aren't you
Nah. My kin are just too busy whining after daddy Duceppe to reconsider.

He is
Harper has been ruling the house of commons with brass knuckles, he's openly threatened and attacked and lied and manipulated on a scale I could never have imagined I can't believe I voted for him the first time
Perhaps so. I never said he wasn't. Welcome to politics. In politics, all of the above makes him a strong leader.

That's what we need.

Ya go for it I don't care I really don't Harper has been screaming and bitching and threatening and slamming Quebec and the "separatists"
Being a federalist, I agree with such slamming. Sovereignty is a delusion.

If it does come down to another referendum and the rest of Canada has a say I guarantee you you'll be gone
Such friendliness!

But hey buddy, we're a country. We gotta stick together in hard times.

Though I'm not stupid enough to think that all of the ROC is out for our skin. If you guys hate us so much, explain C-20.

For the first time since the mid 90's in the middle of a huge economic recession (that I might add he's doing fuck all about and did fuck all about last time before he called the illegal election) he's also risking the federation
Now he's doing something about it. As above poster has said, at least this got him to move his ass.

Besides hun were used to Quebec havung temper tantrums and getting what it wants
That's a sad truth.

Harper was the one who declared you a nation within a nation and who gave you your own UNESCO seat
Yep. The "nation within a nation" shit is meaningless. The UNESCO seat is nice, though.

We should've got nothing, actually. Québec is in Canada and Québec City's Old Town is also in Canada. The seat belongs to Canada, no one else, not even Québec.

and when were making all these cuts everywhere else we're STILL paying for Quebec to have its own embassy's
That is most unfortunate. The Councils for Quebec are superfluous and aren't needed. Besides, how many Québécois know they exist?

So no matter who's in power until we kick you out or you grow out of the terrible two's... unlikely
Quebec needs to stop crying, although, so do you.

I just wonder what it'd be like if the situation was reversed - Québec being strong economically and the West being weak. Would you still want to kick us out?

it will never stop
That's why Alberta takes care of the West
and the Atlantic
This kind of attitude is why I'll laugh my ass off when oil is either meaningless, or you run out.

I hope you've been as smart as Norway and didn't let Bucks Klein spend every penny!

O and as far as leaving the majority of Quebec falls under legally binding native land claims
and in 95 they had NO INTEREST in leaving
Arrangements made by the gov't of Canada, and more than 90% of Innus declared they wanted to stay inside Canada should Quebec separate. I know all of this. Why are you taking me for a separatist?

meaning your "Nation" was going to be a narrow little southern strip
It's never going to be a "narrow little southern strip" since it's never going to be a true nation. The Québécois people are a broken people. We don't even know what we want.

I wouldn't even trust my share holdings to a Parti Québécois Minister of Finance.

But hey, size doesn't matter, or so chicks say.

and none of the agreements we have with the states will transfer
85% of our trade is with the United States. States such as Vermont and Maine are heavily tied with Quebec's economy. It wouldn't be smart to not get separate trade agreements.

and Canada will tell you to fuck off and die
That would be akin to political suicide. Who likes Serbia after throwing a tantrum after Kosovo got out democratically?

[CaptainObvious]

That would be akin to political suicide. Who likes Serbia after throwing a tantrum after Kosovo got out democratically?

Well for the record, that situation is a little difference since Kosovo had a massive genocide perpetrated upon it by the Serbian government and all...

[Whisper]

Universal health care was not conceived by the Liberal party. It was conceived by the CCF. Get it right.

As for the Charter, it was preceded by the Bill of Rights, which while flawed was the basis for the Charter - and was enacted by a Progressive Conservative (John Diefenbaker).

We could go on and on, but sufficed to say the exampls you have given are incorrect and/or meaningless to the discussion.
First of all:
“During his time as Prime Minister, Pearson's minority government introduced universal health care, student loans, the Canada Pension Plan, the Order of Canada, and the current Canadian flag.”

“Trudeau was a charismatic figure who, from the late 1960s until the mid-1980s, dominated the Canadian political scene and aroused passionate reactions. "Reason before passion" was his personal motto.[1] "He haunts us still," biographers Christina McCall and Stephen Clarkson wrote in 1990.[2] Admirers praise the force of Trudeau's intellect.[3] They salute his political acumen in preserving national unity and establishing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms within Canada's constitution.”





Wow you're mixed up. The green shift was, more than anything else, the reason for Dion's defeat. It is terrible in the policy sense - good eventually, but not in the current economic state in which implementing it would be a complete disaster - and even worse in the political sense. I am frankly floored that you think it's great; even if you're a rabid environmentalist anyone with half a brain can see that it destroyed Dion's campaign. Prominent Liberal advisors have made statements to the effect that they advised him against it strenuously and he ignored them.
The green shift was exactly what it sounds like a shift
They had a calculator up and my family alone would have saved allot of cash
Granted the consumers would ultimate pay for increases in production costs but again that equals out
Canada as a country is in a very good state to take on the economic recession why? because under liberal rule we paid off our debt
The only G7 country to have done so and we as a country are packed with wide ranging natural recourses from oil and softwood lumber, some of the worlds highest praised diamonds to the largest uranium mines and fresh water etc...
Speaking as someone who has lived all over the west and traveled to the east Canada will be fine
the only industry's that are in trouble are lumber and auto the bail out will happen in a few weeks the gov's are just playing hardball and forestry stocks are already starting to slowly climb people NEED to build and in order to do that you NEED softwood ever try hammering a nail through hardwood? it's shit cracks instantly.
Is Alberta continuing its growth? no we've stabilized which is a good thing because our infostructer was falling dangerously behind, there are still tens of thousands of wells being drilled
Oil prices will climb once OPEC finalized the production cuts and demand spikes were in the middle of a war...it wont take long

The reason the green shift hurt Dion is because he can't speak english very well
a snap and ILLEGAL election was called and the shortest campigne time constitutionally allowed was given
then Harper started screaming like a broken record carbon tax carbon tax carbon tax
I'm actually thankful to his stupidity and Quebec's arrogance the bloc is the only thing that kept him from a majority



Now, what are you talking about when you say "He didn't do well in the last election because Harper broke his own law, his own 4yr set election man date"? That statement makes absolutely no sense.
Then you didn't pay attention to his first election the promises he made or the laws he brought to fruition
among them was a set 4yr man date in other words instead of whenever you feel like within 5yrs it was supposed to be a fixed date every 4yrs the next one was supposed to be fall of 09
Harper did not want to risk touching the constitution especially with only a minority to put it in there every time anyone goes near the constitution Quebec starts making horribly outlandish demands
So it's just law
This was mentioned by the opposition parties but Harper did a PR spin and since very few Canadians ever really pay attention to politics nobody cared

Can you believe it was one of the main reasons I voted for Harper in his first election
Ya ask Rudi or Anthony I used to be conservative


Even more muddled is your statement that Harper is trying to throw the country into an election. That is just so stupid I can almost not believe you'd say it... you think Harper wants an election? Hell no - it's probably the last thing he wants. There's not going to be a Liberal leader as incompetent as Dion for a long time... this may have been Harper's best possible election result ever (including the future), and I'm sure he knows that.
It's EXACTLY what he wants
he would claim it as the oppositions fault for forcing his had with the coalition hes already screaming is unconstitutional and undemocratic which it isn't hell its exactly what he tried with martin
If an election was called RIGHT NOW he'd probly get a majority out of the west and Atlantic just to shut Ottawa the hell up


Your statement that Harper is avoiding the "wrath of the Canadian people" is also flatly wrong. Polls show that Canadians trust the Conservatives more than the coalition on economic management issues, among other things. The only wrath I think you could say Harper is obviously avoiding is that of the opposition. And, for the record, since Harper won the most votes of the parties, it takes a mightily blind partisan (you) to assume that the preponderance of the population hates him. In fact, outside of Quebec (Bloc-dominated), the Conservative party has a significant majority of seats. I'm not saying to disregard Quebec, but the presence of the Bloc distorts the picture.

Okay first of all there are 4 main party's
Liberals are left wing
NDP are far left wing
And since duceppe the bloc is swaying left

Harper has a stronger mandate but its still a what? MINORITY i don't know how I could make it any clearer MINOOOORIIITY

The majority of people are freaking because they like the original post beilive falsly that the bloc has veto over the coalition or that the NDP would have a massive say
they'd have 6 minor seats

Harper wants to destroy the opposition he has no interest in throwing soft punches he never has
he wants complete dominance which is why he is now trying to financially starve them
among other things


Not right away. And that's the crux of why the coalition is a terrible idea - much as Harper may not be a perfect (or even good, depending on your point of view) PM, we have to think of the economy. And the absolutely wors thing for the economy right now would be to have the government seen as being unstable and fractious with weak leadership - exactly what the coalition would be.
I disagree that it will be seen as weak as far as foreign investment take a look at the states you seriously think there in great shape? ya Obama has provided allot of hope which is good for investment but it'll take allot more than hope to fix Americas economic problems
Canada is right behind Saudi Arabia for oil production....you seriously think the middle east is a safer investment area


While the BQ are not in the coalition, because their vote would represent the only way to maintain the coalition, they do hold a significant amount of power. Furthermore, they are not forced to vote any way - you can't legally bind a party or its members into future voting decisions. The fact is, like it or not, the BQ would gain a significant amount of power in such a coalition. Whether that's for better or worse is your decision, but it's a fact that it will occur.
They are voting yes to all non-confidence votes guaranteed for 18 months where it can be extended or not
which will amount to a total of 3 max the throne speech and two budgets
Ya they will have a bigger say but they already have a huge say HARPER MADE THEM A NATION, gave them there own UNESCO seat and has allowed and is even footing the embassy bills among other things

This has to be resolved sooner or later
Either they ship up, leave or continue to have fits and bully the rest of us around
the rest of Canada needs to stand up to them that hasn't happened yet for decades they DEMNAD FOR IT'S THEIR RIGHT!! and we give and they demand and we give and so on and so fourth

Give someone enough rope and they'll hang themselves

There are also two federal parties that make up the coalition
so thats still a large fight for the traitors




Pot, meet kettle. So far, you're at least matching him on factually incorrect statements.
That dosn't even make sense and for someone so high and mighty you've
provided zero facts of your own
you havn't even shown your own all you've done is say i'm wrong in long winded paragraphs
you haven't given me a reason
you haven't provided facts to support
nothing
just conjection


Let's be real here. The coalition is not in the interests of Canada. Furthermore, it's simply not going to happen. Having prorogued Parliament, Harper has won. He will maneuver and get the support of one of the opposition parties and maintain the government. Now, I actually consider the threat of coalition a positive thing, because it forced Harper to take action on the issue of economic stimulus. The fact that he originally didn't was an oversight. However, the political backlash that led to the coalition was about the party funding removal - which I fully support. Parties should raise their own money; the taxpayers should not be the funding source for political organizations of any type.
Micheal taking over does make things more interesting but the NDP are still all for it ad a good deal of the liberals are
I think it is good for Canada it won't last longer than 18months if that but Haprer will be removed and with a new conservative and micheal now ruling the liberals it refreshes the political scene
Every democratic country has some sort of government help to parties thats democratic that protects minority's in Canada there are STRICT regulations on how much can be given already I as a citizen should have to hand over cash terrified that my party might not have the money it needs to go forward were heading into a recession and you want family to just hand out hundreds of dollars the amount of cash from federal levels were talking is only a few million on a federal level thats fucking nothing
Harper's just being Harper he's like an alcoholic just when you think he's doing better he falls of the bandwagon
he has no interest in an opposition he wants total dominance
He has treated the media like shit
He treats his own party like shit ruling with an iron fist
He has ruled commons with brass knuckled for yrs

65% of people voted for the other parties
they have the democratic right to have there voice protected
if the people they elected to represent them believe this is the best way to protect there interests then thats there democratic right

The bottom line is that you're rabidly anti-Harper, and the arguments you've made here don't reach even a minimal standard of justification for the coalition. I'm not the biggest fan of Harper myself - I like his economic and foreign policies in general and the fact that he's coldly intellectual, which I find lacking in politics generally compared to stupid rhetoric, but dislike his social policies and some of his political tactics which border on somewhat too pushy for me - but this is just excessive. Partisanship and wild insults the like of which you've been throwing around have no place in a discussion like this.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
first of all I could say the same about you with Dion
and as long as its within the rules which everything I've done is (trust me I know them rather well...I helped write them)
I can say whatever I like
The reason I stated the flag, health care, etc.... is because i'm trying to prove a point
Canada as a country has always been more liberal than conservative even Harper openly states to the public and warns his constituents that he has to water down his policys to make them more inline with the Canadian people
Do i beilive in a strong military? abso-fucking-lutly
Do I think the North needs to be protects yes
Do I think we need to hold to our afghan mandate YES

But there are other concerns aswell
which is why minority gov's rule
more room for opinions
and policys are more moderate


I think the coalition and just the bullshit in Ottawa period is great
It has sparked more interest in a few days then has been seen in 3yrs
The worst enemy of democracy is apathy



This is why I never posted anything in here ant
I fucking hate debates

[CaptainObvious]

Let's start by getting something out of the way: paragraphs are used to group ideas logically. You create a paragraph by hitting enter a couple of times, and then not hitting enter again until the paragraph is done.

you dont
write paragraphs by hitting
enter at
arbitary places because that makes your
posts hard to read.

see
what
i mean?

That, said, let's move on:

First of all:
“During his time as Prime Minister, Pearson's minority government introduced universal health care, student loans, the Canada Pension Plan, the Order of Canada, and the current Canadian flag.”

Yes, and I disputed that where? Federal universal healthcare was instituted by Pearson, but Douglas was the one who created the system in the first place upon which the federal system was directly modeled. Pearson can take credit for having known a good ieda when he saw one. That's it. He wasn't the visionary in this.

“Trudeau was a charismatic figure who, from the late 1960s until the mid-1980s, dominated the Canadian political scene and aroused passionate reactions. "Reason before passion" was his personal motto.[1] "He haunts us still," biographers Christina McCall and Stephen Clarkson wrote in 1990.[2] Admirers praise the force of Trudeau's intellect.[3] They salute his political acumen in preserving national unity and establishing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms within Canada's constitution.”

Thank you for posting something I never disagreed with. My point was merely that the Charter, while extremely important, was preceded and presaged by the Bill of Rights. You're cherrypicking what to pick to give credit for, which is classic partisanship. Acting like the Liberal party has had sole monopoly of every good Canadian idea over the last century is just stupid, pure and simple.

The green shift was exactly what it sounds like a shift
They had a calculator up and my family alone would have saved allot of cash
Granted the consumers would ultimate pay for increases in production costs but again that equals out
Canada as a country is in a very good state to take on the economic recession why? because under liberal rule we paid off our debt

Yes, it's a shift. A terrible shift for Canada's economy. And you gave the reason why it's terrible yourself:

The only G7 country to have done so and we as a country are packed with wide ranging natural recourses from oil and softwood lumber, some of the worlds highest praised diamonds to the largest uranium mines and fresh water etc...

Other than fresh water, the industries you just listed are, to a one, some of the worst greenhouse polluters that would almost certainly be hit hardest under Dion's proposed shift. So... our economic stability is supposed to come from the natural resource industries that we would gut with a carbon tax? Doesn't quite seem like a logical train of thought to me...

The reason the green shift hurt Dion is because he can't speak english very well
a snap and ILLEGAL election was called and the shortest campigne time constitutionally allowed was given

That's just patently false. The green shift hurt Dion because Canadians don't want a carbonx tax, even with offset on other taxes. Top-ranking Liberal strategists said as much; at least one top-level adviser anonymously interviewed right after the election stated that all of Dion's advisers told him point-blank that the Green Shift would destroy his campaign. And it did. This isn't rocket science, and it's not because he can't speak English very well.

Then you didn't pay attention to his first election the promises he made or the laws he brought to fruition
among them was a set 4yr man date in other words instead of whenever you feel like within 5yrs it was supposed to be a fixed date every 4yrs the next one was supposed to be fall of 09
Harper did not want to risk touching the constitution especially with only a minority to put it in there every time anyone goes near the constitution Quebec starts making horribly outlandish demands
So it's just law
This was mentioned by the opposition parties but Harper did a PR spin and since very few Canadians ever really pay attention to politics nobody cared

The argument is that Harper didn't summarily call an election - which was what the election law was designed to prevent - but rather ended a tenuous and unworkable parliament that was bound to fall apart sooner than later. Is that a strong argument? Frankly I don't know because being out of country at school has sort of kept me out of the day-to-day news from the Hill... either way though, since the GG dissolved Parliament she obviously didn't consider the law to be a pertinent legal obstacle. Maybe you should take it up with her.

It's EXACTLY what he wants
he would claim it as the oppositions fault for forcing his had with the coalition hes already screaming is unconstitutional and undemocratic which it isn't hell its exactly what he tried with martin
If an election was called RIGHT NOW he'd probly get a majority out of the west and Atlantic just to shut Ottawa the hell up

Come on, use your brain.

At this point in time, with a viable coalition waiting, the GG will not call another election. Not so soon after the last. So the option's really off the table anyways. That said, it belies your rabid anti-Harper stance that you consider this all a ploy by Harper. I can't quite understand that point of view, since by all accounts the backlash and coalition agreement took him and his Cabinet by surprise. Furthermore, it has certainly put them in a weakened position. Harper's a smart guy - pushing for an election at this time is not only impossible, but it would make him look like a fool in front of Canada. The reality is the only thing more unpopular than this coalition would be another election so soon after the last - and Harper knows that. He's not looking for one. And, frankly, nobody thinks he is - not political commentators, not the opposition parties, not any person I've talked to - except for you.

Okay first of all there are 4 main party's
Liberals are left wing
NDP are far left wing
And since duceppe the bloc is swaying left

Harper has a stronger mandate but its still a what? MINORITY i don't know how I could make it any clearer MINOOOORIIITY

The majority of people are freaking because they like the original post beilive falsly that the bloc has veto over the coalition or that the NDP would have a massive say
they'd have 6 minor seats

Harper wants to destroy the opposition he has no interest in throwing soft punches he never has
he wants complete dominance which is why he is now trying to financially starve them
among other things

I'm sorry, were you going to respond to the fact that polling shows that Harper and the Conservatives' economic leadership is trusted above that of the coalition? Or is that just an inconvenient fact to ignore?

As for hard punches, I agree. On the other hand, since when is getting rid of the public funding a bad thing? All of the parties will be very much hurt by the move, including the conservatives, who also get a majority of their funding out of it. The difference is that by getting rid of it, the laziness of recent years on the part of the parties - the Liberals being the biggest example, who with the end of slush-fund corporate donations apparently decided to just give up on fundraising and suckle on the taxpayers' teat - can be ameliorated quickly, and at a significant savings to the taxpayers. Why should my tax dollars support political organizations?

I disagree that it will be seen as weak as far as foreign investment take a look at the states you seriously think there in great shape? ya Obama has provided allot of hope which is good for investment but it'll take allot more than hope to fix Americas economic problems
Canada is right behind Saudi Arabia for oil production....you seriously think the middle east is a safer investment area

What...are...you..saying? Is your contention that because America's not doing well and we're not in the Middle East that automatically makes us great for foreign investment? Think again.

But investment wasn't even really the point of what I was saying. My point is that perceived political turmoil can quickly ruin a country's economy. And there's nothing more tumultuous than an unstable coalition led by three individually very unpopular leaders - and yes, I know Ignatieff will become leader eventually, but not in the short term, which right now is what matters. You think Bay Street is going to be comfortable with the idea of a bunch of NDP cabinet ministers and the Bloc hanging around in the wings? Think again. Whether you consider it rightly or wrongly, a coalition of this type would be disastrous for business, and thus the economy. Not what we need right now.

Micheal taking over does make things more interesting but the NDP are still all for it ad a good deal of the liberals are
I think it is good for Canada it won't last longer than 18months if that but Haprer will be removed and with a new conservative and micheal now ruling the liberals it refreshes the political scene
Every democratic country has some sort of government help to parties thats democratic that protects minority's in Canada there are STRICT regulations on how much can be given already I as a citizen should have to hand over cash terrified that my party might not have the money it needs to go forward were heading into a recession and you want family to just hand out hundreds of dollars the amount of cash from federal levels were talking is only a few million on a federal level thats fucking nothing

You need to proofread more. This is extremely bungled and has no punctuation in it. Am I expected to just add that in as I go along? Because, really, you're better situated to do that...

However, to address the point I think you're making, a few million on the federal level (30 million, actually) is not a lot, but it's not nothing.

I do a lot of economics, so I like to think in terms of incentives. Such massive public funding incentivizes political parties to be very sluggish at rounding up donations. You know why that's a problem? It means we'll never have a dynamic and grassroots-organized campaigner like Obama in Canada. Obama was so successful because, recognizing the need for money, he created a massive grassroots network of small-money (<$100 mostly) donors. And he used that network to sweep the nation. We need to incentivize that kind of positive political activity in Canada, not disincentivize it.

They are voting yes to all non-confidence votes guaranteed for 18 months where it can be extended or not
which will amount to a total of 3 max the throne speech and two budgets
Ya they will have a bigger say but they already have a huge say HARPER MADE THEM A NATION, gave them there own UNESCO seat and has allowed and is even footing the embassy bills among other things

Those are all completely insignificant but brilliant political moves on his part. He gave Quebec essentially nothing, and in return defused the separatists, again. It is rather roundly agreed that though the nation move was obvious pandering it was also extremely effective at its purpose - defusing the separatists without giving any real concessions.

That dosn't even make sense and for someone so high and mighty you've
provided zero facts of your own
you havn't even shown your own all you've done is say i'm wrong in long winded paragraphs
you haven't given me a reason
you haven't provided facts to support
nothing
just conjection

The word is conjecture, and frankly you'd do well to learn how to write pragraphs yourself. And use punctuation, for that matter.

With regard to facts, I've provided the ones I need for my argument, which isn't that many since mainly I've been pointing out the flaws in yours. What would you like me to further factually substantiate?

Canada as a country has always been more liberal than conservative even Harper openly states to the public and warns his constituents that he has to water down his policys to make them more inline with the Canadian people

That is definitely true, and it's why I consider Harper such a brilliant politician - he has managed to hold onto power when by all metrics he is not in the right part of the political continuum for this country. By rights, there should be a Liberal government.

And, for the record, while I'm anti-Dion, I'm anti-Dion because he's a horrible, horrible politician and even worse leader. Had Bob Rae or even potentially Iggy been in charge this time around, it's pretty likely I would've voted Liberal - I don't idolize Harper, I just want politicians who know how to get things done and lead firmly. Dion is capable of neither. Which is why it's such a tragedy for the Liberal party that he was nominated. With two amazing choices available (Rae and Ignatieff), the Liberals instead chose the crap third option and wasted 2 years in the political hinterlands. And everyone, including the Liberals, seems to see that. I'm a little confused by why you don't. Harper could be Satan himself and it wouldn't make Dion a good leader... just comparatively a little less horrible. ;)

and as long as its within the rules which everything I've done is (trust me I know them rather well...I helped write them)

Well you must have written them a while ago, because apparently you need a refresher:

No fighting, flaming, or bashing. Such events will be reported to an administrator. Depending on the severity, any participants in a fight/flame/bash may be warned or banned.

For the Record, you're an idiot.

So does that mean I can call you an idiot and it's not a violation of the rules? Please clarify.

[Whisper]

Let's start by getting something out of the way: paragraphs are used to group ideas logically. You create a paragraph by hitting enter a couple of times, and then not hitting enter again until the paragraph is done.

you dont
write paragraphs by hitting
enter at
arbitary places because that makes your
posts hard to read.

see
what
i mean?

That, said, let's move on:
I've typed this way for 4 and a half years
If you have a problem with it
don't
talk
to
me



Yes, and I disputed that where? Federal universal healthcare was instituted by Pearson, but Douglas was the one who created the system in the first place upon which the federal system was directly modeled. Pearson can take credit for having known a good ieda when he saw one. That's it. He wasn't the visionary in this.
Your opinion


Thank you for posting something I never disagreed with. My point was merely that the Charter, while extremely important, was preceded and presaged by the Bill of Rights. You're cherrypicking what to pick to give credit for, which is classic partisanship. Acting like the Liberal party has had sole monopoly of every good Canadian idea over the last century is just stupid, pure and simple.
No what I'm trying to do is show that Canada as a country has had a long history of Liberal policy's and liberal ideals
The liberal party is the oldest federal level party in Canada were talking confederation
They held power for 68yrs in the 20th century more than any other party in the western world
Stephane Dion is only the second liberal leader in history to have been denied 24 Sussex drive
The policy's are at the heart of what Canada is as a country
You keep telling me that harper is better during an economic turmoil
He's on the verge of throwing Canada into debt
The liberals are the ones that brought us out of our last deficit and kept us out until Harper
That may be partisanship or it may not but the fact remains my dad a hardcore conservative is PISSED about it like FURIOUS

I don't know where you live in Canada but i'm in Alberta a province that has had a conservative iron clad grip since the PC's formed in 1971 and before them was an even more conservative party that ruled for decades
-barf-

(yes i realize my location says Vancouver island i'm moving bck there in 3 weeks)

Yes, it's a shift. A terrible shift for Canada's economy. And you gave the reason why it's terrible yourself:
Why because the cost would transfer to the consumer? who cares
Do you have any idea the level of taxes on most shit
Seriously
It's insane
The green shift would have removed allot of that



Other than fresh water, the industries you just listed are, to a one, some of the worst greenhouse polluters that would almost certainly be hit hardest under Dion's proposed shift. So... our economic stability is supposed to come from the natural resource industries that we would gut with a carbon tax? Doesn't quite seem like a logical train of thought to me...
If you read the green shift plan you'd see that it would be slowly introduced over years
and there was allow incentives, tax cuts, and assistance that was going to be granted to help the transition




That's just patently false. The green shift hurt Dion because Canadians don't want a carbonx tax, even with offset on other taxes. Top-ranking Liberal strategists said as much; at least one top-level adviser anonymously interviewed right after the election stated that all of Dion's advisers told him point-blank that the Green Shift would destroy his campaign. And it did. This isn't rocket science, and it's not because he can't speak English very well.
His inability to speak English was a huge hindrance during the debates when he had the French debate he kicked ass independent analysis clearly stated he won hands down
And if it's such a HORRIBLE policy and plan how come other European countries have brought fourth and passed similar plans and are doing great?



The argument is that Harper didn't summarily call an election - which was what the election law was designed to prevent - but rather ended a tenuous and unworkable parliament that was bound to fall apart sooner than later. Is that a strong argument? Frankly I don't know because being out of country at school has sort of kept me out of the day-to-day news from the Hill... either way though, since the GG dissolved Parliament she obviously didn't consider the law to be a pertinent legal obstacle. Maybe you should take it up with her.

He passed every single confidence vote, every policy he wanted through went through
he has the record for the longest minority in canadian history
you can't honestly tell me you believe that crap


Come on, use your brain.

At this point in time, with a viable coalition waiting, the GG will not call another election. Not so soon after the last. So the option's really off the table anyways. That said, it belies your rabid anti-Harper stance that you consider this all a ploy by Harper. I can't quite understand that point of view, since by all accounts the backlash and coalition agreement took him and his Cabinet by surprise. Furthermore, it has certainly put them in a weakened position. Harper's a smart guy - pushing for an election at this time is not only impossible, but it would make him look like a fool in front of Canada. The reality is the only thing more unpopular than this coalition would be another election so soon after the last - and Harper knows that. He's not looking for one. And, frankly, nobody thinks he is - not political commentators, not the opposition parties, not any person I've talked to - except for you.


If your going to continue accusing me of strictly being anti-harper and dismissing everything I have to say as being anti-harper then I can take the same stance against you your constantly accusing me of partisanship take a look in the mirror dude
I have no interest in boring squabble like that
So come up with something else
Or i'm not responding to any further posts

Harper has pushed for the prorogue to give him time to launch a huge PR battle to give him the time he needs to try and attack the coalition
to slow the momentum
if it fails he WILL ask for an election if he doesn't he's handing them the keys....he's not that type
If it will happen or not is simply speculation


I'm sorry, were you going to respond to the fact that polling shows that Harper and the Conservatives' economic leadership is trusted above that of the coalition? Or is that just an inconvenient fact to ignore?
I'm not ignoring it I find it funny though that its simple speculation he has yet to come out with a budget and up until his job was threatened he's been flat out refusing any economic stimulus packages something every other western country has done to try and shore up the global economy

As for hard punches, I agree. On the other hand, since when is getting rid of the public funding a bad thing? All of the parties will be very much hurt by the move, including the conservatives, who also get a majority of their funding out of it. The difference is that by getting rid of it, the laziness of recent years on the part of the parties - the Liberals being the biggest example, who with the end of slush-fund corporate donations apparently decided to just give up on fundraising and suckle on the taxpayers' teat - can be ameliorated quickly, and at a significant savings to the taxpayers. Why should my tax dollars support political organizations?
Because personally I think that a poor man has equal right to representation as a rich man
government funding and strict public donation regulations helps to prevent pay offs and an unfair balance of power




What...are...you..saying? Is your contention that because America's not doing well and we're not in the Middle East that automatically makes us great for foreign investment? Think again.
I'm saying because we have a switch of leaders doesn't suddenly make us the devil of foreign investors

But investment wasn't even really the point of what I was saying. My point is that perceived political turmoil can quickly ruin a country's economy. And there's nothing more tumultuous than an unstable coalition led by three individually very unpopular leaders - and yes, I know Ignatieff will become leader eventually, but not in the short term, which right now is what matters. You think Bay Street is going to be comfortable with the idea of a bunch of NDP cabinet ministers and the Bloc hanging around in the wings? Think again. Whether you consider it rightly or wrongly, a coalition of this type would be disastrous for business, and thus the economy. Not what we need right now. Ignatieff is the leader right now, he was the leader yesterday. He is serving as interim leader until it can be finalized in may but its finalized
A bunch of NDP cabinet ministers dude there getting a handful of seats
and considering they have close to 20% of last elections vote obiviously a few people like them...I don't, can't stand them actually they fucked over British Columbia my home
not the point though



You need to proofread more. This is extremely bungled and has no punctuation in it. Am I expected to just add that in as I go along? Because, really, you're better situated to do that...
No
to put it in laymen terms this already eats up a great deal of my time and you're not worth anymore
I'm moving in 3 weeks
For the time being i'm handling the family business by myself my parents are on vacation and I have to maintain a huge ass yard with 3 houses, 4 dogs, etc...I have allot going on

However, to address the point I think you're making, a few million on the federal level (30 million, actually) is not a lot, but it's not nothing.
Dude on a federal level if we can't spare 30 million to help ensure a democratic process then we have no business in Afghanistan a mission thats costing us billions

I do a lot of economics, so I like to think in terms of incentives. Such massive public funding incentivizes political parties to be very sluggish at rounding up donations. You know why that's a problem? It means we'll never have a dynamic and grassroots-organized campaigner like Obama in Canada. Obama was so successful because, recognizing the need for money, he created a massive grassroots network of small-money (<$100 mostly) donors. And he used that network to sweep the nation. We need to incentivize that kind of positive political activity in Canada, not disincentivize it.
The laws are different in Canada there is a set amount of money allowed legally for elections
thats why mass rallies are rare and far between here
and even when they do happen the scale is usually nothing compared to the states
costs to much
In the last election the conservatives had far more than they were legally allowed to spend
same for the previous election which they are still under investigation for by elections Canada many people believe they went over the limit...which would be a federal crime
they had there head office raided during the last election
until those laws are changed an "Obama" as you describe it will never happen in Canada


Those are all completely insignificant but brilliant political moves on his part. He gave Quebec essentially nothing, and in return defused the separatists, again. It is rather roundly agreed that though the nation move was obvious pandering it was also extremely effective at its purpose - defusing the separatists without giving any real concessions.
I love how you seem to think that Quebec will get nothing from Harper
He has ripped open many old wounds in Quebec
He will have to kiss allot of ass to try and repair the damage



The word is conjecture, and frankly you'd do well to learn how to write pragraphs yourself. And use punctuation, for that matter.
We've been over this above
And if you've degraded to a point of attacking my spelling instead of my idea's then this debate is truly over

With regard to facts, I've provided the ones I need for my argument, which isn't that many since mainly I've been pointing out the flaws in yours. What would you like me to further factually substantiate?
Go for it


That is definitely true, and it's why I consider Harper such a brilliant politician - he has managed to hold onto power when by all metrics he is not in the right part of the political continuum for this country. By rights, there should be a Liberal government.

Now I agree there
No small feat indeed


And, for the record, while I'm anti-Dion, I'm anti-Dion because he's a horrible, horrible politician and even worse leader. Had Bob Rae or even potentially Iggy been in charge this time around, it's pretty likely I would've voted Liberal - I don't idolize Harper, I just want politicians who know how to get things done and lead firmly. Dion is capable of neither. Which is why it's such a tragedy for the Liberal party that he was nominated. With two amazing choices available (Rae and Ignatieff), the Liberals instead chose the crap third option and wasted 2 years in the political hinterlands. And everyone, including the Liberals, seems to see that. I'm a little confused by why you don't. Harper could be Satan himself and it wouldn't make Dion a good leader... just comparatively a little less horrible. ;)
I like dion a great deal because he has something that is so truly rare to see
a heart, he really has a genuine desire to help and a plan that could do it he just can't lie, manipulate and threaten like harper can
and considering you yourself stated he was up against such star runners I think anyway he deserves a little credit for winning
And Harper is literally threatening democratic equality
as far as i'm concerned
he is satan




Well you must have written them a while ago, because apparently you need a refresher:

So does that mean I can call you an idiot and it's not a violation of the rules? Please clarify.

No I don't we just don't go after members for actions like "idiot" if we did the entire site would be banned or frozen by now if it's SEVERE then yes but I don't think idiot constitutes extreme -shrug-
In this debate alone if you wish to hold to that everyone of us is in shit
BUT if you want to report me
be my guest
If you're unsure how to do so please follow the link: http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?p=344496#post344496

[CaptainObvious]

Your opinion

What is? Tommy Douglas of the CCF being the father of universal healthcare in Canada is a fact. Pearson having expanded the program to the federal level is also a fact. The only opinion here is yours, that Pearson was the main person responsible for universal healthcare. That's simply not a historically defensible position.

No what I'm trying to do is show that Canada as a country has had a long history of Liberal policy's and liberal ideals
The liberal party is the oldest federal level party in Canada were talking confederation
They held power for 68yrs in the 20th century more than any other party in the western world
Stephane Dion is only the second liberal leader in history to have been denied 24 Sussex drive
The policy's are at the heart of what Canada is as a country

I don't actually dispute that the Liberal party probably best represents Canadians' policy choices. But that in no way means that Dion deserves to be PM. A leader and his/her party must earn that right, and Dion has not. I wouldn't really have a problem with the Liberals in general being in government - the party is much, much better than their leader. Seriously, you act like I hate the liberals. I don't - once they have a proven, strong leader odds are I'll vote for them. I just don't think Dion is a worthy leader for the Liberals - or any major political party, for that matter.

He's on the verge of throwing Canada into debt
The liberals are the ones that brought us out of our last deficit and kept us out until Harper

He? Yes, obviously Harper is responsible for the global financial crisis that is launching much of the world into economic crisis. Obviously that's all Harper's doing.

Give me a break. There's lots of things you can pin on Harper that he's done badly, but the fact that the US financial crisis caused the economy to take a massive hit certainly is not one of them.

I don't know where you live in Canada but i'm in Alberta a province that has had a conservative iron clad grip since the PC's formed in 1971 and before them was an even more conservative party that ruled for decades

I live in Toronto and Vancouver, when I'm in Canada.

If you read the green shift plan you'd see that it would be slowly introduced over years
and there was allow incentives, tax cuts, and assistance that was going to be granted to help the transition

Right, which would help except for the fact that oil field development and exploration, mine development, etc., is all planned years and years in advance. If you're an oil sands development company trying to make a case for investing in a project that might not be online for 10 years, you better bet that the Green Shift would be making you mighty nervous about putting money in.

And if it's such a HORRIBLE policy and plan how come other European countries have brought fourth and passed similar plans and are doing great?

Is that a serious question? I don't quite know where to start, but there's 2 glaring, glaring obvious answers to your question:

1) Canada is only about 10% smaller than Europe. In total. Therefore, individual countries there are much, much smaller, population density is much higher, and this translates into significantly better public transportation - reducing greenhouse emissions - that is not practical in Canada.
2) European economies are, largely not based on oil and other carbon-intensive natural resources. Canada's obviously is. I'm sure you can see how this make it a little more problematic to start taxing carbon emissions in Canada than in Europe...

He passed every single confidence vote, every policy he wanted through went through
he has the record for the longest minority in canadian history
you can't honestly tell me you believe that crap

That's why I keep agnostic on it. I didn't follow Canadian politics closely enough over the period right before the election was called (was in the States), and so I don't really know whether Parliament had become deadlocked and unworkable. I share your suspicions that it was still workable... on the other hand, there have clearly been powerful political currents swirling around lately (the coalition didn't just form on the spot).... so who really knows what signals Harper was getting behind the scenes?

Frankly, since the claim Harper broke a law is tenuous anyways, I really don't care much.

Harper has pushed for the prorogue to give him time to launch a huge PR battle to give him the time he needs to try and attack the coalition
to slow the momentum
if it fails he WILL ask for an election if he doesn't he's handing them the keys....he's not that type
If it will happen or not is simply speculation

I agree exactly that Harper prorogued for PR. And a good decision it was for him, too - I pretty much guarantee he remains in government now. Because I really, really don't think that this coalition is going to look good to voters over the next month. And Harper knows how to hit them.

But seriously, you think he did all this to precipitate an election? Really? Then you must either think he's the smartest political strategist of all time, or a complete bumbling idiot, because the risk of the GG refusing him and allowing the coalition a try was very real. Would you gamble your entire political career on that, for yet another election that you're not guaranteed to do any better in? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Go for it

Sorry, were you going to answer the question and tell me what I've said that you'd like me to further substantiate? I'm happy to give you evidence for any claim you would like substantiated, but you have to ask. Sitting there sniping about me not providing evidence when you have yet to tell me what in your view I haven't provided enough evidence for is just meaningless.

I like dion a great deal because he has something that is so truly rare to see
a heart, he really has a genuine desire to help and a plan that could do it he just can't lie, manipulate and threaten like harper can
and considering you yourself stated he was up against such star runners I think anyway he deserves a little credit for winning
And Harper is literally threatening democratic equality
as far as i'm concerned
he is satan

I'm sorry, a heart is important, but I'm much more concerned with how one leads, and how effective one is as a politician. Dion fails on both counts. I'll admit, I think he's probably at the core one of the nicest politicians around, but I don't vote for someone I'd like to hang around, I vote for someone to be effective. And Dion hsa proved himself completely the opposite.

As for winning against Rae and Ignatieff... I don't particularly think that the pact he made was all that admirable. It works in the backroom where you can tell people how to vote... but his inability to win real elections has become blatantly obvious - which is why he's being booted out of the leadership. And an undistinguished tenure it has been.