Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Hey America! Look at Your Future | Main | Stephen Harper Saves The Market »

Friday, January 29, 2010

If the Liberals thought it was wrong to prorogue they should fight an election

For a while now we have been hearing how awful it was for the Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament. Both the Liberals and the NDP have been jumping up and down full of sound and fury. For them this represented the decline of democracy in Canada. Mr. Harper was not acting like the leader of a democracy but a dictator. Canadians were treated to political ads that accused Mr. Harper of having something to hide. They accused him of closing Parliament for his own narrow political interests.

The people responded in anger. There were protests and the Conservative Party dropped dramatically in the polls. A majority of Canadians opposed the shutting down of their Parliament. The opposition that never seemed to be able to get a handle on the government, finally had an issue to fight for.

So you would expect there to be an election, wouldn't you? I mean, democracy is at risk; Parliamentary democracy as we know it will be doomed if Stephen Harper continues to be Prime Minister. So shouldn't the leader of the opposition thus do everything in his power to remove such a poison. Or at least put the question to the people to see if they think that Mr. Harper has abused his power.


It seems fighting for democracy is not a good enough reason for Mr. Ignatieff to force an election.

For the record I thought that the proroguing of Parliament was inappropriate but that the Liberals were over the top in their rhetoric. Still if they actually believed what they were saying instead of trying to score cheap political points, I would expect them to...well you know...actually fight for what they believe in.

The Liberal Party of Canada once again proving just how spineless they are.

Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on January 29, 2010 | Permalink


The latest federal political polling numbers reflect something else that the MSM seems quite ignorant of: Harper's support is falling in part because Harper's own conservative base is getting increasingly bored and turned off by his repeated failure to bring any remotely conservative legislation to fruition. There is also palpable disappointment with his embrace of the whole global warming nonsense and his pervasive insistence that this country can borrow its way into prosperity.

The current polling numbers are not unusual; they fall within a range that hasn't changed much during Harper's whole term in office. His numbers will probably rebound in the next few weeks, but probably not enough to put him in majority government territory.

As for the Liberals, if they want to win an election (and it would be a minority government) they need to come up with several policy pronouncements that offer a positive alternative to the Tories and clearly differentiate themselves from Harper. So far, Iggy is not doing that and shows no indication that he is capable of it. Merely criticizing current government actions is not enough to create favourable momentum for an opposition party.

Posted by: Dennis | 2010-01-29 9:33:48 AM

Actually Dennis the Liberals would need a clear policy that distinguishes them from the NDP, not just the CPC, and that it about as likely as pigs flying.

I have yet to meet anyone who falls for the manufactured outrage of the Liberals and NDP over proroguing of Parliament, and as for the overused and abused claim that "they have a hidden agenda" it falls on deaf ears.

I do agree that there is disappointment in the lack of implementing real conservative policies in several areas, but considering the possible alternatives it becomes a moot point.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-01-29 11:30:52 AM

Good points, Alain.

One problem that I can see going forward for the Tories is that if they continue to fail to inspire their base, the big risk is not that those voters will go to the NDP or the Liberals, but that they will sit on their hands in the next election. That's the scenario that Dubya and the Republicans faced in 2008 and it resulted in massive electoral losses.

Posted by: Dennis | 2010-01-29 12:04:05 PM

I think you are correct, Dennis. Of course if this results in only Liberal and NDP supporters bothering to vote, everyone will suffer the consequences whether one voted or not.

Many of us remain frustrated by the lack of action concerning the rogue CHRC, the long gun registry, the size and scope of government and especially government spending. There needs to be a move to begin the downsizing of government and government spending.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-01-29 12:16:20 PM

People will say "I'd vote Liberal" in a telephone poll when they're mad at the Conservative potentate, that doesn't actually mean they'd actually do it when the time comes.

Posted by: Pete | 2010-01-29 3:47:17 PM

CONs are truly at a dead end.

Posted by: ronin | 2010-01-29 11:47:09 PM

Best government since 1867 - stopping Kyoto, a social and economic death sentence, was their crowning achievement. That automatically negates any criticisms. The truth just hasn't sunk into the Liebral/NDP party who were perfectly willing to sink medicare and other social services in order to "look cool" or seek the acceptance of others. Pathetic.

Mr. Harper, keep up the awesome work.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-01-30 1:32:24 PM

Maybe he can come live with you Zeb. Harper sucks. They all suck. We don't need em. All they do is perpetuate this broken system we live under. They all lie, they all cheat, they all steal. For the first time in 20 years I am actually considering not voting.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-01-30 7:22:17 PM

Why not merge the Liebral, NDP, and Green parties and call it the Toronto Party. it would be an accurate representation of both their constituency and extent of their interests - they care nothing for anyone outside of that area.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-01-31 8:28:33 AM

How many Canadian Forces Body bags would have satisfied Harper and his extreme Washington D.C. USA evangelical handlers, coming home from the 2003 Iraq War?

USA FOX NEWS featured our then, ill fitted leather vested, white cowboy hatted opposition leader, on FOX NEWS as he bemoaned the fact of Canadian non- participation in a direct combat role in an illegal and immoral war launched by USA extreme evangelicals.

Gawd, he does like to wear make up though.

What's up with that 'Dispensationalism', our Minority P.M. is supposed to be a 'true believer' in? Where the 'good people' will ascend to Heaven whilst the heathens will burn in Hellfire and Jesus battles the Anti Christ.

Most people, excluding Stock and Sarah Palin stop believing in Santa, the Tooth Fairy and Dispensationalism by the time they're 10 years old.

Stephen Harper. Canada's Worst P.M., Proroguer and Crooner ever.

Posted by: jeff franklin | 2010-01-31 12:39:29 PM

"How many Canadian Forces Body bags would have satisfied Harper and his extreme Washington D.C. USA evangelical handlers, coming home from the 2003 Iraq War?"

The prospect did not bother Chretien or Martin, who authorized Canada's full if less than secret participation in the Iraq War. What did the current CDS do there between 2004-2005, when Martin (not Harper) was PM? Gen. Natyncyzk commanded US and coalition troops while wearing his Canadian uniform. The same goes for the other 100+ exchange personnel. This says nothing about the well-publicized economic support Canada gave to the Iraq War.

Mr. Harper at least was honest in his opinions. That is why he ranks as the greatest Prime Minister in Canadian history.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-01-31 1:38:51 PM

Major-General Walter J. Natynczyk, O.M.M., M.S.C., C.D. Ottawa and Kingston, Ontario and Winnipeg, Manitoba; Meritorious Service Cross

MGen Natynczyk is recognized for his outstanding leadership and professionalism while deployed as Deputy Commanding General of the Multi-National Corps during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. From January 2004 to January 2005, MGen Natynczyk led the Corps' 10 separate brigades, consisting of more than 35,000 soldiers stationed throughout the Iraq Theatre of Operations. He also oversaw planning and execution of all Corps level combat support and combat service support operations. His pivotal role in the development of numerous plans and operations resulted in a tremendous contribution by the Multi-National Corps to Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, and has brought great credit to the Canadian Forces and to Canada.

Dated January 24, 2006 (The people elected Mr. Harper into office the night before - but it takes a long time to process such an award.)

The last sentence in the citation is instructive - how can Major General Natynczyk played a "pivotal role in the development of numerous plans and operations resulted in a tremendous contribution by the Multi-National Corps to Operation IRAQI FREEDOM," AND bring "great credit to the Canadian Forces and to Canada" if his country was allegedly not involved in the conflict to begin with?

Such was the abysmal government of the Chretien/Martin years. May the Liebrals never return to power - they're simply too corrupt.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-01-31 1:49:21 PM

The Rt. Honourable Jean Chretien Never ordered C.F. into a 'direct combat' role.

Proroguer Harper and his Rapturists would have ordered C.F. into 'direct combat.'

Once again, just how many C.F. body bags would have satisfied our crooning P.M. and his USA Extreme Evangelical Backers?

Stephen Harper. Wrong for Canada then, Stephen Harper, wrong for Canada now.

Is it any wonder that Stephen Harper will never get his coveted majority when so many Canadians can see that he is absolutely Canada's worst ever P.M.?

Can you feel the Rapture?

Posted by: jeff franklin | 2010-01-31 2:25:14 PM

Semantics. Why didn't Crouton/Martin send support troops over there? They backed themselves into a lie and could not recover from it. Either they suppressed the story or the media and opposition took no note of it. My, what short memories. No wonder then than Ontario is a racist state with segregated schools and book bans.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-01-31 2:31:50 PM


Posted by: poncho | 2010-01-31 3:03:41 PM

So many CAPLOCKS Poncho.

Perhaps tapering back on the Oxycontin and Rush Limbaugh may be of some benefit.

Posted by: jeff franklin | 2010-01-31 3:29:40 PM

Caps aside Poncho is correct. Jeff is either a partisan hack or just dishonest in claiming Harper is responsible for our troops involvement.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-01-31 3:40:51 PM

I don't know that most Canadians would see prorogation as a ballot question - as has been noted Parliaments and Legislatures have often been prorogued. Seldom under such dubious circumstances but it was certainly not without precedent. If I were Ignatieff I could find issues more relevant to Canadians to form a ballot question. Iggy has started saber rattling over jobs which us far more relevant to Canadians and especially Ontarian who've seen the manufacturing sector devastated

I agree with the various pollsters who put prorogation in the context of the character of Mr. Harper...polls show more then half Canadians don't trust Mr. Harper and parliamentary gamesmanship will reinforce that image. Certainly Mr. Harper has no prospect of a majority government as opinion is galvanizing, luckily Mr. Ignatieff has little chance of forming a majority either.

Until one of the parties get more inspired leadership we'll be stuck in these minority doldrums.

Posted by: Andrew | 2010-01-31 5:50:13 PM

Harper is the worst Prime Minister this country has EVER had. There has NEVER been a greater threat to Canadian values than Stephen Harper. I look forward to his upcoming defeat.

Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2010-02-05 6:02:13 AM

Harper supports organized crime. He wants legislation that only further enriches them by protecting their revenue stream, as well as putting non violent youth into gang recruitment centers. He says mandatory mins will help stop recurring offenders. Meanwhile studies show they do the exact opposite when dealing with low level crime like the cannabis and actually make this group MORE likely to re offend.

5 minute math!!!
In bc some areas have grows in 1% of residences. in a town of 10 000 homes, there are 100 grows, you put each grower in jail for 1 year. It costs $80-110k to house 1 inmate for 1 year, but lets say it costs $90k on average. To enforce the cannabis laws Harper wants in a small town of 10 000 it would cost 9 Million dollars, FOR 1 YEAR! Harper is gonna bend canada over, bigtime!

Yay Harper?

Posted by: Baker | 2010-02-05 8:54:37 AM

Well thats assuming law enforcement can catch them all. There are enough people that understand the DW is a waste of time and money. Confidence in law enforcement is decaying fast because of this and a multitude of other reasons. You could put the army in the streets, and it still won't change anything.
Harper sucks, plain and simple. I too look forward to his defeat. The sad thing is, the alternatives in Canadian politics are almost as bad.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-06 1:09:45 AM

It costs $80-110k to house 1 inmate for 1 year, but lets say it costs $90k on average. To enforce the cannabis laws Harper wants in a small town of 10 000 it would cost 9 Million dollars, FOR 1 YEAR!

Yes thats expensive, but its worthwhile in the end. another big plus factor you overlooked was

100 grow houses confiscated @ $200K= $20,000,000
misc assets are laying around 5,000,000
> 25,000,000
minus incarceration industry costs 9,000,000
nice profit for society of *** $16,000,000
and more housing for honest people

Math says its well worth busting growers and taking their houses and toys,, so it costs a fair bit to incarcerate them.. unless you want to cut costs at the jail service level..I guess you are stuck paying big taxes to punish wipehead drug farming

Posted by: 419 | 2010-02-06 8:54:28 AM

They should bulldoze drug houses like they do in Arizona. It would make room for proper housing for decent people.

BTW whatever happened the the wipehead in chief? Has he been extradited yet?

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-02-06 9:59:36 AM

100 grow houses confiscated @ $200K= $20,000,000
misc assets are laying around 5,000,000********(in grow equipment lol)

All i did was the cost to house an inmate in an allready built prison. We would need to build many more if we were to catch cannabis growers with such efficency. what does a prison cost you ask? well.....

"The last provincial jail built in Ontario was a "no-frills" superjail in Lindsay that cost almost $79 million in 2002"

So that pretty much takes care of any supposed profits, which only take place IF the grower OWNS the residence. Any grow in a rental space is NOT GOING TO BE CONFISCATED, all the landlord has to say is "sorry officer, i didnt know they setup that grow". And in reality how many growers own the home they live in? lol

Posted by: Baker | 2010-02-06 10:23:23 AM

419, you seriously need to watch the Union, not for th3e pro legalization message, but just for the knowledge of how the pot industry works. You think growers dont know if they own a property it is going to get taken? Whats the point in buying a house only to have it taken? lol. THEY RENT FOR THAT REASON. You are obviously ignorant, watch the film, gain some knowledge, perhaps it will make you more of an opponent in debate because currently it is too easy and im getting bored. At least Shane kept me on my toes, ur just sad.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-02-06 10:31:12 AM

"whatever happened the the wipehead in chief"

So if people who use cannabis are wipeheads, and we are able to own you in debate over and over, WHAT DOES THAT MAKE YOU?

Posted by: Baker | 2010-02-06 10:33:43 AM

Not in jail.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-02-06 10:38:25 AM

419... PS, you would also have to calculate the current police salary precentage spent on cannabis. Then look at the current precentage of cannabis grows found. Multiply that ratio to the point where we are catching 100% of grows. and see what it would cost in police salary to catch these people.

Then add NEW PRISON COSTS + INMATE HOUSING COST + NEEDED POLICE SALARY + COURT TIME AND SALARYS THERE. Then the product of that = the cost of harpers cannabis plan if it worked perfectly. (tho in reality it wont work at all which is lucky for tax payers)

Best case scenario for Harper's cannabis plan is going to fuck Canada no matter how you try to spin it.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-02-06 10:41:17 AM

lol zeb ur such a joke. Go back to school you child.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-02-06 10:42:43 AM

What about the health costs of rehabilitation, new facilities, salaries for doctors, nurses, orderlies, and counselors. The costs for courts and policing would remain no matter what solution was applied. No country changed its drug laws to save money. If they wanted to, then druggies would dig their own graves before execution.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-02-06 10:51:39 AM

"What about the health costs of rehabilitation, new facilities, salaries for doctors, nurses, orderlies, and counselors."

These are negligible, Cannabis is less addictive and less dangerous then coffee. Look up those costs associated with coffee and half them. If you do not believe me it is YOUR job to find documented evidence to the contrary.

"The costs for courts and policing would remain no matter what solution was applied

Not in a 100 percent effective situation. Even to be somewhat effective police time and salary are going to have to increase to have any effect.

"No country changed its drug laws to save money. If they wanted to, then druggies would dig their own graves before execution."

LOL yes they have. its either that or because cannabis is safe, or the prohibition does more harm then good. Which do you want to choose? Im guessing you dont want to acknowledge that cannabis is safe, or the drug war is ineffective, or that any major body (ie a country) believes so either, so what is it? why have countries changed their laws zeb?

Posted by: Baker | 2010-02-06 11:05:45 AM

Its soo funny to see a black person support cannabis prohibition. Heres a quote for ya zeb, Harry j Anslinger(first drug czar) said this, and many things as the justification for starting cannabis prohibition.

Harry J Anslinger -

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

"…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”

"Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men."

Posted by: Baker | 2010-02-06 11:12:03 AM

That is where the whole "violence cause by cannabis" bs came from. And you continue to spread it to this day, 80+ years later. Hope u feel good.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-02-06 11:17:50 AM

The violence comes not from chemistry or biology, but from economics. That is why drugs must be made history, either through government or physical education.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-02-06 11:26:00 AM

"The violence comes not from chemistry or biology, but from economics. That is why drugs must be made history, either through government or physical education."

Like all the economic related violence between breweries we have today eh? When was the last time Phizer did a drive by on Bayer? Compare that to the economic related violence during alcohol prohibition as opposed to now.... Now how can you honestly say there is more economic related violence with legal a product vs the same product when illegal?

Posted by: Baker | 2010-02-06 11:33:55 AM

Zeb, the other day you were bitching about how the history taught in school doesn't acknowledge all the violence and portrays it as some hunky dory situation between the different groups. Well you, and people like you are no better when it comes to alcohol prohibition and vicariously cannabis prohibition.

You like to pretend it worked perfectly, didnt created the gangsters and cartels it did, and wasnt a complete failure. But the truth is things became a bloody mess when gangsters took over the industry, which is exactly what has happened with cannabis.

Gangs like the UN are making MILLIONS each year, buying guns, shooting other gangs and taking out innocent citizens in the process. The current situation DIRECTLY parallels that which was experienced with alcohol prohibition. If you do not acknowledge that, you are either untruthful or plain stupid.

Would you give gangs and cartels the ENTIRE Canadian wheat market to profit from? Because you are doing them one better giving them the cannabis market. Its bigger then Canadian wheat.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-02-06 11:48:04 AM

Once the Canadian people give Harper a majority, it will make a difference.

It's all in the demographics. Once another census is taken (2011?), seat distribution will continue to evolve into producer provinces.

The coalition has overplayed its hand on the prorogation issue. If they wanted Parliament to sit, can they honestly call for an election?

Posted by: set you free | 2010-02-06 11:52:53 AM

Hmm, i like that last sentence, maybe ill save my pennies and put it up on a billboard for a month. :)

Posted by: Baker | 2010-02-06 11:56:29 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.