Can one of our Canadian brethren explain what's going on up there?
Canada's Govt Toppled by No-Confidence vote
- Thread starter Sig
- Start date
I agree. I am just floored by this-- wish we can do the same for Mr. B _ _ H, I have no confidence at all.
I don't really keep up with politics, but here's the basic gist:
There was a sponsorship scandal a few years back where a few shady individuals in the liberal party paid out $100M to certain contracters for essentially no work. Some amount of money was then funnelled back into the party as political donations.
This has nothing to do with the current administration, or the integrity of the party as a whole, but the other political parties have grouped together to put a "No Confidence" motion against the current administration saying that they are 'tainted'. Personally I think it's a load of bullcrap. There are shady individuals in all parties, and although I'm pissed as hell about the govt giving away $100M of our hard earned tax dollars, it has nothing to do with the current Prime Minister. It was certain specific individuals who committed this years ago and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Anyways, so they will be holding a new election on January 23rd. Given current polls, it's likely that the Liberals will be back in power again (35% liberals, 29% conservatives), but as a minority govt.
They had a similar vote some months ago, but at the time one of the other political parties (NDP) sided with the Liberals and they won by 1 vote. Due to a recent falling out between the Liberals and NDP, the liberals were easily defeated in this re-vote.
There was a sponsorship scandal a few years back where a few shady individuals in the liberal party paid out $100M to certain contracters for essentially no work. Some amount of money was then funnelled back into the party as political donations.
This has nothing to do with the current administration, or the integrity of the party as a whole, but the other political parties have grouped together to put a "No Confidence" motion against the current administration saying that they are 'tainted'. Personally I think it's a load of bullcrap. There are shady individuals in all parties, and although I'm pissed as hell about the govt giving away $100M of our hard earned tax dollars, it has nothing to do with the current Prime Minister. It was certain specific individuals who committed this years ago and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Anyways, so they will be holding a new election on January 23rd. Given current polls, it's likely that the Liberals will be back in power again (35% liberals, 29% conservatives), but as a minority govt.
They had a similar vote some months ago, but at the time one of the other political parties (NDP) sided with the Liberals and they won by 1 vote. Due to a recent falling out between the Liberals and NDP, the liberals were easily defeated in this re-vote.
This can be done at anytime in a government in Canada...any major bill can defeat the gov't. Majority it's never a problem, however it's always present in a minority. Minority Gov't forces the parties to work together to pass laws, some appeal to some, not to others and they have to make legislation that better serves the interests of all groups. Problem is most major bills are 'confidence' votes. As in, if it doesn't pass you have to dissolve the gov't. It's never really been a huge issue till lately.
Basically the opposition likes to waste or time and they think they can win the next election. It's a power struggle between headstrong leaders, wasting our time doing another vote. Usually a minority gov't will last 3 years until it's about time to give it another shot. However, like I said some people have a thirst for power and think they can win, when they can't. It will be another minority gov't and they will look like fools for wasting time. Maybe they'll realize the only way to make a minority government work is to WORK TOGETHER, not try to hold the house hostage like little kids and keep calling elections thinking one of these days you might actually gain ground..it's pathetic..but on the bright side our economy and trade surplus has never been higher so they just complain when there's really no dire situations to address.
Basically the opposition likes to waste or time and they think they can win the next election. It's a power struggle between headstrong leaders, wasting our time doing another vote. Usually a minority gov't will last 3 years until it's about time to give it another shot. However, like I said some people have a thirst for power and think they can win, when they can't. It will be another minority gov't and they will look like fools for wasting time. Maybe they'll realize the only way to make a minority government work is to WORK TOGETHER, not try to hold the house hostage like little kids and keep calling elections thinking one of these days you might actually gain ground..it's pathetic..but on the bright side our economy and trade surplus has never been higher so they just complain when there's really no dire situations to address.
some reading for background
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...electleadall1129/BNStory/specialDecision2006/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...electleadall1129/BNStory/specialDecision2006/
Arshad said:
Looks like the no-confidence strategy worked out after all for the once opposition party. The result of the new vote was a surprise to me when it seems that most Canadian politicians pride themselves on being a tasty alternative to the US. It now appears the new govt is openly supporting better relations with us down here.
The result of the new vote was a surprise to me when it seems that most Canadian politicians pride themselves on being a tasty alternative to the US. It now appears the new govt is openly supporting better relations with us down here.
Yeah I'm not a big harper fan. I think we SHOULD improve relations with the US, but I don't think we should do it by being a puppet and blindly following without questioning (as Harper has proposed).
For one thing, I think we should be DECREASING our military spending, not increasing it. Who the heck are we protecting ourselves from? Is denmark going to come get us because of that stupid piece of rock in the arctic ocean that we're so vigorously defending? An increase of a few billion dollars thrown at the military is going to make zero difference to our national defence, but WILL be money taken away from other things that I'd rather see those dollars go towards.
It was one thing to support Iraq BEFORE the US went in and didn't find weapons of mass destruction. To blindly follow the US now, with it's not so rosy record of human rights violations (see Human Rights Watch 2006 report) seems plain stupid. Needless to say, I didn't vote for this clown, and thank God he's in a minority govt so he cannot go around making decisions with impunity.
Arshad said:
Your spending on your military is much lower than it would be if you weren't protected by the U.S. I do agree that Canada could cut their spending to zero dollars for the military simply because everyone knows that the U.S. would protect your country.
Your spending on your military is much lower than it would be if you weren't protected by the U.S. I do agree that Canada could cut their spending to zero dollars for the military simply because everyone knows that the U.S. would protect your country.
Right, that's my point. Our army is completely useless as it is in terms of national defence. Who would attack us anyways? And if the US decided to attack us, we'd be squashed no matter how much money we put into our army.
If we were using it for peace keeping, it'd be another thing, but for military purposes, I'm totally opposed to it.
Sig said:
Not really, the conservatives have a slim minority. They can be subjected to a loss of confidence on the First Budget in March. His hands are effectively tied, he cannot implement major policy without support of 50% of the house, which means working with the other parties. He won't be able to do a 1/3rd of what he promised.
It was no surprise here really, a conservative minority is wht the country needed, to clean out the liberal party..get rid of the old guard.
There's not really a problem with Canada-US relations..it's only when the US expects us to bend over and take it on things like softwood lumber we get a little irritated. Martin didn't really approach it the right way..but the US was defying the NAFTA agreement outright..how do you negotiate that?
Did you hear Bush's State of the Union. I love the part where he says he wants to cut Middle east oil dependency by 75%. I guess it's not convenient to point out that Mideast Crude imports make up less than 20% of their worldwide imports. Canada is the largest supplier of crude to the US, but they always seem to forget that.
Short of investing to increase production in canada, I think they will have a hard time finding alternatives to Mideast crude for the 15% they want to cut. See article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060202/OIL02/TPInternational/
No, we don't forget the facts, but we also understand that the 20% we get from the middle east is much more volitle than what we get from our friends to the north. And if you're implying that some kind of thanks are required, I'm not so sure they are. It's not like it's free. Last time I heard, funds actually changed hands for it.satan_srv said:
KGP said:
I'm not implying we need thanks, we get paid for it so I don't really care. I just think there's a general misconception that the majority comes from the middle east.While mideast oil is volatile..other than Canada and Mexico it's less volatile than venezuela and some other potential sources. My point was just that seemed like it was being touted as more than it is. Like the article I posted says in detail...while it sounds like a good idea in principle..good luck trying to cut mideast imports.
satan_srv (or others),
Do you have an idea what price oil would have to be to make the tar sands in Alberta viable?
And are they big, meaning how many years would the reserves last? I don’t know much about this, but I always wanted to find out.
I presume the 10.3% of US imports of oil from Canada is not yet from these tar fields, right?
Peter
Do you have an idea what price oil would have to be to make the tar sands in Alberta viable?
And are they big, meaning how many years would the reserves last? I don’t know much about this, but I always wanted to find out.
I presume the 10.3% of US imports of oil from Canada is not yet from these tar fields, right?
Peter
710 - I think that at current prices these fields are viable today. We are seeing a tremendous amount of investment begin to flow toward the oil sands during the past many months.
Its not that there isnt much oil left to pull out; the world is rich with oil. It is that there is not much CHEAP oil left. I think this is what you're getting at.
The US used to be concerned that if it wanted to reduce its dependance upon the Middle East, that it could only do so by turning to more expensive oil. That, it worried, would cause an economic shock and would drive inflation much higher.
With the economy doing so well, it seems that it is easily able to absorbe higher oil costs and the effect upon inflation seems to be lower then what may have been anticipated.
Thus, we should see less US reliance upon middle east oil as the govt appears less proactive around the price of oil.
Im not so sure about reducing military spending Arshad. I agree that we dont need front-line weapons, but we do need to maintain a viable fleet of frigates, F18s (those are now what? 30 years old), choppers, etc. I disagree with Harpers rediculus call for under the ice surveillance after the US sub, which *may* have penetrated our waters, surfaced in the North. That was nothing more then kissing babies and jumping aboard an anti-american campaign theme that was popular with Liberals. Rubbish. Let US subs traverse under our ice for all I care if it means that no one else is!
But we do need to maintain our fleets and squadrons to fulfill obligations and to get ourselves out of trouble when we need. It is embarassing when a boat goes missing in the ocean and we have to ask our US friends for help because our equipment is not worthy.
Plus, we've got CDNs flying and be driven by these vehicles. It is not right to put them in harms way due to old, unmaintained, equipment; they've got enough to worry about as it is.
Its not that there isnt much oil left to pull out; the world is rich with oil. It is that there is not much CHEAP oil left. I think this is what you're getting at.
The US used to be concerned that if it wanted to reduce its dependance upon the Middle East, that it could only do so by turning to more expensive oil. That, it worried, would cause an economic shock and would drive inflation much higher.
With the economy doing so well, it seems that it is easily able to absorbe higher oil costs and the effect upon inflation seems to be lower then what may have been anticipated.
Thus, we should see less US reliance upon middle east oil as the govt appears less proactive around the price of oil.
Im not so sure about reducing military spending Arshad. I agree that we dont need front-line weapons, but we do need to maintain a viable fleet of frigates, F18s (those are now what? 30 years old), choppers, etc. I disagree with Harpers rediculus call for under the ice surveillance after the US sub, which *may* have penetrated our waters, surfaced in the North. That was nothing more then kissing babies and jumping aboard an anti-american campaign theme that was popular with Liberals. Rubbish. Let US subs traverse under our ice for all I care if it means that no one else is!
But we do need to maintain our fleets and squadrons to fulfill obligations and to get ourselves out of trouble when we need. It is embarassing when a boat goes missing in the ocean and we have to ask our US friends for help because our equipment is not worthy.
Plus, we've got CDNs flying and be driven by these vehicles. It is not right to put them in harms way due to old, unmaintained, equipment; they've got enough to worry about as it is.
Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense, what you say about 'cheap oil'.
The price of oil today just goes to show that we are willing to pay much more for our oil, without any cutting back either.
All this talk about electric vehicles doesn’t make any sense to me either. Imagine an electric motored vehicle pulling a trailer with 25tons of rock up a 50km long road uphill like we do now with a few litres of diesel in a semi? They are dreaming. The massive amount of goods being trucked everywhere can’t be replaced by electric trucks. The train system obviously doesn’t work (otherwise shipping companies would already be using them. To me trains are kind of like MS DOS. Good at the time, 100 years ago, hopeless now).
So are the tar fields on the surface or underground? Will this new industry mess Alberta up?
The price of oil today just goes to show that we are willing to pay much more for our oil, without any cutting back either.
All this talk about electric vehicles doesn’t make any sense to me either. Imagine an electric motored vehicle pulling a trailer with 25tons of rock up a 50km long road uphill like we do now with a few litres of diesel in a semi? They are dreaming. The massive amount of goods being trucked everywhere can’t be replaced by electric trucks. The train system obviously doesn’t work (otherwise shipping companies would already be using them. To me trains are kind of like MS DOS. Good at the time, 100 years ago, hopeless now).
So are the tar fields on the surface or underground? Will this new industry mess Alberta up?
710 said:
Funny thing is we export 99% of our oil to the U.S! See some interesting facts here on oil sands & offshore projects (Not to sure how acurate the #'s are?) " Canada is a net exporter of oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, and hydropower. It is one of the most important sources of U.S. energy imports..."http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/canada.html
The one thing I can say is that the U.S needs Canada, as much as Canada needs the U.S.
Last edited:
Carguy! said:
I do belive the U.S can take us over at anytime with its largest and one of the most powerful militaries in the world. Being Canadian I can't imagine what we would need to be protected from? I hate hearing from our U.S friends how we are being protected by the U.S, I'm not denying we are being protected. So you got to ask yourself this question... just what Arshad had already said... who exactly do you need to protect us from, and why? Humm... Maybe our oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, hydro, and how about our development of weapon technology etc just to mention a few things. So who is it that needs those things again? I mentioned this once before, the U.S needs Canada as much as Canada needs the U.S.
Last edited:
RBNSX - but you are looking at only today. It is dangerous to sculpt the future off of today's reality only.
Things change so quickly and if you're not at least maintaining a baseline, you have no time to react.
Things change so quickly and if you're not at least maintaining a baseline, you have no time to react.
SPA_S2000 said:
Yes I agree times do change quickly, but the bottom line is we need the US as much as they need us and that is true for continued growth of both countries. I'm not only looking at today... :wink:
Every time there is a world poll asking who is the most dangerous country in the world, USA is first or second on the list.
So Canada is living right next to the lion's den.
As every school kid learns, even way over here in Europe, in 1812 the US tried to invade Canada and lost. They surrendered here, actually in Gent, just up the road from me. The room where they signed the treaty is still here, with a copy of the terms. As terms of surrender, they agreed on the borders. In return, the British/Canadians agreed to remove their armies from the US. Also in return for leaving, the British made them promise never to invade again. The treaty set the borders as they are today.
But this time they are immensely more powerful than then.
There is some hope though, 53% of Americans don’t know where Canada is. Maybe they will miss, like they did with invading Saudi Arabia.:biggrin:
OK. I’m hunkering down now, flame suit is on.:biggrin:
Peter
So Canada is living right next to the lion's den.
As every school kid learns, even way over here in Europe, in 1812 the US tried to invade Canada and lost. They surrendered here, actually in Gent, just up the road from me. The room where they signed the treaty is still here, with a copy of the terms. As terms of surrender, they agreed on the borders. In return, the British/Canadians agreed to remove their armies from the US. Also in return for leaving, the British made them promise never to invade again. The treaty set the borders as they are today.
But this time they are immensely more powerful than then.
There is some hope though, 53% of Americans don’t know where Canada is. Maybe they will miss, like they did with invading Saudi Arabia.:biggrin:
OK. I’m hunkering down now, flame suit is on.:biggrin:
Peter
Last edited:
“According to Oil and Gas Journal, Canada had a reported 178.8 billion barrels of proven oil reserves in 2005, second only to Saudi Arabia. However, the bulk of these reserves (over 95%) are oil sands deposits in Canada. The inclusion of oil sands in official reserve estimates is not without controversy, because oil sands are much more difficult to extract and process than conventional oil.”RudeBoy_baby_NSX said:
Interesting article.
I had no idea there was SO much oil in Canada!
Peculiar that OPEC allowed the price of oil rise so much that it becomes viable to use the oil in the shale in Alberta. Could that have been a mistake?
Is it possible that there is so much oil in Canada that it will determine the peak price of oil? I mean if oil cost say $100 a barrel from OPEC, and it’s possible to get at Alberta’s oil for say $99 per barrel, then OPEC can’t raise their price more, can they?
OPEC would do well the keep their oil at about 75% that of shale oil. That way the US/Canada never would start to invest in getting oil out of the shale in Canada.
Since, as you say, there is a lot of investment recently in Canadian oil, can we assume the price of oil has peaked (because they now find it viable to get it out)?
If it has, then this is dynamite (as Dubya would say). Got to re-evaluate that turbo for my NSX.:biggrin:
RudeBoy_baby_NSX said:
We buy your oil, natural gas, etc... If Canada could sell these products for more money elsewhere they would, it is a fair market transaction. If we didn't buy your products you would have to sell them elsewhere and it is very possible the price and your economy would go down. I am glad that we have a neighbor that has an excess of these fuels as I would rather our dollars went into Canada then any other country I can think of.
As far as I know Canada doesn't pay for our protection and the billions of dollars that we spend on our military benefits your country enormously. If the U.S. stated that it wouldn't protect Canada, a country like Russia could invade and take away a lot of your natural resources without too much of a problem. It is much less likely to happen today, but during the Cold war if Russia wasn't afraid of U.S. retaliation I think part of Canada could now be part of Russia.
Obviously we aren't going to allow anyone to cross into Canada's borders, as it would negatively affect the U.S., but it wouldn't affect us nearly as much as the occupied country. I was just trying to state that Canada is lucky that they border the U.S. because it drastically cuts back on the amount they need to spend for their military.
What, there's oil in Canada??? US sets sights on Canadian border....
"Ummm...Canada...." - US
"Yeah eh?" - Canada
"We're out of trees...." - US
"uh oh" -Canada
"This will only hurt a little..." - US
"Ummm...Canada...." - US
"Yeah eh?" - Canada
"We're out of trees...." - US
"uh oh" -Canada
"This will only hurt a little..." - US
DERBY LINE, VT. - Somewhere near this spot — where five men with lawn chairs and binoculars were watching the woods — runs the long and mostly invisible border between the United States and Canada.
The New England Minutemen were here to guard this border.
They just weren't precisely certain where it was.
"That's west, so I believe the border is that way," said Jeffrey Buck, the group's leader, as he made an expansive gesture in the direction of a nearby home on Saturday. "It's not really clear to me."
Last weekend was the second that Buck's group, an offshoot of the Arizona-based Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, tried to replicate their Mexican border patrols here on the wooded Vermont-Quebec boundary.
Among their other problems, including bad cell phone reception and angry protesters, perhaps the most vexing has been the difficulty of finding the border itself.
At least in Arizona, Buck said, there are fences.
"You had some kind of demarcation" there, he said. Here, "You have really no fences, nothing."....
And finally a quote from one of the minutemen who did make it to the border ""In Arizona you know there's a border there. There's five rows of razor wire. Here, we don't know where the border is. It would be embarrassing for us to go over the border and not know it. Then we would be illegal."
It goes on LOL!:biggrin:
http://www.tampagasprices.com/Forum_MSG.aspx?master=1&category=1176&topic=114693&page_no=1
The New England Minutemen were here to guard this border.
They just weren't precisely certain where it was.
"That's west, so I believe the border is that way," said Jeffrey Buck, the group's leader, as he made an expansive gesture in the direction of a nearby home on Saturday. "It's not really clear to me."
Last weekend was the second that Buck's group, an offshoot of the Arizona-based Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, tried to replicate their Mexican border patrols here on the wooded Vermont-Quebec boundary.
Among their other problems, including bad cell phone reception and angry protesters, perhaps the most vexing has been the difficulty of finding the border itself.
At least in Arizona, Buck said, there are fences.
"You had some kind of demarcation" there, he said. Here, "You have really no fences, nothing."....
And finally a quote from one of the minutemen who did make it to the border ""In Arizona you know there's a border there. There's five rows of razor wire. Here, we don't know where the border is. It would be embarrassing for us to go over the border and not know it. Then we would be illegal."
It goes on LOL!:biggrin:
http://www.tampagasprices.com/Forum_MSG.aspx?master=1&category=1176&topic=114693&page_no=1
Hahaha, thanks for posting! That thread is hilarious! 
