Post Election Blues (CDM Article)

Andem

dev
Mar 24, 2002
5,643
128
63
Larnaka
Found on http://www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca/
By Ricardo Rant

Another Canadian federal election has come and gone. While many Canadians seem to be surprised as to the outcome of the final standings, I can safely say that I called the outcome months ago. To me there was little surprise that the joined Conservatives would not mount any meaningful gains outside of the West. Canadians are not right-wingers in large enough numbers for the Canadian Alliance… err… Conservative Party of Canada to ever form the majority in the House.

The Greens made great advances, but came up short and the NDP grew but disappointed their own followers. The fringe parties were ignored by the media and by many voters who were more interested in voting out a party than voting for who they really wanted.

But to many in Canada, read those from the Conservative rank and file, the numbers game does not matter. The Conservative hotbed of Alberta is abuzz with talk of separation because those *&$*’s and **&$^#’s in Ontario prefer corruption to Canada’s Republican party. They want to separate from Canada because the party they backed did not succeed. To that I say – cry me a river. Get over yourselves and take a cold hard look in the mirror before you start pointing fingers at others.

The Conservative Party of Canada tried and failed to convince Canadians that they were a party of moderates not out to destroy Canada. They seem to forget that just about any Canadian can log o­n to the Internet and find quotes from various CA now Conservatives; talking about everything they say they don’t represent. o­nce you utter privatization, rabid anti-abortion, pro-war, homophobic, and other various non-Canadian traits they stick with you unless you disavow them. And that is just the thing – they have disavowed nothing. In actuality they just wanted you and I to just disregard that they are the old Canadian Alliance fresh from a takeover of the real ‘Progressive’ Conservatives.

Already in Alberta there are separation parties being formed or bolstered to build those firewalls and get out of Canada. For a real eye opener log o­n to www.freedominion.ca and view the craziness of the far-right as they try to explain how the rest of Canada is wrong and they are always right. They figure the problem with American style conservatism is not American style conservatism but Canada and Canadians!

More than that, their threat to separate falls flat when o­ne confronts them with the fact that they lost percentage of the vote as a joined party, including the loss of seats in BC. It was not o­nly the East that was not falling for the message; it was all of Canada. As well, outside of Alberta there is little movement towards Western separation. Yes, the old adage of ‘Western Alienation’ is still prevalent in the West because of their dealings with Ottawa, but there is little overall stomach to actually tear Canada apart so o­ne province can be ruled by Canadian Republicans. Maybe someone should remind them that the Conservatives o­nly pulled in some 40% of the vote in Alberta as well!

Interestingly, take notice that they are not calling for electoral restructuring of any type beyond Senate reform. Under most examples of Proportional Representation the ‘new’ Conservative Party would have even fewer seats than they do now. So if Proportional Representation comes about federally, will that be the nail that drives the Conservatives to call for separation in even larger numbers? Well a quote from Mel Hurtig just about sums up the reality of the situation, “There are more left-handed Mormon streakers in the West than there are Western separatists.”

I have no problem with Canadians skirmishing for what they personally feel is right, but when it means the destruction of Canada because their political party was not elected makes little sense.

But since when do the actions of the far-right make any sense? We also have a campus Conservative looking to gain notoriety for acting like the thought police. Using a little known part of the elections act, Kasra Nejatian is looking to have Michael Moore charged with trying to sway the Canadian election. His crime? Speaking his mind!

Moore was asked a question during an interview regarding his newest film, Fahrenheit 9/11, and how it may or may not influence the Canadian elections. He even stated he doubted the timing of his film would in any way influence Canadians, as the time frame was so short and that his film does not directly mention Canada. Never mind that, the Conservative crowd needs a scapegoat, and who better than the man cutting down the Canadian Conservatives American hero – George W. Bush.

Showing even more that they are indeed the Northern Republican party, the National Citizens Coalition has now jumped aboard to continue the frivolous lawsuit against their perceived enemy. This tactic is straight out of the Bush handbook for silencing and punishing descent. When will they clue in that Canadians are not blind and stupid? Canadians can see these moves for just what they are – a defeated group lashing out for no better reason than to get some type of perceived revenge. Nobody is going to benefit from this attempt to crush free speech.

To be fair its not all about Canadians dislike of American style conservatism, it’s also about Alberta’s oil and how much money they transfer to Ottawa. Many in Alberta feel that o­nly a Conservative government ready to Americanize Canada in their name can really spend their oil money, as they want. Ralph Klein is riding a wave of glee as he proclaims he was the sole reason that Alberta is now debt free. Of course anyone half awake will tell you it’s the oil underneath their feet that was reason, not Ralph the debt killer.

So what happens if Alberta does separate and the oil runs out? Are they going to come begging back? Ralph and the other Conservatives have done a good job at driving out Canadian businesses or seeing them sold off for 70 cents o­n the dollar. Calgary, o­nce Canada’s head office darling has high occupancy rates as those new Americanized businesses move their head offices and all the decision making south of the border.

As well, what should happen to Alberta if humankind finds a suitable replacement for oil? No longer would they have their black gold club to wield over Canadians heads. Now is also a good time to point out that at current rates of consumption, the worlds oil supplies will be gone in just a few decades at most – Alberta’s included.

To get the worst oil out of the ground, Alberta is also doing away with the next great money earner – clean potable water. Billions of litres of perfectly good water resources are ruined so that oil exports can continue unabated, with no thought to the future generations of Albertans or Canadians. This means that farming, which is Alberta’s next big money earner is being decimated and curtailed for oil profits today. Water that is more than ever needed by farmers is being used instead to maximize oil profits.

My message to the Conservative crowd – instead of crying over your waffles in the morning about other Canadians and their disdain of American style conservatism, find and back a party that is truly representative of conservatism and Canadians in general. You might just find that Canadians are ready and willing to do away with those corrupt Liberals, and until you do, save your separation threats.
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
I have no problem with Canadians skirmishing for what they personally feel is right, but when it means the destruction of Canada because their political party was not elected makes little sense. .........My message to the Conservative crowd – instead of crying over your waffles in the morning about other Canadians and their disdain of American style conservatism, find and back a party that is truly representative of conservatism and Canadians in general. You might just find that Canadians are ready and willing to do away with those corrupt Liberals, and until you do, save your separation threats.

And the PQ?BQ is different, how? There is a difference of course, but this argument doesn't address that. Whats good for the goose has to be good for the gander.

Further,
This tactic is straight out of the Bush handbook for silencing and punishing descent.

While I don't necessarily agree with Bush, the statement is misleading.

It wasn't Bush who wanted to nullify military votes in a election--even before the election.

Boy, I can see it coming now...
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
And the PQ?BQ is different, how? There is a difference of course, but this argument doesn't address that.
The PQ/BQ doesn't appeal only to raw greed and its raison d'etre. The only difference between Bay Street and the oil boys in Calgary is whether to offer the pig foreplay or not.

Why would this address the situation in Quebec, Researchok? Other than the word separtism the two movements have very little in common.

It wasn't Bush who wanted to nullify military votes in a election--even before the election.
It was Bush's brother who did his best to nullify the black vote in Florida though.
 

American Voice

Council Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,172
0
36
I'm just curious, do the separationists in Alberta argue for the withholding of taxes? It seems like they resent what they perceive as their disproportionate subsidizing of "socialist" policies in Ontario, via Ottawa.

Back in the 60's, there was a separation movement out in California. Washington wasn't "socialist" enought to suit them, and they could afford it, that is, if they withheld the money being sent Washington. The Rev. Mr. Blair is right, these things are always about money.

In New York City, as well, there was a "Fifty-first State" movement. The object was to secure a larger portion of port revenues for investment in the city itself, rather than sending it to Albany. That was intra-state.

More recently, there were rumblings about California dividing itself into two separate states; conservative south, and liberal north. One good argument there was the fact that it would give them four U.S. senators, whereas now they have only two.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
They don't argue for the withholding of taxes as such, Voice. They do argue, vehemently, that they should have to send less money to Ottawa. That money is from oil and gas revenues, so not a tax on people as such. The federal government considers a portion of those revenues theirs, since Alberta is part of Canada.

What it really comes down to is that Alberta is a very rich province. Money from Alberta is used to fund have-not provinces. The separatist movement there, and it is quite a small one in reality, does not want to share the provinces wealth.
 

American Voice

Council Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,172
0
36
That is reasonable, but who underwrote the development of the oil and gas in the first place? Was it Ontario? Who underwrote Hydro-Quebec?
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
A lot of federal money went into oil in Alberta over the years. It still does in the form of research grants, tax breaks for oil companies etc.

The tendency is to look at that money as a loan that that has been repaid instead of as an investment that should keep earning money.

I'm not sure about Hydro-Quebec. I do know a lot of feeral money went into the James Bay project as part of economic development for the natives there, but I don't know if there was any other than that.

I do know that the feds funded a chunk of the hydro development here in Manitoba in the beginning so I assume that the percentages would be about equal elsewhere.