Historical Faceoff: Rhinoceros Party or Greens - Who should get into the leaders debate?

So, the Greens head by Elizabeth 'I hate abortion' May want in the Debate before they get in the House of Commons, and before they get official party status (at some points was two seats, usually 12)

The rational that would allow them in the debate, should allow all leaders of the non-elected parties in the debate. Thats only adding 11 more leaders. The only rational that I hear is that not being in the debate robs them of seats (tell that to Kim Campbell in 1993). That rational can be applied to all the non-represented parties.

I would love to see the battles between the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) and the Communist Party of Canada.

Maybe it is time to have a seperate debate between all the leaders not representing elected parties on national television (if anyone would watch)

Without further ado, the numbers for Rhino's vs Green's

Click for Larger Version

What I see is a Green party that has never topped the ranking of the Rhino party. Both have also never won seats.
In fact, I would give this one to the Rhino's whom have always had a special place in my heart, and were the fourth party at one point.

Pride

Greens - win enough seats that you can ask questions in question period (either two or twelve depending on the rules)

Hareper looses minister over Quebec Motion

Harper cabinet minister quits over Quebec nation motion

Michael Chong. (CPimages/Adrian Wyld)

OTTAWA (CP) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper's stand on Quebec as a nation appears to have cost him a cabinet minister.

MP Garth Turner and other sources say Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Michael Chong is quitting his post over a government motion that recognizes the Quebecois as a nation within a united Canada.

Chong, who also held the minister of sport portfolio, is expected to hold a news conference later today. CP

Michael Chong was also President of the Privy Council. In a cabinet of 25 members, to loose a senior member is quite serious.

If the Star doesn't endorse Dion Tuesday, then they sent a real mixed message today

What the next Liberal Leader needs:

Economic prosperity. Canada's economic health requires investing in large cities such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver that produce much of our wealth. The Liberals must help ensure that cities have a stable revenue stream from federal income and sales taxes to fund mass transit, bridges, roads and other infrastructure.

As well, Ottawa must aggressively grow the "knowledge economy" by investing in research and development, by making it easier for young people to get higher education, and by better exploiting immigrants' skills.

Social justice. Some 5 million Canadians live in poverty. The Liberals must go further than the Tories in boosting the income of the working poor by introducing an earned-income supplement in the form of a monthly cheque or a refundable tax credit and by ensuring all Canadians have equitable access to employment insurance. They should recommit to a national child-care program. And invest in medicare to provide catastrophic drug coverage and to bring down wait times in key areas.

Healthy environment. Ottawa must try to meet its Kyoto targets. That means setting hard greenhouse gas caps on all industrial sectors. Investing in an East-West energy grid to give coal-burning provinces access to cleaner hydro power. Providing incentives to purchase hybrid autos and to make homes energy efficient. And penalizing energy waste.

Given the Harper Conservatives' circumscribed small-government approach, it should not be difficult for the Liberals to define themselves as the party of vision and energy, ready to use the considerable power of government to improve people's lives. The agenda they put forward must challenge Canadians to become not only a more prosperous society, but also a more caring, just and responsible one.

Sounds like they took a Dion press release and put it on their editorial page.

Anti Israel Bigot is Also an anti Quebec Bigot

Thomas Hubert, our favorite character from this summers antisemitic fiasco is also fiercely anti -Quebecois aswell.

To: Canadian Parliament
We, the undersigned Canadians, oppose recognition of any province as a 'nation,' and call on our elected representatives to work instead for a united, equal Canada.

Sincerely,

34. Thomas Hubert

link

Rumblings of a Big Announcement

The Gerard Kennedy Campaign has a blank media release up on their website dated today. I have to think something big is happening tomorrow. Either a big endorsement (my guess would be Ralph Goodale), or a policy announcement. Problably on the nation resolution.

I wonder if Gerard will walk lock step with all other federalist forces on this issue, or vendu the party, and my prefered candidate Stephane Dion.

This announcement is big enough to get Op-Eds in the national and french papers tomorrow (according to my source inside the Queensway).

Hopefully this isn't all fizz, no pop.

MI will provide an easy win for the Conservatives

Jeffrey Simpson today said

The Conservatives will be quietly delighted if this week's manoeuvrings help Mr. Ignatieff by defusing the internal controversy he ignited, because most outside Quebec, having watched his leadership campaign unfold, have concluded that he would be the easiest Liberal to beat.

It should be obvious in my posting of that remark that I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.

Also, else where in the article, Mr. Simpson makes the argument that the Quebecois, and Quebeckers (even if the Hansard recording is Quebecers) do not share the same meaning. Once again, just a few posts ago I made the same argument.

The resolution speaks of Québécois, or French-speaking Quebeckers. Others, like Mr. Charest, speak of Quebec as a nation, and the two ideas are not the same. But the distinction will likely be forgotten.

Link (behind insider edition wall)

Don't let Ignatieff off easy

We must remember, MI supported Quebec as a nation, not Quebecers.

MI supported recognizing Quebec as a nation in the constitution, not symbolically in the house.

MI's position is much closer to the original Bloc resolution, than the Conservative motion.

MI - come clean, this isn't a win for you.

The Quebecois are a nation, Quebeckers are not

The difference between these two is very big for me as an english Canadian. When the word Quebecois is used in an english sentence, it means ethnic francophone to me. It is not translated to Quebecker as the media seems to have done.

Recognizing Quebeckers as a nation is dangerous. It gives the group clearly defined territory, since the group Quebeckers is defined by geography (the province of Quebec). This is not true of the Quebecois, whom as an ethnic group do not have territory in large parts of the province (northen Quecbec).

The motion when put forward, will hopefully be far less ambiguous.

On Afghanistan Kennedy leads, Dion follows

Dion's position November 22nd "Look, we are very willing to work with you, to design something that makes sense, because I don't want to risk the life of our soldiers if we are not making progress "

Kennedy's position August 29th "Canada should push NATO to re-evaluate what amounts to a losing strategy in Afghanistan and push Prime Minister Harper to address the shortfall in aid development.

"If NATO fails to change their strategy, Canada should pull out of the war in Afghanistan,"

"The only way Canada can justify staying in Afghanistan is if we can create a mandate for real success. Loss of life lack of progress and no end in sight weigh heavily on our national conscience."

"The only way we can justify staying in Afghanistan is if we can create a mandate for real success. "

Despite being painted as distinct on the Afghanistan file, Dion is just reiterating Gerard Kennedy's thoughts on the issue from 3 months ago.

Will someone square the circle for me?

How does one who abhors ethnic nationalism embrace the concept of Quebec nationhood?

Also, how much does this quote sound like a sovereigntist?

"But the phrase 'when the conditions are right' is extremely important here. It's not a quibble. No prudent politician wants to lead us into constitutional discussions unless we have common understandings, common will to do what we have to do."