The Political Arbalister

Sarah Palin. She can’t be for real…

2010-03-09T09:55:00.001-08:00

John Cleese said a mouthful when he remarked “I used to think that Micheal was the funniest Palin on earth.” He goes on to say that not only is she *not* good enough to run for VP, but that Monty Python couldn’t have written her better.

So who has?

It finally dawned on me, when I heard the latest statements out of this clown’s mouth... “My first five years of life we spent in Skagway, Alaska, right there by Whitehorse,” Palin said during a speech in Calgary on Saturday. “Believe it or not — this was in the ‘60s — we used to hustle on over the border for health care that we would receive in Whitehorse. I remember my brother, he burned his ankle in some little kid accident thing and my parents had to put him on a train and rush him over to Whitehorse and I think, isn’t that kind of ironic now. Zooming over the border, getting health care from Canada," that this woman can’t be an accident. Someone is writing for her, someone is pulling the strings. A US governor, even one from the backwater of Alaska, can’t possibly this airheaded. She has to be some sort of a diversion from *something* else.

Who *is* this woman? Where does she get off, coming to Canada, sponsored, no less, by Calgary’s publicly owned Energy company, to tell us that she’s spent perhaps the last 50 years scamming our healthcare system. Fraudulently making use of the healthcare system that she’s spent so much time publicly reviling? I’m officially asking for an investigation into how much her family owes Canadians. What a great example to set – now the complaint that people are making about her is “It’s good enough for her, but what about people that don’t have easy access to Canada?” Whoa! Just living on the border *DOES NOT* entitle American’s to abuse our healthcare system, no matter what some scatterbrained wannabe politician might spew.

Apparently several well known Canadian politicians were in attendance. Ralph, Stockwell... where are the cries of indignation over theft of services? You should be making them. Our government has spent decades trying to come up with more secure health cards…and this woman laughs about how easily they stole from taxpaying Canadians.

Hypocritical? Sarah? Wow, not *too* much, is she. I guess when she said that we should dismantle our heathcare, she meant “unless it inconveniences the Palin family.”

Pravda – a Pseudo-Russian’s Inane Rant about Vancouver 2010.

2010-03-01T13:24:00.001-08:00

Wow – sportsmanship is apparently a totally foreign concept to the journalistic staff at Pravda. Or perhaps it’s just the fawning attempt of a pseudo-Russian to curry favour in his adopted country. In an article Feb 19th, the paranoid ravings of one Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY (a good Russian name, that, we’ll come back to this…) appeared, accusing Canada of all sorts of wrong-doing in both the Olympic and in foreign policy. Apparently we’re the “skinny and weakling bro to a beefy United States and a colonial outpost to the United Kingdom” and that we’re utterly incapable of hosting a major international event. He suggests proof: “Natalya Korosteleva was asked to provide a urine sample during a half-hour pause between the quarter-finals and semi-finals of a skiing event.” Now that could be considered suspicious, if one were to totally discount the following statement by a Vice-President of the International Ski Federation: “There are some rules which I'm not going to discuss right now. In this case, Korosteleva was not right. She could have been banned from the race." This VP, btw, also happens to be the President of the Russian Olympic Committee, Leonid Tyagachev.

Hmm…the Russian President of the Russian Olympic Committee agrees that the skier was in the wrong, yet our Pseudo-Russian journalist cries foul. Lets look at Mr. Bancroft-Hinchey for a moment...very little time spent searching turned up his Bio:

“I incidentally became involved with the world of music and even became one of the leading English song-writers of the 1980s. I took part in three Eurovision contests, released three albums, two maxi-singles and five singles. That was the time when I started establishing contacts with the press. "I had to give a lot of interviews for television and newspapers. I noticed that facts were reinterpreted on numerous occasions, almost always, in order to make an article correspond to ideas of a reporter. One fine day I realized that there was only one way to strive for the truth: to write a true story and to send it to mass media outlets. That's what I did."

I showed my first articles to a friend, a reporter, who expressed his interest in them and asked my why I did not take up journalism seriously. After that, I finished journalism courses, and worked as a freelance journalist at Portuguese, Spanish, Latin American, English and Romanian media outlets. However, journalism was not my only occupation. "I believe that there is nothing more boring for a journalist than to sit at table, working on the so-called news, which has already been picked out from the Internet by someone, retelling someone else's stories. In addition to that, it is proof of the absence of professionalism, it is not worth it, in the long run. I like to visit new places, to collect new material for my own articles."”

Ah, a silver-spoon communist ex-pat British subject, with next to no journalism background, no sporting background, no political background…nothing, in fact, more then a forum in which to spew misinformation.

But wait, there’s more. In his Feb 28th “Goodbye, Vancouver” piece, this drooling paranoid questions whether the Canadian Men’s Hockey team were on drugs when they beat the Russian team. Obviously, he says, that since they beat the Canadians 8 – 1 in the 80s (His information, not mine, I’ve not researched it) and been “close” every year since then, well, we must have been drugged up this year.

I’d like to take a moment to rebut. Perhaps *this* year…the Russian team *wasn’t* doped. For a change. See, ever since we trashed them 5 games to 4 in the Summit Series, in 1972, they’ve only ever been “close.”

Or here’s another thought. We might just be better at the game. See … if *our* athletes were doped, well, how does that explain the Russian team losing to Slovakia? I guess they must have been doped up, too.

He points out, correctly, that there hasn’t been one single doping incident with a Russian athlete in Vancouver, but fails to point out that a number were disqualified for the games before they even booked their flights. Oh well, perspective is everything.

Sochi will be better, he prognosticates while channeling the spirit of Nostradamus. The host country will welcome everyone as friends,the judges will be fair, drug testing will be at the conveniece of everyone involved.

And Canada will show the world, once again, that Hockey is *OUR* game. Other countries can dabble, but we own it. Bring it on.

Recent CRTC Activity

2009-10-27T18:37:00.000-07:00

So, after nearly 2 years of foot dragging, public hearings, and Bell obfuscation, we suddenly have more movement from the regulators then we can easily digest. First, a "decision" of sorts, on Usage Based Billing - the decision to decide nothing. At least they recognized that their interim approval was off-base, and reversed it.

A positive note was the proposed framework to decide if traffic management protocols are warranted and just. This might just affect the decision coming this week - the decision on Bell's current methods of UBB.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPod

Warning - Keep Broadband Competitive in Canada

2009-10-06T09:21:00.001-07:00

Warning - Keep Broadband Competitive in Canada

Posted using ShareThis

Another hit to Ontario's consumer

2009-03-27T09:50:00.001-07:00

Now McGuinty says that, in addition to added cost for most retail items, he's not sure that he's going to go through with next year's planned raise to minimum wage. This year's increase from $8.75 to $9.50, scheduled for next Wed, will go ahead.

More news here.

Fighting for Taxpayers: Saskatchewan Rejects Sales Tax Harmonization#links#links

2009-03-27T08:51:00.000-07:00

Saskatchewan has already rejected the idea of HST - because of the cost to the consumer.

Fighting for Taxpayers: Saskatchewan Rejects Sales Tax Harmonization#links#links

Ontario's new Harmonized Sales Tax.

2009-03-27T06:47:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I sent the following email out to my ISP clients:

Early reports of the contents of today's Ontario Budget indicate that
the wonderful folks in Queen's Park have finally come up with a way
to tax internet service. So, I'm writing for two reasons. The first
is to notify our customers that if the budget measure to harmonize
the PST with the GST goes through, you'll be seeing an 8% increase
in your total bill, effective July 2010 (the effective date of
HST), as nearly everything that's currently subject to GST will
now also be subject to PST.

The second reason is to encourage our customers to write to their
local MPP and tell them how you feel about paying an extra 8% on
most items that are currently PST exempt. We'd really rather not
have to add the PST to our invoicing. If there's enough
public unrest, perhaps we can avoid the entire situation.

For reference, here's the mailing address of our local MPP's:

St. Catharines Riding:
Jim Bradley,
2-2 Secord Drive,
St. Catharines, ON L2N 1K8
905-935-0018

Welland Riding:
Peter Kormos,
103-60 King St., Canal View,
Welland ON M3H 2V7
905-732-6884

Niagara Riding:
Kim Craitor,
8-3930 Montrose Rd.
Niagara Falls ON L2H 3C9
905-357-0681

The argument in favour of HST is that it will allow businesses to
recover PST they pay on materials and equipment. Currently they
can't write those off on their taxes, like they can the GST.
But you don't need to add PST to everything that is currently
exempt in order to change the tax laws to allow Businesses to
claim PST rebates.

Thanks for your time,

It was pointed out to me that I missed one local MPP:

Niagara West - Glanbrook Riding
Time Hudak
Unit M1
4961 King Street East
Beamsville, Ontario L0R 1B0
905-563-1755

In most cases, it's preferable to send paper, snail mail letters to MP's and MPPs. The old adage "if its not on paper, it's not real" applies. However, if you choose to email instead, their email addresses are:

tim.hudakco@pc.ola.org
jbradley.mpp@liberal.ola.org
pkormos-qp@ndp.on.ca
kcraitor.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

Taking some time to consider this new tax, I've spotted a few things that people might not realize at first. First of all, in my business, I'll have to start charging the 8% 'extra' tax on most of our internet package rates. But beyond that, so will all *my* service providers. Currently we don't get charged PST for many of the services that we have to buy in order to stay in business. Unless those new PST charges become recoverable to us through tax returns, etc. we're looking at both an 8% increase direct to our customers, and an 8% increase in costs - which could mean additional costs to end users.

In other businesses - that means that your night out to dinner and a movie just went up 8% - the restaurants will now have to charge PST. Probably the movie theaters will, too.

Some businesses will, apparently, save big bucks on this deal - rumour is to the tune of 4.6 billion dollars. Their savings are in PST on supplies they need for their products, and in savings involved in *not* having to process PST returns, etc. Those businesses could asve the exact same amount if we left the PST the way it is, and allowed the big businesses to claim rebates on paid PST.

Alternately the province could go ahead with a harmonized tax, but apply it in the reverse of what they intend. Make the new tax apply only to items that the PST applies to now. They've said that they will maintain some items that are currently PST exempt as HST exempt. Why take a half measure - jump all the way in and leave *everything* that is currently PST exempt as HST exempt items. If their true goal, as stated, is to make the province a friendlier tax environment for business, maintaining the current exemptions would achieve that goal without burying the consumer in across the board new 8% taxes.

Canada's Parliamentary System

2008-12-03T21:32:00.000-08:00

There is an excellent argument discussing our parliamentary system in regards to the current political upheaval on The Star's page.

God I love politics!

2008-12-03T08:16:00.000-08:00

Stephen "Nixon" Harper has started the typical Conservative response to any threat: Shelling out piles of cash to air radio and television attack ads against anyone he perceives as a threat. Remember any other regime that used mind games and propaganda to control it's citizens? I can think of a few.

Here's a revelation: according to the ads, a coalition between parties, and asking the governor general to excercise her constitional rights to ask the leader of the opposition to form a new government without an election is "undemocratic." Doing so with the involvement of the BQ is "a matter of national unity," and, "a deal with the devil." The quotes are all from former PM Harper.

How interesting, then, is the letter presented below:

September 9, 2004
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, C.C., C.M.M.,
C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A1

Excellency, As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that,
given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister
to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to
support some part of the government’s program.
We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together
constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe
that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as
constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and
consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely, Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
Leader of the Bloc Quebecois

Jack Layton, M.P.
Leader of the New Democratic Party

Which is it, Mr. Harper?
If Harper's plan in that letter to the GG had worked as he hoped there would have been no election. He was trying to get the GG to refuse to dissolve parliament, which then results in her inviting the Opposition to form a government.

Just like we have now.

In the case that we have, today, the correct procedural steps have been taken. You don't wait for an election call, form a coalition, have the election, then see who gets to form the government. That's not the process. You'd do something like that if you were going to formally merge the parties. This isnt a merger. It's an alliance, temporary until the next election.

The process is this:

Old government goes to the GG and asks her to dissolve parliament. She either agrees or asks the Leader of the Opposition to form a government. In *most* cases, she agrees. In *all* cases where the government is a majority, there's not even a point in asking the Opposition: They don't have the seats to form a stable working government.

An Election is called and executed.

If one party shows a clear majority of seats, they are asked by the GG to put together a Cabinet, to put forth someone as PM, and to form a government.If there is no clear majority, the incumbent party (the last government) is asked if they can form a stable, effective government. They can do so on certain grounds: If they have the most seats in the minority, and if they have the support of a majority of Parliament. This is important. The party that forms a government in a minority situation *has* to be sure that they can win a confidence vote. That means that they're going to need votes from one or more of the other parties.

This is the point at which a coalition like ours will probably be created, if it's going to happen at all. This is why it's not a shock that Layton was talking to the BQ about a possible coalition "before the Financial Update! We have it on tape!" That's meaningless, if he wasn't talking about a coalition on Election night, or even before, then he *wasn't doing his job.*

If a coalition can be agreed on *before* the incumbent PM can agree to form a government, and the coalition holds a majority of seats *they* will be asked to form a government.

Assuming, as per usual in Canada, that there is no Coalition announced, the former governing party will form a government. They still need votes from the opposition parties. If they don't get those votes, and fail to pass a confidence measure, like the Throne Speech, or a new budget, or an Economic Update, then the Prime Minister must ask the GG to dissolve Parliament. She can refuse, and ask the Opposition Leader if he can form a government.

At this precise moment we find ourselves between voting on the Throne Speech, a confidence measure that passed, and voting on the financial update, which Flaherty insisted on calling a confidence measure - and which the Opposition parties find, collectively, that they cannot support. They have announced that they will vote against it, and have openly announced that they have reached a coalition agreement, that they would like a chance to present to the GG. They've announced this publicly and early - it's a good move on their part, because the GG now knows that she has some options when the PM comes to request proroguing or dissolution. In light of the fact that parliament has sat for only 2 weeks, that there was an election only 5 weeks ago, that *no* major business has been resolved, and that the only reason to prorogue *now* is to dodge a defeat, she could very likely go with the coalition.

Another point that people are bringing up: "Why didn't they form the coalition, or merge the parties, before the election instead of splitting the votes?"

Here's why:

You don't vote for a coalition. You vote for a local MP. You also don't vote for PM. Stephen Harper was not elected PM, he was elected MP for the riding of Calgary Southwest. Period.

After you elect a bunch of MP's - a "parliament" that parliament goes to work doing things like selecting a PM and a Cabinet, and forming the Government and the Opposition.

Our votes have nothing to do with who becomes the PM, the Government, or the Opposition.

Our votes say "we want this person in Parliament, to look after our interests." That's it. Now, as part of looking after our interests, obviously we want him to win a spot in the Government. We, the voters, elected every single member of the coalition, on the understanding that we wanted them to do anything they could to form the government. Forming a coalition of 2 parties (without permanently merging) and arranging the support of a 3rd, for a clear majority of all confidence votes is a perfectly legitimate use of our votes. It does *not* mean that NDP voters might as well have voted Liberal, or vice versa. They haven't merged. People that voted NDP are getting what they voted for: NDP members in Government. Same with the Liberals. The BQ involvement is more like backup: They have agreed not to defeat the government formed by the 2 coalition parties, without becoming part of the Government themselves. After the current session of Parliament, or upon termination of their Coalition Agreement, they will remain separate parties.

Just for reference, here is a copy of the Coalition Accord set up by the Liberals and NDP

More Politics.

2008-12-02T06:54:00.000-08:00

I'm finding it to be utterly appalling how few people seem to understand how our electoral system works - and more appalling how many of them post statements like "a coalition government is violating the will of the people!" in their ignorance of how the system works.

They're embarrassing themselves. And most embarrassing is the fact that Prime Minister Steven "Nixon" Harper is either just as ignorant, or is using people's ignorance of the system to feed their paranoia.

There's a really good article, on CTV.ca, about how a party goes about forming a government, and the duties of the Governor-General. But here is the relevant bit, for our current situation:

If election results hand a party opposed to the sitting prime minister and
his Cabinet a clear majority, the Governor General's job is simple. After the
outgoing Cabinet resigns, all the Governor General has to do is call on the
leader of the victorious party to choose new ministers.
Once they are approved and formally appointed by the Governor General, the handover of power is said to be complete.
The transition is complicated, however, if no party emerges with a clear majority. In that case, the incumbent Government has two choices.
It can immediately resign, leaving an opening for the Governor
General to invite the leader of the next-largest party to form its own
Cabinet.
Because voluntarily relinquishing power is a rare occurrence in
politics, the more likely outcome is for the sitting Cabinet to stay in office
and test its mandate in the House of Commons.
Such a government is known as a minority, because it does not automatically enjoy the support of most members in the House.
It can test the waters, however, and hope that it can patch together support of other party's membership to get its bills passed. If the Cabinet fails the test on a motion of censure or a confidence vote, it then has no choice but to resign.
But that doesn't automatically mean voters will be called back to the ballot box.
If there appears to be a reasonable possibility that the next-biggest party can get the support of the House, the Governor General can invite the Leader of the Opposition to try and form a government.
Then if that government also fails to draw the confidence of the House, the Governor General could grant requests for another vote.

Note the last part of that. "If there is a reasonable possibility that the next-biggest party can get the support of the House, the Governor General can invite the Leader of the Opposition to try and form a government."

That's whats happening now. The House has lost confidence in the government. The government does not have the support, in parliament, of the majority of seats. In any confidence vote, the government will lose. When the government loses a matter of confidence, it must be dissolved. At that point the Governor General can either call an election, or ask the Leader of the Opposition if he is prepared to form a government. If he can prove that he has the support of Parliament, he can do so. By forming a coalition with other parties, or by establishing a formal agreement with them, the Leader of the Opposition can state that he has the support of Parliament. In our current case, it would give the coalition another minority government, but with the BQ supporting it, they will control a majority of seats.

To those that say "Yes, but Dion is stepping down!" there is one simple answer: Doesn't matter. He is currently Leader of the Opposition. It complicates things slightly, down the road: he'll need to be replaced, but it's a fair bet that his replacement will be someone that's privy to the agreements being developed right now.

Another petty argument I've seen is "but they're bargaining with separatists." This is the most hypocritical of all: Steven "Nixon" Harper tried to recruit BQ support when *he* planned to try to oust the Paul Martin minority in 2004. For him to decry the coalition for succeeding where he failed is totally ludicrous. Yet another attempt by the PM to stir paranoia.

People are saying that the coalition is against the will of the voters, or that the conservatives "won" the election. Not according to the numbers. First off, in Canada, the only definitive "winner" in an election is the leader who controls a majority of seats in the House of Commons. Since it is a well established principal of Canadian politics, it is perfectly legal for 2 or more parties to agree to work together. In fact, that happens in each and every minority government: the current PM managed to hold a minority government together for 2 years simply because the other parties *chose* to work with him. Had they not, then at the first confidence vote ( throne speech, first budget, fiscal update, some other matter of confidence) the government would lose the vote, and that results in dissolution of the current sitting of parliament, which brings us right back to the GG asking the leader of the opposition if he feels he can form a working government. So, in the last election, the other parties allowed the conservatives to form a government. If Harper were as smart as people accuse him of being, he would have approached the NDP and the 1 elected independent, and formed his own coalition: It would have given him a majority with 155 seats. In our current parliament we have 4 parties out of the 16 registered federal parties represented. We elected 308 people to sit in the House. It is up to those 308 people to determine who will form the government. It is *not* up to the voters. Now, those 308 people will have received some guidance on what we, as voters , desire in a government. The first, and most obvious, is party affiliation. But in a minority situation, not one party has the support of a majority of those 308 people. In fact, in this election, the most any one party had was 143. Since they are the incumbents in the election, they were asked by the GG to form the government. But as we've seen since, they did not have the support of the rest of parliament. They are unable to win a confidence vote. This is an established fact. At this point in time it is the PM's duty to resign and allow the Leader of the Opposition to try his hand at forming a government. Not resigning is, to use Steven "Nixon" Harper's own word ... "undemocratic."

What's broken about our system are the "party" rules. We elect a local representative who is supposed to speak for his riding in Ottawa, as if we were there ourselves. Yet when he gets there, in most cases, he's gagged by party unity rules. He must toe the party line, or face expulsion from the party. That means he'd end up sitting as an independent. Which means that he'll draw minimum funding, minimal office space, no staff, no research assistance, etc. This is just wrong, if anything in the setup of our parliamentary system is undemocratic, this is it. Regardless of party affiliation, our representatives *should* be allowed to speak the will of their constituents. It'd certainly liven up Question period.

Now, the last thing I want to touch on is the illegal taping and release of a confidential conference call between the members of the NDP caucus. My lord, what was that conservative MP thinking? Has he never heard of Watergate? The argument that he was invited to take part in the call is nothing more then obfuscation. He knew full well it was a mistake, he's *got* to know which caucus he's part of. If he doesn't I don't want him making decisions that affect my country, thank you very much. And he makes it even more obvious by recording the call. Did he come on the line with "Hey, guys, I know I'm a conservative, and you're NDP, but do you, like, mind if I tape all this?" He would have been shouted out of the call. And then for the PMO to release this like "Wow! Look how proud of ourselves we are, we have an illegally obtained recording of the NDP closed meeting!" Um. Hold onto that, it'll be handy as evidence in the criminal case.

Ask yourself this: If this guy got one "mistaken" invitation, how many more are there that haven't been exposed? How long has the conservative party been eavesdropping on the other parties. A President was driven into obscurity over a similar moral breach. What makes Harper think he's untouchable?

A political moment: Non-Confidence Vote.

2008-11-28T14:50:00.000-08:00

Tonight, Canada stands on the brink of a historical moment. Because of the hamfisted tactics of the current prime minister, and his apparent disdain for the devastating effects of the current economy on the average Canadian, the other 3 elected parties are banding together to topple his government and replace it with a coalition of Liberal and NDP, with BQ support. This is a moment of history because, since Confederation, there has only been *One* coalition government in Canada.

I've read a lot of people misconstruing what this means, and how it is that the Opposition parties can do this, considering we've just had an election. Nor do these people seem to understand *why* the Opposition feels this is necessary. I'll get into the why in a bit, but for now, the how.

Any one of the last 3 elections could have resulted in a coalition government. In fact, in my opinion, they should have: it would have been far more representative of the result of the popular vote. In the last election, only 37% of Canadians voted in favour of the Conservative party. In other words, 63% of us voted *against* them. How then should they form a government and claim to have the mandate of the Canadian people when clearly and according to all the laws of mathematics, they do *not* have the support of a majority of Canadians? Because Canada is not a 2 party system, our votes are diluted: if a majority of Canadians think that some other party should govern, and vote accordingly, we end up with a government formed by the least dilute. Had their been another rightwing political party to choose, it's entirely conceivable that Stephen Harper would not be Prime Minister. Anyhow, lets rewind to election night. What happened on Oct 14 was this: The right leaning voters had one choice, they voted for the conservatives. The left leaning voters had *three* choices, the NDP, Liberals and Green parties. And Quebec did as usual, voted primarily for the BQ. The left vote was diluted amongst 3 (or 4) parties in every riding, so most ridings went to the side with the least dilution of the popular vote - *not* the party with the majority of support.

Since they did not hold a majority of seats, but they *did* hold more then any one of the other parties, the Conservatives chose to form the next government. It *could* have been totally different, because it is legal in Canada for 2 or more parties to enter into an agreement to work together to form the government. Had the leaders of the other parties consented, on election night, to form the government then right now, at this very moment, we'd have a government consisting of elected representatives who earned 63% of the popular vote, as opposed to the Conservative's 37%. We would have a government formed the way we voted.

Fast forward to yesterday. Yesterday the Finance Minister rolled out his fiscal update. In this update he does absolutely not one thing that attempts to alleviate the current economic crisis. Stephen Harper and his Ministers continue to ignore the crisis here, in Canada, while at the same time attending G7 and G20 summits detailing the finanacial crises facing the global market. They pay lip service at these events, then come home and *do nothing.* And just to top things off, in their arrogance, they decide to discontinue the per-vote subsidy that helps finance the opposition parties. Here's a bit of history: this subsidy was put in place in 2004 to replace funding that would normally have come from big business' political contributions. Contributions that were banned at the same time, because of the obvious conflict of interest they could cause. Removing this subsidy would effectly bankrupt the other parties. It was Stephen Harpers attempt to cripple any opposition to his goals. Thank god it failed.

Today it was announced that the Opposition parties will vote against the fiscal update, which Minister Flaherty insists is a confidence measure. Further, they announce that they are in talks to form a coalition to form a new government. Mr. Harper plays his last remaining card and postpones or cancels any votes until next week. And then Mr. Harper comes on TV to tell us all that the opposition has no right to form a government without an election.

This is a lie.

We've had an election. If the governor-general approves the coalition they *can* take over governing, they have already won the appropriate number of seats. We voted for them. Voting non-confidence against the sitting minority government removes that party from governing. It would be fiscally irresponsible to delay forming another government until we can waste more money on an election that we've already had. All this action would be doing is correcting the error that *is* the current government. It would be creating the government that a clear majority, 67% of canadian voters *chose* in the last election.