Breaking News!! Canadian Government Collapses

[Jenya]

Canadian Government Falls on No-Confidence

By ROB GILLIES
Associated Press (http://www.ap.org/)

10 Minutes Ago

TORONTO - A corruption scandal forced a vote of no-confidence Monday that toppled
Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority government, triggering an unusual election campaign during the Christmas holidays.

Canada's three opposition parties, which control a majority in Parliament, voted against Martin's government, claiming his Liberal Party no longer has the moral authority to lead the nation.

The loss means an election for all 308 seats in the lower House of Commons, likely on Jan. 23. Martin and his Cabinet would continue to govern until then.

Opposition leaders last week called for the no-confidence vote after Martin rejected their demands to dissolve Parliament in January and hold early elections in February. Monday's vote follows a flurry of spending announcements in Ottawa last week, with the government trying to advance its agenda ahead of its demise.

Martin is expected to dissolve the House of Commons on Tuesday.

The Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper joined with the New Democratic and Bloc Quebecois parties to bring down the government — prompting the first Christmas and winter campaign in mostly Christian Canada in 26 years. Recent polls have given the Liberals a slight lead over the Conservatives, with the New Democrats in third place.

The same surveys suggest the Bloc Quebecois would sweep the French-speaking province of Quebec, making a majority government unlikely no matter which party wins the most seats.

Harper would become prime minister if the Conservatives receive the most seats in Parliament. He favors tax cuts and opposed Martin's successful bill to legalize same-sex marriage throughout Canada.

The opposition is banking on the public's disgust with a corruption scandal involving the misuse of funds targeted for a national unity program in Quebec.

An initial investigation absolved Martin of wrongdoing, but accused senior Liberal members of taking kickbacks and misspending tens of millions of dollars in public funds.

The government ran into peril this month when it lost the support of the New Democratic Party, whose backing earlier this year helped Martin escape a previous no-confidence motion by a single vote.

New Democrat leader Jack Layton said he hadn't received enough assurances the Liberal Party would fight the increased use of private health care in Canada. Martin made the deal for support from Layton's leftist party last spring by pledging $3.6 billion in social spending and promising to delay billions in corporate tax cuts.

Martin appears prepared to take his chances with a holiday campaign and blamed his opponents for any inconvenience to the predominantly Christian electorate.

He had promised to call an election within 30 days of the release of a follow-up report on the corruption scandal. The document is expected Feb. 1, which would have meant elections in the first week of April, a time that suits Canadians better than the bitterly cold and busy holiday season.

Although no formal agreement is in place, all the parties are likely to agree to a pause in the campaign around the Christmas and New Year holidays. The campaign is expected to start Tuesday, after Parliament is dissolved.

Grace Skogstad, a political science professor at the University of Toronto, said she believes Canadians will pay little attention to the election until after the New Year, so Martin's opponents are unlikely to face a backlash for forcing a holiday campaign.

"It's going to be those last three weeks after Jan. 1 that are going to matter," said Skogstad, who believes the Liberals will win another minority government. "For the Liberals, they are going to try to put all the focus on the economy which is doing phenomenally well."

Unemployment in Canada is at a 30-year low and Canada runs a budget surplus.

Andrew Stark, a political science professor at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, also maintained that the campaign would not be decided until the final days. Stark, however, believed the Conservatives will win a minority government if Canadians view another Liberal and New Democrat coalition as being unaccountable with tax money.

The last time a Canadian political campaign coincided with the holiday season was in 1979, when Joe Clark's minority Conservative government was toppled just weeks before Christmas. That vote was delayed until February, however, when Pierre Trudeau and the Liberals took back Parliament.

The latest collapse comes 17 months after an election that turned a Liberal majority into a fragile minority on June 28, 2004.

SOURCE: Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051129/ap_on_re_ca/canada_elections;_ylt=Ar_mQTq0f_.HZyPOTXyVu3is0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)

[theshark8777]

I was watching that on CSPAN.

[TJL]

Wow!

[DarkLordDotan]

"I move for a Vote of No Confidence in Chancellor Martin's leadership."

At long last, the path to Peace and Order is in front of us. Once more, the Sith will rule the world, and we shall have, peace. :)

[Steve M.]

If we could only get rid of Dubayoo that easily! :eek: :wallbang:

[DarkLordDotan]

If we could only get rid of Dubayoo that easily! :eek: :wallbang:

You had your chance, and you lost, the American people want George W. Bush, get used to it.

[ABlairican Pie]

You had your chance, and you lost, the American people want George W. Bush, get used to it.His approval rating still at 36%?

[Fleet]

His approval rating still at 36%?
So was Clinton's at one point in his presidency.

[Kay Scarpetta]

Wow, that's something...

[Dr. John Becker]

:clap You had your chance, and you lost, the American people want George W. Bush, get used to it.

[James"Thunder"Early]

So was Clinton's at one point in his presidency.I don't think comparison makes Bush's low approval any better

[Fleet]

I don't think comparison makes Bush's low approval any better
It makes a valid point that many presidents have had low approval ratings at some time during their presidency. Reagan's was also in the low 40s/high 30s at one point. So was Harry Truman's (right after he fired McArthur).

[Steve M.]

So was Clinton's at one point in his presidency.


Really? Did Clinton tick off most of our allies, sustain mass American casualties in Bosnia, or let New Orleans drown?

Clinton built up FEMA and staffed it with pros. Bush (and his dad) cut the FEMA budget and staffed it with political hacks. Brownie did a heck of a job, eh?

[DarkLordDotan]

Really? Did Clinton tick off most of our allies,

What 'allies'?

You mean France? The nation that sold warplanes to every single enemy we have?

Sorry, I really don't care who we tick off. The job of the president is to lead the American people, not win an international popularity contest.

sustain mass American casualties in Bosnia,

Nope, and neither has Bush, your point is?

or let New Orleans drown?

So let me see if I understand this: the mayor of New Orleans, the man in charge of keeping that city alive, doesn't implement the hurricane plan. Doesn't use the city transport system to evacuate the city, and instead just watches as a Cat 5 heads right for a city 15 feet below sea level.

Then, after it hits, the Governor of the state tells the feds and the Red Cross that they can't help for almost two days.

Then, when the feds finally do get there, start getting things under control and actually start solving the problems, you blame them?

:crazy:

Clinton built up FEMA and staffed it with pros. Bush (and his dad) cut the FEMA budget and staffed it with political hacks. Brownie did a heck of a job, eh?

Funny, because the leadership of FEMA, with the exception of Mike Brown, hadn't changed much between the Clinton Admin and Hurricane Katrina. And the budget of FEMA increased by 571 million between the last year of the Clinton Admin and the first year of the Bush Admin. It then doubled the year after that, under Bush’s leadership.

[Fleet]

DarkLord's reply would be the same as mine, so I won't post a duplicate answer. I will post one fact, though... Bush is taking terrorism seriously and Clinton didn't. Who cares if Europeans don't like that fact?

[James"Thunder"Early]

DarkLord's reply would be the same as mine, so I won't post a duplicate answer. I will post one fact, though... Bush is taking terrorism seriously and Clinton didn't. Who cares if Europeans don't like that fact?Who said anything about terrorism? They don't like the Iraq war and have that seperate from terrorism.

[Fleet]

Who said anything about terrorism? They don't like the Iraq war and have that seperate from terrorism.
What? Iraq was a terrorist nation of which the "leader" (Saddam) was a terrorist himself!
I would say a nation which supported, funded and harbored terrorists had "something" to do with terrorism!

[James"Thunder"Early]

What? Iraq was a terrorist nation of which the "leader" (Saddam) was a terrorist himself!
I would say a nation which supported, funded and harbored terrorists had "something" to do with terrorism!You are missing the whole point here. Most of the countries who rejected the Iraq war, participated in Afghanistan, so it has nothing to do with them not wanting to fight terrorism. You can spin the Iraq war all you want, it's not part of the war on terror and you can't rewrite history.

[DarkLordDotan]

Who said anything about terrorism? They don't like the Iraq war and have that seperate from terrorism.

The Iraq War is directly linked to terrorism.

Do you have any idea how many members of Al'Qaeda we've killed in Iraq in the last two months alone?

Iraq has become a giant bug-zapper light for terrorists, members of various terrorist groups, mainly Al'Qaeda have come from all over the Middle East to try and fight the Great Satan™ in Iraq. The result has been thousands of dead terrorists a billions of dollars worth of terrorist resources destroyed while our Rangers and Marines rip them to bits. That's the reason we haven't secured the borders with Syria and Iran, we want those bastards to come and fight us, becuase we win every single fight with them.



Come and get some, ya dumb jihadi bastards:
http://www.adamspestcontrol.com/images/JPGs/219gt.jpg

[Fleet]

The Iraq War is directly linked to terrorism.

Do you have any idea how many members of Al'Qaeda we've killed in Iraq in the last two months alone?

It's amazing what the liberals come up with! :crazy: :lol:

Trying to make the claim that terrorism is "separate" from Iraq is like saying there is no chocolate in chocolate factories! Who's rewriting history now?

[James"Thunder"Early]

It's amazing what the liberals come up with! :crazy: :lol:

Trying to make the claim that terrorism is "separate" from Iraq is like saying there is no chocolate in chocolate factories! Who's rewriting history now?Point to one statement by anyone who said the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror? There are none.

[DarkLordDotan]

Point to one statement by anyone who said the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror? There are none.

"Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror." --- George W. Bush.

[Fleet]

Point to one statement by anyone who said the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror? There are none.
"This is a war against terrorists and the countries which harbor them."
- President G.W. Bush

[TJL]

Any more news about what's going on in Canada?

You know, the country that this thread was supposed to be about before the usual chit chat/politics bickering started?

;)

[Steve M.]

What? Iraq was a terrorist nation of which the "leader" (Saddam) was a terrorist himself!
I would say a nation which supported, funded and harbored terrorists had "something" to do with terrorism!


Iraq didn't have any terrorists under after the invasion - which Canada refused to take part in.

[Fleet]

Iraq didn't have any terrorists under after the invasion - which Canada refused to take part in.
I've posted these facts about 4 times already, but I guess with some people it takes at least 5 times for it to sink in! Once again...

Abdul Rahman Yasin, the man who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, was on the payroll of the *Iraqi* government and receiving safe haven there until the American invasion. IIS documents back this up.

Zarqawi was running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, was injured fighting in the war with the U.S., and ended up in a hospital in Baghdad. What was a known terrorist doing in a country which "didn't have any terrorists in it until after the invasion?"
Zarqawi also worked with Ansar Al Islam, which was funded by the Batthists, and he coordinated the assassination of an American diplomat for USAID in 2002 in Jordan.

[Jenya]

Any more news about what's going on in Canada?

You know, the country that this thread was supposed to be about before the usual chit chat/politics bickering started?

;)

Ask Fleet. He knows everything. :)

[theshark8777]

I've posted these facts about 4 times already, but I guess with some people it takes at least 5 times for it to sink in! Once again...

Abdul Rahman Yasin, the man who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, was on the payroll of the *Iraqi* government and receiving safe haven there until the American invasion. IIS documents back this up.

Zarqawi was running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, was injured fighting in the war with the U.S., and ended up in a hospital in Baghdad. What was a known terrorist doing in a country which "didn't have any terrorists in it until after the invasion?"
Zarqawi also worked with Ansar Al Islam, which was funded by the Batthists, and he coordinated the assassination of an American diplomat for USAID in 2002 in Jordan.

There are known terrorists in the USA too, maybe we should attack ourselves? Oh wheres Bin Laden?

[James"Thunder"Early]

There are known terrorists in the USA too, maybe we should attack ourselves? Oh wheres Bin Laden?Good answer

[James"Thunder"Early]

I've posted these facts about 4 times already, but I guess with some people it takes at least 5 times for it to sink in! Once again...

Abdul Rahman Yasin, the man who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, was on the payroll of the *Iraqi* government and receiving safe haven there until the American invasion. IIS documents back this up.

Zarqawi was running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, was injured fighting in the war with the U.S., and ended up in a hospital in Baghdad. What was a known terrorist doing in a country which "didn't have any terrorists in it until after the invasion?"
Zarqawi also worked with Ansar Al Islam, which was funded by the Batthists, and he coordinated the assassination of an American diplomat for USAID in 2002 in Jordan.That's not the point, the point that is being made is none of what you are talking about was ever used as reason for war.

[Fleet]

There are known terrorists in the USA too, maybe we should attack ourselves? Oh wheres Bin Laden?
The U.S. doesn't pay the family of homicide bombers to blow themselves up along with innocents citizens; Iraq did. Your "comparsion" is ridiculous!
Bin Laden is most likely in Pakistan, a country which won't allow U.S. troops into.

[Fleet]

Good answer
No, it isn't. It's an irrational answer. The U.S. doesn't support, fund or harbor terrorists; Iraq did.

[theshark8777]

Bin Laden is most likely in Pakistan, a country which won't allow U.S. troops into.

That doesn't seem to stop Bush any other time.

[James"Thunder"Early]

No, it isn't. It's an irrational answer. The U.S. doesn't support, fund or harbor terrorists; Iraq did.That's my opinion that is was a good answer, you can think what you want and I'll think what I want.

[Fleet]

That's not the point, the point that is being made is none of what you are talking about was ever used as reason for war.
These were the reasons for war (in addition to Iraq breaking the cease-fire agreement)...
Be sure to read #6 very carefully!

[James"Thunder"Early]

The U.S. doesn't pay the family of homicide bombers to blow themselves up along with innocents citizens; Iraq did. Your "comparsion" is ridiculous!
Bin Laden is most likely in Pakistan, a country which won't allow U.S. troops into.Pakistan is harboring a terrorist, so why haven't they been attacked or even threatened? Bin Laden is dangerous and everything should have been done to capture him.

[Fleet]

That doesn't seem to stop Bush any other time.
Really? I don't see Bush sending troops to dozens of countries with the intent of invading.

[James"Thunder"Early]

These were the reasons for war (in addition to Iraq breaking the cease-fire agreement)...
Be sure to read #6 very carefully!I've never heard anybody rattle off that list until after the war, so I'm not buying. We weren't told about the terrorists being in Iraq in the lead up to the war. The Iraq war was never intended to be part of the war on terrorism.

[Fleet]

Pakistan is harboring a terrorist, so why haven't they been attacked or even threatened? Bin Laden is dangerous and everything should have been done to capture him.
Because attacking Pakistan may not be necessary. Unlike what many liberals think, Bush is not a war-monger, looking for any excuse to start a war.

I agree everything should be done to capture B.L.- that's why there are still thousands of U.S. troops in Afghanistan just in case B.L. tries to get into that country again.

[Fleet]

I've never heard anybody rattle off that list until after the war, so I'm not buying. We weren't told about the terrorists being in Iraq in the lead up to the war. The Iraq war was never intended to be part of the war on terrorism.
:lol: You liberals spin more than a top!
That list was around before the war, not after.

As for Iraq...
"This is a war against terrorists and the *countries that harbor them*.
- Pres. G.W. Bush
Iraq was a known terrorist nation. Iraq harbored, funded and supported terrorists. Maybe it's time you be on the side of fighting terrorism?

[James"Thunder"Early]

Because attacking Pakistan may not be necessary. Unlike what many liberals think, Bush is not a war-monger, looking for any excuse to start a war.
They haven't even been pressured to let troops in to find Bin Laden. There's a false perception that Pakistan is some sort of ally and they are not.

[James"Thunder"Early]

:lol: You liberals spin more than a top!
That list was around before the war, not after.

As for Iraq...
"This is a war against terrorists and the *countries that harbor them*.
- Pres. G.W. Bush
Iraq was a known terrorist nation. Iraq harbored, funded and supported terrorists. Maybe it's time you be on the side of fighting terrorism?That's a quote you pulled out, it doesn't really relate to the Iraq war. Terrorism was never presented as a reason for war, only WMDs. You can't rewrite history and change the reasons for war every 2 seconds.

[Fleet]

They haven't even been pressured to let troops in to find Bin Laden. There's a false perception that Pakistan is some sort of ally and they are not.
How do you know how much Pakistan has been pressured?
We all know that Pakistan is not an ally, but I can just hear the criticism if Bush ordered an invasion of that country! What happened to "let the U.N. take care of it?" Oh, wait, I forgot... the U.N. can't take care of anything!

[Fleet]

That's a quote you pulled out, it doesn't really relate to the Iraq war. Terrorism was never presented as a reason for war, only WMDs. You can't rewrite history and change the reasons for war every 2 seconds.
Lol. Countries that support terrorism certainly relate to Iraq! I've already provided info of known terrorists who were in Iraq before the invasion. You can choose to ignore it, but it's a fact.

Speaking of rewriting history, you just did! If you go back and listen to Bush's speeches before the invasion, you would discover that he mentioned Iraq being a terrorist nation, which needed a regime change, much more often than he mentioned WMD. But, there's those pesky facts again!

[Dr. John Becker]

Lol. Countries that support terrorism certainly relate to Iraq! I've already provided info of known terrorists who were in Iraq before the invasion. You can choose to ignore it, but it's a fact.

Speaking of rewriting history, you just did! If you go back and listen to Bush's speeches before the invasion, you would discover that he mentioned Iraq being a terrorist nation, which needed a regime change, much more often than he mentioned WMD. But, there's those pesky facts again!


They also seem to forget the fact that Clinton thought there were WMD in 1998. They forget all the Democrats who agreed to the war in Iraq and voted for a regime change. After 9/11, we couldn't take the chance of being attacked again.