# The Canadian Election Thread. (Or maybe not...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 21, 2011, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419 "2011-03-21T00:51:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/141 "2011-03-28T13:25:33Z")
**Le Ministre de l’au-delà** , I have two comments on this article. 1. I instinctively discount any article found on a website which also carries an article explaining that HAARP caused the Japan earthquake. :rolleyes: 2. Contempt of Parliament is not a crime, but a matter of parliamentary practice. It is a matter of political judgment. Individuals can be disqualified from standing for election to the Commons, but only if they have been convicted in a court of law of illegal or corrupt practices under the Canada Elections Act. See [s. 502(3) of the Canada Elections Act](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-2.01/page-256.html#h-188). ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/142 "2011-03-28T14:01:34Z")
[QUOTE=Northern Piper;136224002. Contempt of Parliament is not a crime, but a matter of parliamentary practice. It is a matter of political judgment. Individuals can be disqualified from standing for election to the Commons, but only if they have been convicted in a court of law of illegal or corrupt practices under the Canada Elections Act. See [s. 502(3) of the Canada Elections Act] ([http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-2.01/page-256.html#h-188](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-2.01/page-256.html#h-188)). [/QUOTE] Regardless of the treatment, contempt of parliament is a serious offence. What I’m slightly amazed is that there is no further investigation into actual incident that brought this parliamentary measure – the fact that an elected official would, after all the due diligence, simply DENY the funding for an organization out of blue and actually forge the document. Now, why is it that you cannot find exactly the reason Bev Oda handwritten NOT? That seems to be quite the challenge. Minister does something that compels Pariament to vote her in contempt but no one really knows why she did it… :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/143 "2011-03-28T14:35:17Z")
**newcomer** , the Oda matter was unrelated to the confidence motion. The government refused to produce certain financial information to the House Standing Committee on Finance concerning the F-35 purchase, claiming privilege. This was a serious problem, because to do its job, the House of Commons needs to know about the details of major purchases that the government is making. The government asserted that the purchase information was confidential to Cabinet, and refused to disclose it to the House of Commons. Please note that the disclosure was for: > [@](#): > >  The estimated cost of the F-35 aircraft per airplane, and how these costs > fit into the fiscal framework; >  The original estimates and the final costs of hosting the G-8 and G-20 > summits; >  The adjustments to the fiscal framework to incorporate the costs of Bills > C-4, C-5, C-16, C-17, C-21, C-22, C-23(A), C-23(B), and C-39 from the > 40th Parliament; and >  The estimated cost to the federal treasury of the Government of Canada’s > planned reduction of corporate tax rates from January 1, 2011 onwards. > Upon receiving none of the requested information, FINA passed a second motion > on November 17, 2010. This motion ordered the government to provide FINA with > electronic copies of the following information within seven calendar days: >  Five-year projections of total corporate profits before taxes and effective > corporate tax rates (2010-11 to 2014-15); and >  All documents that outline acquisition costs, lifecycle costs, and > operational requirements associated with the F-35 program and prior > programs (CF-18). > > The motion also requested information in respect of certain justice legislation be > provided to FINA within seven calendar days. Concerning the bills requested in FINA’s > October 6, 2010 motion, as well as Bills S-2, S-6, S-7, S-9, S-10, C-48, C-50, C-51, C-52 > from the 40th Parliament, FINA ordered the government to provide FINA the following > information: >  The incremental cost estimates of the requested bills; >  The baseline departmental funding requirement excluding the impacts of > the bills and acts; >  The total departmental Annual Reference Level (ARL); >  Detailed cost accounting, analysis and projections, including assumptions, > for each of the requested bills and acts, conducted in accordance with the > Treasury Board Guide to Costing; and >  The Department of Finance’s adjustments to the fiscal framework to > incorporate the costs of the Government of Canada’s justice legislation. The issue was bumped up to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which found the government in contempt of Parliament. [http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/403/PROC/Reports/RP5047570/403\_PROC\_Rpt27\_PDF/403\_PROC\_Rpt27-e.pdf](http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/403/PROC/Reports/RP5047570/403_PROC_Rpt27_PDF/403_PROC_Rpt27-e.pdf) The Leader of the Opposition, Ignatieff, then successfully made a motion to cite the government in contempt of Parliament, based on the above finding of contempt by the Standing Committee. Note that the contempt was against the government, not just the Prime Minister Harper. With the whole government having been found in contempt of Parliament, the Governor General then dissolved Parliament so that a new election could be held. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/144 "2011-03-28T14:42:25Z")
**Le Ministre** , that silliness published by CORE about Harper now being prohibited from running in the election has no basis in law what so ever, as Northern Piper has explained. A good way of looking at it without having to wind through the technicalities is to ask if it makes sense for there to be a law on the books that would permit a minority coalition to bar the entire government from running for election based on a single contempt motion. Obviously not. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/145 "2011-03-28T14:46:31Z")
For folks who want to read last Friday’s contempt debate, it is at [http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&DocId=5072532#Int-3827567](http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&DocId=5072532#Int-3827567) but give it time to load so that your browser can advance to the pinpoint. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/146 "2011-03-28T15:19:13Z")
A primary responsibility of Parliament is to hold the government accountable. Without full and sound information, Parliament cannot do its job. When a government refuses to provide necessary information to Parliament without good reason, then it is refusing to be held accountable to Parliament – refusing to be held accountable to the people of Canada to whom Parliament itself is responsible. When a government stands in the way of Parliament doing its job, then it is time for the government to fall, regardless of whether that government was running the country nicely or not, and regardless of the likelihood of there being another minority government. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/147 "2011-03-28T15:25:31Z")
A couple of corrections to my earlier post: > [@Muffin](#): > > The government refused to produce certain financial information to the House Standing Committee on Finance concerning the F-35 purchase, claiming privilege. I should have written " . . .concerning the F-35 purchase and several other major government expenditures and tax matters, . . ." > [@Muffin](#): > > The issue was bumped up to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which found the government in contempt of Parliament. [http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/403/PROC/Reports/RP5047570/403\_PROC\_Rpt27\_PDF/403\_PROC\_Rpt27-e.pdf](http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/403/PROC/Reports/RP5047570/403_PROC_Rpt27_PDF/403_PROC_Rpt27-e.pdf) I should have written “After some incomplete productions, the issue was bumped up the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs . . . .” ---
**Author:** ![mnemosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c4cdca/32.png) [@mnemosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mnemosyne)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/148 "2011-03-28T15:32:04Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > That’s fine. But given that you are a Quebeoise. I’m sure that you know that the working class of the ROC regards your vote as biased. You vote Bloc, and that’s what Quebecers do; you vote Liberal because of Trudeau (who was a Quebecer); you vote Tory because of Mulroney (who was also a Quebecer). You won’t vote based on reason as regards the entire country; to you, Quebec’s interests trump all. And once again, Quebec gives a hearty “screw you” to the ROC. > > Sorry, but that’s how the rest of us in the ROC see you. > > I’m sorry, **mneosyne** , and to the other Quebec Dopers, but I’d suggest that until you give us a good reason why we should listen to you as regards why Quebecers are somehow special in Confederation; you are just one province in ten. No more nor less special rhan any other province. :rolleyes: You are not sorry. You are a bigot. You dismiss my opinions and my vote out of hand because of where I am from, and not because of their validity. You ascribe motivations and an agenda to me and to nearly 8 million other people based upon your hate and prejudices. You insult me by saying that I do not vote based upon reason. You insult be by saying that I only vote for people from this province (I have not stated who I will vote for, nor do you know my voting history), you insult me by saying that my vote and voice as a Canadian is automatically a “screw you” to the rest of you. You insult me by suggesting that I do not love Canada as much as I do Québec. And you are a liar if you are implying that other regions - people in other provinces, quite possibly yourself included - do not vote according to what they feel will best represent them, their province, and improve life for themselves. Why do you think the Conservatives are often called a “Western” party, and the Liberals an “Eastern” or “Ontarian” one? I am NOT sorry, but I’ve lost a ton of respect for you. I thought you were better than that. ---
**Author:** ![ThePylon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@ThePylon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThePylon)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/149 "2011-03-28T15:39:32Z")
I don’t understand the Liberal party’s problem with a coalition. And I am a member. I’m reminded of the scene in Clear and Present danger where Ryan advises the President to not only admit to knowing a man with questionable nature, but claim to be a great friend. What I’d do, right now if at all possible is state " Coalition? What a great idea! What better way to represent the majority of Canadians?" I understand the idea of a coalition is polling as a negative, but I think that has a lot to do with everyone treating the idea as such an abhorrent idea. The Bloc may have ideas about sovereignty, but like it or not, they officially represent a large portion of Canada as it is now. Involving them in a coalition would, IMHO, reduce their rhetoric. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/150 "2011-03-28T15:46:11Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > A primary responsibility of Parliament is to hold the government accountable. > > Without full and sound information, Parliament cannot do its job. > > When a government refuses to provide necessary information to Parliament without good reason, then it is refusing to be held accountable to Parliament – refusing to be held accountable to the people of Canada to whom Parliament itself is responsible. > > When a government stands in the way of Parliament doing its job, then it is time for the government to fall, regardless of whether that government was running the country nicely or not, and regardless of the likelihood of there being another minority government. I don’t believe they were withholding anything. Sometimes all of the costing information isn’t readily available. They provided information when asked. What we have here is an agenda by the opposition to railroad the governing party. The Liberals knew they would look foolish if they supported yet another Conservative budget, so they started brainstorming ways to bring down the government without having to do it in a budgetary non-confidence motion. Good luck with [that](http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Tory+support+stays+high+ethics+falling+flat+Poll/4514126/story.html). > [@](#): > > Despite a weekend of being hammered for their alleged contempt of Parliament, the Conservatives boast the support of 41 per cent of decided voters — 17 points ahead of the Liberals, who are at 24 per cent. The NDP is at 19 per cent, and the Bloc 10 per cent. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/151 "2011-03-28T16:02:00Z")
> [@ThePylon](#): > > I don’t understand the Liberal party’s problem with a coalition. And I am a member. Why should the Liberals legitimize their rivals (the NDP and the Bloc) with cabinet seats? The Liberal brand means a lot in Canada and they don’t want the NDP or the Bloc \*\*to even look like \*\*viable alternatives. It would be a stupid long-term move for little short-term gain. ---
**Author:** ![ThePylon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@ThePylon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThePylon)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/152 "2011-03-28T16:25:50Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > Why should the Liberals legitimize their rivals … I don’t know what the brand means any more. It hasn’t meant much for the past 5 years. Any coalition would have to be weighted towards the Liberals (assuming they get the lion’s share opf seats of said coalition), which , IMO, actually lessens the legitimization of them as an alternative. If the Liberals have any desire of remaining the “natural governing party”, they should be coming across as more co-operative, not less. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/153 "2011-03-28T16:57:22Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > I don’t believe they were withholding anything. Sometimes all of the costing information isn’t readily available. They provided information when asked. What we have here is an agenda by the opposition to railroad the governing party. The record disagrees with you. Let’s start with your accusation of railroading. For that to take place, there would have to have been bias on the part of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that found the government in contempt was chaired by a Conservative, and had the same number of Conservatives sitting on it as all other parties combined (6 Conservatives, 3 Liberals, 2 Blocs, 1 NDP). Despite this, the Committee still found the government in contempt. When brought into the matter, the Speaker of the House of Commons did not find bias or railroading, but instead found that the government had failed in its productions without providing an explanation. The long-time Speaker of the House of Commons, who back at the dawn of time (1993) had been the Chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, ruled on 9 March 2011 that it was an issue of privilege, and referred to his previous 27 April 2010 citing of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice that states that the power of the House of Commons or of standing committees to order the production of papers and records is “broad,” “absolute,” and “on the surface appears to be without restriction.” On 17 February 2011, the Speaker noted that the disclosure provided by the government did not constitute all of the information that had been ordered; that he found the lack of response on the part of the government on this matter was “unsettling;” that what was of greater concern was “the absence of an explanation for the omissions;” and that this was a serious matter, which went “to the heart of the House’s undoubted role in holding the government to account.” ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/154 "2011-03-28T17:03:31Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > The record disagrees with you. > > Let’s start with your accusation of railroading. For that to take place, there would have to have been bias on the part of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that found the government in contempt was chaired by a Conservative, and had the same number of Conservatives sitting on it as all other parties combined (6 Conservatives, 3 Liberals, 2 Blocs, 1 NDP). Despite this, the Committee still found the government in contempt. > > When brought into the matter, the Speaker of the House of Commons did not find bias or railroading, but instead found that the government had failed in its productions without providing an explanation. > > The long-time Speaker of the House of Commons, who back at the dawn of time (1993) had been the Chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, ruled on 9 March 2011 that it was an issue of privilege, and referred to his previous 27 April 2010 citing of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice that states that the power of the House of Commons or of standing committees to order the production of papers and records is “broad,” “absolute,” and “on the surface appears to be without restriction.” > > On 17 February 2011, the Speaker noted that the disclosure provided by the government did not constitute all of the information that had been ordered; that he found the lack of response on the part of the government on this matter was “unsettling;” that what was of greater concern was “the absence of an > explanation for the omissions;” and that this was a serious matter, which went “to the > heart of the House’s undoubted role in holding the government to account.” Good info. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/155 "2011-03-28T17:03:36Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > I don’t believe they were withholding anything. Sometimes all of the costing information isn’t readily available. They provided information when asked. No, they didn’t. When asked they claimed it was a matter of cabinet confidence and refused to provide the details. It was only after the Speaker referred the matter to committee to investigate whether the government was in contempt that they provided the documents – which was _months_ later. And at that time, they admitted that nothing in the documents was actually a matter of cabinet confidence: hence the finding of contempt. This is the third time that you’ve posted something in this thread that is factually untrue. Could you kindly either make the effort to understand the issues before posting on them, or stop filling this thread with noise? ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/156 "2011-03-28T17:16:19Z")
I’m sorry to have wasted your precious time **Rysto**. I’m only trying to better understand the issues, as you can see by my reply to **Muffin**. My courteous reply, that is. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/157 "2011-03-28T17:27:39Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > Why should the Liberals legitimize their rivals (the NDP and the Bloc) with cabinet seats? The Liberal brand means a lot in Canada and they don’t want the NDP or the Bloc \*\*to even look like \*\*viable alternatives. It would be a stupid long-term move for little short-term gain. There will be no long term gain for the Liberals if they keep losing. At a riding level, often the vote on the left is split between the Liberal and the NDP candidates, permitting a Conservative candidate to win. In these circumstances, if the centre-left only ran one candidate, the Conservative would lose. Add that up across much of the country, and you would no longer have the Conservatives in power. Is there that big a difference between Liberals and NDPs? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no (I’ve spoken with more than one MP who has had difficulty deciding which party to run for), but I think that there will be a very big difference in _results_ between the NDP as an outsider pushing for a somewhat sympathetic majority Liberal government to move to the left, and the NDP and the Liberals as outsiders pushing a non-sympathetic majority Conservative government to move to the left. Or to put it another way, I think that the direction of the country would go more in the direction that the NDP wants if it were to merge with the Liberals and form a majority government, than if we were to have a Conservative majority. I really don’t see the Liberals being able to go toe to toe any more against the Conservatives now that the Liberals no longer hold Quebec. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/158 "2011-03-28T18:13:35Z")
> [@mnemosyne](#): > > You are not sorry. You are a bigot. Apologies if my message came across personally; I didn’t mean it to. My use of “you” was the generic one. Although after re-reading my post, I’ll concede that it may have appeared personal. Again, sorry about that. As for the “bigot” assertion, well, big deal. I’m saying nothing more that what is said so often out here in the west, and what I’ve heard on my travels in the English-speaking provinces of this country: who does Quebec think they are? Why are they constantly complaining? Why does Ottawa bend over backwards to make them happy? I’ve heard this from the wealthy and the poor; in coffee shops, bars, factories, and offices; in big cities and small towns from St. John’s to Victoria. Perhaps you don’t hear it, but I do. Perhaps your media tells you that the ROC is mean and nasty because it won’t give Quebec what it wants; while our media tells us that an ungrateful Quebec is bitching yet again about how it is so hard done by. If I’m a bigot; well then, so is the ROC. > [@](#): > > You dismiss my opinions and my vote out of hand because of where I am from… To a degree, yes. You are from the only province where the majority of citizens (not necessarily you personally) feel the need to have their own federal party. The Liberals may be associated with Ontario and Quebec, and the Conservatives with Alberta, but none of those provinces, or any of the others feel the need to set up a federal party to represent their interests in Parliament. But Quebec has a federal party. Why? Is it special somehow? I might have a lot more respect for Quebecers who vote BQ and the BQ itself if (a) it dropped “Quebecois” from its name; and (b), if it ran candidates outside of Quebec. As it is, representing only Quebec and without ever running enough candidates to form a government, the BQ is seen by many in the ROC as only there to distract attention from issues that affect other regions or the country as a whole, and to flip-flop around in Opposition. In other words, we see the BQ as only there to stir stuff up. And to advance separatism. It may not be a major issue, and may be way down on the BQ’s agenda right now, but it is always quietly bubbling away. In that sense, yes; a vote for the BQ is a “screw you” to the ROC. Honestly, what’s next? A Newfoundland Party to try to reopen the cod fisheries? A BC Party to legalize marijuana? I know what it’s like to be dismissed out of hand because of where I am from. I am from Alberta. As such, I apparently cannot possibly understand what happens on Bay Street or in Ottawa; I supposedly only know pickup trucks, country music, and oil wealth. Heck, if you listen to others, I’m as rich as Midas, but I spend it like a drunken sailor. None of these assertions are true, of course, but they have been made. When I’m in Vancouver or Toronto, and I speak with a local who holds these views, I do my best to correct these assumptions. If you don’t want to be dismissed out of hand because of where you are from, I would suggest that you, and those Quebecers who think as you do, work towards legitimizing Quebec’s voice outside of Quebec. Prove to us that Quebecers are not precious snowflakes who need special treatment from Ottawa. Indicate to us that Quebec’s concerns are valid, but no more nor less than any other province’s. I will concede that you, **mnemosyne** , do a good job of this here on the SDMB–now, you just need to get your message to the ROC. > [@](#): > > … And you are a liar if you are implying that other regions - people in other provinces, quite possibly yourself included - do not vote according to what they feel will best represent them, their province, and improve life for themselves. Of course they do, but I’d suggest that they do so within the context of the parties that are presented for their consideration. Again, no current federal party presents itself as putting any single province first–except the BQ. No Liberal, Conservative, or NDP candidate says to a voter, “I’ll make sure your province’s concerns top our agenda.” No, they present themselves as candidates for a federal party, working to advance and improve Canada as a whole. Naturally, they do so according to their party’s agenda. Liberal candidates out here face an uphill battle because they are seen as not caring about Alberta; I’m sure Conservative candidates in Ontario face the same problem. Sadly, we do not elect people to represent our interests in Parliament; we vote for people who belong to a party with a platform. My MP will never vote according to what the people of my region want; he or she will vote as the party dictates, even if it is contrary to what we want locally. If that’s the case, well, too bad. Unfortunately, “representing the interests of the voters who elected you” in Parliament isn’t possible under the current system. > [@](#): > > I am NOT sorry, but I’ve lost a ton of respect for you. I thought you were better than that. Fair enough. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/159 "2011-03-28T18:40:02Z")
> [@](#): > > As for the “bigot” assertion, well, big deal. Seriously? > [@](#): > > I’m saying nothing more that what is said so often out here in the west So someone else’s bigotry, makes yours okay? Do you expect to be taken seriously after making such comments? Do you think being from the west entitles you to be bigoted and obnoxious? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/160 "2011-03-28T18:44:22Z")
If it helps, I’m Alberta born and bred as well and I have nothing against Quebec. Nice jazz festival you have there, guys. Ours was cancelled last year. The Annual Stampede and Horse Cull went ahead as scheduled, though. Regards, L. Beaudoin [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419.md?page=9)